Introduction

Over the last decade, organizations have faced increasingly ill-structured or “wicked” problems characterized by uncertainty, multiple rationalities, non-linear interdependencies, and political–emotional tensions that resist treatment through optimization or simple causal accounts (Rittel and Webber 1973; Ackoff 1974). In such contexts, decision making becomes inseparable from meaning making: actors must first structure the situation before they can meaningfully “solve” it (Rosenhead and Mingers 2001).

Systemic Organizational Constellations (SOC) are a diagnostic and intervention practice that has spread in consulting and organizational development, supported by communities of practice and professional training programs. Accordingly, we do not present SOC as an invention ex nihilo, but as an already disseminated practice whose academic formalization remains uneven. The available literature is fragmented, often descriptive, and sometimes permeable to epistemological controversies. In parallel, there is growing interest in soft and systemic approaches for problem structuring and change (Checkland 1981; Midgley et al. 2013). SOC has a documented track record in organizational consulting and research over the last two decades (e.g., Gómez Gómez 2004; Birkenkrahe 2008; Roevens 2008; Kopp and Martinuzzi 2013; Gómez Gómez and Roevens 2017; Scholtens et al. 2021), yet its methodological status and reporting standards remain uneven across contexts.

This paper addresses a central question: on what epistemological and theoretical grounds is it defensible to understand SOC as a soft methodology for complexity reduction and organizational change, and what kind of “result” do they produce in terms of actionable knowledge? To address this question, we propose a dual framing: (a) an epistemological articulation connecting SOC with systemic, cybernetic, phenomenological, and constructivist traditions; and (b) an explicit five-phase methodological framework, compared with the Problem Structuring Methods (PSM) tradition and, in particular, Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland and Scholes 1990; Mingers and Rosenhead 2004).

The distinctive move advanced in this manuscript is to conceptualize SOC as a situated sensemaking artefact. Following Weick (1979, 1995), sensemaking is not merely cognitive but an enactment-based social process through which actors bring forth a meaningful environment while interpreting it in order to act under ambiguity. Aligned with situated action (Suchman 1987) and practice-based research that treats artefacts as mediators of knowing and organizing (Orlikowski 2002), we propose that the embodied spatial configuration created in a SOC can function as a shareable intermediate object: interpretively flexible yet sufficiently robust to coordinate heterogeneous perspectives—close to the notion of a boundary object (Star and Griesemer 1989). It facilitates the externalization and sharing of tacit knowledge, the negotiation of meaning, and the formulation of plausible, action-oriented hypotheses. Building on this conceptualization, the paper develops SOC’s epistemological foundations, translates them into a five-phase procedural framework, and positions SOC comparatively within PSM.

In this paper, we define SOC as a situated sensemaking artefact: a facilitation-based, embodied and spatially enacted configuration through which participants externalize tacit systemic relations, explore organizational dynamics through phenomenological feedback and iterative reconfiguration, and generate plausible, action-oriented hypotheses under conditions of ambiguity. Its key properties are: (1) the spatial materialization of systemic relations that often remain tacit in organizational life; (2) the emergent character of insight, which arises through the unfolding configuration rather than being fully specified in advance; (3) the elicitation of relational cues that are difficult to access through discursive analysis alone; and (4) the simultaneous integration of multiple perspectives within a shared field of representation. Unlike cognitive maps or systemic diagrams, SOC are not static analytical tools, but embodied and collective processes of sensemaking in real time.

Systemic Organizational Constellations (SOC) are a facilitation-based methodology in which participants represent key elements of an organizational system (e.g., actors, units, concepts) in a shared physical space, with the aim of making relational patterns visible and supporting insight and action. In contrast to purely discursive methods, SOC rely on an embodied, spatial configuration and on phenomenological feedback to explore the dynamics of a problematic situation.

At present, however, reportable descriptions of SOC sessions are scarce and heterogeneous, which limits comparability, cumulative learning, and scientific legitimacy. This revision therefore emphasizes (i) a clearer positioning within the PSM tradition, (ii) a more explicit five-phase procedural description, (iii) careful delimitation of claims to avoid overstatement, and (iv) a proposal for a minimum reporting standard to strengthen traceability and future empirical evaluation.

Theoretical Framework

Systems Theory and Complexity

Systems Theory (Bertalanffy 1968) provides a view in which organizations are conceived as open and highly interconnected systems. According to Bertalanffy (1968), an open system exchanges information, energy, and matter with its environment, allowing it to adapt and survive. Applied to organizations, this means that any organization is in constant interaction with external factors (market, technology, regulations) and internal factors (processes, people), forming a whole where changes in one part can affect the entire system (Katz and Kahn 1978). Each internal component (departments, teams, individuals) influences and is influenced by others, generating a network of interdependencies. From this perspective, understanding an organizational problem requires considering not only its isolated parts but also the relationships between them and with the environment.

In parallel, complexity thinking complements the systemic view by emphasizing that organizations exhibit emergent properties and nonlinear behaviors. Edgar Morin (1990) points out that in complex systems “the whole is more than the sum of its parts,” as patterns of behavior arise that cannot be explained solely by individual components. For example, organizational culture or climate emerges from multiple human interactions and cannot be changed by direct orders but by understanding those interactions. Complexity also implies recognizing uncertainty and the impossibility of predicting the course of change with precision; small variations can amplify (butterfly effect) and significantly alter outcomes. Morin (2004) highlights principles such as self-organization, the system’s ability to generate new structures or behaviors without centralized direction and recursivity processes, where products feed back into the system, affecting the process itself. In organizations, self-organization is seen, for instance, when work teams spontaneously reconfigure their roles and dynamics to face emerging challenges without waiting for top-down instructions.

The integration of these systemic and complexity approaches in SOC is direct: constellations seek to visualize the entire organizational system (or the analyzed problem) to understand how its various parts are connected. By situating representatives of different organizational elements in a shared space, systemic patterns such as informal alliances, power conflicts, or critical dependencies can be externalized, patterns that might go unnoticed in a conventional analysis. Recent studies support the utility of systemic approaches such as constellations. For example, Scholtens et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review of the organizational constellation method and concluded that this technique provides an integrative perspective for diagnosing and addressing complex problems in organizations. Documented cases (Birkenkrahe 2008; Burchardt 2015; Perazzoli et al. 2022; Scholtens et al. 2023b) also show that constellations facilitate the understanding of hidden interrelations and support problem-solving by considering multiple variables simultaneously. In summary, systems theory and complexity thinking provide SOC with the notions of interdependence and systemic wholeness, essential for managing change in dynamic environments.

Cybernetics, Feedback, and Entropy in Organizations

Cybernetics, founded by Norbert Wiener (1948), introduces into organizational theory concepts such as feedback, system control, and communication as a means to maintain stability. Wiener (1948) defined cybernetics as “the study of control and communication in the animal and the machine,” emphasizing that both living organisms and organizations need feedback mechanisms to regulate their behavior. In organizations, feedback processes are evident, for example, in quality control circuits or management information systems: actions generate results that are evaluated and fed back into the system to adjust future actions. A key contribution of cybernetics is breaking with simple linear causality and introducing the idea of circular causality: causes and effects mutually influence each other in feedback loops (Morin 1999). This means that, in organizations, a problem can be both the cause and the consequence of other factors in a recursive circuit. For instance, low employee motivation can be the cause of poor performance, which in turn causes increased managerial pressure, further negatively feeding back motivation. SOC leverage this notion by allowing participants to observe how a change in the “position” or attitude of one system element affects others through chain reactions during the constellation.

Linked to cybernetics is the concept of entropy (originally from thermodynamics). Up to this point, the discussion aligns with ‘first-order cybernetics,’ focused on closed systems. This first paradigm, developed mainly by Norbert Wiener (1948, 1950), focuses on analyzing systems where input-output relationships and feedback loops can be objectively modeled, considering the observer as external to the system. First-order cybernetics provides a useful framework for understanding control, regulation, and homeostasis in mechanical, animal, and organizational systems, conceptualized as mechanisms aimed at maintaining balance in the face of disturbances.

However, from the 1970s onward, “second-order cybernetics” or the cybernetics of open and self-organizing systems emerged, introducing a fundamental change: the recognition that living and social systems cannot be reduced to closed, predictable machines. Second-order cybernetics, developed by authors such as Heinz von Foerster (1981), Humberto Maturana, and Francisco Varela (1972, 1980, 1984), focuses on self-organization, autonomy, and the system’s capacity to produce and maintain its internal organization through interactions with the environment. Here, the observer is seen as a constitutive part of the system: observation, interpretation, and intervention modify the observed reality. Open systems (such as organizations or human groups) are viewed as living entities endowed with internal processes of self-regulation, learning, and adaptation, where feedback not only maintains balance but can also drive transformation and emergent change. Maturana and Varela, in particular, introduce the concept of autopoiesis, where living systems are characterized by their ability to continuously produce and reproduce their components and organizational structure in a process closed on itself but open to energy and information flows with the environment. This view aligns with Edgar Morin’s complexity thinking, emphasizing that complex systems are self-organizing, historical, and recursive, with circular causality and emergence as inherent features (Morin 1990, 2004).

Applied metaphorically to informational and social systems, entropy in physics is associated with the degree of disorder in a system: the greater the entropy, the less ordered and more chaotic the system. Wiener (1950) adopted this concept in social studies, warning that without effective communication mechanisms, organizations tend toward disorder. Similarly, Claude Shannon (1948), in his mathematical theory of communication, used the notion of entropy to quantify uncertainty in information: a message with high entropy is unpredictable, containing much “informational disorder.” In organizations, entropy can be interpreted as internal disorganization, lack of structure, or clarity in information and processes. For example, an organization with poorly defined roles, deficient communication, and unclear priorities presents high organizational entropy, manifested in conflicts, duplication of tasks, or inconsistent decisions.

Successful organizations must combat internal entropy through communication (to align information and expectations) and feedback (to correct deviations). Wiener (1950) stated that effective communication acts as the negation of entropy, generating order from chaos by coordinating actions. SOC function as a mechanism for reducing entropy: by making explicit hidden dynamics and latent conflicts, they provide structured information about what was previously chaotic or tacit. During a constellation, the initial disorder (e.g., confusion about why a team is underperforming) is transformed into useful information as patterns are revealed (such as conflicting loyalties or lack of recognition) and new, more harmonious configurations are tested. Thus, SOC act as a cybernetic tool by introducing visual and emotional feedback into the system: participants see the effects of changes in real-time and can adjust perceptions and decisions accordingly.

Additionally, the cybernetic vision combined with systems theory introduces the concept of homeostasis or the search for equilibrium. All organizations tend toward internal equilibrium; however, during change processes, this equilibrium is disrupted, generating tensions (increased entropy). Constellations enable the identification of where balance is broken (which part of the system is “out of place” or under tension) and the exploration of interventions to restore it more functionally. Cybernetics and the conscious management of entropy provide SOC with a foundation for understanding change as a process of system readjustment toward a new, more stable, and coherent configuration.

Information and Organization: From Chaos to Knowledge

In an organizational system, information plays a dual role: on one hand, it is necessary to reduce uncertainty (Shannon 1949), and on the other, its correct organization leads to more effective structures. Claude Shannon (1949) established that information is what reduces uncertainty about a state of affairs; in terms of entropy, information acts as negentropy, reducing disorder by bringing order. For organizations, this means that having clear and relevant information about internal processes reduces the “noise” or confusion in decision-making. George A. Miller (1956), from cognitive psychology, showed the limits of the human mind in processing information (famously, the “magical number seven, ± 2” manageable items at once). This suggests that both individuals and organizations face cognitive constraints in managing complexity: if information is not synthesized and properly organized, it overwhelms processing capacity, leading to errors or decision paralysis. Therefore, tools that structure information visually and experientially, such as SOC, can facilitate understanding by translating large amounts of tacit data into more assimilable images and sensations.

The relationship between information and organization can be understood through two complementary transitions. First, when a system organizes its information, it converts disorder into actionable knowledge. That is, it transitions from high entropy (scattered data, disconnected facts) to lower entropy by integrating information into a coherent framework. This process is described as a transition from negative entropy to knowledge: well-structured information allows understanding of the system’s internal dynamics. Second, there is the reciprocal transition: acquired knowledge is translated into increased effective organization of the system. This means that as an organization learns about itself (for example, by discovering the root causes of a conflict through a constellation), it can restructure or adjust its rules and relationships, reducing initial chaos. In other words, useful information leads to organizational action that restores order.

In SOC, both transitions are evident. At the start of a constellation, participants collect and exchange information about the problematic situation (context, actors, symptoms), which may initially seem chaotic or confusing. Through the constellation’s development, that information is visualized and reorganized: the insights obtained (such as “department X feels isolated” or “there is unresolved tension between strategy and corporate culture”) represent new knowledge that reduces uncertainty about what is really happening. Based on this knowledge, the organization can take measures (redefining roles, improving communication channels, reconciling objectives) injecting order into the system. In Shannon and Wiener’s terms, there is a net gain of useful information to reduce organizational entropy. The close relationship between information and organization also manifests in organizational learning: constellations foster collective learning about the organization, and when that learning translates into structural or behavioral changes, the organization as a whole becomes more resilient and adaptive.

Phenomenological Approach in SOC

In this paper, “phenomenological” is used in an epistemological–practical sense: a disciplined orientation of attention to what shows up in lived experience and intersubjective interaction, prior to premature theorization. Following Husserl’s foundational intuition that phenomenology investigates phenomena as they appear to consciousness (Husserl 1913), SOC facilitation invites participants to suspend habitual explanations and to attend to emerging relational configurations, embodied cues, and meaning-making in situ. This does not imply therapy: it specifies an inquiry stance that supports sensemaking and problem structuring in organizational settings (Merleau-Ponty 1962; Varela et al. 1991).

The contribution of phenomenology to SOC is crucial for addressing hidden dynamics. Instead of imposing a theoretical interpretation of what is happening in the organization, the constellation lets the represented relationships “speak.” The representatives, when placed in space and connected to their role, report sensations, emotions, or impulses (e.g., “I feel distant from that element,” “I feel a lot of pressure from this direction”). These subjective phenomena provide clues about the realities not visible in the actual organization. The consultant or facilitator, trained phenomenologically, listens and observes without judgment, and only afterward proposes hypotheses or movements to further explore. This explanatory-argumentative yet experience-based approach ensures that emerging solutions are not merely intellectual but have an experiential anchor for the participants. For example, a leader who in a constellation physically experiences the isolation of a remote team will hardly forget that impression upon returning to daily reality and will be more willing to change their communication or leadership style with that team.

In summary, the phenomenological approach ensures that SOC do not remain at an abstract level but are able to capture the lived reality of the organization. Combined with the theoretical scaffolding of systems, complexity, cybernetics, and information, it provides a solid yet human foundation for managing change.

Social Constructivism and Organizational Learning

In practice, Karl E. Weick (1979) illuminates how individuals in an organization interpret their environment through a process of generation and regeneration of organizational meanings, emphasizing organizational learning as a social process. This highlights the importance of language and interactions in forming perceptions within the organization (Birkenkrahe 2008).

Integrating social constructivism with systemic thinking, as supported by Ludwig von Bertalanffy and Peter Senge, broadens this view by recognizing the interconnectedness and interdependence of systems. This perspective suggests that open systems, such as organizations, interact with their environment in a continuous process of learning and adaptation, where systemic dynamics are key to change and innovation (Bertalanffy 1968; Senge 1990).

The approach of Camargo-Borges and Rasera (2013) on dialogue, imagination, and co-creation as tools for organizational transformation aligns with this vision, proposing that knowledge is a collective construction emerging from social relationships. Similarly, Campbell (2019) highlights how organizations are formed and reformed through interaction, pointing out the importance of ongoing conversations in the process of change.

Edgar Morin’s Complexity Thinking

Edgar Morin’s theory of complexity offers an innovative perspective for understanding and managing the internal and external dynamics influencing organizations. This approach recognizes organizations as complex systems, endowed with adaptability, emergent properties, self-organization, and intrinsic order, with significant interactions between their components and the constant presence of change (Morin 1990).

Morin introduces fundamental principles such as self-organization, recursivity, hologrammaticity, dialogic, and the reintroduction of the subject into epistemology. The principle of self-organization suggests that organizations can generate new structures and behaviors from their own internal dynamics, without the need for centralized direction. Recursivity implies that the products and effects of a process are reintroduced into the process as producers. Hologrammaticity indicates that not only is the part in the whole, but the whole is in the part. Dialogic emphasizes the coexistence of antagonistic and complementary principles (order/disorder, stability/instability), favoring the management of complexity and uncertainty.

SOC and Morin’s complexity thinking share several fundamental principles: interdependence, feedback, self-organization, and recursivity. Both approaches recognize that the organizational system cannot be understood simply by analyzing its individual components, as the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and any change in one affects the others and the system as a whole (Morin 2004).

Integrating complexity thinking allows SOC to address the complexity of organizational life holistically and multidimensionally, facilitating the identification of adaptive solutions and promoting self-organization within organizations. In this way, the systemic approach of SOC is closely aligned with the epistemological and methodological framework proposed by Morin for managing complex systems.

Jean-Louis Le Moigne: Modeling Complex Systems and Systemic Epistemology

Jean-Louis Le Moigne has been one of the key authors in the development of the epistemology of complex systems and teleological modeling. His work on modeling complex systems (“modélisation de systèmes complexes”) introduces the need to build models that allow understanding, anticipating, and guiding the evolution of complex organizational systems. For Le Moigne (1990, 1995), models must be teleological, i.e., oriented toward the system’s purposes and goals, not merely descriptive. This perspective complements general systems theory and Morin’s thinking by emphasizing the importance of meaning, purpose, and intentionality in designing, diagnosing, and managing organizations.

Le Moigne (1990, 1995) insists that teleological modeling must consider both structure (system elements and relationships), functions (what the system does), and goals (why the system exists or transforms). Thus, systemic modeling in SOC is not a mere static description but a heuristic, dynamic, and open process that integrates the intentionality of actors and the adaptability of human systems.

Le Moigne’s contribution is essential for SOC because it theoretically justifies the symbolic and phenomenological representation of organizational elements. The constellation is, in itself, a living teleological modeling, exploring possible future states, identifying desirable goals, and experimenting with alternative configurations to guide organizational transformation. Moreover, Le Moigne highlights the importance of systemography, i.e., the graphical representation of complex systems to facilitate collective understanding and decision-making (Le Moigne 1990).

Regarding isomorphism, Le Moigne uses it as a principle of analogy and transposition, enabling the transfer of structures, patterns, or relationships between different but analogous systems at the level of their interactions. Thus, the SOC methodology benefits from this principle by representing and exploring in a symbolic space the dynamics present in the real system, providing an operational and understandable model for participants.

Finally, Le Moigne’s work connects systemic epistemology with the practice of modeling, providing an epistemological rationale for treating SOC as a heuristic for supporting diagnosis and informing change in organizations from a complex, intentional, and collaborative perspective.

Integrative Synthesis and Theoretical Development of SOC

SOC’s epistemology integrates the presented approaches: general systems theory, cybernetics, information theory, complexity thinking, phenomenology, social constructivism, and teleological modeling. This synthesis allows SOC to be conceived as a multidimensional and multifaceted methodology for reducing complexity, deep diagnosis, and adaptive management of organizational change.

The theoretical development of SOC articulates the following key principles:

Systemic interdependence: Each element of the organizational system influences and is recursively influenced by the others, and understanding hidden dynamics requires a global and relational vision.

Circular causality and feedback: Organizations function through feedback loops, where actions generate effects that are reintroduced into the system and transform it. The constellation allows for real-time visualization and experience of these loops.

Entropy, order, and organizational learning: The constellation acts as a mechanism for reducing organizational entropy, transforming disorder (uncertainty, conflict, tacit information) into order and explicit knowledge. This process promotes collective learning and adaptability.

Self-organization and emergence: Inspired by complexity thinking and cybernetics, SOC facilitate the emergence of new organizational configurations, not prescribed a priori, but collaboratively built according to the needs, objectives, and tensions identified.

Phenomenology and lived experience: The phenomenological method ensures that diagnosis and emerging solutions have an experiential, lived anchor shared by organizational actors, overcoming theoretical abstraction.

Teleological modeling and systemic heuristics: Following Le Moigne, SOC are conceived as goal-oriented, open, adaptive, and generative models capable of simulating future scenarios and facilitating strategic decision-making in complex and uncertain environments.

Overall, SOC can be understood as an epistemological synthesis, integrating systemic vision, complexity, phenomenology, and teleology into a practical and human approach for exploring and supporting organizational change.

The integration of these theoretical perspectives is synthesized in Fig. 1, which visually represents the epistemological framework underpinning SOC as an emerging soft methodology for organizational complexity reduction and change.

This figure visually synthesizes the core theoretical foundations of SOC, highlighting the convergence of General Systems Theory (interdependence), Complexity Theory (emergence), Cybernetics (feedback and regulation), Phenomenology (lived experience), Social Constructivism (collective meaning), and Teleological Modeling (purpose orientation). The bidirectional arrows represent the dynamic integration of these epistemological strands within the SOC methodology, providing a multidimensional and adaptive approach to organizational complexity and change.

Methodology of Systemic Organizational Constellations

In this manuscript, we distinguish between “tool”, “method”, and “methodology”. The term “tool” refers to the concrete constellation set-up (spatial configuration and facilitation techniques). “Method” denotes a structured procedure that can be repeated and reported. “Methodology” denotes the broader rationale that links epistemological assumptions, procedural steps, and criteria of quality and validity.

We propose that SOC can be understood as an emerging soft methodology whose procedural core can be described as a five-phase cycle. These phases should not be read as rigid steps, but as a learning loop in which the system is framed, externalized, explored through feedback, interpreted abductively, and translated into prudent reconfiguration and action.

To clarify why these phases matter, we show how each phase operationalizes a specific strand of the epistemological argument developed above. Phase 1 (contracting and boundary setting) enacts boundary critique and purpose–stakeholder clarification typical of systemic intervention and PSM practice (Midgley 2000). Phase 2 (externalizing the issue into a constellation) operationalizes constructivist modelling and sensemaking-as-enactment by making implicit assumptions visible in a shared representational space (von Glasersfeld 1984; Weick 1995). Phase 3 (iterative repositioning and feedback) implements cybernetic learning loops (variation, feedback, and stabilization) across participants’ observations (Wiener 1948; von Foerster 1981). Phase 4 (phenomenological reading and shared interpretation) mobilizes disciplined attention to what appears (Husserl 1913; Merleau-Ponty 1962) and abductive inference to form plausible hypotheses (Peirce 1931–1958). Phase 5 (tasking and commitment) translates insights into minimal viable action and follow-up, aligning with teleological modelling and double-loop learning (Le Moigne 1990; Argyris and Schön 1978).

Phase 1: System framing and boundary definition (the contract)

The first phase consists of framing the problematic situation and defining the system boundaries to be worked with. This includes clarifying the purpose of the session, the client’s question, the level of analysis (team, department, organization, ecosystem), and the minimum criterion of success for the work. This framing is also an explicit contract about what the session is (and is not): an organizational sensemaking intervention rather than therapy, coaching, or adjudication.

Boundary decisions are critical in complex situations because they shape what can become visible. Following boundary critique and systems practice, facilitators and clients should explicitly justify inclusions and exclusions (Midgley 2000; Midgley et al. 2013). In SOC, this boundary work also sets the stage for what will be represented spatially in the next phase.

Typical outputs of Phase 1 are: a clear working question, a defined set of elements to include, and agreed facilitation rules (confidentiality, non-judgement, right to pass, and the status of phenomenological feedback). These elements enable a shared frame and reduce interpretive ambiguity later in the process.

Phase 2: Spatial externalization and topography (the mapping)

In Phase 2, the client externalizes the system by placing representatives (people) or objects for the selected elements in the space. This produces an initial “map” whose topography (distances, orientations, exclusions, and clusters) constitutes the first visible representation of the relational pattern.

The mapping is not assumed to be a faithful representation of “reality” in a positivist sense. Rather, it is treated as a provisional model that can be interrogated through feedback and iteration. As in other PSM, the aim is problem structuring: making a complex situation discussable and actionable through a shared representation (Rosenhead and Mingers 2001).

A methodological requirement at this stage is to document the initial map (photo or schematic) and to record the system boundary choices and placement instructions. This supports traceability and later reflection on how the model was produced.

Phase 3: Phenomenological feedback and simulation (the dynamics)

In Phase 3, representatives report phenomenological cues (bodily sensations, emotions, impulses, perceived tensions) and relational orientations experienced in the configuration. The facilitator treats these reports as data of experience rather than as literal facts about the organization.

Based on this feedback, the facilitator may conduct “trial moves” (e.g., changing distance, orientation, introducing or removing an element) to explore how the relational field responds. This iterative simulation resembles a cybernetic loop: perturbation, feedback, and adjustment, oriented toward identifying viable configurations (Ashby 1956; Beer 1972). When conducted rigorously, the loop supports learning about constraints, tensions, and stabilizing patterns.

Traceability is crucial: facilitators should record the sequence of interventions, the reasons for moves, and the observed effects. This makes visible the interaction between the artefact (the configuration) and the facilitation choices that shape the exploration.

Phase 4: Pattern recognition and abductive insight (the diagnosis)

Phase 4 consists of interpreting the emerging configuration and feedback in order to propose plausible patterns that structure the problematic situation. Given the complexity and the non-linear character of organizational dynamics, the inferential logic is best understood as abductive: generating the most plausible explanation for the observed pattern, while remaining open to alternatives (Peirce 1931–1958; Alvesson and Kärreman 2007).

Abductive hypotheses in SOC should be treated as provisional and contestable. They gain credibility not through claims of representational accuracy, but through coherence with the observed pattern, resonance with participants’ experience, and usefulness for guiding action and further inquiry (Weick 1995).

Methodologically, Phase 4 requires explicit distinction between (i) phenomenological observations reported in the session and (ii) interpretive inferences offered by the facilitator or participants. This distinction reduces over-interpretation and supports more defensible reporting.

Phase 5: Reconfiguration and viable adjustment (toward a prudent resolution)

In Phase 5, the constellation is reconfigured to explore viable adjustments that can support action. The aim is not to produce an “optimal solution”, but to identify a configuration that is workable, ethically acceptable, and politically feasible in line with the logic of soft methodologies and wicked problem settings (Rittel and Webber 1973; Rosenhead and Mingers 2001).

The reconfiguration can involve acknowledging constraints (e.g., mandates, power asymmetries, boundary conditions), introducing missing elements (e.g., an explicit contract, a decision authority, a key stakeholder), or changing relational orientations. The facilitator supports the translation from spatial viability to organizational action by articulating minimum viable actions, responsibilities, and follow-up conditions. (Figure 2)

The reportable minimal unit of output is: (a) the final map (spatial configuration), (b) the consensual abductive hypotheses about patterns, and (c) the agreed minimum viable actions. To strengthen the audit trail, we recommend attaching a visual record (photo or sketch), a list of included/excluded elements, and an explicit note distinguishing phenomenological observations from facilitator interpretations (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Midgley et al. 2013).

Quality criteria, traceability, and reporting (for research and practice)

To enable SOC to contribute to scientific dialogue, the methodology requires explicit quality criteria. We propose three core criteria: (1) “process transparency” (clear framing, boundary choices, and facilitation rules); (2) “interpretive traceability” (audit trail that documents maps, moves, and inferences); and (3) “pragmatic usefulness” (translation into actions and subsequent evaluation of their effects).

Because SOC involve embodied and interpretive data, the primary validity claim is not statistical generalization, but trustworthiness: credibility, dependability, and confirmability through documentation, reflexivity, and triangulation of perspectives (Lincoln and Guba 1985). Follow-up and evaluation of enacted actions are necessary to avoid treating the session as an end in itself.

Minimum Reporting Standard (MRS) for SOC sessions

To facilitate comparability across interventions, cumulative learning, and evaluation, we propose a Minimum Reporting Standard (MRS). The standard is not intended to standardize the experience, but to ensure sufficient traceability to distinguish (i) what was observed during the constellation and (ii) the interpretive inferences and facilitation decisions derived from it.

Context and purpose: problematic situation, objective, minimum success criterion.

System boundaries: what is inside/outside and the rationale for inclusion/exclusion.

Included elements: actors/units/concepts and selection criteria.

Externalization rule: who places and under what instruction (individual/group; objects/people).

Initial map: visual record and brief topographic description (distances, orientations, exclusions).

Phenomenological cues: reported observations, distinguishing phenomenological data from interpretation.

Interventions and iterations: trial moves, sequence, and observed effects.

Abductive hypotheses: proposed patterns, alternatives considered, and rationale for choice.

Final map: visual record, key differences from the initial map, and configuration considered viable.

Translation into action: minimum viable actions, responsible parties, time horizon, and follow-up conditions.

In this manuscript, terms such as “entropy”, “homeostasis”, or “attractor” are used as analytical metaphors to describe (a) the experience of disorder/ambiguity and (b) the search for more stable or functional relational patterns. No equivalence with physical magnitudes is claimed, nor is mathematical quantification derived. This delimitation aims to prevent over-interpretation and to remain coherent with the conceptual and emergent status of the available evidence.

Expected Results and Practical Contributions

The methodology of Systemic Organizational Constellations (SOC), by intervening in both visible and latent dimensions of the organization, can plausibly generate benefits that may extend beyond the scope of traditional analytical interventions, which often focus on structural symptoms. These are expected contributions inferred from plausible mechanisms and case-based reports; they remain to be tested through comparative and longitudinal designs. Below, the main expected results and the implications each brings to the academic-professional debate are summarized:

In-depth Diagnosis of Conflicts and Dysfunctional Patterns

One of the immediate contributions of SOC application is a potentially more actionable diagnosis of organizational conflicts. Constellations reveal dysfunctional patterns that may go unnoticed in a conventional rational analysis. For example, they may bring to light that an apparent conflict between two areas is actually a symptom of a larger systemic problem (such as the absence of a clear process linking their tasks or a cultural tension between organizational visions). By making informal relationships and hidden loyalties visible, SOC allows the organization to understand why certain problems persist despite attempted solutions. This systemic diagnosis is valuable for then directing change efforts in the right direction.

Furthermore, by involving organization members in the constellation (either as representatives or observers), SOC may generate a shared awareness of underlying issues. Participants can see a “map” of the situation and identify where bottlenecks or tensions appear to concentrate. This can facilitate an initial working consensus on the nature of the problem and may reduce denial or misunderstandings that often hinder improvement processes. In management terms, such a diagnosis may help focus change resources on leverage points rather than on appearances.

Enhancement of Adaptive Capacity and Organizational Learning

Another potential contribution of SOC is strengthening the organization’s adaptability. By engaging in a systemic and experiential exercise, the organization (or team) practices collective reflection and learning about itself. Constellations can function as a microcosm where members experiment with changes and observe their immediate effects, which may foster a more flexible mindset. This may translate into greater openness to change and a clearer understanding of the need to adjust to one another after a constellation. Resistance may be reduced when participants have personally experienced how a change in position or orientation can alter the perceived situation.

The literature on organizational change emphasizes that active participation and understanding the “why” of change increase commitment to implementation (Kotter 1996; Senge 1990). SOC provides precisely this systemic understanding that nurtures a change in mindset. Additionally, by discovering interdependencies, teams develop the ability to think more broadly (systems thinking), considering second- and third-order consequences of decisions. This is essential in complex environments where continuous adaptation is the norm.

SOC may also contribute to developing more “systemically intelligent” organizations by cultivating collective attention to relational patterns and subtle signals from the internal and external environment. In some cases, the shared experience of a constellation can strengthen bonds among participants, foster trust, and reinforce collaborative networks, which may improve the ability to respond in a coordinated way to future challenges.

Therefore, SOC not only enhances adaptability and organizational learning but invites organizations to question the basic assumptions guiding their functioning and their way of approaching change. At this point, it becomes necessary to go beyond operational or first-order learning to explore how the very logics of analysis and intervention can evolve. Thus arises the need to surpass traditional thinking centered on linear causality and binarism, advancing toward a deeper understanding of the purposes, meanings, and effects of organizational interventions.

4.3 From “Why” to “What For”: Foundations of Second-Order Cybernetics, Second-Order Learning, and Meta-Learning in Systemic Intervention.

This discussion highlights the need for organizations in complex environments to transcend traditional analytical frameworks based on linear causality, binary thinking, and unequivocal explanations (Morin 2004; Le Moigne 1990). In this sense, Systemic Organizational Constellations (SOC) represent a substantial methodological advancement, as they allow visualization and transformation of relational dynamics that can rarely be addressed by linear or dichotomous approaches (Weber 2000; Scholtens et al. 2023a). However, the profound foundation of this change lies in an epistemological transition that can be understood in light of the contributions of second-order cybernetics (von Foerster 1981) and the concept of second-order learning (Bateson 1972).

From Linear Causality to Teleological Thinking: An Epistemological Surpassing.

In traditional science and many conventional management approaches, the logic of “why” prevails: explanations of phenomena are sought in past causes, expecting to isolate variables and optimize processes under a deterministic and binary logic. However, organizational systems present emergent properties, multicausality, and continuous feedback, requiring intervention models that overcome this reductionism. As already noted, soft methodologies, particularly SOC, shift the focus to “what for,” that is, to the exploration of the aims, purposes, and effects generated by interventions.

Heinz von Foerster’s Second-Order Cybernetics: Inclusion of the Observer, Autology, and Self-Organization

The epistemological turn enabling this transition finds one of its pillars in the work of Heinz von Foerster, especially in his development of second-order cybernetics (von Foerster 1974, 1981, 2003). Unlike first-order cybernetics (centered on observing systems from a supposed external objectivity) second-order cybernetics introduces the principle of the observer’s inclusion in the system: every intervention simultaneously transforms the intervened system and the observer-intervenor (von Foerster 1981).

Von Foerster formulates the concept of autology to describe the system’s ability to observe, describe, and transform itself through its own reflection (von Foerster 1974, 1981). Thus, the organization ceases to be merely an object of analysis and becomes a reflective subject, capable of constructing meaning and self-modifying as a result of its internal interactions and learning (von Foerster 2003). Furthermore, self-organization, another pillar of second-order cybernetics, describes the capacity of living and social systems to generate new structures or configurations from the interaction of their components, without the need for centralized external control (von Foerster 1981; von Glasersfeld 1984). In the context of SOC, this property translates into the emergence of novel and adaptive solutions, resulting from collective experimentation during the constellation.

This principle materializes in SOC, where diagnosis and solution emerge from co-construction between facilitator and participants, not from the application of predefined models. The value of the intervention thus lies in its transformative effects on the organization and on the actors involved (Scholtens et al. 2023a; Weber 2000).

Gregory Bateson’s Second-Order Learning and Logic of Effects

In the same vein, Gregory Bateson distinguishes between first-order learning (changes within a given operational framework) and second-order learning (changes in the very framework or reference paradigm). Second-order learning requires the organization, or its members, to be capable of questioning their own assumptions, beliefs, and relational patterns, opening the space for profound and sustained transformation (Bateson 1972, 1979).

In SOC, this distinction is fundamental. The intervention does not seek merely to modify behaviors or resolve operational problems (first order), but to facilitate the emergence of a new collective understanding of the patterns, roles, and relationships structuring organizational life. The focus shifts from causal analysis to teleological exploration, especially considering the effects produced by actions in the system. This logic of effects constitutes an essential epistemological paradigm shift for change management in complex systems.

Consequently, the evaluation of a SOC-based intervention should not be limited to the punctual resolution of a problem but must especially address the emerging effects: collective learning, transformation of assumptions, reconfiguration of relationships, and opening to new possible futures for the organization.

SOC as “Learning to Learn”: Organizational Meta-Learning and Deutero-Learning

In this way, SOC can also be understood as an advanced exercise in learning to learn. Beyond solving immediate operational problems, the organization, through the constellation, develops meta-reflexive capacities: it observes and questions its own learning patterns, explores new collective possibilities, and builds competencies to adapt to changing contexts. Thus, SOC not only facilitate organizational learning but also promote the transformation of learning processes and structures themselves, becoming a laboratory for deutero-learning. This meta-learning dimension is key for organizations aspiring to resilience and sustainability in complex environments, as it enables the cultivation of emergent collective intelligence capable of responding creatively to unprecedented challenges (Argyris and Schön 1978).

In this sense, SOC do not merely identify causes or propose specific solutions but activate deep processes of questioning, renewal, and evolution of organizational learning, becoming a strategic tool for adaptive change management.

Implications for SOC, Soft Methodologies, and Soft Systems

The integration of second-order cybernetics and second-order learning into the SOC framework justifies the shift from causal explanation (“why”) to teleological exploration (“what for”) and the evaluation of the emergent effects of intervention. Thus, SOC are consolidated as a methodology capable of catalyzing processes of reflexivity, self-organization, and deep learning, in line with the contemporary agenda of complexity management and research-intervention.

Rather than claiming a fully established “new method,” we argue that SOC can be framed as an emerging, practice-based soft methodology: it adapts and extends established problem structuring traditions by adding an embodied, experiential mode of inquiry that makes tacit relational patterns discussable and actionable. In this sense, SOC is positioned as a complementary contribution within the family of soft systems and PSM approaches, with its legitimacy depending on transparent reporting, comparative studies, and cumulative empirical validation.

Development of Systemic Leadership Strategies

A further expected result of applying SOC, especially relevant for those in management positions, is the reconceptualization of leadership from a systemic perspective. Leaders who participate in constellations gain a kind of “panoramic view” of the organization that is difficult to achieve with traditional reports or meetings. This systemic insight helps them formulate more comprehensive change strategies and avoid simplistic solutions that do not take hidden connections into account.

For example, a manager might realize that a problem of low performance is not solved simply by replacing staff or investing in technology, but by attending to the quality of interdepartmental relationships or to the alignment of all with the corporate vision. In other words, effective leadership in complex contexts involves seeing the whole network and acting accordingly. SOC train leaders in this kind of vision.

As George A. Miller (1956) points out, there are limits to the amount of information an individual can process simultaneously; however, by externalizing information in a constellation, the leader can partially overcome this cognitive limitation and perceive patterns that were previously out of their range of attention. Thus, subsequent strategic decisions are better informed systemically.

Additionally, a leader who adopts a systemic approach will tend to encourage transversal communication, continuous feedback, and participation, understanding that every member and every voice influences the overall outcome. This can lead to more collaborative and adaptive leadership styles, in line with contemporary proposals for leadership in complex systems (Uhl-Bien and Marion 2009).

In practice, after a SOC, it is expected that leaders will promote actions such as: establishing channels for inter-unit dialogue, redesigning incentives to align them with common objectives, or even revising the organizational structure to reflect the necessary connections discovered. All this results in more effective change management, since strategies are no longer designed from a managerial silo, but consider the real pulse of the organizational system.

Together, these results—deep diagnosis, greater adaptive capacity, and systemic leadership—contribute to an organization that is better prepared to evolve in uncertain environments. It should be noted that empirical evidence on SOC, while still emerging, includes case-based and practice-oriented reports suggesting perceived improvements in work climate, conflict resolution, and strategic alignment following constellation interventions (Groth 2004; Macharis 2025; Scholtens et al. 2021, 2023b; Perazzoli et al. 2022). However, it is important to recognize that SOC are a tool, and their success also depends on how the findings are integrated into sustained change processes. The methodology does not replace other good management practices but rather complements them by providing a systemic diagnosis and a humanistic impulse for change.

Positioning SOC within Problem Structuring Methods (PSM)

To sustain the status of SOC as a soft methodology, it is essential to position them explicitly within the tradition of Problem Structuring Methods (PSM), developed for contexts of complexity, uncertainty, and conflict (Rosenhead and Mingers 2001; Mingers and Rosenhead 2004). In particular, comparison with Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is central for SPAR readers (Checkland 1981, 1999; Checkland and Scholes 1990).

Convergence with soft methodology criteria

SOC share several assumptions with PSM: (a) multivocality—the idea that organizational problems are socially constructed and involve multiple perspectives; (b) the priority of structuring over optimal solution; and (c) the centrality of facilitated dialogue and social learning (Checkland 1981; Rosenhead and Mingers 2001).

In addition, SOC can be aligned with PSM evaluation frameworks that emphasize process transparency, participation, handling of power, and reflexivity (Midgley et al. 2013).

Differential contribution: from cognitive-discursive structuring to embodied structuring

The most plausible novelty of SOC, relative to discursive methods such as SSM, does not lie in “inventing” the idea of problem structuring, but in *how* structuring is produced: SOC introduce a spatial and embodied dimension that can operate as a carrier of tacit knowledge (Merleau-Ponty 1962 [1945]; Varela et al. 1991).

In SSM, structuring relies on conversation, rich pictures, and conceptual models. In SOC, the spatial configuration makes the relational pattern immediately visible. Where a workshop may debate a “lack of communication”, a SOC may show two units literally facing away from each other; this shift can facilitate insight without requiring prior articulation.

Interpreted as situated sensemaking artefacts, SOC approximate an experiential structuring methodology: the “object” is not a diagram but a spatial scene that enables enactment and reflection (Weick 1995; Suchman 1987; Orlikowski 2002).

Boundary conditions of use. SOC are particularly useful in situations characterized by high ambiguity or equivocality, multiple stakeholder perspectives, tacit relational tensions, and limited progress through purely discursive forms of problem structuring. These situations often approximate what the literature describes as ill-structured or wicked problems, that is, situations in which problem definition is unstable, perspectives are plural, and attempts at resolution tend to reconfigure the problem itself rather than close it definitively. Their added value is strongest when relevant dynamics remain difficult to articulate verbally, when the issue involves blocked coordination, repetitive patterns that are difficult to explain through conventional rational analysis alone, exclusion, misalignment, or contested meaning, and when a shared intermediate object is needed to rapidly mobilize collective understanding. By contrast, SOC are less suitable for problems that are primarily technical, quantifiable, already well structured, or mainly require formal causal proof. Their applicability is also reduced in contexts where hierarchical dynamics may inhibit embodied participation, or when participants are unwilling to engage with experiential methodologies. Finally, their use depends on explicit organizational contracting, facilitation competence, sufficient psychological safety, and follow-up conditions that allow insights to be translated into minimum viable action rather than remaining at the level of experiential impression.

Illustrative vignette (composite, non-empirical; see published examples below).

In a public organization, top management perceives a “blockage” in a cross-cutting innovation program. In an SSM workshop, the team produces a rich picture and lists barriers (“lack of coordination”, “resistance”), but the discussion polarizes into arguments and linear explanations. In a SOC session, the client defines the system boundary (Phase 1) and includes three organizational units and the “program” as an element. During externalization (Phase 2), two units are oriented toward the program, while a third is physically separated and turned away. In the feedback loop (Phase 3), representatives report tension and lack of legitimacy in the isolated element. After trial moves (gradual rapprochement, change of orientation, introduction of an explicit “contract”), an abductive hypothesis emerges (Phase 4): the program is experienced as an imposition without a clear agreement on contribution for a key unit. The reconfiguration (Phase 5) does not yield an optimal solution, but a viable configuration: redefining the program’s contract, clarifying roles, and establishing a small monthly feedback circuit. The resulting situated artefact (final map + hypothesis + minimum viable actions) becomes a shared object for coordinating conversations and sustaining follow-up.

Published SOC applications report similar benefits—particularly when problems involve multiple interdependencies, contested meanings, and tacit relational dynamics. Examples include early organizational applications (Groth 2004; Birkenkrahe 2008), action-research uses for complex social issues (Borek 2011), empirical and team-development studies (Finckh and Reich 2016; Kolodej et al. 2016), family-business cases (Perazzoli et al. 2022), sustainability transition explorations (Macharis 2025), and recent conceptual and procedural developments in the systemic constellation method (Scholtens et al. 2021, 2023a, b). We use these works not as definitive proof of effectiveness, but as evidence that SOC is already in use and can be examined with SPAR’s standards of transparency and reflexive validation. (Table 1)

We therefore propose to classify SOC as an experiential PSM: they complement the cognitive–discursive rigor of SSM with a phenomenological and embodied pathway for working with emotional tensions, cultural barriers, and tacit resistance to change. This classification is not intended to replace other PSM, but to expand the methodological repertoire in contexts where language is insufficient or politically blocked.

This positioning resonates with SPAR’s recent special issue on “Soft Systems; Theory and Practice”, which revisits the contemporary relevance of SSM and its development trajectories (Stowell 2025; Jackson 2025).

A practical consequence is that quality criteria must be adapted: framing, facilitation rules, interpretive traceability, and mechanisms of reflexive “control” (e.g., triangulation of perspectives, documentation of modeling decisions, and subsequent evaluation of usefulness) need to be made explicit.

Relation to other PSM and added value (brief)

From a methodological pluralism perspective, SOC can be combined with other PSM (e.g., SODA/cognitive mapping, Strategic Choice Approach, or facilitated modeling methods) to build a bridge between embodied externalization and discursive explicitness. In intervention design terms, this enables a progression from (i) a lived relational “topography” to (ii) shared conceptual representations, and finally to (iii) verifiable action commitments. This chaining is consistent with the idea that organizational artefacts mediate knowing-in-practice (Orlikowski 2002) and with the role of boundary objects in coordinating heterogeneous perspectives (Star and Griesemer 1989).

Critical discussion: limits, epistemological challenges, and a legitimacy agenda

Although SOC represent a promising avenue for organizational inquiry and intervention, their academic consolidation requires confronting the challenges that currently limit their scientific legitimacy. In line with the editor’s guidance, we avoid presenting SOC as a fully established method and conceptualize them instead as an emerging soft methodology whose robustness depends on an explicit research agenda.

The phenomenological “black box” and the status of data

A primary epistemological tension lies in the reliance on phenomenological feedback: from positivist positions, the idea that representatives can provide meaningful information about a system they do not know may be interpreted as a “black box”. Even when adopting enactive and embodied frameworks (Varela et al. 1991), the translation between subjective experience and organizational diagnosis requires prudent inference rules.

The situated sensemaking artefact framing offers a partial way forward: it shifts the focus from representational “accuracy” to the plausibility and usefulness of a meaning-making process (Weick 1995). However, this shift must be made explicit to avoid misunderstandings about the type of evidence SOC can and cannot offer.

Standardization, facilitator dependence, and risks of bias

Unlike algorithmic methods, SOC are highly heuristic and depend on facilitator expertise. This introduces inter-facilitator variability, risks of suggestion, confirmation bias, and power effects. Legitimacy therefore requires training standards, reporting protocols, and reflexive practices that make visible the role of the facilitator and the framing (Midgley et al. 2013).

Clarifying the therapeutic lineage: SOC historically evolved in proximity to the family-constellation field, but their organizational use is framed as a problem-structuring and learning intervention rather than as psychotherapy. Accordingly, SOC facilitation is bound by an explicit organizational contract (purpose, roles, confidentiality, and decision rights), avoids clinical diagnosis and trauma-focused exploration, and orients the group toward actionable hypotheses and minimal viable tasks (Scholtens et al. 2023a; Kopp and Martinuzzi 2013). This boundary is not merely rhetorical: it is part of what makes SOC transferable to organizational settings and evaluable within SPAR’s methodological and ethical expectations (Birkenkrahe 2008; Groth 2004).

From a second-order cybernetics perspective, this dependence is not eliminated but can be managed through transparency, self-critique, and mechanisms of social control (von Foerster 1974).

Evidence gap and tension with traditional academic paradigms

The available evidence on SOC largely comes from professional reports and case studies; longitudinal, comparative, and systematic evaluation designs remain scarce. Consequently, claims of “scientific robustness” must be formulated as an agenda rather than as a conclusion. Moreover, there is tension with paradigms that demand linear causality and strict replicability, especially when the focal phenomenon is experiential and context-dependent (Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Legitimacy agenda: proposals for progress

We propose a five-line legitimacy agenda: (1) framing and boundary-setting protocols (Phase 1) to support comparability; (2) reporting criteria for the spatial configuration (Phase 2) as a situated artefact (including modeling decisions); (3) systematic recording of moves and feedback (Phase 3) for traceability; (4) explicit articulation of abductive inferences and alternatives considered (Phase 4); and (5) follow-up on implementation and evaluation of practical usefulness (Phase 5), including unintended effects.

Methodologically, this agenda can be articulated through qualitative triangulation strategies, process auditing (audit trail), and—where relevant—research-intervention and participatory evaluation (Savall and Zardet 2004; Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Toward scientific and professional integration

Integrating SOC within the systemic and action research community requires a methodological language that enables dialogue with PSM/SSM, as well as an explicit epistemological positioning that avoids excessive claims. The notion of SOC as situated sensemaking artefacts can contribute to this integration by connecting SOC to the literature on practice, materiality, and sensemaking, and by offering a conceptual bridge toward quality criteria compatible with SPAR.

Conclusions

This conceptual paper has proposed (a) an epistemological articulation of SOC in dialogue with systems theory, cybernetics, complexity, phenomenology, and constructivism; (b) an explicit five-phase procedural framework interpreted as learning cycles; and (c) an explicit positioning within Problem Structuring Methods, highlighting a differential contribution: embodied structuring through a situated sensemaking artefact.

The proposal does not aim to close the debate on SOC validity, but to move it toward researchable questions: What framing, facilitation, and participation conditions improve the quality of insight? How is the situated artefact translated into sustainable organizational action? In which types of problems do SOC add incremental value relative to other PSM? And what ethical and epistemological limits must be made explicit?

In sum, SOC can be considered a promising, emerging soft methodology whose legitimacy will depend on the development of reporting standards, comparative research, and a middle-range theory of mechanisms and conditions of effectiveness, while maintaining the epistemic humility required to avoid confusing agenda with evidence.