In coaching conversations, social tension rarely takes the form of explicit analysis. It manifests itself in getting stuck, irritation, fatigue or withdrawal. Clients talk about rules, agencies or “the system,” but often find it difficult to name exactly what affects them in it. This blog promises to provide that framework.
In such situations, the conversation easily shifts to personal interpretation. Tension is interpreted as an expression of attitude, belief, lack of flexibility or distrust. Thus the focus shifts from experience to character. What arises relationally is explained individually.
This framework starts from a different assumption. Getting stuck in social contexts usually does not point to an individual deficit, but to a tense or unclear relationship between people and the system, for example, an institution. By focusing on that relationship, tension is approached as a relational phenomenon rather than a personal problem.
Why social identity offers no analytical starting point
Social identity seems to provide a foothold. Labels such as high or low education, socioeconomic position or political beliefs quickly provide an explanatory framework. Many studies have appeared on these labels in relation to institutional trust. These suggest a causal relationship.
Analytically, however, such labels are limited. They say something about how a person is classified, but little about where a person gets stuck in a concrete situation. When identity becomes the starting point, the question shifts from “what is happening here?” to “what does this say about this person?” This closes the conversation around characterization rather than opening it to inquiry.
Getting stuck, however, rarely occurs because a person has a particular identity. It occurs when a person feels sandwiched between rules, expectations, values and boundaries in a concrete situation. This tension is situational and relational in nature.
Therefore, further analysis requires a framework that starts not from identity but from proportion.
The relational structure as an orientation
When tension is understood as a relational phenomenon, the question arises as to what the relationship between citizen and state is based on. Without demarcation, the conversation remains diffuse and still risks shifting to personal interpretation.
This framework distinguishes two related axes: land charter and state role.
Fundamental charter refers to the domains in which citizens can expect protection within a rule of law. These are fundamental securities: security of existence and property, privacy, and freedom with legal protection. These domains mark where and how state action is limited and legitimized.
Tension can arise when government action touches what are perceived as such fundamental certainties. Not because the action is necessarily unlawful, but because it intervenes in domains normally assumed to be stable and protected.
In addition, this framework distinguishes the state role. Depending on context and policy goal, the state can act as a distributor of resources, as an educator who normatively guides behavior, or as a protector who guarantees rights and security. Each role is legally and administratively legitimate, but presupposes a different relationship between state and citizen.
Tension arises especially when roles within one domain are mixed up or when it is unclear to citizens from which role they are approached. In that case, the relationship becomes unstable and every contact becomes potentially fraught.
The matrix below clarifies the relationship between land charter (domain) and state role.
| Domain/State Role | Distributor | Educator | Protector |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property | Redistributes resources based on ability or need. | Places property in broader social tasks (e.g., sustainability, solidarity). | Provides safeguards for property within legal limits; enforces property rights. |
| Behavioral & personal privacy | Links access to schemes to participation, obligations or behavioral conditions. | Directs and norms behavior through policy and communication; influences lifestyle choices. | Guarantees space for individual choices and lifestyles within legal limits. |
| Freedom & legal protection. | Organizes access to rights through formal or procedural routes. | Directs behavior and preferences in accordance with state-established norms and goals. | Protects against arbitrariness; limits state intervention in the private domain. |
This matrix makes visible that the position of the state, or of the institution that represents it, is not neutral. Each role and domain presuppose a specific relationship between state and citizen. When state action deviates from what citizens perceive as stable and bounded within a particular domain, there may be a foundational shift: a shift in the perceived certainty of what is protected, permitted or bounded. Such shifts are more likely to occur as citizens interact more intensively with public institutions. This puts pressure on the assumed link between institutional predictability and perceived legal certainty.
Experience positioning as an analytical approach
Here, experiential positioning refers to the way a person subjectively experiences and interprets his or her relationship to institutional frameworks. It is not about traits or beliefs per se, but about the experienced position within a concrete institutional relationship.
Once foundational and state roles are in view, the conversation can shift from explaining to situating: where does the system touch one’s hold, space or boundary? To systematically deepen this situating, this framework distinguishes seven dimensions of experience.
The seven dimensions of experience
The dimensions below were developed based on our own research on social tension in coaching conversations. They have been developed into an accompanying questionnaire, which can be used to systematically explore experiential positioning.
1. Institutional hold. The degree to which a person perceives institutions as reliable, predictable and supportive. Lack of handholding leads to increased alertness and defensive strategies.
2. Clarity of boundaries. The perceived clarity of boundaries around property, private life and freedom. Unclear or shifting boundaries make autonomy conditional.
3. Legitimacy orientation. The ground on which a person perceives authority as justified, e.g., procedure, expertise, moral conviction or visible effect.
4. Tolerance for institutional uncertainty. The degree to which a person can tolerate ambiguity in rules, implementation or exceptions.
5. Perceived reciprocity. The perceived balance between giving and receiving within the institutional relationship.
6. Group delineation. The extent to which institutional tension leads to we-they distinctions as an attempt at reordering and holding.
7. Engagement and withdrawal. The direction in which a person responds to tension: intensifying participation or distancing oneself.
These dimensions function as analytical lenses. They make it possible to discern tension without reducing it to personality or ideology.
Practical example
When a client repeatedly expresses distrust of an institution while intensively gathering evidence to defend his position, this indicates low institutional hold combined with limited tolerance for institutional uncertainty. The behavior is thus interpreted not as a character trait but as a reaction to previous experiences with a public institution.
A parent is invited to a “supportive conversation” (educator), which discusses what constitutes appropriate or desirable parenting. However, the normative interpretation of that role is not value-free. What is seen as consistent, authority-oriented parenting in one context (for example, within a Reformed tradition) may be judged as too strict or insufficiently sensitive in another. Conversely, a more autonomy-oriented or “free” parenting style may be seen by professionals as insufficiently limiting.
When signals are recorded in that same conversation that may lead to a protective measure to ensure the child’s safety (protector), the institutional position shifts from normative alignment to formal assessment. That assessment, however, is not value-free. Views of what a child needs in terms of protection, boundaries or autonomy also differ. Where one professional emphasizes risk avoidance, another may leave more room for variation in parenting practices.
The tension then arises not only from the role reversal, but from the question of who determines what counts as adequate protection. The visitor or professional judges from professional frameworks and risk models, while parents base their actions on their own values, traditions and experiences. The friction thus lies in the clash between different assessment frameworks.
Conclusion – What this framework offers
This framework provides an analytical tool to interpret social tension in coaching relationally. By making land charter and state role explicit, it reveals how tension can arise in the relationship between citizen and state without reducing it to personal deficit or belief.
The seven dimensions of experience structure this research and enable systematic exploration. This shifts the focus from psychologizing to situating. Not as a normative choice, but as methodical precisions.
This creates space for reflection that does justice both relationally and personally to the complexity of social contexts.
These dimensions function as analytical lenses. They make it possible to discern tension without reducing it to personality or ideology.