Faced with the same fact, two people formulate different questions. And that difference—which seems to be only a matter of style—determines what part of reality they will see, what solutions they will imagine, and ultimately, what decisions they will make.
Questions are not neutral. They have a structure that belongs to a dimension of value: the systemic, the extrinsic, or the intrinsic. When someone asks "Has the protocol been followed?", they are looking from a different dimension than someone who asks "What result has been achieved?" or "What is happening to this person?". All three questions can refer to the same moment, the same team, the same problem. But they open up completely different response spaces.
The axiological model of the Hartmann Test is not just an assessment instrument. It is also a grammar: a way of understanding from which dimension of value one is thinking, speaking, and asking questions. And this grammar has very concrete practical consequences for those who work with people, lead teams, or accompany change processes.
The Three Dimensions as Three Ways of Naming Reality
Each dimension of the Hartmann model produces its own vocabulary, characteristic questions, and specific blind spots. And each has two worlds of expression: the external—how I perceive and relate to the environment—and the internal—how I perceive and relate to myself.
| Dimension | Typical Question | What it sees / what it leaves out |
|---|---|---|
| Systemic (S) | Has the process been followed? To what category does it belong? What is the norm? What are my objectives? | Sees structure, order, context, and coherence. May lose sight of the legitimate exception and the specific person. |
| Extrinsic (E) | What result has it produced? What is the impact? What does it contribute? Is it viable and possible? | Sees performance, effectiveness, and functional value. May lose sight of the context and the human cost of the result. |
| Intrinsic (I) | What is this person experiencing? What am I not seeing? How do I feel about this? | Sees the uniqueness and complexity of the person in front—and of oneself. May lose sight of the need to decide and act. |
The Sequence Often Ignored: S Prepares, E Builds, I Consolidates
There is a logic among the three dimensions that is not hierarchical but constructive. The systemic dimension prepares the ground: it defines the objective, the framework, the conditions of possibility. The extrinsic acts: it is the doing, the producing, the achieving results within that framework. And the intrinsic consolidates: it converts what has been achieved into identity, into relationship, into meaning.
Someone may want to go very far—an ambitious systemic objective—but what they do to achieve it must be possible, it must be legal, and it must respect the people along the way.
The systemic dimension without the extrinsic filter of viability produces empty ideology. The extrinsic without the intrinsic filter of ethics produces unscrupulous efficiency. And the intrinsic without the systemic anchor of objectives can remain good intentions that build nothing.
This sequence also works in reverse, as a control: when someone evaluates a decision they have already made, they can ask themselves if the result obtained was possible and legal from the beginning—extrinsic dimension—if the path respected the people—intrinsic dimension—and if all of that aligns with the real objectives that were pursued—systemic dimension.
The systemic dimension provides direction. The extrinsic charts the viable path. The intrinsic ensures that what matters most is not lost along the way. Separated, each can deviate. Integrated, they correct each other.
The Internal World of Each Dimension: Inward Questions
Each dimension has an external face—how I perceive and value what surrounds me—and an internal face—how I perceive and value myself. This second face is most often left out of professional conversations, although it is what sustains—or erodes—everything else.
The Systemic Internal World: My Objectives and My Purpose
The internal world of the systemic dimension is the space of one's own objectives, personal values, and purpose. Not "what the norm says" but "what I want to build with my life and my work".
"Am I doing what I set out to do?" "Are my decisions today consistent with who I want to be?"
These are questions of alignment. When that internal world is clear, the person has an anchor from which to evaluate their decisions without depending solely on the external context. When it is diffuse, they make reactive decisions—responding to what comes their way—without their own reference point from which to judge if that response makes sense.
The Extrinsic Internal World: My Energy and My Sustainability
The internal world of the extrinsic dimension is the space of self-care, sustainable performance, and the relationship with one's own work.
"Am I functioning well?" "Do I have energy?" "Is the effort I am investing proportional to what I am getting?"
Not in terms of commercial exchange, but of real sustainability: whether the pace I'm keeping can be maintained, whether what I do gives to me or takes from me.
The Intrinsic Internal World: How I See Myself and How I Feel
The internal world of the intrinsic dimension is the closest to direct emotional experience: one's own feelings, self-esteem, self-perception.
"How am I with this?" "What does this situation provoke in me?" "Is there something I find hard to acknowledge about how I feel?"
These are questions of internal honesty. Asking them is not weakness: it is information. And without that information, many decisions that seem rational are, in reality, managing an emotional state that no one has named.
Before Asking: Isolate the Dimension of the Problem
There is a step prior to formulating any powerful question, and it is the one most frequently skipped: identifying which dimension the situation being analyzed primarily belongs to.
- A process or compliance problem is primarily systemic.
- A performance or results problem is primarily extrinsinc.
- A relationship, motivation, or well-being problem is primarily intrinsic.
Mixing them unknowingly—responding to an extrinsic problem with intrinsic tools, or vice versa—is one of the most frequent sources of interventions that don't work.
Isolating the dimension of the problem is not reducing it. It is finding the correct entry point. Once inside, the other dimensions will appear—and will need to be addressed. But entering through the wrong door can block access to everything else.
The Question Reveals the Dimension
There is a simple way to identify from which dimension a question is being formulated: by observing what kind of answer it makes possible and what kind of answer it rules out by its very structure.
- A systemic question seeks classification, precedent, or norm.
- An extrinsinc question seeks measurement, comparison, or result.
- An intrinsic question seeks understanding, context, or meaning.
And what does not fit into the structure of the question simply does not appear in the answer. Language does not describe reality: it carves it out.
The Three Scenarios: The Same Problem, Three Perspectives
Scenario 1. A Professional Who Has Been Underperforming for Months
S — Systemic: Is he/she fulfilling the responsibilities of the position? Have the planned monitoring mechanisms been applied? Were his/her objectives realistic and clear?
E — Extrinsic: What is the gap between his/her current and expected performance? What impact is it having on team results? Is it possible to reverse it in the available time?
I — Intrinsic: What is happening to this person? Does he/she know that his/her situation is a concern? Is there something in his/her context—inside or outside of work—that is not being seen? How does he/she feel about his/her own situation?
The systemic question identifies if there is a compliance problem and if the objectives were reasonable. The extrinsic quantifies the impact and evaluates the viability of improvement. The intrinsic opens the possibility that the problem has a cause that neither of the other two would have found. All three are necessary. The one that is usually missing is the last one.
Scenario 2. A Conflict Between Two Team Members
S — Systemic: Have coexistence norms or explicit agreements been violated? Were the roles and responsibilities of each well-defined?
E — Extrinsic: How is the conflict affecting team performance? How much is it costing in time and energy? Is there a concrete result that is blocked?
I — Intrinsic: What is at stake for each of these people? What does each need that they are not receiving? Is there something that neither of them has said yet? Am I seeing both, or only one?
Scenario 3. A Promotion Decision Between Two Candidates with Similar Profiles
S — Systemic: Which one best meets the formal requirements of the position? Is the decision consistent with the organization's objectives and the type of leadership it wants to build?
E — Extrinsic: Which one has produced better results in recent cycles? Which one has the most solid track record? Which one can produce the greatest impact at the next level?
I — Intrinsic: Which one is more internally prepared for the next level? What kind of leadership does the team that will receive them need? What can each person offer that does not appear in their metrics?
When Emotional Engagement is Deep: The Risk of Remaining in a Single Dimension
There are situations where emotional involvement is so intense that perception narrows. When someone feels deeply hurt, deeply committed, or deeply threatened, they tend to operate exclusively from their intrinsic internal world: their own feelings, their own version of the situation, their own pain. And in that state, paradoxically, they lose the ability to see the intrinsic dimension of the other.
In those moments, the first useful question is not about the other. It is about oneself: from where am I looking at this right now?
It's not about suppressing what one feels. It's about recognizing it first—naming it is already a way of separating oneself a little from it—and then consciously deciding from where to respond.
The Hartmann Test allows identifying which world—internal or external, of which dimension—each person tends to retreat to under pressure. This knowledge is essential for those who accompany others in difficult moments.
The Complete Question: Integrating the Three Dimensions
The goal is not to substitute one dimension for another. It is to have deliberate access to all three, to their external worlds and their internal worlds.
In practice, this becomes a three-step habit:
- Isolate the main dimension of the problem: what type of value is at stake here?
- Ask questions specific to that dimension—and its implications for the other two.
- Before responding or acting, ask if there is anything from the internal world—one's own or the other's—that has not yet been named.
The three reference questions:
- S — What systemic structure, objective, or context is operating here? Is it consistent with what we want to build?
- E — What result or impact is at stake? Is it possible, viable, and respectful of the people involved?
- I — What is the person—or people—at the center experiencing? And I, what am I experiencing with this?
An organization that only asks systemic questions produces bureaucracy. One that only asks extrinsic questions produces pressure. One that only asks intrinsic questions can lose its operational direction. Axiological maturity is the ability to move between the three with intention and with awareness of what each one opens and what each one closes.
How the Hartmann Test Illuminates One's Own Language
Each person's axiological profile determines the language that comes naturally to them—and the one they struggle with. A person with a strong systemic dimension will tend to name problems in terms of norm, objective, and structure. One with a strong extrinsic dimension will name them in terms of result, efficiency, and impact. One with a strong intrinsic dimension will name them in terms of people, relationships, and meaning.
None of these ways of naming is incorrect. All are partial. And partiality becomes costly when someone who has to make a complex decision only has access to one vocabulary. What has no name does not exist in the conversation—and what does not exist in the conversation cannot be resolved.
📋 Applicable Reports: Self-knowledge — Identification of the dominant dimension and blind spots in one's own language and perception. Personal Space — Support to broaden the repertoire of questions, recognize one's own internal world, and develop the ability to see from all three dimensions.
A Final Thought
Asking good questions is not an intellectual exercise. It is an act of honesty towards reality: towards the situation, towards the other, and towards oneself.
It requires knowing from where one is looking, recognizing what that perspective leaves out, and having the courage to broaden it.
The test is the map of where you look from. Language is the trace of what you see. And the question is the instrument with which you can broaden—or narrow—the world you are capable of seeing.