You are a knowledge worker, and you know that if you want to keep working you need to be constantly upgrading your knowledge. But what sort of knowledge? There are three different types, and their relative value is changing rapidly. What's more, the one we have all traditionally focused on is becoming a lot less valuable.
So what are the three types, and what are they worth today?
The first level of knowledge is the knowledge of facts. This isn't particularly valuable any more, now that everybody has access to all the facts in the world via Google. As a source of any sort of advantage, facts are over.
The second level of knowledge is the knowledge of procedures, how to do things. The value of this is also eroding fast. There's a combination of factors at work here. Thirty years ago someone who knew, for example, how to maintain accurate records in the back office of a bank or do complex engineering calculations was in competition with people in the same city. Now, they are in competition with people all over the world. And also with machines -- more and more of this procedural stuff has been turned into software. I wouldn't bet on being able to build a fulfilling career on being able to do this sort of thing, however hard it is or how good you are at it.
So where do you go, if you want to remain relevant? There's no value in adding to your knowledge of facts, and only the most fleeting benefit from adding knowledge of new procedures. I suggest you look at the third level of knowledge, which is knowledge of yourself.
In my days as a turnaround specialist, an expert in organizational and personal failure, I saw very little incompetence but a lot of stupidity. As a general rule, people and organizations failed because they hadn't adopted new behaviors when they needed to. They had continued to manage everything personally when they needed to delegate. They continued to avoid risk when there were no worthwhile low-risk opportunities available. They had continued to try to satisfy all customers when they needed be clear about which customers they served, and avoid those who didn't fit the profile.
The new behaviors needed were not any more difficult than the old ones that needed to be abandoned. In fact, in some cases they were easier. With a little practice, it is easier -- and certainly less exhausting -- to delegate appropriately than to micro-manage. It's easier to say no customers who are a poor fit than to bend the whole organization out of shape trying to serve them.
No, the reasons that these people failed, at huge cost to themselves and their organizations, all came down to one thing. Lack of self-awareness. Inability to see when they were just repeating habits which had worked in the past, rather than working out what needed to be done now. If they had realized that they needed to change their game then acquiring the new skills would have been a piece of cake, but they couldn't see it.
All skills can be learned and practiced, or they can just be bought in, if only you can notice that they are necessary. Just about the only thing you can't outsource these days is the ability to notice what you fail to notice.
