Questions as Interventions:
Refining one’s interviewing skills
A Presentation by Karl Tomm
at the Copenhagen Attractor Conference
June 2016
A series of formative personal questions
How can I help my mother?
If I’m trying to keep him alive when he wants to die, what am I missing?
Why is she running away from such nice people?
How come she committed suicide after she recovered from depression?
Is it possible that if we ask the right questions there is no need for an end of
session intervention?
Why didn’t the Dutch family take up our positive connotation intervention?
A series of formative personal questions
(cont’d)
How do we as human beings ‘know what we know’?
What are the ramifications of the realization that the ‘mind’ is first and
foremost social, and only secondarily psychological?
How can I ask questions that open space for clients to become more aware
of how their relationships transcend them as individual persons, and how
the wellbeing of their relationships also need ongoing attention and
nurturing?
Conversations in Therapy (and Coaching)
Therapy is always a two-way relational phenomenon. Even though the
questions a therapist asks may appear unidirectional, therapy is never a
one-way process of therapists influencing clients unilaterally.
Clients continuously influence their therapists at the same time as
therapists influence their clients.
Therapists asking about
the client’s situation
Clients sharing experiences
and responding to questions
The legitimacy of professional questions
Encounters between clients and professionals typically revolve around the
concerns and/or needs of the client.
It is assumed (by both) that the professional has some special knowledge or
skill that may be of assistance regarding the client’s concerns.
However, the professional never knows more about the client’s concerns or
specific circumstances than the client.
Hence the legitimacy for professionals to ask ‘honest’ questions to enact
genuine curiosity and enable the client to release information which orients
the professional to the client’s experience and situation.
Contrasting utterances in conversation
Statements set forth the interviewer’s knowledge/views, whereas questions
bring forth the client’s knowledge/views
The interview should always remain centered around the client’s experiences,
and not drift to prioritize the interviewer’s experiences
The probability of the client remaining centered in the conversation is
increased when the professional relies on questions more than statements.
However, there is an overlap in linguistic communication:
Questions can embed statements
Statements can embed questions
Political and Ethical aspects to questions
• An interviewer wields considerable ‘power’ when
asking questions
– by drawing on powerful cultural expectations to answer
– in formulating the question itself, i.e. the question
defines the domain of a ‘legitimate’ answer
• Questions can be quite intimidating and oppressive, or
they can be gentle and enabling
– in the linguistic content of the question and in the
manner of asking it (by managing tone of voice,
cadence of speech, non-verbal expressions, etc)
Research to develop a classification
of different types of questions
• Purpose
– To enhance awareness of different effects of questions
– To increase choices and skills for interviewers
• Means
– Reviews of my own videotaped clinical interviews
– Discussions with colleagues, students, and clients
• Identified 2 heuristic dimensions:
– Intentionality of the interviewer in asking the question
– Assumptions about the nature of the interaction process
Lineal Assumptions
with a directive process
LINEAL
STRATEGIC
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS
Influencing
intent
Orienting
intent
CIRCULAR
REFLEXIVE
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS
Circular assumptions
with an invitational process
Lineal Assumptions
with a directive process
CORRECTIVE
INVESTIGATIVE
INTENT
LINEAL
STRATEGIC
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS
Influencing
intent
Orienting
intent
CIRCULAR
REFLEXIVE
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS
FACILITATIVE
EXPLORATORY
INTENT
INTENT
Circular assumptions
with an invitational process
INTENT
Typical Effects of the 4 Different
Types of Questions
• Lineal questions with investigative intent
– Validate the client in his/her current experience
– Conservative effect on client
– Probable judgmental effect on both interviewer
and client (counter-therapeutic)
• Circular questions with exploratory intent
– Co-constructing a contextual understanding
– Accepting effect on both interviewer and client
– Possible ‘liberating’ effect on client (therapeutic)
Typical Effects of the 4 Different Types
of Questions (cont’d)
• Reflexive questions with a facilitative intent
– Co-constructing possibilities
– Generative effect for client
– Creative effect on the interviewer
• Strategic questions with a corrective intent
– Possible jarring impact on client
– Constraining effect on client
– Oppositional effect on both client and interviewer
Lineal Assumptions
with a directive process
LINEAL
STRATEGIC
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS
Influencing
intent
Orienting
intent
CIRCULAR
REFLEXIVE
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS
Circular assumptions
with an invitational process
Interventive Interviewing
Interventive interviewing is an inclusive orientation to interviewing in
which everything that an interviewer says and does, and does not say and
does not do, is regarded an as intervention which could be more or less
helpful or harmful.
It encourages greater participatory responsibility for what unfolds in the
interview process by assuming that it is impossible to interact with another
person and not intervene on the autonomous functioning of the other.
Adopting an orientation of ‘interventive interviewing’ shifts the focus from
whether a specific intervention should be used or not, to pay more attention
to the ongoing effects of interventions that are always taking place in the
continuous interaction between an interviewer and the interviewee(s).
.
Kinds of circular questions for
systemic assessment
•
•
•
•
Difference questions
Behavioral effect questions
Interpersonal perception questions
Triadic questions
Kinds of reflexive questions to
enable change
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Future Oriented Questions
Observer Perspective Questions
Unexpected Context Change Questions
Embedded Suggestion Questions
Normative Comparison Questions
Distinction Clarifying Questions
Questions Introducing Hypotheses
Process Interruption Questions
Additional Categories of
Reflexive Questions
• Grounding Questions
– What actually happened that led you to that conclusion?
• Externalizing Questions
– What difference would it make for you to assume he was under the
influence of “a laziness habit” rather than being a lazy person
• Audience Questions
– Who would most likely notice the constructive initiatives you have
taken? How would they feel about them? What might they say?
• Internalizing Questions
– Among the many positive qualities that others appreciate about
you, which would you like to accept and enter into more fully?
Additional Categories of
Reflexive Questions #2
• De-construction Questions
– Where did this idea that “you are lazy” come from? Did you invent
it yourself, or did someone say something about it?
• Re-construction Questions
– If you decided to rebuild your reputation for being helpful how
could you go about it?
• Agency Questions
– If you chose to move out of the passenger’s seat and into the
driver’s seat of your life, what steps would you take?
• Wonderment Questions
– Wow! How did you manage to accomplish that?
Additional Categories of
Reflexive Questions #3
• Motivating Questions
– What are your strongest passions or desires in life? How could
they be connected to what is of greatest concern to you here?
• Responsibility Questions
– How do you go about determining whether you are achieving what
you really want? What do you do when you see that the effects of
your initiatives, do not match your good intentions?
• Interpersonal Pattern Questions
– How aware are you of the circular pattern of criticizing inviting
distancing, and distancing in turn inviting more criticizing? What
might a preferred pattern look like?
Additional Categories of
Reflexive Questions #4
• Re-emotioning Questions
– If your anger and resentment happened to be secondary emotions,
what might the underlying primary emotions look like?
• Endurance Questions
– If it was important for you continue in these new developments,
what kinds of ideas, beliefs, habits, and relationships could you
embrace that would support their continuation?
• Self Reflexive Questions
– I find myself wondering, why wouldn’t you consider doing what
most people would do under these circumstances?
Bifurcation Questioning
• A specific type of reflexive questioning that lends itself especially
well to have empowering effects with respect to a client’s experience
of personal agency
• The questions may be used as a means to co-construct greater
awareness of alternatives, and of oneself as an active agent in making
choices among those alternatives
• The term “bifurcation” refers to a branching structure of the question
to include two (or more) options within the question
• The question may be placed in different time frames i.e.
– Past alternative choices
– Present alternative options
– Future alternative possibilities
BIFURCATION QUESTIONS
past failures
past
turning
points
past successes
present passivity
present
choices
present initiatives
future limitations
alternative
lifestyles
future possibilities
Examples of Bifurcation Questions
• Past: “What made it possible for you to walk away from
the argument last night rather than escalating when she
began blaming you?”
• Present: “How can you tell when your anger is a friend in
helping you hold others accountable for unfair practices
and when it is an enemy that creates more conflict and
undermines your relationships?”
• Future: “If you wanted to develop a reputation for greater
honesty and you happened to make a mistake, would it be
better to openly acknowledge it or to keep it to yourself?”
Sequences of Reflexive Questions to
Co-construct Healing and Wellness
• Co-constructing hope
• Co-constructing responsibility
• Creating conditions for child acceptance of a step
parent
• Deconstructing shame and guilt, and opening
space for apology and forgiveness
Co-Constructing Hope
• A Working Definition of Hope:
– “Living a preferred future in the present”
• Sequencing of Reflexive Questions (two distinct steps)
– A. Bring forth preferences (interests, desires and/or
passions)
– B. Open space for future possibilities to realize those
preferences in some form
• Possible Complications
– Fostering unrealistic hopes
– Setting clients up for future disappointment
Co-Constructing Responsibility
• A Working Definition of Responsibility
– “Living consistently with an awareness of whether one
likes or dislikes the consequences of one’s own
actions”
• Focus on multiple levels of awareness
– Awareness of one’s own actions
– Awareness of consequences or effects of one’s actions
– Awareness of one’s feelings about those consequences
– Awareness of living consistently with those feelings
4 steps in Co-Constructing
Responsibility
• Questions searching for positive intentions behind specific
past actions that are in question
• Questions opening space for awareness of a difference
between intended effects and actual effects of the actions
taken
• Questions bringing forth an awareness of one’s feelings
about the actual effects
• Questions inviting reflection on alternative possible actions
to realize one’s good intentions
3 Steps to Co-Construct Conditions to Enhance
Step-child Acceptance of a Step-parent
A.
B.
C.
Questions that bring forth a conscious awareness of
differential attachments between the child and stepparent vs the child and natural (biological) parent
Questions that bring forth an awareness of the effects of
the quality and strength of the step relationship on the
marriage (to mobilize motivation)
Questions that co-construct a means to promote growth
in the step relationship and to diminish the parental
imbalance in attachments with the child
There are several steps to deconstruct shame and guilt, and
open space for a healing pattern of apology and forgiveness
guilt
apologizing
shame
forgiving
Tangles of
Shame and guilt
Steps in Deconstructing Guilt











Identifying and naming guilt feelings
Connecting guilt feelings to harmful actions
Clarifying underlying good intentions
Separating good intentions from bad effects
Acknowledging responsibility for harmful actions
Experiencing regret and remorse for harmful effects
Extending a full moral apology
Taking restorative action
Harvesting important learnings
Building new behavioral competencies
Going public with generosity and humility
Steps in Deconstructing Shame











Identifying and acknowledging feelings of shame
Understanding the origins of being shamed
Recognizing the injustice in the shaming process
Searching for acts of resistance against the injustice
Honoring the self for resisting the injustice
Mobilizing anger and outrage towards the injustice
Using anger to break the silence and disclose the injustice
Using resentment to hold offenders accountable
Contributing to conditions for an apology
Relinquishing resentment thru circumscribed forgiveness
Accepting past injustices and moving on
Carsten Hornstrup noted two theoretical paradigms in the Model
Linear assumptions
Lineal
Questions
Traditional
Strategic
Questions
Objectivist or Empirical
Paradigm
Systemic or
Social Constructionist
Circular
Questions
Paradigm
Circular assumptions
Reflexive
Questions
Hornstrup’s transitional model abandoned the objectivist component
and expanded the constructionist portion of the original model
Lineal
Objectivist
Paradigm
Orienting
Influencing
intent
intent
Constructionist
Paradigm
Constructionist
Paradigm
Circular
The original model
The transitional version
Hornstrup separated out ‘time’ as a major component of the horizontal dimension,
and rotated the orienting vs influencing intent to become vertical
Orienting
intent
Orienting
Influencing
Intent
Intent
Re past
Re future
Influencing
intent
Original model
Transitional version
Hornstrup separated out ‘time’ as a major component of the horizontal dimension,
and rotated the orienting vs influencing intent to become vertical
Orienting
intent
Orienting
Influencing
Intent
Intent
Re past
Re future
Past
Present
Future
Influencing
intent
Original model
Transitional version
Hornstrup elaborated the constructionist component of the original model, to
enrich the interviewer’s choices for ‘good’ questions
Orienting
Lineal
intent
Objectivist
Paradigm
Orienting
Influencing
intent
intent
Past
Constructionist
Paradigm
Future
Constructionist
Paradigm
Influencing
Circular
Original model
intent
Transitional version
Three iterations of the framework
• Interventive Interviewing #1
– The original model published by Karl Tomm in 1988
• Interventive Interviewing #2
– A transitional model published by Carsten Hornstrup et al in
2005 (only available in Danish)
• Interventive Interviewing #3
– In 2007, Carsten and Karl began collaborating on a revised
and expanded version. It was published in Danish by Carsten
in 2011. (Karl is still working on his English version)
The final redefined axes in the 3rd iteration
Co-clarifying
intent
(Past)
Present
Co-constructing
intent
(Future)
Renaming all 4 categories of questions according to use
3A
Lineal
Questions
Co-clarifying
intent
Situating
Initiatives
questions
questions
(Past)
Circular
Questions
Strategic
Questions
(Future)
Present
Perspectives
Possibilities
questions
questions
Co-constructing
intent
Reflexive
Questions
The core of the 3rd iteration of Interventive Interviewing
3A
Co-clarifying intent
Initiatives
questions
Situating
questions
(Past)
(Future)
Present
Perspectives
questions
Possibilities
questions
Co-constructing intent
Expanding the model to three layers of questions:
• The core layer – The core questions are intended to clarify and
explore the clients’ understandings of their current situation at the
present moment, to generate new insights and possibilities, and to
imagine useful initiatives.
• The second layer - Contextual questions are intended to enhance an
awareness of the ‘bigger picture’ and how the situation is always
embedded in, and influenced by, a larger context of meanings and
relationships.
• The third layer - Meta questions are intended to encourage
mindfulness of the process of the interview, and to reflect on the
effects of the questions, other possible questions, and what conditions,
assumptions, and intentions guide the attention of both interviewer and
interviewee.
3B
Adding a 2nd layer of contextual questions
Co-clarifying intent
Contextual
situation
Contextual
initiative
Initiatives
questions
Situating
questions
(Past)
(Future)
Present
Perspectives
questions
Possibilities
questions
Contextual
perspectives
Contextual
generative
Co-constructing intent
Adding a 3rd layer of meta questions
Co-clarifying intent
3C
Meta
situation
Meta
Initiative
Contextual
situation
Contextual
initiative
Initiatives
questions
Situating
questions
(Past)
(Future)
Present
Perspectives
questions
Possibilities
questions
Contextual
perspectives
Contextual
possibilities
Meta
perspectives
Meta
possibilities
Co-constructing intent
Examples of Core Questions
• Situating Questions
– What is your main concern at the moment? What is your
current understanding about the sequence of events that led
to this?
• Perspectives Questions
– How would your colleagues describe your situation? What
about your best friend’s view?
• Possibilities Questions
– What is an outcome that you would prefer? What are some
even better outcomes that you could imagine?
• Initiatives Questions
– How could you move towards those outcomes? On the basis
of what we talked about so far, what steps are you already
considering?
Examples of Contextual Questions
• Contextual Situation Questions
– What is the larger historical context out of which this situation arose?
What does the institution (neighborhood, community, or culture) have
to say about this situation?
• Contextual Perspective Questions
– If your situation were placed in a very different context, how would it
be seen differently? What other larger contexts could shed a fresh
light on the situation?
• Contextual Possibility Questions
– What kind of institutional or community changes can you imagine that
could enable you to move forward?
• Contextual Initiative Questions
– What new precedents might be established in your community if you
acted on your new hopes/plans?
Examples of Meta Questions
• Situation meta questions
– How do you feel about the questions I have asked so far? What
further questions could I ask to help understand your situation?
• Other perspective meta question
– Who else could I ask you about, who might hold a significantly
different view of your situation?
• Generating possibilities meta question
– What else could I ask you about, that might help you stretch
yourself, to think outside the box?
• Initiative clarifying meta question
– What other questions should I be exploring with you to clarify the
the actions you are considering? Should I be asking about
immediate initiatives you could take or longer term plans?
An overall sequence for the four major types of questions
Situating questions
Perspectives questions
Possibilities questions
Initiatives questions
Co-clarifying intent
Situating
questions
Perspectives
questions
Initiatives
questions
Possibilities
questions
Co-constructing intent
A second proposed sequence: moving from the core outward
Co-clarifying intent
3C
Meta
situation
Meta
Initiative
Contextual
situation
Contextual
initiative
Initiatives
questions
Situating
questions
(Past)
(Future)
Present
Perspectives
questions
Possibilities
questions
Contextual
perspectives
Contextual
possibilities
Meta
perspectives
Meta
possibilities
Co-constructing intent
Using the full expanded framework in a stepwise progression
Co-clarifying intent
3C
Meta
situation
Meta
Initiative
Contextual
situation
Contextual
initiative
Initiatives
questions
Situating
questions
(Past)
(Future)
Present
Perspectives
questions
Possibilities
questions
Contextual
perspectives
Contextual
possibilities
Meta
perspectives
Meta
possibilities
Co-constructing intent
Carsten and I both encourage practitioners to use the Original Model to
orient them towards privileging social constructionist questions
Linear assumptions
Lineal
Questions
Traditional
Strategic
Questions
Objectivist or Empirical
Paradigm
Systemic or
Social Constructionist
Circular
Questions
Paradigm
Circular assumptions
Reflexive
Questions
When practitioners are able to hold a constructionist stance in the
original model, we encourage them to expand into the 3rd model
Co-clarifying
Lineal
intent
Objectivist
Paradigm
Orienting
Influencing
intent
intent
(Past)
Constructionist
Paradigm
Constructionist
Paradigm
Co-constructing
Circular
intent
(Future)
Yet, remain mindful of possible slips into an objectivist paradigm
Lineal
Co-clarifying
intent
Traditional
Paradigm
Orienting
Influencing
intent
intent
(Past)
Constructionist
Paradigm
Constructionist
Paradigm
Discovering
intent
Co-constructing
intent
Circular
Traditional
Actual
Past
Objectivist
Paradigm
Advising
intent
Actual
Future
(Future)
References
– Tomm, K., "Interventive Interviewing: Part II.
Reflexive
Questioning as a Means to Enable Self Healing," Family Process,
26: 153-183, 1987.
– Tomm, K., "Interventive Interviewing: Part III. Intending to Ask
Lineal, Circular, Reflexive or Strategic Questions?" Family
Process, 27: 1-15, 1988.
www.familytherapy.org
[email protected]