The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) highlights certain traits as “derailers”—behaviors that tend to emerge under stress and potentially undermine leadership effectiveness. They are often dubbed as “Overused strengths” since many of these traits can be beneficial in the right context when exercised judiciously.
Skeptical for instance, describes individuals who tend to become mistrustful, sensitive to betrayal, and cynical in the face of perceived threats. However, when managed well, it can be a critical leadership skill, particularly in a world where blind trust can lead to scandal, rigid adherence to rules can stifle innovation, and overconfidence in AI or authority can create systemic risk. Strategic use of skepticism is therefore critical for challenging poor decisions, safeguarding organisational interests, and preventing costly errors. Those who score high on Skeptical often question others’ intentions or competence, probe new ideas critically, and remain alert to the potential for manipulation or misinformation. While these traits can derail collaboration in environments that require high trust and openness, in environments of risk, uncertainty, or pressure; they become early warning systems. Skeptical individuals can challenge groupthink, flag flawed logic, and protect against complacency or unchecked assumptions.
The Cost of Insufficient Skepticism: Amelia Earhart’s Final Flight
On July 2, 1937, aviation pioneer, Amelia Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan embarked on the final leg of their round-the-world flight, from Lae, New Guinea to Howland Island—a remote speck in the Pacific— where the U.S. Coast Guard crew of Itasca awaited offshore for her to land and refuel. While the aircraft was outfitted with several advanced communication tools, neither Earhart nor Noonan had received adequate training on how to use them. As they approached Howland Island, complications involving time zone mismatches, vague coordination protocols, and overreliance on untested technology disrupted communication. Driven by urgency to complete a historic feat, Earhart and her crew overlooked testing communication systems under real-world conditions before departure. Earhart’s confidence in verbal communication with the Itasca, and lack of alternate communication methods proved disastrous as it seems nobody paused to say – “What if this doesn’t work? What’s our plan B? Do we really know how this system behaves under stress?” Tragically, several fatal oversights and unchallenged trust in untested systems doomed the mission, reflecting the dangers of insufficient skepticism—when crucial assumptions are left unchallenged, risk can escalate into disaster.
The Power of Healthy Skepticism: Frances Kelsey and Thalidomide
In 1960, Frances Oldham Kelsey had just joined the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Only a month into her role, she was assigned to review the application for a new drug, thalidomide—a sedative and treatment for morning sickness widely approved in Europe, Canada, and parts of Asia. However, she noticed a lack of controlled, published studies on thalidomide’s safety in pregnant women. The data provided were mostly anecdotal or based on limited trials. Furthermore, there were early but inconclusive reports from Europe of nerve damage and birth defects. Despite mounting pressure from Richardson-Merrell (the U.S. manufacturer), which accused her of unnecessary delays and bureaucratic obstinance, Kelsey refused to approve the drug without comprehensive safety data. She repeatedly demanded more documentation, delaying approval for months. And, in late 1961, reports from Europe linked thalidomide to severe birth defects confirming her suspicions. Kelsey’s measured doubt and defensive vigilance prevented its entry into the U.S. market, saving thousands of infants from irreversible harm. Her commitment to data over deference led to the landmark Kefauver-Harris Amendments of 1962, which redefined the FDA’s standards for drug safety and efficacy prior to drug marketing.
The Case for Skepticism
A 2024 study in the Journal of Business Ethics showed that auditors who exercise professional skepticism were significantly more successful at identifying financial inconsistencies and potential fraud. These professionals questioned vague rationales, investigated unusual patterns, and asked difficult questions—sometimes at the cost of interpersonal tension or peer discomfort.
Recent research (2024, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management) found that GPT-4 and other AI systems exhibit the same cognitive biases as humans—including overconfidence in incorrect answers and confirmation bias. Yet many organisations, eager to adopt AI without skepticism; often fall into the trap of assuming these systems are unbiased, infallible, or even morally neutral. As organisations and leaders are increasingly relying on AI, we must exercise caution by demanding to know how decisions are being made by AI, question assumptions about AI’s accuracy or objectivity and slow down implementation of AI until the risks are fully understood.
Whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden (NSA) and Tyler Schultz (Theranos) who raised internal concerns, challenged dominant narratives, questioned institutional claims, and endured reputational damage for pointing out uncomfortable truths. What’s compelling about their skepticism is that it’s not merely about distrusting others—it reflects a steadfast commitment to truth, even when it is inconvenient, uncomfortable, or unpopular. It is this kind of principled doubt that safeguards organisations from costly errors, unchecked bias, and the premature adoption of unvetted systems.
The Hogan Skeptical derailer trait manifests as excessive mistrust & cynicism, qualities that can undermine trust. Yet the case of Frances Kelsey and Tyler Schultz demonstrates that calibrated skepticism can strengthen decision‐making frameworks and avert major crises, especially in high‐stakes environments. By contrast, Amelia Earhart’s story highlights how an absence of critical scrutiny, whether of new technologies, procedural alignments, or mutual expectations, can become a vulnerability.
Leaders and professionals can benefit from cultivating some constructive skepticism and transforming it into a strategic asset. Questioning assumptions to probe data sources and testing systems rigorously to confirm reliability under pressure can safeguard against systemic issues. It also helps to clarify doubts and encourage team members to voice concerns by creating a space of psychological safety. These behaviours, when wielded with discernment, serve as a vital defense against the perils of haste and protect organisations from groupthink, ethical breakdowns and legal & PR liabilities.
In a world rife with misinformation and rapid change, the ability to question without criticising or alienating is a vital mechanism for checks and balances. The key lies in striking a balance: cultivating enough skepticism and critical thinking to avoid naivety and safeguard accuracy, but not so much that it derails relationships and collective efficacy. By reframing skepticism as a situational tool rather than a fixed trait, the potential derailer can become a driver for well-informed decisions and empowered teams. After all, progress doesn’t come from blind faith—it comes from asking the right questions.
References :
- Brazel, J.F., Leiby, J. & Schaefer, T.J. Who Rewards Appropriate Levels of Professional Skepticism?. J Bus Ethics 196, 439–450 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05732-w
- Waggoner MR, Lyerly AD. Clinical trials in pregnancy and the “shadows of thalidomide”: Revisiting the legacy of Frances Kelsey. Contemp Clin Trials. 2022 Aug;119:106806. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2022.106806. Epub 2022 May 30. PMID: 35654303; PMCID: PMC9420797.
- Yang Chen; , Samuel N. Kirshner; , Anton Ovchinnikov; , Meena Andiappan; , Tracy Jenkin (2025) A Manager and an AI Walk into a Bar: Does ChatGPT Make Biased Decisions Like We Do?. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 27(2):354-368. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2023.0279
- Crew, M. R. (2024, August 9). Amelia Earhart: Last Flight, Final Chapter? – Mystery Review crew. Mystery Review Crew. https://mysteryreviewcrew.com/amelia-earhart-p2/
- Gray, A. a G. (1993, December). Amelia Didn’t Know Radio. Naval History Magazine. Retrieved May 2, 2025, from https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1993/december/amelia-didnt-know-radio
