The Harvard Business Review recently published a piece titled: Why “Wisdom Work” Is the New “Knowledge Work”. Written by Chip Conley, it explores the concept of "Wisdom Work" – the importance of shared experience in the workplace as demographic shifts bring more older workers and younger digital natives together. By fostering intergenerational collaboration, Chip argues, and valuing wisdom alongside knowledge, organisations can enhance productivity and innovation in an era increasingly influenced by AI. 

So much has changed in the workplace, over the past few years. Think about it: in 2020, you had never even heard the phrase ‘ChatGPT’. But we’re particularly interested in how to maintain an active interest in wisdom in the workplace, not just knowledge, as older workers retire and younger ones start their careers. And there’s an interesting question around wisdom v. knowledge when it comes to younger managers leading older employees, too. And then, of course, there’s AI. How will it impact our relationship with wisdom in the workplace? Are we at risk of undervaluing wisdom, and overvaluing knowledge?  

We spoke to our Founder and Chair, Sean Connolly, about how the workplace has changed, fundamentally, since he started out over forty years ago, as well as his perspective on what ‘wisdom’ in the workplace means, and his viewpoint on the future of AI.   

How would you define the difference between knowledge and wisdom in the workplace?  

Knowledge is the codification – and sometimes documentation – of observation. Wisdom is all about context; about history, and patterns, and making connections. In other words, wisdom is the application of knowledge, through experience.  

How do you think intergenerational dynamics have changed in the workplace over the past forty years? 

Power structures and dynamics have changed, in that it used to be that people in senior roles had been there longer, and people were less likely to move organisation. There was this view that if you moved every two years, there was something wrong with you. You needed to stay somewhere for five years; but that expectation of organisational loyalty has changed.  

And there’s more diversity, generally. It’s not where we want it to be, yet. But generally speaking, people have more access to opportunity, which means we have a more educated workforce. When I went to university, I was one of the fortunate five percent of the population to have that opportunity; now it’s more like fifty. So, you’ve got a much wider group of educated individuals entering the workforce, which can only be a positive thing.  

And then came the early 2000s, with the dot com boom, which also radically changed how intergenerational dynamics worked. Lots of young people started setting up businesses and becoming CEOs; there was this understanding that you could become a leader without climbing a greasy pole.  

And whilst these changes are good – because they promote meritocracy – there’s something slightly broader that seems to remain the same: you could refer to it as ‘The Grandmother Principle.’ Simply put, it’s this notion that civilisation is built on the intergenerational transference of knowledge, of wisdom. When I started out, over forty years ago now, there was a strong sense that those older and more experienced wanted to pass on their learning to us younger workers. And that’s not changed: in general, older people want to support younger people. As you age, you accumulate wisdom, and you pass it on. The way I see it, it’s part of your job – as a good ancestor – to pass it on.  

For me, being a parent has really helped with this, especially when it comes to thinking about how to pass on learnings in a way that they’ll be received. It’s not as simple as telling people what to do; it’s creating the right climate for learning and opportunities for people to experience new things and see the world in new ways. And as an older person, it’s so important to be really open to learning and seeing the world in a new way. I think I’ve probably learned more from my children than I have in my entire working life. In terms of people, learning, dynamics, relating, communicating; the learning goes both ways. 

Certain leaders – really great leaders – have learned that you have to go out and listen, feel the pulse of what’s going on out there. Take two political leaders, for instance. One might spend years meeting small groups of people and listening to them; one might go to rallies and give speeches, without ever listening to those he is supposed to be leading. The second isn’t interested in the inbound; he’s interested in the outbound. But you have to be interested in the inbound. In fact, you have to be interested, full stop. Not only to be a good leader; but to be a good citizen, a good ancestor.  

How would you recommend distilling team lessons – or wisdom – to pass down to the younger generations? 

In my experience, it’s much easier to do than to tell. So, when it comes to mentoring, or encouraging, younger employees, I’m always getting them to go out and do. Solve real-world problems, in the organisation; think about the different approaches. Try things, and get them wrong. Evaluate what they did and then think, together, about what they’d do differently next time.  

There’s a huge difference between distilling and disseminating: it’s pointless to disseminate if there’s no reception. You want people to be able to internalise the learning.  

How do you think technology, and AI, is changing all of this? 

At the moment, as far as I’m aware, advanced technologies can accelerate the acquisition of knowledge (or nuggets of information), and talk about how those nuggets of information might be connected with each other. What it’s not able to do, though, is the cognition.  

Humans need to do the cognition to extract the wisdom; to apply the information that the knowledge nuggets create. What we’re now calling AI – these large language models – can certainly get knowledge to your fingertips, but you still need to do something with it.  

Are you worried about the future of work, and wisdom, when it comes to AI? 

No. Partly because AI is just the latest of many different technological innovations that I’ve seen revolutionise the workplace in my lifetime. And also, I agree with the writer Ray Kurzweil, who foresees a blending of human and technological intelligence – in the fullness of time – through devices like RFID and nanobots to enhance our thinking capabilities.  

But I do think that the structure of work will need to change, because AI will become integral to workplace, just like computers. We won’t need as many white-collar workers, for example. And in the future, there are various things we’ll need to think about: universal income might be one, and personally I’d prefer to have a structure of society where we all work three days a week, as opposed to the current model.  

Partly I’m not worried because it leaves so much room for other things: how can we live a good life, we only need to work three or four days per week? How can we bring our full selves to the work we do?  

Which is another thing that I think is integral to Egremont, and has been since its start: it’s about trying to help others – clients, but also colleagues – on their own journey to help themselves. It’s about being a good ancestor; about taking the wisdom we’ve acquired, on other projects, or perhaps from completely different places, and distilling it in a different team. At its very core, that’s what this work is about. That’s what this team is about: how to live a good life, how be a good ancestor. But I know I’m quite quirky about that.  

subscribe to our newsletter