We are asking a question many of us would rather avoid:

Can systemic work offer what’s needed in the world to come?

Our honest answer: not enough. And in asking it, we also look at ourselves.

Below you can read what we see, what we have changed and what we have left behind. Including a poll. Read it, resonate with it, disagree with it, but don’t ignore it. We’d love to hear from you.

The full piece covers two topics:

• The state of systemic work (below)
• The state of Transitionstudio (via this link)

The state of systemic work

We posted this article on LinkedIn on September 29, 2026. You may already have read it. If not, here it is. After that: where do we go from here?

A question that stayed with me

Ever since Sitara Edward approached us five months ago, during our four-day programme Phases of Transition, with the question ‘Why is systemic work stuck?’, this topic has stayed with me.

I think, feel and notice that the question is relevant. More than ever. And although I don’t know every country in the world, I believe this question is relevant to a much wider field than the Dutch one alone. That is why I originally wrote it in English.

I have talked with many colleagues about this theme and hesitated to raise it openly. Now it is time. Even if it makes me enemies. I don’t have clear answers, but the question may be more important than the answers.

The question shifted

For me, however, the question shifted to:

‘Can systemic work offer what’s needed in the world to come?’

At this moment my answer is: ‘No, not enough.’ I experience a growing gap between the current state of systemic work and the geopolitical, cultural, technological and societal developments, movements and issues coming our way.

Even the possibility that systemic-phenomenological work has answers to what is happening in the world is not enough. We need to be with and in the movements happening now, and in the unpredictable movements that will unfold this century. In ice hockey terms:

‘We don’t need to chase the puck; we don’t need to be where the puck is; we need to be where the puck is going to be.’

Why are we not there?

Perhaps very direct and general, but still:

• Too few new systemic concepts, or a lack of them, to deal with the upcoming future.
• Too much repetition of the past.
• Too much focus on healing the past as the answer to present and coming issues.
• Too much focus on the constellation method instead of on the conceptual legacy Bert Hellinger developed.
• Little willingness and courage to face the question; call it the monster.
• Limited individual and collective self-reflection on what we have built into the systemic-phenomenological approach that will bring about its own end.
• Little or no courage to dismantle what we ourselves have built with so much dedication.
• Too much mixing with other paradigms, while the pure movement Bert Hellinger set in motion is still far from its full potential.

Examples

Let me give you one or two examples.

From order to systemic structure

In a recent conversation with my good friend Stephan Hausner, we spoke about the difference between collaboration and co-creation. The concept of co-creation from a systemic point of view was initiated by Dees. She said: ‘It’s about using the differences instead of making compromises. In co-creation the whole is more than the sum of the parts; in compromises the whole is less.’

I heard myself say to Stephan: ‘In co-creation we need to outgrow this classic theme of order: who comes first and who comes after? Who is number one and who is number two? In co-creation there is no number one or two.’ If we want to meet the world that is coming, we need to revisit this whole concept of ‘order’. That is why Dees and I no longer speak of order: we are interested in what the coming society needs. At this moment we use the concept of ‘systemic structure’. And perhaps soon we will need to find other concepts again.

Transition and transformation

Terms widely used in society, such as transition or transformation, called for and deserved a thorough systemic understanding. It took Dees and me a few years to understand these concepts from a systemic perspective and make them workable. Many companies and organizations in the countries where we work benefit from these concepts, because they reflect the processes they are in right now. So let us be in the movement in which an evolutionary force is currently carrying the world, and develop the concepts to be in this movement, rather than holding on to, or even defending, concepts that were relevant a few decades ago but may also have reached their ‘destination’, their end.

What is needed now?

• In his last years, Bert leapt from the past to the distant future as the source of his interventions. He called this ‘another dimension’. Not a higher or better one. And it is far from esoteric or spiritual. Very down to earth. That is where we need to be, intuitively.
• Congresses or gatherings where we explore which systemic concepts are nearing their end and which concepts may want to emerge.
• Using all our differences to explore a systemic approach that can co-create the future (rather than evaluate it), instead of engaging in hidden competitions that will swallow up the entire approach.

The one asset of systemic work

Systemic work has one asset that could be extremely helpful in approaching the evolving world and humanity with all its issues: the ability to approach phenomena without judgement, opinion or bias formed by the past. Many other approaches lack this capability. It might give us the chance to deeply understand what’s going on in the world. One topic after the other, and maybe all together one day.

Let’s not allow that this special quality be sacrificed to, or ground down by, the mills of self-interest, competition, knowing better, commerce or other mechanisms. And yes, I, and we, have been caught up in all of these ourselves.

Jan Jacob
29 September 2026
Lago Fedaia, Dolomites, Italy

What’s next?

From the responses to this post we learned a few things:

• We notice in ourselves too how quickly we respond from our own position. What would be needed to react from the whole of systemic work? Or from its potential? What would each of us have to let go of, or even sacrifice, to sense and pro-act (as opposed to re-act) from the essence of systemic work and its potential?
• The responses are often about constellations. For us, and according to Bert himself too, the mechanisms are a far more important legacy than the method of constellations. What would be needed to shift more from constellations to systemic work?
• We need to differentiate between the state of the systemic phenomenological mechanisms and the people, the professionals, who work with them. Our sincere conviction and perception is that the Systemic-Phenomenological Approach, or its essence, has great potential to contribute to the world and its unpredictable movements. But the community of professionals (ourselves included) limits that potential enormously.

We are curious whether there are enough people who share these thoughts, or in whom they resonate. And who have the freedom, willingness and courage to face the monster (ourselves), and so create an exploratory movement that takes systemic work ‘forward’, to the forefront of society.

We have no idea yet what such an exploration or movement would look like, but at least you could let us know your thoughts.

Poll

Of course, any poll is limited and perhaps too rigid, but for now we are opening one. You can indicate your choice below.

Would you like to be part of an exploratory movement to take systemic work ‘forward’, to the forefront of society?

• I want to play an active role in shaping it.
• I’m curious and want to stay informed.
• I share the concern, but won’t take part.
• I disagree: systemic work is not stuck.

Submit your choice here and feel free to leave a comment if you wish.