A question that stayed with me

All the time since Sitara Edward approached us, during our four-day program on Phases of Transition five months ago, with her question ‘How come systemic work is stuck?’, this topic has been on my mind.

I think, feel, sense the question is relevant. More than ever. And although I don’t know about all the countries in the world, I think this question is relevant for a far larger field than just the Dutch one. That’s why I write in English.

I talked to many colleagues about this issue and hesitated to address this openly. Now it’s time. Even if I make enemies. I don’t have any clear answers, but the question might be more important than the answers.

The question shifted

The question shifted though for me into:

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

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

We don’t even need the possibility that systemic phenomenological work has answers to what’s going on in the world; that’s not enough. We need to be with and in the movements going on at the moment and the unpredictable movements that will go on during this century. In ice hockey language:

‘We don’t need to chase the puck; we don’t need to be with the puck; we need to be where the puck will be.’

Why aren’t we there?

Bluntly and generally speaking:

• Lack of new systemic concepts in order to deal with the upcoming future.
• Too much repetition of the past.
• Too much focus on healing in the past as an answer for present and upcoming issues.
• Too much focus on the method of constellations instead of the conceptual heritage Bert Hellinger developed.
• Lack of courage and willingness to face the question, call it the monster.
• Lack of individual self-reflection and collective self-reflection about what we have built into the systemic phenomenological approach that will cause its own ending.
• Lack of courage to break down what we created ourselves with so much dedication.
• Too much mixing in of other paradigms, while the pure movement Bert Hellinger started has by no means reached its full unfolding nor its full potential.

Examples

Let me give you one or two examples.

From order to systemic structure

In my conversation today 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-creating the whole is more than the sum of the parts and in compromises the whole is less.’ I heard myself say to Stephan: ‘In co-creation we need to outgrow this classical topic of order: who comes first and who is next? Who is number one and who is number two? In co-creation there is no number one or two.’ If we want to face the world to come, we need to review this whole concept of ‘order’. This is why Dees and I don’t speak about order anymore, because we are interested in what’s needed in the society to come. At the moment we use the concept of ‘systemic structure’. And we might have to find other concepts again soon.

Transition and transformation

The terms often used in society, like transition or transformation, required and deserved a thorough systemic understanding. It took Dees and me a couple of years to understand these concepts from a systemic point of view and make them operational. Many businesses and organizations in the countries where we work benefit from these concepts because they reflect the processes they are in now. So, let’s be in the movement where an evolutionary force is taking the world right now and develop the concepts to be in this movement, instead of staying with or even defending concepts which were relevant some decades ago but might also have reached their ‘destiny’, their end.

What’s needed now?

• In his last years Bert jumped from the past to the far upcoming future as a source for his interventions. He called this ‘another dimension’. Not a higher or better one. And it’s far from esoteric or spiritual. Very down to earth. That’s where we need to be.
• Congresses or meetings where we explore both which systemic concepts are reaching their ending and which concepts might want to come into existence.
• Use all our differences for exploring the systemic approach which can co-create (instead of evaluating) the upcoming future, instead of going into hidden competitions that will swallow the whole approach.

The one asset of systemic work

Systemic work has one asset, which could be extremely helpful to approach the evolving world and humanity with all its issues: to approach phenomena without judgement, opinion or bias formed by the past. This capability many other approaches are lacking. This capability 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 have this special quality be sacrificed or ground by the mills of personal interest, competition, knowing better, commerciality or other mechanisms. And yes, I myself have also been in all these states.

Jan Jacob
29 september, 2026

Lago Fedaia, Dolomites, Italy