When corporate knowledge becomes invaluable

To many readers, this may sound like a paradox: how can knowledge ever become invaluable?

In this article, I want to explore how corporate knowledge, when poorly structured and rigidly transferred, can slowly transform from an asset into a disadvantage. Not only for companies, but especially for employees. And over time, that disadvantage compounds.

The journey usually looks familiar. You apply for a job, speak with a recruiter, send your CV, go through interviews, and eventually receive the green-light email: “Congratulations, you’re hired.”

This moment takes us directly to the real turning point: the onboarding process.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol' founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It's free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

Those first one, two, sometimes even three months when you are introduced to the people, the tools, the workflows, the strategies, and the “way things are done.” On paper, onboarding exists to accelerate integration and performance. In reality, in many corporations, it quietly becomes an indoctrination phase.

Relatable to anyone who has worked in large organizations, onboarding often shifts from enabling understanding to enforcing conformity. New hires are not only taught what the company knows, but also what the company no longer questions.

This is where corporate knowledge starts becoming invaluable.

Because instead of acting as a foundation to build on, it becomes a ceiling.

It tells you what to do, how to do it, and more importantly, what not to rethink. Over time, this “do according to the manual” culture doesn’t just standardize execution. It standardizes thinking. And standardized thinking is the natural enemy of innovation.

History shows us a consistent pattern: breakthroughs rarely come from the center of an industry. They come from the edges.

Elon Musk was not an automotive executive. He treated cars as computers on wheels and energy systems. The result? An entire industry forced to reset its assumptions.

Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp were not transportation insiders. They were technologists. They saw GPS-enabled phones, invisible payments, and drivers that didn’t need to be owned. They reframed taxis not as a fleet problem, but as a software and trust problem. And the taxi industry, as it existed, effectively ended.

These examples point to a simple truth: transformative ideas usually emerge from new mental models, not from perfected manuals.

Yet most onboarding processes are designed to remove new mental models as quickly as possible.

They don’t ask: “What do you see that we no longer notice?”
 They ask: “How fast can you adapt to how we already work?”

Most programs teach tools, not systems. New hires learn where to click, not how to think. They are trained on CRMs, scripts, workflows, and reporting routines, but not on AI-assisted decision-making, signal-based prospecting, or how to design work alongside automated agents.

As a result, organizations scale activity instead of intelligence.

Even worse, onboarding still assumes that humans should work like software: following rigid processes, filling manual reports, executing predefined sequences. Instead of being taught how to orchestrate software, delegate to AI, and concentrate on judgment, creativity, and relationships.

Over time, this creates a paradoxical outcome: the more “knowledge” an organization accumulates, the harder it becomes for new ideas to survive inside it.

And when knowledge can no longer be challenged, recombined, or re-imagined, it stops being knowledge.

It becomes inertia.