GPT Doesn't Know What I Know

Grab your coffee. This week we're going to dig into something I see as a challenge presented by a world where we have knowledge abundance, the illusion of expertise abundance, and a false sense of networking. Without going down too much of a rabbit hole, I'll keep it simple:

• just because you can Google something doesn't give you the expertise you think you get

• just because you connect with a thousand people on LinkedIn doesn't mean you are good at networking

• just because you give people collaboration tools doesn't mean you get innovation

• just because you can easily get advice from your peers doesn't mean that you understand and value mentorship

Let's get into it.

There is tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is what most people think of when they think about knowledge. It's knowledge that can be easily explained, written down, and shared -- in books, online, and now in LLMs. Using prompts to explore knowledge with a GPT interface is an exploration of explicit knowledge. It's a bit like what I described last week in terms of simple/complicated/complex and what can be automated vs. what requires human-specific skills. Technology can manage explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is a bit more complex. That's for humans.

Tacit knowledge directly correlates to two things I love: networking and mentoring. This distinction shows up clearly when I think about how I worked at Freshworks. One of my favorite things to do was booking time with new hires. Early on, it was anyone connected to my work. Later, I focused mostly on senior leaders. In analyst relations, I needed to know everything—HR, product, sales, marketing, ops—so I’d reach out when someone started and say, “Do you mind if I put time on your calendar for a cup of coffee? No agenda. Just to chat.”

One goal was to help them ramp up faster—introduce them to key people, explain how projects fit together, and share how things actually got done. In all those years and hundreds of invites, no one ever said no. The other goal was networking. It helped me continue to grow my internal network, to add value for myself AND the company.

That was mentoring and networking. That was tacit knowledge transfer.

When I left, it left with me. In my MSP days, I called this knowledge loss through attrition—the stuff that isn’t written down or easily transferred. I’m pretty sure no one sifted through my old emails or notes to track the history of what I worked on or who I worked with. No deep exit interview. Imagine if they had—and fed it all into an LLM. “Alan Bot.” (If you're building something like that, I might write you a check.) And even if they did, so much of what I knew was not written down anywhere.

Another aspect of my tacit knowledge was connection-making. It wasn’t just about what I knew—it was also about who I knew, and how I connected them. I understood who did what, what had been tried, and who needed to talk. Not the obvious people. It's the less obvious people that I knew made sense. That's how networking creates value. I often say I love to connect people who don't know each other but should. It's usually what I say in emails where I do just that.

Like the time I introduced our CMO to an engineering lead in India working on early bot tech. Later that day, the Freddy AI bot was born.

That's networking and innovation.

This isn’t about patting myself on the back—it’s about highlighting the challenge we face today: how we mentor, network, and innovate.

Back in 2011, I wrote an article with my good friend Fred McClimans about mentoring, networking, and innovation.  What we saw even then was how social media was starting to disrupt traditional models. I remember my first day on Wall Street many years ago—I showed up at 8:30am and everyone was already there. So the next day, I came in at 7:30. Same at the end of the day—I stayed late because everyone else did. I’m not debating whether those were reasonable hours. The point is, that’s how you learned the norms. You watched, adapted, and figured out how to fit in and be part of the team.

That was a transfer of tacit knowledge. Not just the details of where to find the restroom or who to call about your pay stub. It's the intuitive and experiential knowledge that was more valuable to learn from my work peers than my non-work peers.

Flash forward to today, and things look different.

It used to be that when you graduated high school and went to college—or started your first job—you had to figure out how to connect with the people around you. No cell phones, no email, no social media. Your peers were those in the office with you.

Now, you bring your peer group with you. In college, you’re still connected to your high school friends. At work, they’re still in your pocket. So instead of looking to your new environment for guidance, you may default to the old one. That feels like mentorship, but it's not.

That advice might help. But it might also hold you back—keeping you from building the connections and context you need to succeed where you are now.

Basically, the tools have evolved, but the fundamentals of human connection, knowledge exchange, and innovation are still rooted in how we show up and connect with each other. Networking isn't about following people, commenting on LinkedIn, or firing off one-off emails. The same with mentorship. Mentorship is about mutual learning. Every relationship in your network should help you think better, something I talked about in Issue #1 of this newsletter.

There is a progression of apprenticeship to mentorship to peer that I wrote about in my original article. With easy access to peers and what can be confused as tacit knowledge but is really just explicit knowledge in a pretty wrapper, too many people are missing out on the real value of networking and mentoring.

Networks give us the context that turns noise into insight.

Are you building that network now?

• Who in your network helps you see things differently?

• Who are your mentors, the ones who transfer tacit knowledge to you?

• Who do you mentor, and what are you learning from them?

• What's the last new connection that made you think better?

Berkson's Bits

Myth: No need to communicate if you have nothing new to say. No news is good news, right? Maybe not.

One of the biggest factors in poor customer experience is the unknown. When will my package arrive? When will my issue be fixed/addressed?

Which really means: did you forget about me?

Keeping customers, co-workers, or even friends informed even when there's nothing new to report IS something new. It shows you're still paying attention and they are still important.

What I'm Reading

I have been thinking a LOT about storyworlds these days. Especially with my forthcoming book The 10 Commandments of Successful Corporate Narratives coming in Q2. My old friend and OG marketer at Freshworks Vikram Bhaskaran was influential in a lot of my early thinking on CX and marketing. He's a big thinker, and when he writes I pay attention. His latest take on marketing is well worth the read: Accidental vs. Intentional Marketing: Do we even know why we’re doing what we’re doing?. Look for my comment on the post. I ran into the LinkedIn character limit (ha!).

TL;DR: he talks about more precision on the customer side. No surprise, I talk about a better understanding of what business you're in and your storyworld

Join the conversation there.

I often say networking is my superpower. It wasn't always the case. It's a skill I learned and worked hard to develop. The rewards of that effort far exceed any expectations I may have had. It has led me to amazing mentors, friends, and opportunities.

If you know someone who you think may benefit from what I've written here, please forward this issue. And I'd love to hear how networking and mentoring has had a positive impact in your life.

Looking forward to continuing the conversation...

Alan