Scaling Questions: Numbers That Speak

Alongside hypothetical and circular questions, there’s a third major category of systemic questions I particularly love: scaling questions. They invite people into conversation, especially when words alone aren’t quite enough.

I learned this early, during my training as a systemic family therapist, in a practice for children and teenagers. I’d sit across from teenagers going through puberty who’d respond to “So how have things been since last time?” with nothing but a cool shrug. Out of near-desperation, I put together a small questionnaire: several scales from 0 to 10, labeled family, friends, hobbies, school, and overall mood. I’d slide it across at the start of a session, along with a pen, and ask them to mark where they stood today. That didn’t require talking at first, but the marks gave us plenty to talk about afterward.

What’s the secret of these questions?

Scaling questions make things tangible. Psychological, spatial, and temporal distinctions can all be differentiated this way, and a shrug turns into a number on a scale. I’ve often had clients describe an experience or feeling as unbearably bad, and when I asked them to rate it, with 10 as the worst thing imaginable, they’d land, somewhat to my own surprise, at a 4 or 5. And what do we do once someone names a value? We keep asking: What does it mean that you chose that number? What would be different at a 6? And above all: which value would you actually like to be at?

An example from team work

If there’s a target value, we can look at what a first step toward it might be. If an executive’s goal is for her team to collaborate well, I can ask where she sees the team right now on a scale to 10. If she says “at a 6,” I can ask what that 6 looks like, and what a step toward 7 would involve. Who would have done what? What resources are available?

Making differences visible

What I love about scaling questions is that they push the other person to get specific, rather than just saying something is annoying or needs to stop. Scales encourage people to name differences, say, that their desired value is an 8 while they’re currently at a 5.

Even seeming differences can be put into perspective. I see this constantly working with couples: person A is convinced they’re far unhappier than person B, and vice versa. When I ask both how satisfied they currently are with the relationship, they often land surprisingly close together on the scale.

Andreas Patrzek, in his book “Systemisches Fragen,” distinguishes psychological, spatial, and temporal scaling. A spatial version might be: “Who are you closer to, colleague A or colleague B?” A temporal one: “What has to happen first before you open your hostel?” Scaling questions work everywhere, in coaching, team meetings, and self-reflection, whether on a 0-to-10 scale, in percentages, or as physical distance.