Why Curiosity Matters in Governance
Curiosity helps governors build understanding, trust and meaningful connection with the organisations and people they serve
“Curiosity killed the cat” is a familiar phrase, often offered as a warning. But in governance, the opposite is far more risky. Without curiosity — without the confidence to ask questions, seek evidence and look beyond what is presented on paper — governors may miss the very things they are there to oversee.
Curiosity in this context is not about suspicion or micromanagement. It is about being inquisitive — wanting to understand more deeply how an organisation really functions. It values the ‘show me’ alongside the what and the why. In governance, this mindset is often expressed through triangulation.
Board papers should clearly cover the what, why, when and how. Triangulation goes a step further. It means finding opportunities to see first-hand how what you are being told translates into day-to-day practice. Boards naturally rely on the information they are given, and site visits or direct engagement can enrich that picture. This is not about mistrust; it is about strengthening understanding and assurance.
There are many reasons why visits and direct engagement do not always take place. Governors may feel uncertain about their own knowledge or unsure how far to probe areas outside their professional background. In some settings, visits are seen as unnecessary or are handled informally. While these perspectives are understandable, they do not remove the value of seeing an organisation in action and connecting governance decisions to lived experience.
This emphasis on curiosity is strongly echoed in the Institute of Directors’ business paper NEDs reimagined: A post-Higgs review of the role and contribution of non-executive directors (2026). The report makes a clear case that modern boards need to move from periodic oversight to active, informed, adaptive stewardship. It argues that non-executives benefit from being “more engaged and curious” and “more present in the business”.
Crucially, the report does not position curiosity as a combative posture. In its section titled Curiosity comes first (p8), it notes that discussions about non-executive effectiveness often centre on challenge — but that challenge works best when paired with emotional intelligence, curiosity and engagement, with chairs encouraging collaboration and thoughtful dialogue. That is exactly the spirit in which curiosity strengthens governance: not as a ‘gotcha’, but as a way of building shared understanding, trust and better decisions.
Visits are not only a way to triangulate information; they can also help governors understand how staff are feeling and how organisational culture is experienced in practice. In environments where openness is actively encouraged, conversations about challenge, pressure and morale are more visible. Curiosity, when expressed with care and respect, tends to be welcomed because people are proud of their work and want others to understand it fully.
Governors can benefit from opportunities to visit and become a recognised face — not ever-present, but familiar enough to feel connected rather than unknown. Asking questions, observing practice and listening to those working within the organisation all help build trust and shared understanding.
In governance, curiosity is not something to be feared. When exercised thoughtfully and respectfully, it strengthens relationships, deepens understanding and ultimately supports the people and communities that organisations exist to serve.
So, allow yourself to ask questions, make visits where appropriate and stay inquisitive about the organisation you are helping to steward. Curiosity, handled well, is not a risk to governance — it is one of its greatest strengths.
Reference
Institute of Directors (IoD) (2026). NEDs reimagined: A post-Higgs review of the role and contribution of non-executive directors. IoD Business Paper.
