What an interesting context and story from your experience about group dynamics. When someone identifies the need for a community and the first wave of advocates for it, you might think "This will work." What I find especially powerful is that the ones with the vision, the energy, and the resources to set everyone else on fire are also the most over-committed people already. It's not that they do not have the skills and discipline to "do the work" instead, they are bound by the same circumstance of everyone: Only 24 hours in this day, if you get to live it all out.
I've observed a very similar dynamic in my community. We've tried multiple working groups over the years and only very few materialize into tangible outcomes. The ones that do often have a very clear outcome to start with. They are more like "project groups" instead of working groups.
Fabian, this is a brilliant articulation of the paradox. I especially resonate with the three core struggles you outline: the full plates of changemakers, the need for pro-active leadership, and the under-resourcing of the network structure itself.
In my EMBA lessons on leading organisations and teams, we constantly confront a foundational design flaw that I believe precedes and exacerbates the issues you identify. It's an issue of structural assumption.
The story goes like this: A moment of collective energy emerges ("We should do something about X!"). The assumption quickly follows: Because this is a shared vision, it must require a shared structure—a working group.
This is where the struggle often begins.
We leap to the solution (the group) before defining the required degree of interdependence. We create a structure designed for a team (high interdependence, shared purpose, mutual accountability for a collective outcome) when the underlying task is better suited for a solo champion with a dedicated advisory task force.
When a project doesn't inherently require the high coordination cost of a deeply interdependent team, forming a "working group" actually penalises the project. Everyone offers a "light-touch" contribution (as you noted), not because they lack passion, but because the design of the work itself doesn't demand their full commitment. They sense—correctly—that they are not truly dependent on the other busy people in the meeting to get their part done.
This design failure then manifests in the exact problems you highlight:
The leadership vacuum emerges because the project needs a single, resourced Task Owner to drive it, not a consensus-seeking "group co-chair."
The "full plates" remain full because the members' core work (their own projects) represents true, high-interdependence teams, which will always win the battle for their limited bandwidth.
The lesson from my studies is that we must be intentional: We need to determine if we are forming a Team, a Task Force, or simply providing Advisory Support to a single leader. When the network-led project is confused with a true, interdependent team, the structure actively sets the people up for failure. This is precisely why I started Juhi Courage Consulting—to help founders and networks make this crucial structural distinction up front.
Thanks for the post! In our network we connect local organisations (or more specific the leader) with experienced changemakers through what we call ‘high impact exchanges’. We aim to close the biggest bottelnecks through capacity building in the local context, grounded in human connection. What we experienced is sth. similar as Marc pointed out. The exchanges where we set the frame, expectation and commitment first and co-create a project plan together (objective, action log for capacity, etc.) had higher ‘impact or value’ for both sides. Our first exchanges without ‘outcome-oriented commitment’, where basically short-term projects without sustainability, even if we framed it nearly same.
Spot on, Fabian. I am working on these issues locally, in Binghamton NY, and more expansively, in terms of systems change as part of discussions with a coalition of partners that have far greater reach than I do: Holomovement, and the Deep and Rapid Transformation Movement (which include One World, UN SDGs, The Hague Center and the ProSocial World evolutionary principles for self-ruled communities and Localization movements here in the US, and other groups. I am encouraged by a new 'entrepreneurial' approach (by some US funders) to help communities finance and execute what Joanna Macy called the Great Turning. The most potent observations, I can share are: 1) Move from reforming/fixing what is collapsing to transformational change-making and co-building the future we want in the world (in my opinion, this is the biggest hurdle); 2) Envision the future you want to see for the world and humanity and name it (my favorite is: Oneness); 3) effectively weave strategy, organizing and mobilizing humanity as a super organism on a shared path; 4) flatten the silos that trap resources to co-create an abundance of shared resources for the good of all; 4) Localize, Localize, Localize. I can recommend the book Cascades by Greg Satell in terms of movement building. I have developed a simple formula for organizing and mobilizing, but even in the most invested/interested circles, it is difficult to overcome the shared belief that we must fix the scaffolding that supports the old paradigm, rather than build the new world paradigm that Ervin Laszlo calls Holos. I invite the readers to consider the Manifesto For A New Enlightenment that can be found here: https://forthegoodofallnow.org/ (it is free to download). It is, to my knowledge, the first integral plan for co-developing the resilience necessary to navigate ecological and societal collapse. I don't know if it will work, but I am doing my best to co-create such a community here in the US and would welcome others to join us. Fabian or any others, I am aging out and I feel that I don't have the skills to catalyze and implement this vision. I do not consider For The Good Of All NOW my movement, it is an invitation to evolve better together.
Why don’t working groups pool / raise capital, hire an operator type and all be their board / guides / mentors as they execute?
The operator can keep the working groups opinions in a seperate channel and get meeting notes as insights, any one who’s from the working group who wants to contribute in time can do so through the operator?
Or is it that they’re a no capital to solve the challange to apply to the working group’s imperative?
What an interesting context and story from your experience about group dynamics. When someone identifies the need for a community and the first wave of advocates for it, you might think "This will work." What I find especially powerful is that the ones with the vision, the energy, and the resources to set everyone else on fire are also the most over-committed people already. It's not that they do not have the skills and discipline to "do the work" instead, they are bound by the same circumstance of everyone: Only 24 hours in this day, if you get to live it all out.
I've observed a very similar dynamic in my community. We've tried multiple working groups over the years and only very few materialize into tangible outcomes. The ones that do often have a very clear outcome to start with. They are more like "project groups" instead of working groups.
Fabian, this is a brilliant articulation of the paradox. I especially resonate with the three core struggles you outline: the full plates of changemakers, the need for pro-active leadership, and the under-resourcing of the network structure itself.
In my EMBA lessons on leading organisations and teams, we constantly confront a foundational design flaw that I believe precedes and exacerbates the issues you identify. It's an issue of structural assumption.
The story goes like this: A moment of collective energy emerges ("We should do something about X!"). The assumption quickly follows: Because this is a shared vision, it must require a shared structure—a working group.
This is where the struggle often begins.
We leap to the solution (the group) before defining the required degree of interdependence. We create a structure designed for a team (high interdependence, shared purpose, mutual accountability for a collective outcome) when the underlying task is better suited for a solo champion with a dedicated advisory task force.
When a project doesn't inherently require the high coordination cost of a deeply interdependent team, forming a "working group" actually penalises the project. Everyone offers a "light-touch" contribution (as you noted), not because they lack passion, but because the design of the work itself doesn't demand their full commitment. They sense—correctly—that they are not truly dependent on the other busy people in the meeting to get their part done.
This design failure then manifests in the exact problems you highlight:
The leadership vacuum emerges because the project needs a single, resourced Task Owner to drive it, not a consensus-seeking "group co-chair."
The "full plates" remain full because the members' core work (their own projects) represents true, high-interdependence teams, which will always win the battle for their limited bandwidth.
The lesson from my studies is that we must be intentional: We need to determine if we are forming a Team, a Task Force, or simply providing Advisory Support to a single leader. When the network-led project is confused with a true, interdependent team, the structure actively sets the people up for failure. This is precisely why I started Juhi Courage Consulting—to help founders and networks make this crucial structural distinction up front.
Thank you for sparking this reflection! 💡
Thanks for the post! In our network we connect local organisations (or more specific the leader) with experienced changemakers through what we call ‘high impact exchanges’. We aim to close the biggest bottelnecks through capacity building in the local context, grounded in human connection. What we experienced is sth. similar as Marc pointed out. The exchanges where we set the frame, expectation and commitment first and co-create a project plan together (objective, action log for capacity, etc.) had higher ‘impact or value’ for both sides. Our first exchanges without ‘outcome-oriented commitment’, where basically short-term projects without sustainability, even if we framed it nearly same.
Hi Nico, great examples, thanks for sharing!
Spot on, Fabian. I am working on these issues locally, in Binghamton NY, and more expansively, in terms of systems change as part of discussions with a coalition of partners that have far greater reach than I do: Holomovement, and the Deep and Rapid Transformation Movement (which include One World, UN SDGs, The Hague Center and the ProSocial World evolutionary principles for self-ruled communities and Localization movements here in the US, and other groups. I am encouraged by a new 'entrepreneurial' approach (by some US funders) to help communities finance and execute what Joanna Macy called the Great Turning. The most potent observations, I can share are: 1) Move from reforming/fixing what is collapsing to transformational change-making and co-building the future we want in the world (in my opinion, this is the biggest hurdle); 2) Envision the future you want to see for the world and humanity and name it (my favorite is: Oneness); 3) effectively weave strategy, organizing and mobilizing humanity as a super organism on a shared path; 4) flatten the silos that trap resources to co-create an abundance of shared resources for the good of all; 4) Localize, Localize, Localize. I can recommend the book Cascades by Greg Satell in terms of movement building. I have developed a simple formula for organizing and mobilizing, but even in the most invested/interested circles, it is difficult to overcome the shared belief that we must fix the scaffolding that supports the old paradigm, rather than build the new world paradigm that Ervin Laszlo calls Holos. I invite the readers to consider the Manifesto For A New Enlightenment that can be found here: https://forthegoodofallnow.org/ (it is free to download). It is, to my knowledge, the first integral plan for co-developing the resilience necessary to navigate ecological and societal collapse. I don't know if it will work, but I am doing my best to co-create such a community here in the US and would welcome others to join us. Fabian or any others, I am aging out and I feel that I don't have the skills to catalyze and implement this vision. I do not consider For The Good Of All NOW my movement, it is an invitation to evolve better together.
Thanks so much for this thoughtful and in-depth comment, I’ll read up on all your recommendations and notes, thank you!
Why don’t working groups pool / raise capital, hire an operator type and all be their board / guides / mentors as they execute?
The operator can keep the working groups opinions in a seperate channel and get meeting notes as insights, any one who’s from the working group who wants to contribute in time can do so through the operator?
Or is it that they’re a no capital to solve the challange to apply to the working group’s imperative?