This is the fifth post in a series on Systemic Coaching in the context of Agile and change management. The earlier posts covered the nature of systemic coaching, how it differs from agile coaching, the practice of listening, and how to structure a coaching conversation. This one is about the question — specifically, the logic behind choosing the right kind.

Why memorising questions only gets you so far

One common approach to developing questioning skills is to build a library of powerful questions. Learn fifty good ones, and you'll always have something useful to reach for. There's nothing wrong with this as a starting point — it gives you vocabulary and confidence. But it has a ceiling. You end up gravitating toward questions that feel familiar rather than questions that are actually right for this moment, with this person.

The more capable approach is to understand the underlying logic of different question types, so you can design the appropriate question on the spot. That is what Karl Tomm's model provides.

The two dimensions

Karl Tomm was a Canadian psychiatrist whose work is rooted in systems theory — the idea that no single person has a monopoly on the truth, and that every situation can be viewed from multiple valid perspectives. His model organises questions along two axes: time orientation (past versus future) and type of understanding (linear versus circular).

Linear questions treat the situation as having one correct interpretation. Circular questions acknowledge that multiple perspectives coexist. Together, these dimensions create four distinct question types, each suited to a different purpose in a coaching conversation.

The four types

Lineal questions are investigative and past-focused. They are the questions a detective asks: what happened, who was involved, what led to this. They are useful early in a conversation when you need to understand the situation, but too many in sequence and the conversation starts to feel like an interrogation rather than a dialogue.

Circular questions are exploratory and focus on patterns and connections. They invite the coachee to step into another perspective: "How do you think your team experiences this?" "What would your manager say about how you've handled this?" These questions are particularly useful for surfacing assumptions — because they ask people to see themselves from the outside, which most of us don't do naturally or often.

Strategic questions are future-oriented and gently challenging. They push without prescribing: "What's stopping you from raising this directly?" "What happens if nothing changes?" Used sparingly, they create productive discomfort. Used too often, they tip from coaching into advice-giving.

Reflexive questions open possibilities. They help the coachee imagine a different future and work backwards from it: "What would become possible if this were resolved?" "When you look back on this in six months, what decision will have made the difference?" These questions tend to land with the most impact — they create space rather than fill it.

Using the model in practice

The model is not a sequence to follow from left to right. Think of it as a map. At any point in a conversation, you can ask: where are we, and where does this person need to go? If they are stuck in analysis of what went wrong, a reflexive question can open a door. If they are spinning on possibilities without grounding, a lineal question can bring them back to what actually happened.

Personally, I tend to start as a detective, move to the role of anthropologist, then shift into future researcher, and finally act as something closer to a navigator — giving direction once possibilities have been identified. But intuition matters. There is no rule that says you must move in a particular order, and the best conversations rarely do.

One useful exercise when starting out: after each question you ask, mentally note which type it was. Most coaches discover quickly that they rely heavily on one or two quadrants. That is not a failure — it is information. The goal is not equal distribution across all four types. It is having the full range available when the conversation calls for it.

A word on intent

One thing the framework cannot teach you is genuine curiosity. The intent behind a question shapes its effect as much as the words do. A question asked with real interest in the other person lands differently to the same question asked with an agenda. Coachees notice the difference, even when they cannot articulate it. The model helps with technique, but technique without authentic interest will only carry you so far.

Systemic coaching is taught in our ICP-ACC programme. If this series has sparked an interest in developing these skills more formally, that is a good place to start.