Why withholding knowledge is not a viable strategy

Scientia potentia est - knowledge is power. It intuitively "makes sense" to retain as much of the information to oneself so that one always has the upper hand, particularly in the workplace where competition is rife. But is this a sustainable strategy in the long term?

1. Knowledge is more accessible than ever. Often, when others seek help, they are hoping for convenience. Instead of crawling the net to find out what their particular breed of pet hamster likes for dinner, it would be much faster to just ask a friend. Instead of trying to comprehend the cryptic lines of a legal contract, it would be much faster to ask a friend with a legal background. The point is that there is no real incentive to withhold knowledge, when it could be obtained somewhere else anyway (albeit at the cost of additional time and effort).
2. Succession planning 101: in order to move up, there must be someone ready as a replacement. While monopolizing a work function is a sure way to become indispensable, it is also a sure way to remain static because no one else can do that same task as efficiently. Furthermore, stubbornly holding on to a work function reduces work capacity, so new and higher level responsibilities cannot be taken up.
3. Overall competitiveness of the organization is reduced. When key information is known only to the select few, innovation is throttled in the sense that there are less input and critics in the decision-making process. Needless to say, when an organization fails, the constituents fail along. (Yes, very slippery slope there.)
4. From a management point of view, these select individuals also become "critical assets" that the organization cannot afford to lose to other competing organizations, thereby reducing flexibility of the organization as a whole.

Thus, while keeping secrets offers a short term advantage, it is clearly not feasible in the long run to both the individual and the organization.