- Where do friction losses arise due to interfaces, roles or decision-making processes?
- Which patterns contribute to problems persisting despite sensible individual measures?
- How can the organization’s ability to learn and adapt be specifically strengthened?
Systemic consulting is particularly effective when it comes to complex issues with many people involved and conflicting objectives. However, a prerequisite is sufficient strategic clarity, because without a common goal there is a risk of confusing analysis with progress.
Systemic consulting in the business environment
Systemic approaches are particularly used where classic management instruments can be usefully supplemented. Three typical fields of application are:
- Decision and process design: The goal is to align decision-making and work processes so that they remain capable of acting even under uncertainty. Systemic consulting supports solving blockages in decision-making, clarifying responsibilities and strengthening the self-organization of teams, especially in complex project and matrix structures.
- Change and transformation programs: Change has become a permanent condition for many organizations. Accordingly, it is not enough to just adapt the formal structures. What is crucial is the interaction between official processes and informal dynamics. Systemic consulting creates transparency and supports the effective design of change processes.
- Systemic conversation management: A central tool is targeted work with questions. It serves to question existing thought patterns and open up new perspectives. The added value lies less in quick answers than in better basis for decision-making. Paradoxical questions like “What would we have to do to ensure this project fails?” are effective interventions to open up new scope for action and decision-making.”
A practical example
A strategic customer project comes to a halt. Technical expertise is available and the goals and budget have been clarified, but progress is still slowed down by lengthy coordination processes. Since no open personal conflicts can be identified, it is reasonable to assume that the cause lies on a structural or procedural level. This is exactly where systemic consulting comes in: not with individual people, but with the underlying patterns in the system. A typical systemic approach is based on these four iterative phases:
1. Order clarification and observation: First, the situation is viewed from different perspectives, for example through interviews and the analysis of communication and decision-making channels.
2. Formation of hypotheses: Based on these impressions, preliminary explanatory models are developed, e.g. B. unclear decision-making responsibilities, contradictory goal systems or implicit loyalty conflicts.
3. Targeted interventions: Building on this, concrete impulses are set, such as adapted meeting structures, clearer decision-making rules or moderated clarification formats in order to irritate entrenched patterns.
