New questions about past experience: conventional meets curious

A conventional person and a curious person can work well together when past experience helps them assess new questions. That requires clarity about what happened before, under which conditions, and what a new proposal actually changes. A familiar approach then has a reasoned foundation, and an alternative receives a fair assessment. Neither needs to be chosen simply because it feels familiar or appealing.

The tension can begin with a short exchange. One colleague asks whether something could be done differently. The other replies: “We've already tried that.” The reply may contain valuable knowledge. Yet the person asking still does not know whether the same solution was tried or merely something similar. Discussing that missing context gives the collaboration somewhere useful to go.

What do conventional and curious mean?

In a personal guide, conventional and curious describe preferences around ideas and change. A conventional person likes to build on familiar possibilities and concrete applications. An approach that values established methods and practical experience can draw attention to what has already proved useful. Familiarity alone, however, does not establish whether a method still fits the current task.

A curious person explores possibilities and looks for connections to practice. Inquisitive, interested and keen to learn are related terms, provided they do not imply a constant drive to reinvent things. The curious preference sits between conventional and progressive. It does not mean that every existing process needs replacing.

ConventionalCuriousProgressive

ConventionalCuriousProgressive

These are two positions on the same topic, not two extremes or complete descriptions of people. A conventional person can suggest a new idea; a curious person can recommend keeping an existing method. Expertise in that method comes from experience and involvement, not from the preference label.

The explanation of openness in the Big Five provides the background. The introductory articles on change with a conventional person and problem solving with a curious person cover implementation and investigation. Here, the focus is their conversation when past experience informs a new choice.

From the conventional perspective: earlier effort deserves attention

A proposal can look like a new opportunity to one person and recall repeated remedial work for another. Perhaps an earlier approach required extra preparation, missed exceptions or left colleagues correcting expectations afterwards. A colleague who values practical experience can raise those consequences before the same work is repeated.

That contribution deserves room. Experience need not appear in a report to merit discussion. A specific recollection of a handover that went wrong can be enough to raise a relevant question.

The limit lies in the conclusion. “It didn't work then” describes an outcome but does not yet explain it. Was the cause the method, the preparation, the audience or something that can no longer be reconstructed? If that remains unknown, the experience points to something worth investigating. It is not a conclusive answer to every proposal that resembles it.

From the curious perspective: a question deserves context

An inquisitive colleague may want to understand why a particular step exists or why an option was previously rejected. Asking does not necessarily dismiss the work that preceded it. Without the reasoning behind a decision, it is difficult to recognise when the same considerations still apply.

From this perspective, an answer that reconstructs the original situation helps. The curious colleague need not choose between silently accepting it and repeatedly pressing the point. The question can become more precise: which part of the earlier approach caused the problem, and does the new proposal contain that same part?

The person asking has work to do too. “This time is different” is insufficient without explaining which difference matters. A new name, supplier or presentation does not automatically remove the cause of an earlier failure. Curiosity becomes useful when it adds a focused question to what is already known.

A past outcome is not yet an explanation

Together, both perspectives can produce a short account of three kinds of information: what was observed, which explanation seems plausible, and what remains unknown. This keeps a memory from being dismissed while preventing an assumption from quietly becoming a fact.

Consider a meeting format that previously achieved little. Participants contributing very little may have been observed. The open format causing that outcome is a possible explanation. Whether questions shared in advance would make a difference may still be unknown. Those three statements do not warrant the same level of certainty.

The alternative deserves the same care. Another department using it says little about the current situation without further context. The discussion becomes more balanced when earlier disappointment and new interest are both translated into information relevant to the shared task.

The table supports a conversation. It does not establish anyone's motives or require a full investigation every time.

Example: revisiting a knowledge session

Two colleagues are preparing a monthly knowledge session. The established format is a presentation followed by questions. A proposal is made to centre the session on a practical question from participants. The response is that an earlier open session achieved very little.

Reconstructing that meeting reveals that participants had not prepared a question. The facilitator had to choose between unrelated topics on the spot, while some people did not yet know the basics. The presentation format was introduced afterwards to give everyone the same starting point.

That history reveals an important concern: the session must not assume background knowledge that participants lack. It does not yet establish that working with a practical question is unhelpful. The new proposal therefore becomes more specific: one question is collected and selected in advance, and the explanation of the necessary basics remains part of the session.

Both colleagues can now assess whether this proposal actually addresses the earlier concern. If the required background knowledge cannot be established beforehand, that remains an open issue. If the fixed presentation leaves questions unanswered, that also belongs in the assessment. Improving a proposal does not require either colleague to have chosen a preferred format already.

Their contributions are interchangeable. The conventional colleague may suggest the right practical question; the curious colleague may discover that a presentation suits this group best. The discussion concerns the participants' needs, not who should win on behalf of continuity or change.

Not every question has to reopen a decision

Asking for an explanation and proposing a change are different actions. A colleague can learn the background without automatically starting a new project. Otherwise, sharing information becomes unnecessarily burdensome: every question appears to create extra work or demand a defence of earlier decisions.

Conversely, “just a question” should not become a way to repeatedly challenge an agreed approach during delivery. When an alternative requires extra preparation, capacity or a new decision, that needs to be visible. The person asking then explains what the proposal would change.

After an assessment, a short note can record why an option was rejected and which assumption was decisive. A later discussion can return to that assumption. This avoids both endlessly repeating the same proposal and permanently excluding an idea whose circumstances have since changed.

Three agreements for experience and inquiry

1. An earlier attempt gets context. References to the past include the approach, conditions and observed outcome. Anything no longer known remains recorded as unknown.
2. An alternative identifies the relevant difference. The proposal explains which earlier concern it addresses, which concern remains and where information is still missing.
3. A completed assessment stays accessible. The reason for keeping or changing an approach is briefly recorded, alongside the assumption that could make a later decision relevant again.

These agreements make collaboration between conventional and curious people concrete without assigning either preference a fixed role. A comparison of personal guides can show differences around ideas and change alongside similarities on other topics. Personal User Guide for work provides language for that conversation. The practical next step is to take one past experience and jointly establish what it does and does not yet tell them about the current question.