In many organizations, having a lot of knowledge about something that someone else is supposed to know more about is a good way to make them feel uncomfortable or in extreme cases dislike you.
This. I worked for one org (USMC) where I was a young(er) worker, with more knowledge about our job (micro-computers, LANs) than most of my superiors. And this was okay. Encouraged, even. My lieutenant's job was to lead a team, not be a know-it-all.
Then I stepped into the civilian world and found a majority of managers were freaked out when their juniors knew more than they did.
On the other hand, in the armed forces, rank commands respect (or at least all outward forms). In the civilian world, those with rank may be more insecure.
I think it's more about culture, not respect for rank.
A guy is supposed to learn at least the basics of the next higher-up job, sometimes two. Team leaders are supposed to reach down two levels, ensure juniors are properly schooled to step up.
Obviously this is so if one's leader is zapped, juniors can step up and carry out the mission.
But this works out well in nominal peace-time and non-combat jobs, too. And the better trained and schooled one's juniors are, the better the unit can carry out the mission.
Example: one week into a three-week field exercise I was given 20 minutes to pack and report to a new, temporary, job, far away from my parent unit.
We could do this because everyone under me (all of three guys, but still) knew what I did and could do the job. The only problem it caused was that they suddenly had one fewer person to stand watch in the server CONEX.
This. I worked for one org (USMC) where I was a young(er) worker, with more knowledge about our job (micro-computers, LANs) than most of my superiors. And this was okay. Encouraged, even. My lieutenant's job was to lead a team, not be a know-it-all.
Then I stepped into the civilian world and found a majority of managers were freaked out when their juniors knew more than they did.