Curious about Curiosity?
Stairs at Konomineji Temple in Kochi, Shikoku, Japan
If successful collaboration followed a recipe, one of the preparations would be to have a good serving of “healthy curious” on hand:
Step 1: Combine equal parts CONFIDENCE and HUMILITY.
Step 2: Mix until smooth.
Note: if too hard (i.e. questioning the sanity of the others involved), add HUMILITY; too soft (i.e. doubting your ability to contribute), it needs more CONFIDENCE.
Step 3: Add humour to taste.
In engaging around a specific area of curiosity, CONFIDENCE reduces fear that examination and questioning will uncover something best hidden from view. HUMILITY, in proper doses, means that collaborators accept (and invite) that their long-held beliefs may benefit from poking and prodding.
Below is a presentation of different forms of curiosity, whereby “healthy” means “appropriate for the context and shared with others.” These are distinct yet connected. They provide clarity on the intended conversation, such that we are asking the right questions and maintaining a shared focus for conversation.
NOTE: Facilitation is the service of doing this for people. Consider this a DIY collaboration tool.
FOUR TYPES OF CURIOSITY
Existential curiosity – Where should be best apply ourselves?
What it is:
Out-of-the-box, blue sky, blank canvas, or pick another metaphor for deep and broad thinking, where there are no rules, no sacred cows; ideas receive neither immediate dismissal nor favour. Past success and failure by us or others are immaterial.
How it can be useful:
This is the realm for creativity and innovation. Change (or emergence from denial) can force us to revisit everything that we have done to date. One area to balance is allowing discussion on both different means and different ends. Is there more than one promising star in the north? Should we consider that star sitting in southwest?
Where it is inherently problematic:
This is a daunting area of curiosity because it can bring pre-formed beliefs into conflict. An “existential” discussion can also raise unhelpful questions like, “why even bother?”
Impact-focused curiosity – How can we best apply ourselves (in our chosen area)?
What it is:
Once we are clear on the overall direction (i.e. a star sitting on a specific compass point), we can now be curious about how best to make progress in that direction with the understanding that this is a journey (long-term focus) not a destination (completable task).
How it can be useful:
There is an important separation between the overall direction and the means of progressing. Once we start to quantify and evaluate our progress, there is a danger that those measures take focus away from the overall direction or that we ignore the negative impact on connected areas (i.e. business externalities) as we focus only on our forward progress.
Where it is inherently problematic:
This separation requires effort to maintain, especially when we have an audience, which can take the form of a regulating body, a return-expecting investor, or a results-hungry activist group. Each of these can unintentionally promote a culture of “hide the bodies” rather than one of reducing their number. Another analogy is not automatically assuming that “weight loss” is making one healthier. Cigarette smoking is well known to suppress appetites.
System-focussed curiosity – Where is our bang-for-buck sweet spot?
What it is:
Systems involve constraints that we can expose or disable as part of the “impact-focussed” discussion. This level of curiosity seeks to find constraints that force adherence to a productive path. “Keep off the grass” ceases to be an annoyance and becomes a welcomed rule because it helps minimize our environmental footprint (intentional pun).
How it can be useful:
This is highly practical discussion helps triage practices that we WILL follow, that we WILL NOT follow, and those for which context drives the decision. Exposing this to discussion can allow people to see how the constraints connect to our intended impact. A common innovation structure is to define a tangible goal while respecting a constraint: e.g. How can we accomplish XXX, without causing YYY?
Where it is inherently problematic:
Constraints can be externally imposed or internally defined. Our relationship with the former often brings an attitude of pushing or testing, while the latter invites relaxing if it impedes obvious progress.
Executional curiosity – Where can we eke our even more?
What it is:
A well-oiled machine system can encourage set-it-and-forget-it thinking, but our curiosity persists as to “is there a better way?” without causing undue harm to impact in other areas.
How it can be useful:
Quality/continuous improvement minded people will welcome the scrutiny involved here, where we seek low-hanging fruit and elegant solutions. It can also spark broader curiosity as we can realize that our “executional solutions” may be enabling or augmenting system-level challenges, which will, in turn, pull away from our actual impact.
Where it is inherently problematic:
As with man thought-provoking areas, we balance tension: here it is between “good enough” and “perfect.” This kind of curiosity can also fall into making performative change where we occasionally substitute six for a half-dozen so that no one accuses us of resting on our laurels.
SO…
If you are looking for better collaboration within your organization or ecosystem (or are frustrated with the current state of the interactions) consider clarifying the type of curiosity you want and, more importantly, the type you need for your work to be more effective. To further the culinary metaphor, some of the best collaborative activity starts in a test kitchen environment.