That is why we do not seek quick fixes, but transformation from the inside out. Not as a slogan, but as a way of working: in leadership, culture, teams, and professional practice. We look psychodynamically and systemically and intervene in the midst of real work — where things become tense, where patterns repeat themselves, where conversations are avoided or escalate, and where decision-making solidifies. It is precisely in this holding environment that something can shift: from reactive to conscious, from control to ownership, from hassle to mature collaboration.

Within that same field of forces, AI takes on a place that cannot be dismissed as merely a “tool.” AI is part of how meaning is made and how influence and decision-making are distributed — sometimes subtly, sometimes brutally visible. It amplifies what is already present: blind spots and sharpness, speed and false certainty, inclusion and exclusion. Those who introduce AI without reading the undercurrent often build an extra layer of rationality on top of old tensions; those who do take it into account can use technology as both a mirror and an accelerator of mature choices.

Our role in this is clear: guide, mirror, and challenger. We walk alongside you, ask questions that are not always comfortable, and help you see the pattern behind the problem — so that you can choose different ways of acting. Ownership always remains with you and your organisation; we strengthen your capacity to see, carry, and steer for yourselves. In my work, I move between different roles depending on the question, the phase, and the field of tension you are in. The core does not change: a sharp view of both the surface and the undercurrent, in a world in which technology plays a full part. If you want to sense what this can look like in your practice, read on.

We see organisations as living systems. Strategy, structure, governance, processes, culture, and digital infrastructure are not separate components, but expressions of what is happening underneath. What becomes visible at the surface — reorganisations, new governance models, leadership programmes, culture initiatives, AI implementations — is always connected to the undercurrent: fear, grief over what is being left behind, the need for control, the desire to belong, and the question of who is allowed to speak and who is not.

That is why we work both psychodynamically and systemically. Psychodynamically: we take the inner logic seriously — defences, projections, transference, and loyalties — that shape behaviour and collaboration. Systemically: we look at the whole — role and mandate, history, the field of forces, governance, and oversight. We never read individual behaviour in isolation from the system in which it arises.

For us, HUMAN–AI is not a separate theme, but a lens that runs through everything. Data and AI increasingly determine who sees what, who is allowed to know what, who decides, and what feels “logical” or “true.” Technology therefore also carries power, norms, and blind spots. That is why we look not only at people and structures, but also at the systems that co-shape pace, conversation, and choices. AI is both a tool and a mirror: what does our technology say about what truly matters here?

Our interventions follow a single movement: seeing, interpreting, choosing, practising. We begin with seeing — in-depth interviews, observation of critical meetings, analysis of the field of forces and the digital landscape, and cases where friction is truly felt. For us, inquiry is never neutral: the very act of questioning already shifts perspective.

We then move to interpreting: we formulate hypotheses about the undercurrent, patterns, and systemic logic, including the role of technology. We reflect these back in conversations with boards, leaders, teams, and professionals — not as an external judgement, but as an invitation to become more precise: what do you recognise, what do you not, and what do we now dare to articulate?

From there, choice emerges: which movement is needed now, and where does it begin — in governance, in the leadership collective, in key teams, or in the primary process? We help sharpen focus: fewer interventions that cut deeply into real work are preferable to a broad array of disconnected activities alongside the line.

Finally, we practise — always in real work. Work conferences centred on real dilemmas. Leadership labs in which the group itself becomes the material. Team sessions focused on concrete conflicts, mistakes, and breakthroughs. Development trajectories linked to tomorrow’s agenda. Sessions in which we jointly look “under the hood” of systems and AI. Short learning loops after tense moments, rather than one-off off-site days.

In all of this work, we take a clear position: guide, mirror, and challenger. We bring language, structure, sharpness, and a holding environment. At the same time, ownership remains where it belongs: with the organisation, the leaders, the teams, and the people themselves. Transformation from the inside out cannot be rolled out; it requires the courage to face yourself and your system — precisely when technology invites acceleration and numbing.

That is the core of DBVP: slowing down together in the right places, so that people, organisation, and AI can move into a next, more mature ordering.

At times, I work as an advisor and analyst, closely with boards, executive teams, or supervisory boards. In that role, I examine what is truly going on: not only what is being said, but especially what is being avoided. I connect structure, roles, and decision-making with the data and AI landscape and with the undercurrent of loyalty, fear, pride, and power. The result is a sharp diagnosis, reflected back in a way that opens the conversation rather than shutting it down.

In other trajectories, I act as a counsellor or executive coach for one or a small number of key individuals. In those cases, coaching and counselling intersect: we work on inner ordering (biography, patterns, moral questions) and on concrete situations of today and tomorrow. I am not a therapist, but an engaged, sharp conversational partner who helps realign role, inner leadership, and context — including the question: what do you leave to systems and AI, and where do you yourself need to remain attentive?

When the pressure for change is higher, my role shifts toward change manager or interventionist. Together with leadership, I design how the movement can take root: which conversations are needed where, which teams will carry it, and which patterns need to be seen first. Not steering through a blueprint, but through a programmatic change logic with rhythm, learning loops, confrontation, and anchoring. I bring structure and coherence; the organisation chooses and carries.

In larger trajectories, I sometimes explicitly take on programme management: not classical project control, but safeguarding the substantive line and the systemic perspective. I prevent fragmentation by connecting interventions: leadership to organisational inquiry, team interventions to strategy, AI projects to culture and ethics. In this way, a single narrative emerges: what is now, what can come later, and what we consciously leave aside.

In addition, I regularly work as an auditor or in a role close to oversight. In that capacity, I assess more sharply and independently: does the way of organising still fit the purpose? Are governance, culture, and technology in balance? Is it psychologically safe and data/AI-mature? With the mandate to probe beneath what lies under reports and presentations.

All these roles come together in a few clear areas of intervention: coaching & counselling (one-to-one and small groups), organisational inquiry & advice (sharpening perception and interpretation together), interventions and programmatic change (designing and guiding the movement at the heart of the work), and leadership programmes (where personal development, system, culture, organisational questions, and the place of AI converge).

We see organisations as living systems. Strategy, structure, governance, processes, culture, and digital infrastructure are not separate components, but expressions of what is happening underneath. What becomes visible at the surface — reorganisations, new governance models, leadership programmes, culture initiatives, AI implementations — is always connected to the undercurrent: fear, grief over what is being left behind, the need for control, the desire to belong, and the question of who is allowed to speak and who is not.

That is why we work both psychodynamically and systemically. Psychodynamically: we take the inner logic seriously — defences, projections, transference, and loyalties — that shape behaviour and collaboration. Systemically: we look at the whole — role and mandate, history, the field of forces, governance, and oversight. We never read individual behaviour in isolation from the system in which it arises.

For us, HUMAN–AI is not a separate theme, but a lens that runs through everything. Data and AI increasingly determine who sees what, who is allowed to know what, who decides, and what feels “logical” or “true.” Technology therefore also carries power, norms, and blind spots. That is why we look not only at people and structures, but also at the systems that co-shape pace, conversation, and choices. AI is both a tool and a mirror: what does our technology say about what truly matters here?

Our interventions follow a single movement: seeing, interpreting, choosing, practising. We begin with seeing — in-depth interviews, observation of critical meetings, analysis of the field of forces and the digital landscape, and cases where friction is truly felt. For us, inquiry is never neutral: the very act of questioning already shifts perspective.

We then move to interpreting: we formulate hypotheses about the undercurrent, patterns, and systemic logic, including the role of technology. We reflect these back in conversations with boards, leaders, teams, and professionals — not as an external judgement, but as an invitation to become more precise: what do you recognise, what do you not, and what do we now dare to articulate?

From there, choice emerges: which movement is needed now, and where does it begin — in governance, in the leadership collective, in key teams, or in the primary process? We help sharpen focus: fewer interventions that cut deeply into real work are preferable to a broad array of disconnected activities alongside the line.

Finally, we practise — always in real work. Work conferences centred on real dilemmas. Leadership labs in which the group itself becomes the material. Team sessions focused on concrete conflicts, mistakes, and breakthroughs. Development trajectories linked to tomorrow’s agenda. Sessions in which we jointly look “under the hood” of systems and AI. Short learning loops after tense moments, rather than one-off off-site days.

In all of this work, we take a clear position: guide, mirror, and challenger. We bring language, structure, sharpness, and a holding environment. At the same time, ownership remains where it belongs: with the organisation, the leaders, the teams, and the people themselves. Transformation from the inside out cannot be rolled out; it requires the courage to face yourself and your system — precisely when technology invites acceleration and numbing.

That is the core of DBVP: slowing down together in the right places, so that people, organisation, and AI can move into a next, more mature ordering.