Cultivating curiosity and constructive dissent

Good risk management is not about conservative thinking, it needs curiosity and a willingness to ask difficult questions that often go against the status quo. Joshua Watkin reflects on the unrecognised impact of good risk engineering.

Joshua Watkin is Former Executive Director and Head of Project Delivery, Sydney Metro. He was a keynote speaker at RISK2025, hosted by the Risk Engineering Society of Engineers Australia.

There’s a quiet tragedy in how often the work of risk engineers goes underappreciated. It’s dense, complicated, and frequently misunderstood – sometimes even by those meant to benefit from it. Yet at its best, risk management isn’t about policing a project’s enthusiasm. It’s about enabling the art of the possible.

I’ve had the privilege of working alongside extraordinary professionals – from experienced estimators to ecological innovators – and what distinguishes the truly impactful isn’t a sophisticated Monte Carlo model or a perfectly colour-coded register. It’s their mindset: a deeply ingrained curiosity and a willingness to challenge assumptions, even when it’s uncomfortable.

Curiosity and constructive dissent aren’t simply desirable attributes – they’re essential engineering tools. And they’re urgently needed if we’re to confront the complexity, uncertainty and relentless pace of modern infrastructure delivery.

From risk registers to real conversations

Too often, risk becomes procedural – a list to update, a workshop to tick off, a governance gate to pass. But real risk management isn’t passive documentation. It’s a dynamic process of inquiry. It’s about asking, “What have we not yet considered?” and “What are we assuming without sufficient challenge?”

Projects succeed or fail not because of software models, but because of people. This means we must confront our biases – overconfidence, anchoring, groupthink – that cloud judgement and warp outcomes. A good risk professional doesn’t just manage project risk – they manage human fallibility.

One of the most powerful tools we have in countering those traps is curiosity. Not idle speculation, but a focused, courageous curiosity that probes inconsistencies, questions norms and uncovers blind spots.

A case for constructive dissent

Curiosity on its own is not enough. In high-pressure environments, challenging consensus can be seen as dissent – and dissent can be career-limiting. That’s why we must create a culture that not only tolerates but encourages respectful disagreement. The goal isn’t consensus – it’s clarity.

Daniel Kahneman, in his later work, championed “adversarial collaboration” – a practice of deliberately inviting credible opposing viewpoints to strengthen conclusions. I prefer the term “constructive dissent”, because it captures the purpose more clearly: we’re not arguing to win, we’re debating to improve.

This approach is uncomfortable. But it’s also transformative. When we create space for genuine dialogue – not posturing, not box-ticking – we enable teams to explore what’s not just probable, but what’s possible. That’s where breakthrough opportunities lie.

Despite their impact, engineers are often absent from critical decision-making. How do we change that?

Peer review, not peer approval

A constructive dissent culture requires more than diverse perspectives. It requires a commitment to listen. All too often, peer reviews become intellectual stand-offs rather than opportunities for improvement.

Instead, let’s think of peer review as mutual elevation. Bring in someone with a genuinely different interpretation of the data – someone who isn’t there to agree, but to improve the thinking. Not to tick a box, but to ask: “What are we missing?” That’s how we move beyond red-flag risk registers and into truly enabling risk intelligence.

Staying curious under pressure

It’s tempting – particularly under tight deadlines and tightening budgets – to retreat into what’s known. We gravitate to the big, loud, scary risks because they’re visible, urgent and, often, defensible. But in doing so, we miss quieter opportunities for improvement.

Reusing past solutions can feel efficient – but it’s often lazy thinking in disguise.