Organisational Development

Organisational development is about far more than structures, processes, and org charts. It is the movement through which an organisation learns to become a next version of itself. DBVP approaches this as a psychodynamic and socio-technical process: shifts in strategy, design, and governance are always accompanied by changes in people, relationships, and in the digital and AI systems that co-shape the work.

At the surface level, you see reorganisations, new governance models, agile or self-organisation, dashboards, and AI solutions. At the same time, something else is moving beneath the surface: existential anxiety (“will we be able to sustain this?”), loss and grief over former certainties, questions of loyalty (“who am I actually loyal to?”), and shifts in power. This undercurrent is often decisive for whether change truly takes root — or is quietly, neatly, and effectively resisted.

AI sharpens this field of tension. New tools effectively redistribute who is allowed to know, who decides, and who sets the pace. Algorithms can make patterns visible, but also rigidify them: who appears in the data, and who falls outside it? What becomes standardised, and what remains human craftsmanship? Organisational development thus becomes inseparably linked to choices about data, models, and ownership of information.

Psychodynamic organisational development therefore means not only improving the “design,” but also engaging in dialogue about the feelings, fantasies, and fears that accompany change and digitalisation. Working systemically means continually keeping the whole in view: roles, teams, leadership, and AI systems together form a single organism, with new boundaries, roles, and dependencies. In this way, this theme invites organisations not to treat AI as an innovation project, but as part of the organisational psyche: a mirror that reveals which logics, values, and blind spots have been cast into code. Organisational development thus becomes transformation from the inside out: reordering people, structure, and technology together — so that the organisation becomes more resilient, more just, and more future-proof.

Interventions

DBVP starts from one conviction: you do not “change” an organisation; you help it develop itself from the inside out. That is why, for us, organisational development is never only a design or implementation question, but always at the same time psychodynamic, systemic, and HUMAN–AI.

In our way of intervening, three lenses work together continuously. Psychodynamically, we look at the undercurrent — fear, loyalty, rivalry, shame, pride — and take seriously that change evokes loss and uncertainty. We do not manage this tension away; we make it discussable and workable, because it contains information about what the organisation is not yet able to carry. At the same time, we take a systemic view of task, roles, boundaries, mandate, and formal and informal power. Interventions therefore do not focus on “behaviour” in isolation, but on the coherence between position, responsibility, decision-making, and collaboration — often in parallel across multiple levels, so that the work carries through into daily practice and does not evaporate after an off-site retreat.

Running through all of this is HUMAN–AI as a socio-technical lens. Data and AI are part of the organisational fabric: they determine who sees, who knows, and who is allowed to decide. Together, we examine which assumptions are built into systems, which voices are missing from the data, and which power shifts digitalisation brings about. We therefore use AI in a dual way: as a tool (for analysis, simulation, and reflection) and as a mirror that reveals which values and blind spots your organisation has left embedded in technology.

Where necessary, we add HUMAN–AI–specific interventions: jointly looking under the hood of systems (assumptions, bias, consequences) and designing explicit agreements about where human judgement remains leading, where systems provide support, and how that combination is accounted for. The same principle always applies: we bring framework, sharpness, and safety; the organisation carries and develops. As a result, change becomes visible in structure, behaviour, culture, and technology — as one coherent process of maturation. Loss (as certainties fall away), loyalties (“who am I actually loyal to?”), and shifts in power are part of this. This undercurrent largely determines whether changes truly take root or are silently sabotaged.

Our interventions generally follow the same movement. We begin with the task: what does this organisation need to develop towards, now, in this field of forces? We directly connect strategic questions to concrete cases — where friction is felt — and design learning and change trajectories in which working and learning coincide: no programme alongside the line, but development within the line. In doing so, we create a holding environment that is safe enough for honesty and sharp enough for real shift. And we keep ownership explicitly with the organisation at all times; DBVP is a guide, mirror, and challenger, not the owner of the solution. In this way, organisational development becomes not the implementation of a blueprint, but a supported process of transformation from the inside out.

Methodically, we work from seeing, interpreting, choosing, and practising in real work. Seeing means that, through conversations with key people, observation of critical meetings, and working with “hot” cases, we jointly sharpen our understanding of reality — including the digital landscape that steers behaviour. Interpreting means formulating hypotheses about patterns in the surface and the undercurrent, about parallel processes and the role of technology, and reflecting these back in conversations that create precision rather than polarisation. Choosing means focusing: where does the movement begin, which interventions truly carry at this moment, and what do we consciously leave aside? Practising means embedding rhythms in the line — pilots with short learning loops, coaching on the job in tense moments, reflective workspaces, and the structural facilitation of both data and meaning-making conversations.

AI intensifies this field of tension. New tools effectively reorganise who is allowed to know, decide, and determine. Algorithms make patterns visible but can also harden them: who counts in the data, and who does not? What becomes standardised, and what remains bespoke? Organisational development thus becomes inseparably linked to choices about data, models, and ownership of information.

Psychodynamic organisational development therefore means not only improving “the design,” but engaging in dialogue about the feelings, fantasies, and fears that accompany change and digitalisation. Taking a systemic perspective means seeing how roles, teams, leadership, and AI systems together form a single whole, with new boundaries, roles, and dependencies.