The Value of Curiosity

The Value of Curiosity

“Trust those who seek the truth and doubt those who think they’ve found it.”

I recently came across this quote by the French writer André Gide. It caught my attention and caused me to pause and reflect on what it might mean within the context of safety, risk and assurance.

One of the habits I have tried to develop over the years is reading broadly. If I am honest, I am probably more of a grazer than a deep diver. I will skim across a wide range of subjects and only immerse myself when something genuinely captures my attention or I am actively researching a project.

On reflection, that is something I could improve. The advent of AI has made it remarkably easy to synthesise quality research into the key points I am looking for. That is useful, but rather appropriately for an Insight about curiosity, certainty and evidence, it also presents its own risks.

So, to the academics, researchers and thought leaders whose work deserves to be read in full rather than distilled into a few paragraphs, I apologise. In my defence, at least I am conscious of it.

What I value most about reading broadly is the opportunity to consider different ways of thinking. I am not looking for someone else to provide the answer. I am interested in the perspective their work offers and how it might challenge, reinforce or refine my own thinking. I may agree with it, disagree with it or decide that it does not fit my experience or context. The value lies in taking the time to consider it.

That is what Gide’s quote prompted me to do.

Curiosity has underpinned much of my professional life. An investigator asks questions, explores competing explanations and follows the evidence before reaching a conclusion. A risk practitioner seeks to understand uncertainty, potential consequences and the effectiveness of controls. An auditor gathers objective evidence and compares what is happening against agreed criteria. Safety and assurance professionals look beyond whether a system or control exists and ask whether it is understood, implemented and effective in practice. Emergency management is built around considering what could happen, what it could mean and whether the organisation is ready to respond.

Curiosity is not new to any of these disciplines. Gide’s quote simply caused me to reflect more deliberately on its value within organisations and the conditions that allow it to contribute positively.

Kathryn Schulz considers the relationship between certainty and error in Being Wrong. In discussing what she calls the allure of certainty, she suggests that our attraction to certainty may be better understood as an aversion to uncertainty.

That had me thinking about what this means in practical terms. We naturally draw upon our experience to make sense of situations. Experience helps us recognise patterns, anticipate problems and make decisions. It is essential to professional judgement. At the same time, we can become confident that our experience has already shown us the answer.

This raises an uncomfortable question. What if our experience has been limited, shaped by a particular environment or reinforced by assumptions that have never been properly tested? We may seek information that validates what we already believe while overlooking evidence that points elsewhere.

Schulz captures part of that tension when she writes:

“We cannot imagine, or do not care, that our own certainty, when seen from outside, must look just as unbecoming and ill-grounded as the certainty we abhor in others.”

To me, the point is not that experience or confidence should be distrusted. It is that confidence and correctness are not necessarily the same thing.

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s work on judgement and decision-making provides a research foundation for this concern. Their studies demonstrated that people rely on heuristics, or mental shortcuts, and are susceptible to systematic biases when interpreting information and making decisions. These tendencies are part of normal human thinking rather than evidence of incompetence.

Experience undoubtedly strengthens our ability to recognise patterns, but it can also reinforce our confidence in those patterns. Curiosity gives us reason to pause, test the assumption and ask whether our conclusion still fits the available evidence.

The scientific method reflects this balance particularly well. Scientific inquiry begins with observation and a question. Existing knowledge is researched, a testable hypothesis is developed and evidence is gathered through observation or experimentation. The results are analysed, conclusions are formed and the findings are communicated so they can be examined, challenged and tested by others.

Peer review is important because it recognises that even well-qualified people can miss something, interpret evidence differently or become attached to their own explanation. Scientific knowledge develops through questions, testing, challenge and refinement rather than the protection of certainty.

Curiosity begins the inquiry, but evidence gives it credibility.

This brought another familiar saying to mind:

“Trust, but verify.”

The phrase is a Russian proverb that became internationally recognised through President Ronald Reagan’s use of it during Cold War nuclear disarmament negotiations. In that context, trust between nations did not remove the need for independent verification where the consequences of failure could be catastrophic.

There are also reasonable criticisms of the saying. Continually checking people can communicate mistrust, encourage defensiveness and drift into micromanagement. Trust involves allowing people a degree of autonomy and accepting some vulnerability. Verification applied indiscriminately can damage the relationships it is intended to protect.

Context therefore matters.

Within safety, risk and assurance, verification should not become a search for individual fault or proof that someone cannot be trusted. Organisations rely on the competence and commitment of their people every day. They also inspect plant, verify critical controls, audit management systems, test emergency arrangements, investigate incidents and review performance.

These activities should not exist because people are inherently distrusted. They exist because systems are imperfect, circumstances change, people are fallible and the consequences of control failure can be significant. The focus should be on verifying assumptions, controls, systems and outcomes rather than creating a culture in which people feel continually watched or doubted.

To me, verification is curiosity supported by evidence.

Auditing reflects this particularly well within assurance work. A good audit does not begin with the assumption that everything is wrong, nor does it accept that everything is right because a procedure has been written or an assurance has been given. It works to an objective and defined criteria, gathers evidence, considers context and forms conclusions based on what that evidence supports.

At its best, auditing is structured and purposeful inquiry. It tests whether our understanding reflects what is happening in practice. It asks whether the controls we depend upon are present, understood and effective, and whether the information presented to decision-makers provides an accurate picture of organisational performance.

The same thinking is visible across many contemporary approaches to safety and organisational performance. Human and Organisational Performance encourages us to understand why actions and decisions made sense to the people involved at the time rather than judging them only through the benefit of hindsight. Safety-II broadens attention beyond failure and asks why work succeeds under variable conditions most of the time. Learning Teams create structured opportunities to understand work as it is actually performed. Resilience Engineering considers how people and systems adapt to changing circumstances, while Critical Control Management requires organisations to verify that their most important controls are working when they are needed.

Integrated risk management similarly encourages us to look beyond isolated hazards and consider how decisions, resources, competing priorities and organisational conditions interact. High Reliability Organisation research adds concepts such as a reluctance to simplify and attentiveness to weak signals. Psychological safety considers whether people believe they can raise concerns, ask questions, admit uncertainty or challenge assumptions without being embarrassed, ignored or punished.

These approaches are not identical and they do not need to be. Each has its own origins, emphasis and contribution. I do not see the value in turning them into competing camps or debating which one holds the complete answer. They are different perspectives within a much broader conversation about how organisations understand work, manage uncertainty, learn and improve.

Curiosity appears to run through them all.

It encourages us to seek context before judgement, consider different perspectives, test assumptions against evidence and remain open to the possibility that reality may be more complex than our first explanation suggests.

Perspective is important in this process. Understanding another person’s perspective does not mean agreeing with it or accepting it as fact. Their interpretation may be incomplete or wrong. Even so, it was their understanding of the situation and may explain why a particular decision or action made sense to them at the time.

In investigations, risk assessments, audits and organisational reviews, that context matters. Evidence tells us what occurred. Perspective can help us understand how and why it occurred. Bringing the two together usually provides a more useful basis for learning than judgement formed without either.

Curiosity is also one of the most natural characteristics we possess. Watch young children and it is impossible to miss. They explore, experiment, ask questions, make mistakes and learn through experience. They do not need a formal program to teach them curiosity. It is already present and actively shaping how they understand the world.

Albert Einstein is widely quoted as saying:

“I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.”

Whether he was understating his abilities is beside the point. One of history’s most influential scientific thinkers chose curiosity as the quality he wanted to emphasise.

This makes me consider what happens when people enter workplaces. Organisations understandably value competence, confidence, consistency, efficiency and compliance with agreed processes. All are important. However, those same pressures can unintentionally leave less room for questions, experimentation, respectful challenge or admitting that we do not yet know.

People quickly learn which behaviours are welcomed. If asking why is treated as resistance, raising uncertainty is viewed as weakness or reporting a mistake attracts blame, curiosity may not disappear, but it is likely to become less visible.

This is where psychological safety becomes relevant. Amy Edmondson’s research has linked psychological safety with people being more willing to speak up, ask questions, share concerns and acknowledge mistakes. It does not mean removing accountability, lowering standards or creating an environment where every decision is endlessly challenged. It is about reducing the interpersonal risk associated with contributing information that may be important to learning and performance.

Curiosity may be one of the capabilities we are born with, yet one of the easiest for organisations to unintentionally suppress. The challenge is not necessarily teaching people to be curious. It is creating workplaces where they feel safe enough to remain curious and where that curiosity can be directed towards meaningful organisational outcomes.

Curiosity does, however, require purpose. Unrestrained questioning can create distraction, delay and a lack of alignment. Organisations still need clear objectives, agreed standards, defined responsibilities, effective controls and disciplined execution. Decisions must often be made before every uncertainty has been resolved.

Purposeful curiosity is not an invitation for everyone to pursue their own interpretation of how work should be done. Scientists work from hypotheses and established methods. Auditors operate within a defined scope and criteria. Investigators follow relevant lines of enquiry. Risk assessments consider uncertainty in relation to objectives. Learning Teams explore work with a clear purpose rather than holding conversations for their own sake.

Curiosity should strengthen structure, not replace it. It helps us determine whether plans remain relevant, procedures reflect the realities of work, assumptions remain valid and controls continue to achieve their intended purpose. A procedure records what we currently believe to be an appropriate way of undertaking work. Curiosity leaves room to improve it when experience and evidence show that a better way is possible.

That is the organisational value I take from Gide’s quote. It is not a call to doubt everything, dismiss expertise or remain permanently undecided. It is a reminder that knowledge, experience and confidence are strongest when they leave room for questions and remain open to evidence.

Reagan’s proverb provides a useful practical counterpoint, provided verification is applied thoughtfully. Trust people, but continue testing the assumptions, systems and controls upon which important decisions depend.

Curiosity has always been part of investigations, science, risk management, auditing, safety and assurance. It is not another management concept that organisations need to purchase or impose. It is a natural human capability that already exists within their workforce.

The opportunity is to recognise its value, give it appropriate direction and ensure that workplace culture and organisational systems do not quietly shut it out.

In safety, risk and assurance, purposeful curiosity can help us identify weak signals, understand different perspectives, challenge assumptions, verify controls and learn before reality provides a far more costly lesson.