I'd Rather be Curious Than Correct

In a mahogany-lined British pub, a quirky American sprays darts around the dart board, intrigued by the local pastime. A shrewd Brit, sensing an easy mark, strikes up a conversation and proposes a high-stakes game. After accepting the challenge, the American quips, “Ah shucks, I forgot I’m left handed.” He switches the dart to his dominant hand, lasers it into the bullseye, and dons a hayseed grin.?

The yankee proceeds to school the Brit: “I saw a quote from Walt Whitman that said, ‘Be curious, not judgemental.’(1) I liked that. People have underestimated me all my life. Not a single one of them was curious. They thought they had everything figured out so they judged everything and everyone. If they had been curious, they would have asked questions, such as ‘have you played a lot of darts?’”??

The anecdote comes from the Apple TV show Ted Lasso, Season 1 Episode 8.

1 Misattributed to Whitman. Actual source unknown.

Travel Streams Instead of Railroad Tracks

During a post mortem discussion, the facilitator suggested, “We implemented a fix for the defect so the issue is complete, correct?” At a brainstorming session, a senior leader asserted, “It’s obvious we should pursue the code refactoring plan, right?” In both cases, the speaker sought to curtail discussion and cajole the audience into accepting a pre-defined outcome. Although the speakers may have had the best of intentions, they lacked curiosity.??

Time is precious. Therefore, we should consume it judiciously. Management best practices recommend clear meeting agendas, apportioning a time limit for each agenda item, and driving discussions to consensus and action items. These valuable insights raise the efficacy of any formal engagement. But, I want to advocate a contrarian approach. I want us to resist the temptation to select an outcome, in the name of efficiency, and then railroad discourse to arrive at the pre-ordained destination. Such an approach prevents the team from visiting new and promising destinations, similar to a stream carving a new path.

At the outset of a staff call, a colleague laid out an argument that Activity A causes Negative Outcome B. Therefore, the group should pursue Course of Action C, which would address A. The group proceeded to discuss the logistics of implementing C. Another colleague meekly questioned how causality between A and B had been validated, since her data did not support the conclusion. The group resisted her line of questioning with the following responses:

• We already selected a plan, why are you questioning it?
• We have many agenda items, we can’t get bogged down with each one.
• What if we pursue C for now? We can always revisit it if it proves unsuccessful.

The group sought to avoid backtracking in the conversation, which they deemed an anti-pattern to the supposed progress they had achieved. I’m reminded of the old project management adage: “There’s never enough time to do it right, but there’s always enough time to do it again once we realize we made a mistake.” When faced with resistance to questions, as cited above, ask the group, “What’s the potential cost/risk of entertaining curiosity?” Typically the group agrees that curiosity, within limits, comes cheap and that it presents minimal risk. If the issue at hand is truly time sensitive, be decisive. Otherwise, be curious.

Favor an Interrogative Approach

Once we’ve secured space for curiosity, pose framing questions to structure the discourse:

• How did we arrive at the current decision point? Do we share a common view of history?
• What decision do we need to make? Why do we need to make it now?
• What data characterizes the situation? Do we require additional data?
• Which structure will we use to make the decision (consensus, majority, hierarchy, customer-centric, data driven, etc.)?

Asking questions demonstrates empathy. The questioner expresses their desire to understand how others approach the problem space. What do they value? How much do they want to invest in a solution? What excites or concerns them? Questions also express openness. The questioner hasn’t made up their mind—they’re still exploring. They want to engage and learn to reach the best decision.

Depending on the culture of the group, participants may interprepret these questions as attempts to disparage their perspectives/intelligence/authority in front of colleagues and superiors. Such an environment can breed infighting. To quell the acrimony, direct questions at the topic or proposal rather than at people. Stating, “Kali’s plan clearly doesn’t hold water,” will likely trigger a confrontation. Instead, nurture psychological safety by stating, “The proposal on the table suggests causality between A and B. I want to understand how that was determined before building a plan that requires causality as its foundation.”

Cast Off the Anchor

All groups are subject to anchoring: the loudest/smartest/chiefist person’s viewpoint steers the group’s opinion. Aligning ourselves with this person is expedient and potentially politically safe. But doing so doesn’t require curiosity. Anchoring also minimizes engagement within the group—the lifeblood of culture—since only one voice speaks. To avoid anchoring, use techniques such as, 1-2-4-All and Think, Write, Share. These techniques create space for everyone to consider a framing question, formulate their response, (which may take the form of additional questions), and then share with the group. You can use grouping and voting techniques to select the most promising ideas to workshop.

Use Curiosity to Temper Arrogance

Adopt a practice from Red Team Thinking. Appoint someone to serve as Devil’s Advocate or the Logic Watchdog in your discussions. The appointee spots assumptions disguised as facts, rhetorical leaps, fallacies and biases. Building a plan atop one or more unchallenged assumptions can result in a house-of-cards plan. If the plan fails to achieve the defined goals, it’s difficult to determine the root cause of failure since the originally suspect assumptions become canon over time.?

In a mature and psychologically safe environment, challenging assumptions need not result in bruised egos. Smart, experienced people with good instincts are still subject to fallacies and biases. The wisdom of the group grants us all perspective we may lack when we inspect our own views. The appointed watchdog should pose frequent questions, such as, “How can we prove that?” “How did we go from A to B?” “How do we defend ourselves against Fallacy X?” The appointee does not need to be an SME on the topic under discussion and should reserve their own judgement on the topic while serving as the watchdog.

Hopefully, you’re privileged to work with trained, experienced, well-compensated colleagues. Likely we all work under time constraints and therefore feel an obligation to our organizations and customers to work efficiently. Mixing experience and time pressure can produce arrogance: “I’ve explored all aspects of the problem. The solution is obvious. I’m in the best position to make the decision.” We likely enjoy having “the answer” when working with our colleagues and managers. In most situations, we can leverage our experience and resist the time pressure enough to make room for curiosity. Such a recipe can produce humility, which encourages us to ask questions. “What do I not understand? What have I assumed? What’s the next question I should ask to increase the group’s clarity about how we’re going to achieve our goal?”?

How many questions have you posed to yourself and your colleagues today?