This is a CTP of initiative: Transition Norwich (UK)
This CTP relates to the reconfiguration of the Transition Norwich core group. It occurred a few months after the Great Unleashing (see CTP 109), after some thematic groups had begun to form and meet (e.g. food). There is some ambiguity within the Transition model in relation to the role of the core group. The original handbook suggested that the original core group should disband after the Transition initiative had been established. In some cases they have continued (such as in the case of the original Transition Town, Totnes). Other Transition initiatives have become ‘doughnuts’ where there are multiple project activities but no central co-ordination or leadership.
It was a critical turning point in the sense that it didn’t quite come off and, therefore, did not provide a stable and settled core group for the initiative.
The ‘new’ core group was a mixture between the old core group members and some new participants that were recruited. However, this didn’t create a strong enough connection between the core group and theme groups. The theme groups therefore became fairly autonomous and detached from the core and began running in their own way. Furthermore, there was still some conflict within some of the theme groups that couldn’t be resolved by this re-organization.
Before the meeting core groups had heard that there was some conflict in some of the theme groups. So they were motivated to think about how they should deal with that. It felt like the core group had some kind of responsibility to resolve this issue. The core group was meeting and the Theme groups were meeting but the two elements of Transition Norwich were not connected. This CTP was an effort to bridge that gap.
There were not that many constituent elements to this CTP. It basically consisted of a meeting that was held in a place called the White House in Norwich. This was a private studio which was a free resource for people who want to use it for dance / meditation. It was held about 9 months after the Great Unleashing (see CTP 109), so in Spring 2009.
The initial invitation was that the meeting would be concerned with sharing news about the development of the theme groups. There were around 12 – 15 people there. It was organized over half a day with a specific structure that meant that members of each of the theme groups got representatives there and a couple of old core group people. A key focus of the activity was to get the participants to prioritize and address some key questions: e.g. How to communicate between groups? Do they need a core group? Should they just have a loose affiliation between groups?
This involved working with post-its and putting them on the wall. People were asked to number and prioritized how they wanted Transition Norwich to proceed. They might have might have also used open space (a particular kind of organizational method popular within Transition) but the interviewee couldn’t remember.
A clear mandate for the continuation of the core group was expressed as a high priority. There was also a desire for theme groups to connect with each other, for example the ‘Art’ group and ‘Heart and Soul’ group that deals with the emotional / spiritual side of Transition.
The interviewee felt that at the time it was a positive meeting which gave them a clear mandate for the continuation of the core group but one which should also include representation of the theme groups. However, ultimately this was not followed through as it was not possible to get representation from the theme groups on the core group. This led to a new core group forming (see below).
The reconfigured core group settled down to 5 or 6 members – with the old core group supporting them. However, they ultimately didn’t manage to fully reconcile the relationship between the core and the theme groups so the organization became more dissipated over time.
Obviously the establishment of Transition Norwich (see CTP 108) and the Great Unleashing (see CTP 109) preceded this CTP, but otherwise the interviewee didn’t feel that there were any specific preceding events.
The meeting actually failed to create a new core group with theme group representation so the new core group formed unrelated to that meeting (see CTP 113). The interviewee couldn’t remember why they couldn’t follow through with the plan. He assumes that there weren’t offers of people coming forward which is a common issue in grassroots organizations.
The theme groups continued to be autonomous from the core with several groups developing their own programme of events. For example, the energy group latched onto the “Shut the Door” campaign. Using a heat camera they filmed commercial buildings wasting energy which got some media coverage. The food group was working on the Community Supported Agriculture project (see also CTP 110).
Core group phase 2: there was more contestation. Partly around actual meeting management itself and between new people and older people who had been there from the beginning. It was generally OK, but it led to the core group having a different feeling. It was a bit more conflictive.
They were struggling by then, with how to solve these problems (E.g. faltering theme groups Some internal conflicts were also recorded internally: e.g. a particular individual was going round and creating problems in different theme groups. This created a debate around how they could possibly deal with this but they didn’t really manage to resolve these issues.
Furthermore, there was a frustration that some of the groups weren’t really running a programme and were just ‘drifting’. One group (the NR3 circle group) did whittle down to 2 people. Nontheless, apparently out of that came the Magedelen Street celebration. Furthermore, they came together again over the TN2.0 initiative (see CTP 111).
There was also some disagreement about objectives. It was based on assumptions about very ambitious outcomes. Based on something that a guy who had set up something in New York. He felt we were setting ourselves up to fail. If we didn’t get the numbers involved that were being portrayed. He disagreed with someone who said that we had to get that number or it won’t work.
It didn’t feel like a particularly critical turning point at the time. It was part of a general trend of things becoming more dissipated.
With hindsight it didn’t resolve this deeper issue around leadership and the connection within the group and how to resolve the issue of reconciling leadership and hierarchy within Transition Norwich.
It’s hard to know whether it made a contribution, but it didn’t translate into proper actions.
Lessons learned:
There was a notion that some of the groups might be treading on the toes of other groups (e.g. the transport group and the Norwich cycling campaign). They could have suggested more communication which could have created more productive synergy.
With hindsight, the interviewee suggests that they should have provided more support for the operation of groups that were beginning to flounder (e.g. by suggesting how meetings could be run etc.). This is, however, difficult because you don’t want to dictate things.
This is more of a general issue: The whole thing of people coming to meetings is not often addressed. You are opening it out to people who are interested in that subject matter. Some might be used to meetings and some might not. There is a wide range of experiences. Meetings might not be the best way of doing things. Implicit assumption about meetings.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
