Easing Strained Relationships in a Tiny House Community
Written by Julia Felder, Edited by Collective Transitions
SUMMARY: In this practice case, Collective Transitions explored the process for advancing the development of a tiny house community in a densely populated region of western Austria. Through a facilitated systemic constellations approach, we sensed into blockages, which contributed to easing strained relationships among group members and land owners and helped move the project forward.
Several years ago, a group of individuals came together with the intention of founding a tiny house community in a densely populated region of western Austria, where access to land is very restricted due to economic and political dynamics. By the time Collective Transitions was engaged in the process, the project had entered the stage of preparing the manifestation of the vision, settling on the core member group and negotiating with land owners on a project location. The case giver (the woman who brought the case to Collective Transitions) was the initiator of the tiny house project and played a central role in the case.
What we did
Collective Transitions facilitated two two-hour sessions, about six months apart. The first was a one-on-one session with the case giver, and the second a practice space gathering involving the case giver and other trainees. The purpose was to better understand the barriers the project faced. We used a systems sensing approach known as systemic constellations, which builds on systems thinking and system mapping by including the “felt senses,” to provide additional inputs and other ways of knowing to explore and better understand barriers and underlying dynamics at play. By including the embodied senses, we have a wider range of information to “read” the context and thus to support the further evolution of the project.
A facilitated systemic constellation is an experiential and facilitated process of emergence, co-created through input from participants who sense into elements in the system. The sensing process names and makes explicit signals and insights that are felt or experienced, with an emphasis on how each element relates to another. General patterns and subtle dynamics can emerge, leading to more clarity and an enlarged vision of the social field — uncovering what is actually at stake and what is most important to include in next steps and actions.
In the first session, the case was explored as a table-top constellation by Collective Transitions co-founder Luea Ritter and the case giver, who participated via Zoom. At the later stage, as part of a systemic constellations Facilitator training course, a new calling question was constellated, which arose during the ongoing process of the project. For this constellation, also facilitated by Luea Ritter, 10 training course participants, including the case giver, participated via Zoom. They witnessed or represented various elements. The elements were visually mapped by the facilitator on a shared screen using different icons, based on inputs from the participants representing each element.
Constellation 1: Understanding the internal relationship dynamics
When the case giver first presented the case to Collective Transitions, she indicated that the group dynamics among the core members of the tiny house project were difficult. She wanted to understand the gender dynamics within the group and wondered whether the regional culture might be a factor in the relational dynamics, which she characterized as complicated and strained. The project structure seemed to be highly rigid, which made it challenging to deal with the relations among group members. She felt that the working process of the group had become too complicated, and that group members were unable to process and resolve their strained relationships.
Method
The case was explored as a table-top constellation, with only the case giver and the facilitator present (embodied) in the space via Zoom. The elements of the constellation — i.e., the people, places and qualities being spotlighted — were represented via objects.
To begin, the case giver and the facilitator collaboratively designed a calling question and stated a shared intention to dedicate the process to help understand and relieve tension around the internal relational dynamics of the Tiny House Community. The calling question was:
What does this situation offer as an opportunity for now?
We designed this calling question to inquire into the potential of the system and to better understand what preconditions were important to take into account. We also asked: How can the elements of this system co-create meaningful next steps together?
In selecting the elements, we included the Case Giver herself, as well as the following: Complicatedness, the Vision, the Tiny House Community and the Land. We also included the Unknown, as well as the Unborn / Younger Generations.
During the constellation, in which the facilitator sensed into each of the elements in turn and shared with the Case Giver to see what resonated, it became apparent that the Tiny House Community needed to be looked at in terms of the individual members of the group and their relationships to each other, and to the project Vision. We therefore specified three separate elements — Person 1, Person 2, Person 3. The Vision, Complicatedness and the Land were given space to be heard and their dynamics better understood. The two additional elements — the Unknown, and the Unborn / Younger Generations — proved not to be central to the calling question at that point.
Central insights from the elements
During the first systemic constellation session, the following aspects of the various elements were brought to awareness:
Tiny House Community: By checking in with the individuals in the group, it became possible to acknowledge more fully the overall social dynamics at play in regards to both the individual condition of each group member (including the Case Giver) as well as the relations among them. An awareness and acceptance of “what is” brought a sense of ease and calm in the system.
The Vision: This element appeared as a growing snowball, which took up speed and was impatiently on its way to being manifested. It had a strong relational bond with the Case Giver.
Complicatedness: This element appeared not to be a blockage, but a voice that said “just do it.” It manifested as a push for the group to bring the Vision into action. It was very important for the Case Giver to see that both the Vision and Complicatedness elements conveyed a deep YES to the process, and that some of the difficulties were in fact an expression of that radical encouragement to move ahead, rather than being a warning that the project was heading in the wrong direction or a sign that the Vision was not wanted within the field.
The Land: This element conveyed that the group had not asked for permission from the Land yet, and thus it was not yet invited to co-create with them. The Land made a strong request to the Tiny House Community and the Case Giver for these elements to ask permission and issue an invitation to the Land to co-create with them. When this need for conscious inclusion of the Land is acknowledged, a transition can begin to take place, which points to the next steps in the project’s process.
The shifts
As the constellation unfolded, the Tiny House Community appeared now as one tiny house, which seemed to relate to the Case Giver’s own tiny house. This house moved toward the Land, from where it opened its windows and doors and planted the seed for the manifestation of the vision on the Land. From there, the community could develop.
The patterns in the constellation revealed that it was important for the Case Giver to focus on her full alignment with the Land and the Vision, instead of giving priority to taking care of the individuals and the social dynamics in the group. At this stage, community building seemed a lesser priority, with the relationship with the Land being the first relationship ready to evolve. This shift was experienced as relief for the other group members.
Feedback from the case giver
“The constellation offered a stunningly clear sense of direction for the next steps in the process. It was very helpful to hear the Land showing up so directly, also with its anger — now knowing that the land seeks to co-create. It was great to see this one tiny house landing on the Land and unfolding the community. This possible approach to designing the process never even came to our mind as an option before.”
During this constellation, “sensing into” the group’s individual facets made it possible to distinguish which aspects of the dynamic belonged where and allowed the case giver to orient to what was hers to work with, and what wasn’t.
Follow-up debrief
Thanks to the insights gained during the constellation, in the months that followed the connection between the case giver and the land and its non-human inhabitants was deepened on many levels. Not long after the constellation, the case giver was able to formulate a clear proposal for the land owners, which the Tiny House Community group consented to and passed on to the land owners. The constellation allowed the case giver to quickly get over the rigidness of internal structures and to step into a rooted form of leadership, in the sense of “going ahead” based on the co-creation and alignment with the land.
This transition was largely welcomed by the wider group and helped to “save” the relationship with the land owners, who had been waiting for a proposal for a long time. The constellation also helped the case giver to not be stopped by possible gender dynamics that oppose female leadership, and to focus on regaining her sense of clear inner direction, while taking the necessary steps in a pioneering role.
Constellation 2: Overcoming barriers to progress
The second time the case was addressed, more than six months had passed since the first constellation. The group had entered into a co-creative process with the land owners — three brothers — who had offered their personal shares of a larger piece of land, in order to draft a contract to move forward with the tiny house project. After some months, however, the land owners began to change their mind about what they were ready to commit, and what they had to rethink. The process slowed down, to a point where it became very uncertain if it would even move forward.
This unforeseen long pause in the process, and the new uncertainty about whether the land owners would offer the land for the project at all, resulted in worries within the Tiny House Community group. The case giver’s desire to understand the needs and dynamics of the land owners, as well as the relationship between the community group and the land on a deeper level, led us to conduct a second constellation within the practice space of a facilitator training course.
During the constellation, additional information revealed itself to be of importance. At that stage in the project process, the tiny house community group had been negotiating with the three brothers regarding their shares, while their two sisters, who also owned separate shares of the land, had remained distant from the process.
Method
Luea Ritter facilitated this second systemic constellation during a practice session of the systemic constellations Facilitator training course. This time, in addition to the elements of the Case Giver, the Tiny House Community and the Land, new elements were selected: the Land Owners, the Municipality, the Resource and Stagnation. Participants volunteered to represent various elements, or serve as witnesses. The facilitator visually mapped the positions and movements of the elements on a shared screen, using different icons.
This time, the constellation revealed close relationships among the Tiny House Community, the Case Giver (as part of this community) and the Land Owners. However, sensing into the element of the Land Owners, it became clear that there were differences among them, which needed to be looked at via separate representative elements: Land Owner 1, Land Owner 2 and Land Owner 3.
Central insights from the elements
During the second systemic constellation session, the following aspects of the various elements were brought to awareness:
The Land: This element remained more distant from most of the other elements, with the only other close element being the Resource. It became clear to the Case Giver (as an element and as a person) that this level of distance was appropriate for that stage of the process.
The Land Owners: Land Owner 1 displayed a complicated relationship with the Land, with no conscious ambitions to build a relationship with the Land. Land Owner 2 perceived the Tiny House Community as keeping him from building a relationship with the Land. This relationship was described as one that had never been allowed to unfold in the past, and was missed and longed for only on an unconscious level. Land Owner 2 expresses that the dynamics between the siblings were extremely challenging to him, and considered stepping out of the process.
A surprising insight was brought forth (voiced) via Land Owner 3, who appeared to be representing one of the two sisters. This sister expressed her resistance to the tiny house community, yet pointed out that this resistance had nothing to do with the project or the group itself, but rather reflected a relationship issue with her brothers.
Stagnation expressed itself to not really be a stagnation, but rather a slowdown. This was helpful for the Tiny House Community, as it recognized that it did not need to tap into manifesting certain aspects of the Vision too early, as the group was still in a “pregnancy stage.” Slowing down provided an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of interdependent relationships, such as the ones between the land owner siblings themselves, that directly and indirectly affected the relationship with the tiny house community and the case giver.
The Municipality appeared to be rather masculine and self-assured in relying on its own authority and authority over the Land, as well as the Resource. It expressed its sympathy for Land Owner 1 and Land Owner 2, but not for Land Owner 3. It described the Tiny House Community as a bit “in the air” and trusted the Case Giver as a person more than the group, while also noting the lack of personal encounters.
The shift
At this point, the Case Giver turned toward Land Owner 3 to speak to him, and Land Owner 3 expressed relief about that step. The Municipality, too, approved it.
At the beginning of the second constellation, the Tiny House Community had expressed strong uncertainty and anxiety in relation to Stagnation. However, after the shift, it expressed gratitude for the presence of the Case Giver, who had a wider understanding of the situation in the development of the project and shared these insights with the group.
Feedback from the case giver
“It was extremely helpful to now put some fragments of experiences together and to get a sense of their meaning, in relation to the land owners. Even though I am not 100% sure about who exactly Land Owner 1 and Land Owner 2 were representing, I have a general orientation in the dynamics. I know well about Land Owner 3 and am very grateful to have heard her — now realizing, of course, that her brothers’ information about her is their personal perspective. I cannot really imagine doing exactly what my representative did, because I had already reached out for contact via the brothers and I don’t want to push things, but I will keep this possibility in my heart for now.”
Follow-up feedback from the case giver
“After the constellation, I understood that it wasn’t necessarily about actively going towards the sister, but rather including her in my inner attitude, when it comes to aspects of the negotiation process. It was about seeing her as one of the land owners in my inner eye, with an open heart and mind, even if we had gotten the information that she is not open to us, and even though we had not attempted to reach out regarding her parts of the land up until this point.
“Two days after the constellation, I received a message from one of the land owners, saying that they were now engaging in negotiations among all of the siblings (which had not happened previously in relation to the project). I added my kind regards also to the sister, repeating what the group had already said many months before: that the sisters are always welcome to come by for tea at my tiny house.
“A few days later, we received our first email from the sister, who was represented by Land Owner 3, inviting us to a meeting with all the siblings. We, the tiny house community, were baffled about how this connected to the constellation.
“The meeting did not lead to the desired results, in terms of coming closer to the land or to clear agreements; however, it deepened the honest connection on a heart level immensely. During the meeting, I placed a strong focus on respecting and hearing Land Owner 3, among everyone else. Land Owner 3 suddenly started to consider sharing her parts of the land as well, which was surprising even to the brothers.
“After the meeting, Land Owner 3, whom we had never met before, thanked us for the space that we had created together in this meeting, where she said she felt that her opinions and emotions had been heard and respected in a way that was unusual in her meetings with her siblings. She expressed that the meeting gave her the opportunity to meet her brothers in a new way that normally would not have happened.”
About the Author:
Written by Julia Felder.
Julia was the case giver and took part in Collective Transitions’ Systemic Constellations for Social Change training courses, and is active in our practice circle.
Julia Felder, MA, graduated in political science, international development and peace studies and is head of Inkontra, an initiative focused on intercultural conflict transformation. She lives in a tiny house in Austria.
Reflection from Collective Transitions
We appreciate the readiness of the case giver to engage in the systemic constellation process over an extended period of time and to share her reflections in such a candid manner. Collective Transitions has supported a diverse range of clients through uncomfortable dynamics, leadership challenges and complex collaborations in different cultural contexts. Here we highlight a few patterns we observed in this and other cases, organisations and contexts:
Seeing how the project unfolded over a period of more than six months, while we provided facilitation support and process stewardship without having to know all the details beforehand, confirmed for us that systemic constellations can make a valuable contribution to the initial stages of innovative start-up projects.
The process supported the project initiator to step into a healthy leadership role in a way that brought the team closer together, and revealed previously hidden constraints. Once obstacles were acknowledged, decision making and project actualization became easier. The leader’s ability to own the lead and take responsibility for finding a meaningful path forward that would involve everyone, led to a more aligned team, and stronger relationships with the land and the land owners. In particular, acknowledging the land as a co-creator and actively cultivating an intentional relationship with the land shifted the project to a new level. Tensions among the landowner siblings eased, which started shifting deeply ingrained relationship patterns that reach far beyond the project itself.
By taking time for the internal dynamics to unfold and their hidden messages to emerge, and by creating space for listening to the signals from relationships with “outside” forces such as the land and the land owners, the project leader recognized the importance of timing and sequencing the different phases of the project. Through her serenity and commitment to the health of the whole, her regenerative leadership created room for novel, unforeseen solutions to emerge.
Collective Transitions posits that allowing and enduring transformational collective change, an essential part of innovative and societal change initiatives, requires attention to four interconnected spheres no matter in which sector or scale of work. These are:
- Restoring relationships — reconnecting with nature, place and people;
- Healing history and getting wise to our cultural inheritance;
- Developing collective capacities and practices for navigating complexity; and
- Creating spaces for co-creative collaboration and learning.
This case study demonstrates the importance of seeing humans and the natural environment as co-creators, and the need to heal the fractured relationships between people and the land that resulted from our (Western) approach of being “on” rather than “with” the land. The case study also demonstrates the energy that can be unleashed when we take time and create space for open communication that can begin to heal long-standing troubled relationships among people.
Taking time and giving room for movements of healing and getting wise to the deeper patterns seem essential when we aim to create projects and work environments that want to contribute to a more fair, sustainable and wholesome future. In these ways, this case study supports our hypothesis that by listening to diverse elements, and suspending assumptions and expectations, systemic constellations can contribute to the clarity needed to create more alignment across a larger system, unblock energy, and allow a new level of coherence to emerge.
Tags
Leadership
systemic constellation
Land-based work
Collective Healing
Regeneration
