Develop a curiosity-driven workplace

The professional environment often undervalues curiosity as a key leadership attribute perhaps because it’s difficult to measure return on investment for free-flowing inquiry, immersion in unique situations and far-reaching dialogue.

However, curiosity is often sparked when we encounter information or experiences that don’t align with our expectations or knowledge. This mismatch can lead to a sense of disconnection, which often prompts us to resolve cognitive dissonance caused by perceived inconsistencies. But we should allow curiosity to take us where it will because it’s a catalyst for intellectual growth when we consider — or confront — different perspectives or scenarios.

Curiosity fosters a mindset of open inquiry, critical thinking and a willingness to consider divergent viewpoints to reconcile conflicting information. While many in the workforce are content providing answers to questions, inquisitive people are compelled to seek answers that can result in better solutions to challenges.

Which arises first: curiosity or skepticism?

Picture a questioning-mindset continuum where curiosity lies on one end and skepticism, doubt and cynicism exist on the other end. Curiosity is the most nonjudgmental approach; it’s open to discovery but sensitive to what lies outside of expectations — a pattern interrupt or “aha!” factor. When we encounter something — a data point, a narrative, a conclusion — that lies outside our experiences and knowledge (intuition, too), our attention goes on high alert.

Back when I managed oil and gas exploration programs along the Texas Gulf Coast, my curiosity was piqued by an unusual interpretation (a pattern interrupt) on a geologic map of a subsurface structure in a mature oil field. The map contours didn’t align with the subsurface geologic trend, which triggered the “aha” factor from my geological expertise. I researched the existing oil and gas well data in the vicinity and  created a different map that revealed a promising drillable oil and gas prospect.

The company agreed with my interpretation and drilled the well, which produced 160 barrels of oil and 900,000 cubic feet of gas per day for about six months.

No doubt you’ve had similar experiences where your expertise triggered a pattern interrupt that led to curiosity, then skepticism, which led to inquiry that resulted in discovery.

At work, your healthy skepticism encounters a pattern interrupt, and you use your expertise to either accept that item as valid within defined limits (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices, for example), or you doubt its validity and inquire further. Your skepticism should be triggered first by your curiosity; otherwise, leading with skepticism can make it difficult to maintain curiosity. When your skepticism leads, you might arrive at an outcome that you’ve unknowingly predetermined. When that happens often enough, your cynicism can overtake your curiosity.

Positive effects of a curiosity-driven workplace

A workplace that values curiosity promotes an environment of ongoing development where employees are empowered to explore new ideas — perhaps even rethink existing ones. Such a curiosity-driven workplace encourages employees to:

• Show initiative, assess risks, welcome uncertainty and make “smart” mistakes.
• Complete job-related tasks using expertise to ask tough questions.
• Use responsibility and authority to influence an organization’s strategic direction and operational outcomes.
• Maintain independence in projects and processes that contribute to successful results.
• Align tasks with values, behaviors and contributions.

Barriers to a curiosity-driven workplace

Creating a curiosity-driven workplace faces several barriers. First, organizational leaders often say they don’t have time and resources to ask unusual questions and explore new avenues. They might think that unusual scenarios only lead to dead ends, but these can also present better solutions.

In the early days of sailing, navigators believed that following the coastline of Africa would reveal a shortcut to India. So they chose efficiency instead of exploration. Much like many leaders today, they sought the safety of the familiar and never found an alternative route to India.

However, Christopher Columbus, sailing perpendicular to the coastline in his attempt to discover the shortcut, showed that despite failing in his primary objective, his curiosity changed exploration.

Secondly, fear of failure and negative repercussions can make employees hesitant to take risks or pursue new ideas. Fear stifles curiosity and inhibits employees’ initiative to make a “deep dive” into possible financial discrepancies or ethical missteps.

In a 2007 interview with Fraud Magazine, former Enron Vice President Sherron Watkins stated as much. “Creating a highly competitive environment where employees did not want to appear weak or unintelligent was a root cause of Enron’s problems,” Watkins said. “Smart people stopped asking questions for fear of looking like they didn’t ‘get it.’” (See “Interview with Sherron Watkins: Constant Warning,” by Dick Carozza, CFE, Fraud Magazine, January/February 2007.)

Thirdly, some workplaces may have rigid hierarchical structures or cultures that discourage questioning and open dialogue, making it difficult for curiosity to flourish.

WorldCom Vice President of Internal Audit Cynthia Cooper, CFE, told Fraud Magazine in 2008 that fellow executives didn’t want to hear any ideas that would call into question their schemes. Early in her WorldCom career, Cooper’s boss told her “Not to use the term internal controls in any more audit reports because Bernie [CEO Bernard Ebbers] didn’t understand what it meant and it aggravated him.” Ebbers had a degree in physical education — a curriculum that doesn’t include coursework in internal audits or internal controls. (See “Extraordinary Circumstances: An Interview with Cynthia Cooper,” by Dick Carozza, CFE, Fraud Magazine, March/April 2008.)

Humans are wired for knowledge seeking and novelty. The quest for knowledge is like a pot where new ideas, originality and inquisitiveness brew.

Bias kills workplace curiosity

Every decision we make must filter through our cognitive biases, which rely on our experiences, perceptions and environment. Cognitive biases often lead to thinking errors that yield “good enough” judgments. To that end, improving people’s curiosity in your organization starts by asking: “Are you willing to admit that your statement, position or assumption might be wrong?”

Availability in psychology is the ease and certainty with which we recall information. However, the availability bias places excessive weight (validity) on what we remember. When we opt for a simpler explanation instead of a challenging one, or swap a complex calculation for a straightforward one, we’re using a form of availability bias called cognitive substitution. (See “The Substitution Trap,” by Gary Klein, Ph.D., Psychology Today, Oct. 31, 2020.)

Confirmation bias favors information that aligns with a set of beliefs while discounting information that contradicts those beliefs. It’s equally capable of halting workplace curiosity because it favors the biased argument; seeks bias-affirming evidence; encourages selective recollection of facts or events; and creates the conditions for willful blindness, group think and fraud.

Create a curiosity-driven workplace

Here are five strategies for creating a curiosity-driven workplace:

• Hire employees for empathy, which provides insight into how others think and feel. A tool such as Hogan’s empathy scale can help reveal inquisitive, exploration-minded candidates. (See “Measuring Empathy,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)
• Model inquisitive leadership by asking questions and seeking input from the smart people around you; admit when you don’t have all the answers.
• Dedicate time or resources for exploring “what-if” scenarios that could lead to new opportunities; allow for errors and dead ends in the pursuit of the truth.
• Foster a supportive environment where failure is a learning opportunity rather than a detriment.
• Restructure hierarchies and promote open communication channels to help remove obstacles to fostering inquisitiveness.

How is your curiosity piqued?

Chartered financial analyst consultant Harry Markopolos, CFE, tells Fraud Magazine where he searches for clues that alert his curiosity as a fraud examiner. “I’ve gotten cases from reading The Wall Street Journal. The things that make me curious are when companies announce layoffs or take large asset write-downs on previously purchased entities and then keep reporting increasing earnings for several quarters afterwards,” Markopolos says. “Great earnings, especially high-quality earnings, should only come from increasing revenues not downsizing. Another obvious clue is when year-over-year revenues are decreasing yet profits are rising. But I guess my favorite clues often involve resignations of senior executives, particularly when several executives POGO (pursue other growth opportunities) out of a company over a short period of time. These clues seem obvious, but you’d be surprised how often investors jump in to invest in companies without reading several years’ worth of 10-Ks and spreadsheeting the financial statements.”

Ultimately, curiosity and healthy skepticism drive us to engage with uncertainty, challenge preconceptions, and seek the truth for greater insight.

Donn LeVie Jr., CFE, a staff writer for Fraud Magazine, has presented and served as a leadership strategist at ACFE Global Fraud Conferences since 2012. Now retired, he’s led people and programs for Fortune 100 companies, the U.S. federal government and academia for more than 30 years prior to his becoming a leadership influence strategist, coach, keynote speaker and award-winning author. Contact him at donnleviejr@gmail.com.

Self-scoring professional skepticism audit

The Hurtt Scale of Professional Skepticism is an auditing-focused measure that assesses professional skepticism based on characteristics drawn from audit standards, psychology, philosophy and consumer behavior research. The 30-question audit draws upon six characteristics of skeptics: (1) suspension of judgment, (2) an inquisitive mind, (3) search for knowledge, (4) interpersonal understanding, (5) self-confidence and (6) self-determination. (See “Development of a Scale to Measure Professional Skepticism,” by R. Kathy Hurtt, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, May 1, 2010.)

Scoring the audit: Rate each statement with a number from 1 through 6 (1 = strongly disagree 6 = completely agree).

Items 1, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 25 and 26 are reverse-scored. Subtract the scores from these eight items before totaling the final score.