Using Lisa’s co-worker as an example, this person is going to become a managerial problem. If only one person knows the particular software/system/platform, then there is a finite amount of work that person can do. If no one else can work in the same sand box, that person becomes a project bottleneck. At some point, a manager is going to look at the amount of time it takes to get n number of projects or tasks completed and decide that maybe new software/system/platform would be better for the company. The knowledge hoarded like gold turns into pennies. Daniel’s comment about moving on is also a really good point. Making yourself indispensible by hoarding knowledge means you can’t move on to bigger and better things. If variety is the spice of life, moving on makes for more variety. That’s pragmatic.

Since we don’t always know everything, knowledge sharing can be a two-way street. If you help me by sharing what you know, I should be willing to help you by sharing my knowledge at a later date. If I don’t share, then there’s no incentive for you to continue to help me. If you create a network of knowledge sharing, you are more likely to receive knowledge that makes you more productive and achieve results faster. Even though you seem altruistic, you are really being pragmatic.

In the Federal government we claim to do (1 – pay for results), usually pay people (2 – enough), and definitely do (3 – open-book salaries). We aren’t very successful at sharing knowledge among workers and cooperating and such. The main reason is that we fail miserably at (1 – pay for results).

While this type of knowledge sharing may improve the team’s ability to deliver, at the individual level it is a zero-sum game. We are either putting the hours towards our own tasks that we get evaluated on or putting them towards something else that we don’t get evaluated for. Work harder, not smarter. ;-)

And forget competing for raises. With the economy as it is, and layoffs occurring rather regularly, we’re competing for our jobs.

In my experience, knowledge hoarding is more prevelant at the management level in organizations, which is why we often find out about policies and procedures after we have violated them.

If my “competitors” knows exactly what I know, we would be equally compensated. I see no conflict there.

However, if the metrics are flawed in any way, so that someone is in a position to cheat or game the system, there is a problem. But that is rooted in the system.

I can’t see how a result based system is shielded from these problems.

Why not let your coworker nab the glory and stay behind to rule the molehill while you move on to the next big thing?