The undercurrent in organisations: start with what happens
In the meeting, everyone agrees to a new way of working. A week later, work carries on as before. The explanation is already at hand: there is resistance in the undercurrent.
But what actually happened? Did employees know what was expected of them? Were they given time to work differently? Did the manager keep applying old agreements? And was it possible to voice doubt during the meeting?
The term "undercurrent" becomes useful once you connect it to concrete questions like these. If the word itself becomes the explanation, the investigation stops too soon.
What do we mean by undercurrent?
In this article, we use "undercurrent" for expectations, mutual relationships and unwritten agreements that influence the work but are not fully captured in a process description. Think of the expectation that you always call the founder first, even though nothing requires it.
By "surface flow" we mean the visible structure, such as job roles, goals, planning, budget and formal agreements. This distinction is a way of looking, not two separate realities. An unclear assignment can create tension, and an unwritten habit can determine how a formal agreement plays out.
Systemic work is about examining that connection.
Make a pattern observable first
Compare two descriptions. "The team doesn't take responsibility" is a judgement. "In the last three customer proposals, approval was asked from the owner, even though the team stayed within the agreed budget" describes behaviour.
That second description makes a conversation possible. Perhaps the agreements were unclear. Perhaps an earlier independent decision was reversed. Or the proposals actually fell outside the agreed scope of authority. You can now check these possibilities instead of attributing a trait to the whole team.
So start with a recent situation. Who did what? What was agreed? What happened afterwards? What was the effect on the customer or the work?
Examine which agreement supports the behaviour
A pattern can persist because different choices reinforce each other. Suppose an owner asks for initiative but reworks the substance of every proposal. Employees may respond by preparing less independently. That need not be anyone's deliberate strategy.
This is a possible explanation, not a diagnosis. Explore how both parties describe the situation. Who experiences which responsibility? Which decision has genuinely been delegated? Which uncertainty is being absorbed by the current way of working?
Also ask what once made the pattern useful. An extra check may have prevented mistakes in a smaller organisation. The question then is whether that same check still fits the current team and the desired speed.
A constellation can make a research question visible
In an organisational constellation you can give relevant roles, agreements or goals a place. That offers a different way into discussing how those involved experience the situation.
Suppose all the attention in the session goes to the relationship between owner and team. You could ask what role the customer plays in the question. The absence of that role does not prove that the organisation lacks customer focus. It invites you to explore what customer information is used in decision-making.
A constellation can thus help raise a question that has received little attention so far. You then need to investigate the answer further within the organisation.
Try one agreement in practice
A broad conclusion such as "we need more trust" gives little direction. A working agreement can be more concrete: the team decides independently on a certain type of customer proposal, within explicit limits. The owner receives an overview afterwards and discusses exceptions at a fixed moment.
Decide in advance what you want to look at. Are proposals sent out faster? Is it clear when consultation is needed? Are decisions later adjusted anyway? And what do customers notice?
Read more about responsibility and decision-making authority with the founder when this is the core of your question.
Five questions for your next meeting
Take one recurring situation and discuss these questions calmly, without jumping straight to a solution.
- 1.What actually happened, without judging anyone's intent?
- 2.Which formal agreement applied, and which unwritten expectation may have played a part?
- 3.What do we know from observation, and what are we filling in ourselves?
- 4.Which other explanation also fits the facts?
- 5.Which small change can we try, and how will we assess it?
The outcome does not need to be a surprising explanation. An agreement that finally becomes explicit can already be enough to organise the work differently.