Conceptualisation of the systemic organisational constellation method and a procedure for its application in coaching

ABSTRACT

Systemic constellations are widely used in organisational coaching and consulting to provide a systemic perspective on organisations and teams. However, the method is derived from practical experience and lacks definitional and procedural clarity, which could lead to ineffective application and could hamper quality monitoring and scientific evaluation. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conceptualise the systemic organisational constellation method by developing a shared definition and delivering a procedure for its application. The methodology comprised two parts. First, a clear definition and outline of a procedure for applying the systemic organisational constellation method were formulated through a comprehensive review of the academic literature. Second, this definition and procedure were evaluated using inputs provided by 273 professionals who have used this method. We implemented an online survey between December 2020 and June 2021 to evaluate the definition and procedure, which was subsequently adjusted considering the respondents’ suggestions. The shared definition and procedure resulting from this study may enhance the quality and effectiveness of the method’s implementation, and may clear the way for evidence-based practice.

KEYWORDS:

• systemic intervention
• systemic organisational constellation
• team coaching
• organisational transformation
• organisational coaching

Practice points

• Our findings are of key relevance for coaches pursuing a systemic coaching approach.

• We developed a definition and procedure for applying systemic constellations in an organisational context based on inputs provided by the international community of coaches who use the method.

• The definition and procedure will support coaches in applying the method and explaining it to clients. Moreover, they may facilitate effective implementation of the method and may clear the way for evidence-based practice.

Introduction

A systemic perspective on teams and organisations within complex and challenging organisational contexts entailing change and transformation processes has been regarded as beneficial (Lawrence, 2021; Maes & Van Hootegem, 2019). A systemic perspective can be understood as a holistic focus on an entire social system, encompassing its components and their dynamic interrelations, as opposed to a singular focus on isolated cases or issues (Lawrence, 2021; Maes & Van Hootegem, 2019). Some authors have proposed the use of systemic constellations as a practical method for applying this systemic perspective to teams and organisations within organisational coaching and consultancy settings (Birkenkrahe, 2008; Burchardt, 2015). Applications of this method include team coaching, organisational transformation, leadership development and stakeholder analysis (Burchardt, 2015; Scholtens et al., 2021; Weinhold et al., 2014). Currently, there are several systemic organisational constellation (SOC) training institutes worldwide and many books describing the SOC method have been published. In addition, Infosyon (www.infosyon.com) offers certification for individual coaches and training institutes.

Nevertheless, an established evidence base is lacking despite the widespread use of the SOC method. Rigorous research on this method, as defined by Grant (2016), is still in its infancy, and insight into its purposefulness and effectiveness is limited (Binder, 2005; Jirásek & Jirásková, 2015; Scholtens et al., 2021). Like many other coaching methods, the SOC method is derived from practice with minimal scientific theoretical or empirical inputs (Grant & O'Connor, 2019; Scholtens et al., 2021). Consultants implement the method in various ways, often combining it flexibly with other methods (Fasching, 2009; Tenner, 2014; Wakefield, 2014). This flexibility could explain why descriptions of the method, and of procedures for its application, vary. Although most coaches and consultants refer to descriptions of systemic constellations applied within an organisational context, and to the origin of the method, no clear, universally-shared definition and procedure for its application currently exist. The lack of conceptualisation of the SOC method, and of an established procedure for its application, constrain efforts to monitor the quality of its implementation. This issue is of concern, as improper application could cause harm (Gminder, 2005; Groth, 2004; Weinhold et al., 2014). Moreover, the absence of definitional and procedural clarity hampers evaluations of the effectiveness of the method and comparison with other coaching methods. In turn, coaches and consultants lack insight into the purposefulness and effectiveness of the method that they use, which is important in professional coaching (Grant & O'Connor, 2019). Those who are unfamiliar with the method may find it difficult to grasp, and it may be difficult for trainers to explain it to clients in the absence of a clear definition (Binder, 2005). Knauth et al. (2010) reported that trainers considered their clients’ unfamiliarity with the method to be a barrier to its application within consultation-based settings. We want to stress that the lack of a shared definition does not lead to ineffective outcomes per se; however, a lack of clarity and heterogeneity in the method’s application impede rigorous evaluation of the purposefulness and effectiveness of this coaching method and its comparability with other methods. The above shortcomings may limit further applications of a potentially useful method.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to conceptualise the SOC method by providing a shared definition and to propose a procedure for its application. Its findings can contribute to enhancing the quality and effectivity of the implementation of the SOC method, thereby clearing the way for evaluations of this method and the establishment of a firm evidence base for advancing practice.

The systemic organisational constellation method

Systemic constellations originally derived from family constellations, namely, the application of systemic constellations focused on family systems and applied in contexts of therapy or clinical counselling (Konkolÿ Thege et al., 2021). Over the years, systemic constellations were developed and applied to other social systems, such as organisations, resulting in the introduction of the systemic organisational constellation method in the late 1990s (Drexler, 2015; Weber & Rosselet, 2016). The SOC method aims to enhance individuals’ awareness of their social contexts and the associated implicit values, beliefs and structures. In addition, it allows participants to explore perspectives other than their own in this social context. The method is grounded in the assumption that individuals possess intuitive knowledge about their social contexts, that is often implicit and unconscious, but which can be rendered explicit by systemic constellations. These systemic constellations are visual depictions of the social system, created by a spatial arrangement of elements – using individuals or objects – relevant to the organisation or the team and their social contexts. An element can be a person or a function or role within the social system (e.g., a manager), groups or stakeholders (e.g., customers or patients), or, alternatively, concepts or societal aspects (e.g., values or education). Thus, a systemic constellation renders the social system visible and tangible for the person or group. In practice, the method is often applied in a workshop setting composed of 10–30 participants and a trained coach (also called facilitator), but it can also be used in individual coaching.

The present research

The study comprised two parts: a review of the literature (Study 1) to explore existing definitions of the SOC method, followed by a survey-based evaluation of a definition and procedure derived from the literature, using inputs provided by practitioners (Study 2). Practitioners were members of the international community of professionals (coaches, trainers and consultants) who have used the SOC method. Study 1 was aimed at developing a clear definition of the method and a procedure for its application through a systematic review of the academic literature on the SOC method. Study 2 was aimed at evaluating these findings through inputs sought from the international community of professionals using this method via an online survey.

Considering that the method is likely to have evolved over time, potential subgroups were identified on the basis of the respondents’ native languages and the period when they first started using the method. Because the method originated in a German-speaking area, and the majority of studies within the existing literature are still only available in German, it is conceivable that subgroups may be language-based. Moreover, German professionals may have a different perspective compared with the perspectives of those who speak other languages.

Study 1: literature review

Method

Study 1 aimed at constructing a clear definition of the method and a procedure for its application through a systematic review of the academic literature on the SOC method. We followed the approach used in a previous systematic literature review on the effectiveness of the SOC method (Scholtens et al., 2021) because that study demonstrated a rigorous search strategy that effectively identified relevant publications. The search algorithms included the term ‘constellation’ combined with ‘organisation(al)’, ‘team’, ‘system’, or ‘systemic’. Ten relevant literature databases were searched, including PsycInfo, Embase, Medline, ISI Web of Science, Business Source Premier, and Google Scholar. To increase the likelihood of finding dissertations on this topic, we manually searched the databases of the two largest professional bodies devoted to the application of systemic constellations: the German Society of Systemic Constellations (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Systemaufstellungen, DGfS) and Infosyon. The search was not restricted to any publication dates or languages.

We searched the literature up to 20 January 2020. Both empirical and non-empirical studies were included in the search, with the latter comprising theoretical studies, case studies, event descriptions or reports describing personal experiences. Studies were included provided that they were published in the academic domain (i.e., in a journal indexed in the databases searched) or academically derived manuscripts, such as Ph.D. dissertations. To ensure a focus on organisational contexts, we excluded publications focusing on the method’s application in psychotherapeutic settings. We performed an inductive content analysis (Vaismoradi et al., 2013) to extract information on the method’s definition and procedure from the searched publications. Subsequently, we created a codebook for coding the data emerging from the publications. Following this process, we formulated a concise definition of the method and a description of its procedure for application.

Results

In total, 33 potentially relevant publications were identified through our systematic literature search. Of these publications, 26 dealt with the SOC method, were academic publications and available in full text. Details of the search process and a complete list of the publications are provided in the Supplemental Online Material 1.

Definition of the SOC method

All of the selected publications contained a brief description of the SOC method, and in a few cases, a more detailed definition was also provided. Table 2 in the Supplemental Online Material shows the main results of Study 1, namely the codes and the number of publications that mentioned these aspects in their descriptions of the method. Multiple aspects were commonly mentioned in one publication, as evidenced by the examples listed in the table. Almost all of the publications stated that the method was aimed at fostering new perspectives and insights on an issue or on a team or organisation. The following definition was constructed on the basis of data derived from the publications:

The systemic organisational constellations method is a method to make the implicit, internal image an individual has on an issue within an organisation explicit by visualising this image and placing it within the larger social system context, using verbal and non-verbal information in order to explore the issue and develop new perspectives and insights on it.

Procedure for applying the SOC method

A description or outline of the procedure for applying the SOC method was presented in 17 publications. In particular, Birkenkrahe (2008), Finckh and Reich (2016), Groth (2004) and Roevens (2008) provided detailed schematic descriptions. Referring to these descriptions, we constructed a general outline of the procedure for applying the method comprising five sequential steps, as shown in the Online Supplementary Material 2. The box with the text ‘Implicit, inner image of the social system, elements and their relations’ in this figure highlights linkages to the definition.

Figure 1. Revised outline of the procedure for applying the systemic organisational constellation method.

The authors of the publications also reflected on the role of the coach in facilitating the process. Most authors explicitly stated that the coach structures the constellation process and gives meaning to what is happening (Borek, 2011; Bulling, 2018; Gminder, 2005; Kumbruck et al., 2008). Furthermore, they recommended inviting participants to experience the constellation tangibly during the procedure (Finckh & Reich, 2016; Müller-Christ et al., 2015; Gminder, 2005). Lastly, some authors stressed the importance of the coach’s preparation (Roevens, 2008) or suggested inclusion of a follow-up phase (Birkenkrahe, 2008).

Study 2: survey

Method

Study 2, comprising an online survey, was aimed at evaluating the definition of and procedure for applying the SOC method derived from the literature through inputs sought from the international community of professionals using this method. First, the readability and face validity of the definition and application procedure emerging from the literature were evaluated by four international consultants from the target population, who had over 10 years of experience implementing the method. Accordingly, a few minor textual adjustments were made to improve readability. The final definition and procedure were included in an online survey using Qualtrics. Respondents were asked to what extent the definition and procedure resembled their own understanding, and whether any aspects were missing or falsely included. Additionally, they were asked to what extent the SOC method fitted with existing theoretical concepts. The literature review revealed that the two most commonly referenced theoretical frameworks informing the SOC method are social constructivism and phenomenology (Gminder, 2005; Roevens, 2008; Scholtens et al., 2021). Therefore, these frameworks were explicitly presented to the respondents for evaluation. Furthermore, demographic data and the respondents’ characteristics, including language and when they started using the method were collected as background data. To achieve broad representation of the international community, the survey was available in the five languages most commonly used by professionals using the SOC method, namely, Dutch, English, German, Portuguese and Spanish.

The survey was piloted with eight respondents (consultants belonging to the target population, with over 10 years of experience in using the method) from different language areas. Items were adjusted accordingly before the survey was administered to the international community of professionals, namely coaches, consultants and trainers using, or planning to use, the SOC method. The survey was distributed via Infosyon’s network, those of large training institutes in diverse countries, such as the Bert Hellinger Institute in the Netherlands and the Wieslocher Institute for Systemic Solutions in Germany, and the authors’ own network. To reach a broader audience, respondents were encouraged to distribute the survey within their own networks. Respondents received an invitation to participate along with information on the study and a link to access the survey. The complete survey and the letter with information provided to respondents is included in the Supplemental Online Material 3.

Data analysis

An inductive content analysis (Vaismoradi et al., 2013) was performed on the qualitative data derived from the open questions. Two researchers independently coded the data using the constructed codebook. In case of disagreement, discordant coding was discussed with a third researcher, and all three researchers shared their rationales for the coding until consensus was reached. To enable the inclusion of as many different viewpoints as possible without giving too much weight to individual statements, the definition and outline of the procedure were adjusted according to feedback obtained from at least five respondents (≥2% of the survey population).

The quantitative data were analysed using the SPSS program (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 23.0). Mainly descriptive analyses were performed. For items requiring respondents to assign a score between 0 and 100, a value above 80 indicated agreement with the statement. Using this cut-off value, defined by the authors prior to the data analysis, in order to avoid post hoc influence, the data was dichotomised into two groups: agreement with the statement versus non-agreement with the statement, neutral or no opinion. Subgroups were explored according to the respondents’ native languages and when they started using the method. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to test the association between these subgroups and their agreement with the statements regarding the definition, procedure, and fit with existing theoretical concepts. German-speaking coaches who started using the method after 2015 constituted a reference group. We performed a sensitivity analysis by repeating the analyses using a cut-off value of 90.

Results

Respondents

Between 14 December 2020 and 2 June 2021, 319 professionals participated in the survey. Those who indicated that they never used the method and were not planning to (n = 46), were not considered eligible for the study. In total, 273 respondents used (n = 260) or planned to use (n = 13) the method. Table 1 presents an overview of the respondents’ characteristics. Twenty-four respondents (9%) were considered first-generation SOC users, as they started using the method before 2001. We managed to achieve global coverage with respondents located in almost all continents. The majority of respondents worked with the method in Europe (34 in the UK, 56 in Germany, 67 in The Netherlands and 62 from other European countries). Twenty-three respondents worked in Latin American countries and nine in North America. Another seven respondents worked in Asia, five in Australia, two in Russia and one each in Israel and South Africa. The starting period was significantly associated with the respondent’s native language (Chi-square 13.2, p = 0.01). Of the early adopters of the method, 58% were German-speaking. For those adopting it at other times, this percentage varied between 35% (2001–2005) and 24% (other periods) (Table 1 in Online Supplementary Material 4).

Table 1. Sociodemographic and professional characteristics of the respondents (N = 273).

Item	Answer categories	%^a	N
Gender	Female	63%	173
	Male	36%	97
Age (years)	26–40	7%	19
	41–55	58%	158
	56–70	32%	86
	>70	2%	6
Native language	English	17%	45
	German	28%	75
	Dutch	29%	78
	Spanish	6%	17
	Portuguese	8%	21
	Other	14%	37
Role or function	Facilitator	17%	46
	Constellator	13%	35
	Trainer	6%	17
	Coach	23%	64
	Consultant/adviser	21%	58
	(Project) manager, CEO, business owner	4%	10
	HR manager/specialist	2%	5
	Teacher	2%	5
	Researcher	2%	4
	Therapist	6%	15
	Other	2%	6
Start of use of the method	Before 1990	0%	0
	1990–1995	3%	7
	1996–2000	6%	17
	2001–2005	11%	29
	2006–2010	17%	45
	2011–2015	20%	54
	>2015	39%	106

^a Some percentages may not have added up to 100% because of missing values. Respondents may have skipped the question or responded with ‘I don’t know/I prefer not to say’. Percentages were calculated according to the total sample.

Opinions on the underlying theory

On a scale from 0 to 100, the median scores for respondents’ views on the degree of the match between the theories of social constructivism and phenomenology with the SOC method were 70 and 86, respectively (Table 2). The level of agreement was associated with native language and starting period of use. Dutch, English, Portuguese and Spanish speakers were significantly more inclined to see a fit between the SOC method and phenomenology compared with German speakers. Agreement on the fit with social constructivism did not differ according to language. Significantly more respondents who started using the method between 2001 and 2005 agreed that both social constructivism and phenomenology fitted with the SOC method compared with those who started using it after 2015 (Table 2 in Supplemental Online Material 4).

Table 2. Opinions on the theoretical basis and evaluation of the method’s definition and procedure (N = 273).

			Agreement^b,c
Item	N total	Median (q1–q3)^a	%	N
To what extent do you believe that the SOC method fits with the theory and philosophical tradition of social constructivism?	136	70 (50–81)	13%	36
To what extent do you believe that the SOC method fits with the theory and philosophical tradition of phenomenology?	181	86 (73–99)	41%	112
To what extent do you feel that the definition is correct?	189	77 (57–91)^d	30%	82
To what extent do you feel that the outline of the procedure is correct?	175	82 (70–93)^d	34%	94
	N total	Response category	%	N
Is something missing from the definition?	201	No	20%	55
		Yes	44%	121
		I don’t know	9%	25
Is something falsely included in the definition?	198	No	35%	96
		Yes	22%	60
		I don’t know	15%	42
Is something missing from the outline of the procedure?	190	No	32%	87
		Yes	30%	83
		I don’t know	7%	20
Is something falsely included in the outline of the procedure?	188	No	43%	117
		Yes	13%	36
		I don’t know	13%	35

^a The median value was applied, because the distribution of the data was heavily skewed towards the upper end.

^b Scores ranged between 0 and 100. Agreement was defined as a score above 80.

^c Some percentages may not have added up to 100% because of missing values. Respondents may have skipped the question or responded with ‘I don’t know/I prefer not to say’. Percentages were calculated on the basis of the total sample.

^d 23 respondents gave a score below 50 for the definition and 12 respondents for the outline of the procedure.

Evaluation of the constructed definition

The median score for respondents who agreed with the definition formulated for the SOC method was 77 on a scale from 0 to 100 (Table 2). Nearly half of the respondents (44%) reported that something was missing in the definition, whereas 22% reported that something was falsely included. Agreement with the fit between the SOC method and social constructivism was positively correlated with agreement with the definition (r_s = .31, p = .001). No such association was found for phenomenology. The results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that Dutch and English speakers were significantly less likely to agree with the definition than German-speaking respondents, regardless of their starting period of use and their scores for the fit of the SOC method with social constructivism and phenomenology (Table 3 in Online Supplementary Material 4). Repeating the analyses using a cut-off value of 90 yielded the same results.

Table 1 in the Supplemental Online Material 5 shows the codes used for the open question, ‘What is missing in this definition?’ with examples drawn from the data, and the number of respondents selecting the relevant code. Most respondents indicated that a collective image was missing. The definition was overly focused on the individual according to 15% of the respondents. Moreover, respondents felt that there was too much focus on the image or visual aspects and suggested including other senses, notably embodied experiences (7%). Others emphasised the absence of an ‘unconscious’ image or that the unconscious dynamics and interaction between the elements were missing (7%). Moreover, respondents suggested including a broader range of outcomes, such as decision making (7%). A small number of respondents referred to systemic principles (2%) or the use of representatives (2%) as missing factors. Table 2 in the Supplemental Online Material 5 shows the codes for falsely included elements. The phrase ‘larger social system’ was rejected by 3% of the respondents. Accordingly, the definition was adjusted as follows:

The systemic organisational constellations method is a method to make the unconscious, internal image an individual or a group has of an issue within an organisation, which is often based on a shared, collective image, explicit. This is done by visualising this image, its structures, interrelations and dynamics holding a systemic perspective, using verbal cues, non-verbal information and the felt sense in order to explore the issue and develop new perspectives and insights on it or enable decision making or transformation.

Evaluation of the constructed procedure for application

The median score denoting agreement with the procedure was 82 on a scale of 0–100 (Table 2). Almost one-third of the respondents (30%) reported that something was missing in the outlined procedure, whereas 13% reported that something was falsely included (Table 2). Agreement with the fit of the SOC method with social constructivism was positively correlated with the respondents’ agreement with the outlined procedure (r_s = .26, p = .004). No such association was found for phenomenology. The results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that native language and starting period of use were not associated with agreement with the outlined procedure (Table 3 in Online Supplementary Material 4). Repeating the analyses using a cut-off value of 90 yielded the same results.

Table 3 and 4 in the Supplemental Online Material 5 shows the codes for the open question, ‘What is missing in this outline?’ and the codes for what was falsely included. It also provides examples derived from the data and the number of respondents mentioning the respective code. Eight percent of the respondents indicated that the method is not always applied within organisations in the structured way that we proposed; steps could be left out, or the sequence of their application could vary. Respondents suggested adding a preparatory step at the start of the procedure entailing the trainer’s preparation and a possible meeting with the client for an intake session (6%). Likewise, the closure could include a (collective) reflection (4%) or an invitation for follow-up (2%). Some respondents specifically mentioned the role of representatives (3%). As for the definition, respondents suggested including other senses, particularly embodied experiences (3%). The constructed procedure for applying the method was adjusted in light of this feedback (Figure 1).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to conceptualise the SOC method and develop a procedure for its application. We demonstrated that the SOC method can be defined, despite being experiential and derived from practice. Moreover, we developed a consensus-based definition and procedure for its application. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to introduce a shared definition and procedure for applying the SOC method based on a review of the academic literature along with feedback elicited from the community of professional users. Overall, the professionals seemed to agree, at least to some extent, with the definition and procedure that emerged from a systematic review of the literature on the SOC method. The adjustments suggested by the respondents further clarified but, for the most part, did not change the content of the definition. Moreover, the respondents endorsed the systemic and non-verbal elements of the method reported in the literature.

Respondents who believed that the SOC method was closely aligned with the theory and philosophical tradition of social constructivism were generally more inclined to accept the definition and procedure. Nevertheless, the differences were small and no compelling differences relating to agreement with the outlined procedure were observed. These results suggest that the SOC method could be viewed as a single method, and while there are no distinct communities of practitioners, some seem to perceive the method through a phenomenological lens and others through a social constructivist lens. We could speculate that a phenomenological lens would be particularly value the embodied experience of the SOC method, whereas social constructivism would value socialisation processes and socially constructed values, norms and beliefs. According to the phenomenological philosophical tradition, interactions occur between an internal, subjective world and an outside, objective world (Merleau-Ponty, 2002). As the observer is part of the observed phenomenon, phenomenology emphasises sensation, reflection and intuition in investigations of experiences and enables a situation to be captured holistically rather than as a combination of all of its parts (Jirásek et al., 2017; Roevens, 2008). This conception foregrounds the embodied aspect of the SOC method, which was included in the definition.

Agreement with the definition was somewhat lower among the Dutch- and English-speaking respondents compared with the German respondents. This difference could be attributed to the different orientations of the training institutes attended by the respondents. At the same time, particular groups may have had better access to a more diverse body of literature. In the German-speaking area where the method originated at the end of the 1990s, coaches and consultants had access to a larger body of (scientific) literature and more training institutes. Consequently, they might have had a longer tradition of studying and discussing the method within the coaching community (Scholtens et al., 2021). Thirteen out of twenty-six scientific publications consulted for constructing the definition were available only in the German, which could explain the higher level of agreement with the definition among German respondents. However, this assumption needs further study.

The absence of a definition and procedure can be partially explained by the method’s derivation from practice as well as by the occasional mystical overtones of the SOC method (Bulling, 2018). For instance, Jirásek and Jirásková (2015) reported that participants in their study described the experience with a systemic constellation as ‘mysterious, something belonging to the mythic (mythological, mythopoetic) consciousness, rather than the rational argumentation’ (p. 67). In particular, the experience of a so-called representative perception can be perceived as being out of the ordinary and is indeed difficult to explain given our current understanding. It pertains to the information, insights or emotions that representatives within the constellation perceive about the social system of other individuals without having any knowledge of their personal backgrounds, social systems or the current case. Individuals within the constellation may disclose this information via their position within the constellation or through verbal and non-verbal communication (Groth, 2004; Weinhold et al., 2014). Moreover, respondents who participated in a systemic constellation indicated that the resulting constellation resembled their social systems (Baumgartner, 2006; Finckh & Reich, 2016; Lehmann, 2006). Notwithstanding a lack of understanding of the source of this information and how its relevance can be assessed, the experience of being in a constellation can be a profound one and is difficult to rationalise. This confusion regarding the method’s mechanism of action further highlights the need for scientific evaluation. In an earlier publication (Scholtens et al., 2021), we proposed a possible mechanism of action for the SOC method. Considered in relation to the current definition and procedure, these hypothesised mechanisms can now be studied and the method’s effectiveness can be scientifically assessed.

Strengths and limitations

A strength of the present study is its combination of a systematic literature review and the evaluation of the resulting findings within the community of professionals using the SOC method. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data provides valuable insights into the respondents’ perspectives. Further, the qualitative data were coded by two independent researchers, thereby increasing the reliability of the data extraction process.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the following limitations. We referred to the scientific literature as the first step for formulating the definition. We were well aware of the existence of a large body of grey literature, books on practice, reflections and other written materials. However, we opted for this approach to frame the method using scientific language aimed at defining the method comprehensively for the scientific community, thereby facilitating the design of future studies. This approach may have resulted in a less appropriately phrased definition for use in daily coaching practice. Furthermore, the adjusted definition was not re-evaluated within the community. The comments were carefully incorporated into both the definition and procedure without changing the original definition, as the majority of the trainers agreed with the original formulation. We acknowledge that this definition is not the only one in existence and that it may continue to evolve over time. Therefore, it will require re-evaluation.

Another limitation was associated with the respondents’ nationalities. Although we made considerable efforts to reach the global community of professionals using the method, the majority of the respondents were from Western Europe. This uneven distribution of nationalities may reflect the larger number of professionals using the method in that region or the unequal distribution of communication channels. Given that the actual number of professionals using the method is unknown, we cannot draw any conclusions regarding the proportion of professionals included in the study or whether the distribution of languages and countries approximated the reality. Despite this limitation, the large number of respondents relative to Infosyon members, numbering around 150 professionals combined with the study’s global coverage makes us confident that the study reached a large proportion of the actual professionals who are currently using the method.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study, involving the community of SOC practitioners, generated a shared definition of the SOC method and a procedure for its application. This shared definition and procedure will be disseminated within the community of practitioners to help advance their understanding of the method and contribute to the quality of their work. Moreover, it will be re-evaluated regularly through consultations with the community. The definition and procedure provide an important basis for future scientific and practice-based evaluations of this method and the development of a rigorous evidence base, thereby contributing to the advancement of practice. As a next step, we recommend further research on the method’s purposefulness and effectiveness as well as comparative studies encompassing other coaching methods.

Ethical approval and registration

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG) (approval number 202000571) and was pre-registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4buzw), as part of a larger study conducted on the SOC method. All respondents provided their informed consent. To ensure privacy and confidentiality, the survey was completed anonymously and no personal data were collected. If respondents wished to receive information about the results of the study, they could provide their email address at the end of the survey. These email addresses were stored separately from the survey data to retain anonymity.

Acknowledgements

We thank all of the participating training institutes and organisations for their support in distributing the survey. In particular, we thank Diana Drexler, Barbara Hoogenboom, Georg Müller-Christ and Katrina Barry.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Salome Scholtens

Salome Scholtens (Ph.D.) is a senior researcher, trainer and programme manager at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), the Netherlands. She is a qualified university teacher and epidemiologist, with expertise in system dynamics within organisations and systemic coaching.

Lisa Kiltz

Lisa Kiltz is doing her Ph.D. at the Department of Teacher Education of the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Her interests lie in health psychology and resilience research. She combines this with systemic thinking, acquired through further training in systemic therapy that she is currently finishing at the WISL institute in Germany.

Hedwig Boer

Hedwig Boer is an academic teacher at the Department of Health Sciences, Section Health Psychology at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. She is a social psychologist related to SCOPE (www.rug.nl/scope) with an interest in organisational psychology and systemic work.

Barna Konkolÿ Thege

Barna Konkolÿ Thege (Ph.D.) is a researcher and clinical psychologist at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care and an assistant professor at the Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto. His main research interests include addictology, psychometrics, behavioural medicine and the effectiveness of systemic therapies.

Joke Fleer

Joke Fleer (Ph.D.) is an adjunct professor at the Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG). She is a health psychologist, the principal educator at the Faculty of Medicine and head of the SCOPE Expertise Center for Personal Development at the UMCG (www.rug.nl/scope).