True knowledge, worldly experience and higher intelligence, is never sufficiently remunerated, but what we are paid to know – our own expertise and prime reason for employment – has to be defended, rewarded, capitalised upon and armed like a battleship in order to show those responsible for our wages or business that we are worthy of it, and also that they are worthy of us providing it for them. There’s always someone who can take your place, so the knowledge you’re paid for becomes the legs on which you stand, and can easily be kicked from under you. When the shit hits the fan people normally ask:

• Who knew it would happen? (responsibility)
• Who could have acted on it? (accountability)
• Who knew but didn’t act? (responsibility + accountability)
• Why didn’t they act? (knowledge war has begun – who knows best)
• It was you! (time to defend yourself)
• OK, so who then? (blame someone else)

When people are delegated duties to do with knowledge, they have to attack, defend, reinforce and constantly evaluate where they are on the knowledge terrain in the office regardless of what they really know. You can gauge your knowledge on an issue and rate it as being low, middle or high ground, and do the same with a competitor. Two people in the high ground have a lot at stake, while two people in the low ground might not have much to share, but much to gain.

Rather than thinking of knowledge as an abstract world, map it out and view it with a strategy in mind. After all, when people want something, they have a strategy, which means they have a plan. It’s only fair that you create a plan, and the simpler you can describe it, the easier you can explain it to someone else who can aid you.