Your Revenue Driver
Drucker asserts that knowledge is changing so fast today that our knowledge can become obsolete pretty quickly. We "grew up with" learning information - storing it in our brains and retrieving it when we needed it.
If in fact this is an "obsolete" method of learning then what replaces it?
Continuous learning sounds good but it does not mean do what we "grew up with" continuousy, faster or better. It means doing something differently that allows us to apply the correct knowledge when needed.
Our knowledge is perhaps less important than our ability to apply knowledge correctly. It does not matter how long we've had the knowledge or how we acquired it. What matters are the results that get produced.
I "half-jokingly" say the following quite often: Give me 24 hours and access to Google and I can "sound like" and expert on almost anything. I've added to that: Give me 2 hours and social media and I can find an expert on almost anything.
The Knowledge Worker is a "Human Learning Machine." This machine does the following:
1. Learns from everyone and anything it comes in contact with
2. Is not hampered by previous knowledge
3. Teaches everyone and anything that chooses to come in contact with it
4. Focus on outcomes vs inputs
How can we improve the defintion of the "Human Learning Machine?"
Perhaps boredom or waste is necessary in order for us to innovate to eliminate it?
Is it boring or wasteful to learn something we never apply?
Is it worse than boring or wasteful to learn something and then apply it incorrectly?
Are the by-products of never applying what we learned useful?
Are the by-products of applying something we learned incorrectly also potentially useful?
What is the appeal of imperfection? What would learning be without it?