<p>The following text from the journal <i>Gruppe. Institution. Organisation</i> (GIO) analyzes the field typologies and field dynamics of an organizational actor often underestimated by consultants: the works council. Due to the impacts of societal crises as well as socio-ecological and economic transformations, labor-related issues (such as compensation, working hours, health protection, job and income security, precarious working conditions, and concerns about professional prospects) are increasingly becoming the focus of supervision processes. These issues complement—or even replace—profession based topics: casework as well as client-related team and organizational dynamics. In this regard, consultants possess only limited knowledge and tools, unlike the works council, whose field of expertise lies in labor-related matters.</p><p>Typical features of the works council include its foundation in the Works Constitution Act, its intermediary role, the boundary situation between employer, employees, and trade unions, and the requirement to mediate between plural or opposing interests. A&#xa0;distinctive feature of the works council is its focus on the company’s industrial lifeworld. In addition to representing employees’ interests and focusing on the company’s economic well-being, the works council can be seen as a&#xa0;guardian of the social system within the workplace, representing democracy, belonging, continuity, security. The transformation of the works council’s role from a&#xa0;control entity to a&#xa0;transformation partnership is analyzed, as well as the reflection of the micro-political relationship structure within the works council body. Key players are works council chairs, who, caught between hierarchy and democracy, emerge as paradoxical leaders at the intersection of contradictory expectations.</p>