JUST IN TIME - NEWS AND FINLAND

Finland is one of the most successful countries on the world. There are some features which are generally related to Finnish success: knowledge, hard work, high level education and also punctuality.

But what if the main news in Finland are late, they do not start at 20.30 but one minute later, at least on Thursdays. You may think that am joking, but I am not. Firstly, I have not gathered statistical evidence but quite often I have noticed that on Thursdays news start around one minute late. So, that part of my statement is not a joke.

Then you might think that I am joking because this is so minor thing that nobody should notice it or write about it. Yes, I admit that this is not a big thing as it itself, but does this tell something about the way how we handle things in Finland and should we notice that in global environment the standard of every successful action is very high.

In Finland these 20.30 news are the main news here. These news are like BBC world and CNN international combined. Hence a big number of people wait for those news - which start late in the country which is known for its punctuality. How is this possible?  You must have seen how the clock ticks in BBC international before every hour and news start exactly in time. In this small matter (if being in time is a small matter) BBC on its part shows what is the standard in global setting. This kind of international level of action is present in almost every county and almost every field of action. There is always international player or players, which are excellent and which puts the bar of success very high.

Also it is interesting how we get used to certain level of action. This delay in the beginning of these main news is not a new phenomenon. Again I have not prepared statistics, but I think are talk about this issue at least two years ago. So, this level of action has become a standard. Is it now a standard that in the small country which competes in the global economy with is capability and with is punctuality the main news start late? Is this acceptable? Does this tell also something else about our willingness to raise our level of action in every field to a level where we really manage with the best.

Finland is one of the most successful countries in the world, let us work on that level in everything what we do. (I admit that here I really paused to think whether my blog reach the standard what I advocate in this blog. I am not certain, but at least I did my best in the time which I could reserve for this most interesting taks. I do hope reading this is a rewarding experience to you).

YOUR STORY AND THE STORIES OF MR. K, BRIAN TRACY AND ELIZABETH GILBERT

What is your story? What has happened to you, what do you tell to others? What have you  been able to achieve in the past, what will you accomplish in the future? How you share all this with people around you? Have you ever paused to think what is the story of your organization, or you team?

I will have a huge privilege to talk soon in a seminar which ends almost a year long executive program. In a situation like this one really think what kind of topic would be most valuable to those people who you have learned to know during the program. Now I thought that one part of the seminar will be dedicated to our stories, or to be more accurate we will focus on ways to develop stories, our own and also those which relate to our organizations..

The key point here is my contention that we have some freedom to choose how we create our story. I wish emphasize right away that we are not entering into realm of lies here but into realm where we in a very deep level define to ourselves. A lot has happened to us all, but which events get our attention, which events we remember and tell further, that is our topic. These choices are vitally important, on their part they tell to each of us who we really are. Hence it is our unavoidable challenge to think what is our story now and what it will be in the future. We must pause to reflect what is our own attitude here, do aim to be authors in our story, or are we more characters in a story which just happens to us. Evidently the proposition is that let us assume the author role where ever it is somehow possible.

Let us first hear three narratives which I have just encountered. These all give us an idea what the author role could mean and why it is so important. One story comes from our executive MBA student. I call him mr K, the other story is based on the lecture which magnificent Brian Tracy gave in Jyväskylä, Finland and the third story can be found from an excellent TED talk delivered by Elizabeth Gilbert.

First story, police and truck driver

This happened a while ago when one seminar day ended and we walked to the restaurant for a dinner. While we were walking one member of our group, mr K., shared one of his story with us. This had happened several years ago just when he had received his driving license. He had stopped in a gasoline station and when he returned back to the main road he noticed a truck approaching with very high speed. He was forced to speed up...I think you guess the rest, the police patrol was there and they stopped the young man. But then a story gets a new twist, the truck driver stopped his vehicle and the driver told to the police men that the young driver really needed to speed up, because that was the situation on the road. As a result the young driver did not get the ticket.

To me this was a very interesting event. Not so much the story as such but more because this was a narrative what someone decided to remember and tell. Here I started to think how we all encounter all kind of things and accidents every day, but what we decide to remember, what we decide to tell to other people? How our story will affect to us, what it will do the others?

Second story, Brian Tracy and no answers

Brian Tracy visited my home town Jyväskylä few weeks ago and he gave a lecture in Nordic Business Forum seminar. It was an excellent speech but what I write below is my summary and interpretation concerning only one part of the lecture.

Brian Tracy told that whoever works in sales he will probably encounter no answer from customers. And this may not be a rare exception but something which is quite often part of the work and sometimes that part can start to feel very demanding both for the sales personnel and also for a person who is in the charge of sales. But also here we may have some freedom how create the story. My interpretation is that Brian Tracy offered at least three most interesting ways how to be an author of your story in a situation like this.

First, you may decide that for you the word no does not mean failure and negative thing, but you can learn from such an event and head for a next event with a new energy, wisdom and determination. Yes, this is easy to say, but think about it, in case you have some freedom to decide how to interpret different situations, why not at least try to interpret them in a way which helps you to continue.


Second, Brian Tracy suggested that perhaps you could try something new in your organization which might help your team to manage with nos. So, why not organize a competition where a person who gets first 10 nos is winner. Sounds odd at first but let us think about this. Why not. Could we be active and innovative in creating a story around the word "no" where that word could mean also something else than in typical story. Certainly this could not change everything, and as a result of this kind of story people would not live in a fantasy world where "no" would be new goal in real sense - that is not the point. But perhaps we could nudge our story to a direction which could help us to do our work. Thirdly Brian Tracy told a story of a sales man who had lost his energy to make those efforts which do not result in business. Here it helped when the sales expert started to think that every effort is needed as necessary step and how all efforts in a way provide results, although the actual sales may happen later. No effort is vain, each of them earn a part of the result.

Third story, Elizabeth Gilbert and the danger of success

Here I really recommend that you enjoy the TED talk by Elizabeth Gilbert, because what I write here is just a one possible interpretation of that excellent speech. However, I wish to include the discussion of that speech to my blog because it is most evocative example about how to be the author of your own story. Here we can see how developing a story can give strength and endurance to a person who is in a most challenging situation.

The crux here is that Elizabeth Gilbert wrote a book which became an enormous success. She says that after that event people around her seemed to think that she was doomed - how an earth she might be able repeat or even surpass the achievement which she had just done. And also Elizabeth herself felt the pressure, how to be so creative once again, and how to keep on being creative year after year.

In this situation she tells a story which could be helpful to all of us who do creative work and who will never know whether we can repeat or even surpass the achievements which we have just done. In short Elizabeth Gilbert looks back in history and she suggest that when the humanity put a single person in the center of everything we did put too much pressure to one single mind. In this person centric thinking it is suggested that a one person should be able to provide the acts of creativity time after time. This is a daunting demand.


Hence, Elizabeth Gilbert says that she searched for a thinking model,  a story, which could be different. And what she found was that creativity was perceived differently in ancient Rome and Greece. At that time people thought that creativity was something where people get help from the outside, perhaps from the ghosts or gods of that era. In a way at that time it was thought that people had kind of guardian angels which helped the individual ih her creativity, sometimes the help was excellent sometimes not that excellent. In that world the burden of creativity was shared.

Well, our thinking models have changed but nevertheless, we might assume an attitude that whenever we do something creative, we do our share, we work hard and we do what we can. In case a very special spark of creativity happens to enlighten our work - that will be just great. However, in every case we can do our part. This is how Elizabeth Gilbert constructed her story, a story which could the meet that challenges of creative work.

To sum up. I do hope this blog is interesting to read as a standalone text. This text will also serve as a background material in our fortcoming seminar where we will talk a lot more about how we are authors in our stories.

SOCIAL MEDIA - MEETINGS - SELF LEADERSHIP

The new framework of business is social media. What this means? It means that organizations benefit enormously if they start to use the logic of social media as modus operandi. This is something which we all must consider very seriously and very personally; we have to clarify to ourselves what is the logic of social media and what it means to me, and also to us as an organization.

Few definitions are in place so that we will start to talk about same issues. Firstly, certainly the logic of social media can mean a lot of different things. Here it means sharing and transparency. It means that we all always think that what is secret, what can be shared with few colleagues, what can be shared in a group and what is open (I deeply thank Esko Kilpi for making this point very succinctly in our Web for Executives program). So for instance, whenever you learn something new (which happens pretty continuously I assume) you always think about sharing. You are not working alone for yourself but you are working and thinking together with others in your organization and in your network.

Secondly I started this blog by talking about organizations but hereafter I will focus on individuals and how we as individuals choose to follow the logic of social media in our daily work in our organizations. Here the way how we choose to act in our meetings is the special topic of this blog.

Thirdly, how the issue of self leadership enters to this picture? Well, it is elementary. How we decide to act in different settings is vastly important and now the logic of social media demands that we really reflect how we play our part in organizational life and in particular in meetings.

Fourthly, I wish to add that now we are talking about meetings which could be 1-2 hour long sessions. So we will focus on those short periods where professionalism should shine (like a sun in Finnish July).

This is the background and now let us proceed to two conclusions:

1) The logic of social media (and the practical tools and gadgets) means that we can communicate all the time. So coming together in the first place is a very special event. Therefore from the perspective of self leadership you may decide to make to yourself clear how very important every meeting is.

2) In the meeting most important thing is to really think together, perhaps solve difficult problems, perhaps plan future actions or do something demanding thinking together. From the viewpoint of self leadership you must be able and willing to think together. You must be able to really share and participate. You must be willing to take risks and propose some ideas which are not ready but which could be developed further together. This kind of open participation can feel very demanding.

Perhaps the topic under discussion can be difficult to you (you may not like the topic, you may not know enough of the topic and you should know, or for some other reason the topic of the meeting may haunt you), some participants of the meeting can be particularly challenging to you for some reason, your genuine interest concerning to success of an organization can be at certain level (and therefore you utmost willingness to give your best even during this short meeting can be question mark).

If any of these elements are present in your thinking you are really facing a self leadership issue here. It is plainly evident at this point that the issue of self leadership is not a fancy theoretical concept but you are truly assessing what is your own capacity to participate and contribute. Certainly this kind of self leadership issues have been always with us but now the logic of social media, the new framework of business raises these issues to new level. They become more and more important and they become more and more transparent, no matter what our personal wishes and hopes might be.

The need for self leadership and genuine professionalism has never been more important than now in this era of  social media.

DECISION MAKING - BIG PICTURE

Have you ever paused to think what decision making really is? Is it a setting where a person or a group of people selects between pretty clearly defined alternatives? Is it a setting where information is gathered for the decision maker and then she browses the data relating to the existing alternatives and makes her informed decision. Well, it can be all this but it can be also something else. Quite often in lived life (people in action in different organizations) it is much, much more.

What then is the decision making in real life? This blog offers some insights. We will not go deep into decision making details here, the aim is propose that the whole setting around the decision making process is something which deserves our attention. What is the big picture when we are talking about decision making?

Setting 1 - How we decide what we decide

How this all starts, how do we know that there is something what requires our attention and creates a need for a decision making? Do you play an active role creating decision making setting or do most of the impulses come from the outside? We may even ask that are you really a decision maker at all if almost all the impulses come from the outside. In this case we could more appropriately call a person a reactor rather that a decision maker? This title might be justified, because her role would be to try to manage with issues which are thrown at her. Not an enviable position, however apparently a position where most executives find themselves time to time.

However, the reactor role should not be a permanent resting place for an executive. The role of an executive must be much more active. The role and the duty of an executive is always actively create the very setting where she operates. Hence before any decision is made, we have to have some idea what we are thinking about and why some issues are raised up. Why we are thinking what we are thinking, why we are deciding what we are deciding? Is it wise to think what we are thinking? In sum, an executive is not just thinking and deciding, she also sees herself from the outside and is able to evaluate what she is thinking and deciding. Let it be granted that no one can step "outside", we all use theories, frameworks, our experiences all the time. However, a wise executive is profoundly aware of all this.

Setting 2 - How create a possibility to make a decision

Change management is a hot topic. Probably partly because the basic task for an executive is to a see that her organization changes and develops constantly and thus maintain its ability to succeed in the marketplace.  At the same time there are elements in the organizational life which seem to be very permanent. They are issues, challenges, problems, behaviors, thought patterns which continue from one period to another.

Hence part of decision making process is to notice that there are issues which are rather permanent and recurring, however perhaps not eternal. These issues can not be solved in one decision making setting, hence the whole idea what is decision making must change. It seems that sometimes decision making may take time, sometimes years. Sometimes the key is to wait for  a right moment when something can be done, sometimes to point is gather momentum and create necessary preparedness for a change.

So this blog has taken up two issues about decision making. First it is vital to evaluate what are the issues what we are thinking in the first place. Therefore before deciding, think carefully how the whole setting has been crafted, estimate whether the issues on the table are the most crucial ones or should you raise other topics for closer examination. Second, sometimes decision making is more a marathon than a meeting. See the big picture and be prepared to wait when necessary and be prepared to build momentum for new when that is possible and necessary.

Then just select the right road. Safe journey.

ARE YOU THE WISEST MAN IN YOUR ORGANIZATION?

Wisdom and creativity are more and more important in any organization. Successful organizations must change, they must develop, they must create new, they must become more and more effective. This all requires thinking, new ideas. Old routines won't help too long.

This constant development requires that someone proposes new ideas. Have you noticed that when your position in organization has risen that also your ideas have become better and better? Hence you must have become wiser? How do you know that your wisdom has increased? Well to most of us people around us tell the message. Hence perhaps you have noticed that recently people are more prone to comment that the point which you raise is relevant, and quite often people around you make  the idea which you have suggested as a point of departure when they start new action.

This is just great. And point here is not to doubt your wisdom. However, I think that in the future you could be even wiser if you would take a moment of your time and consider what power-knowledge thinking could mean in your environment when you do your leadership work and we you build future success to your organization..

We can thank Michel Foucault of taking up the power-knowledge thinking. The message is that power and knowledge are tightly linked and when someone has power he also tend to have a lot to say what is considered as knowledge. Clearly the knowledge is created in a discourse to which people participate. However, people are very sensitive in finding out what is their role in any discourse. People are clever to find out who is supposed to say what in certain situation. By the way this cleverness of accepting certain tight role is not clever at all as such, instead it hugely reduces what people could achieve together, if all would participate fully to any discussion.

Hence as a leader you will have a special role in the complex process where people in your organization find out what is wise, who can propose new wisdom and how we can develop our organization. How should you proceed in this situation and how could you be even wiser in the future. I propose here some points which you could consider:

1) From now on power-knowledge concept is one of your thinking tool when you plan and encounter different situations. This thinking tool may be relevant in everything starting from practical arrangements in any meeting, and stretching to the way you create space and motivation for all to participate.

2) In fact, you could try regularly create settings where you breach the rules of typical discourse. Perhaps you create special innovation meeting where all the participants have as much time to express their views, or you create other arrangements which helps all the participants to say their views.

3) You could also start to champion a new thinking where the ability to produce new wisdom is seen as a shared effort, where the quality and also the frequency of communication between people is the most important element in creating new wisdom.

I would suggest that this discussion about the rules and about the changing of rules of any discourse is very important right now. I would also propose that it is crucial to see how much any organization could benefit from the active participation and sharing of views and ideas. Transparency and sharing start to be the sign of wisdom in organization.

This is because we live now a moment when best organizations equip their key personnel with latest technology (like ipad's and corresponding). These equipment are most important. At the same it is important that people really learn to use the vast possibilities of those new equipment. And it may be even more important that we create new rules of discourse and sharing and we start to create wisdom together.

Hence let us all be wiser together.

PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE - LINKED INEXTRICABLY TO EACH OTHER

PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

LINKED INEXTRICABLY TO EACH OTHER

It is very common to encounter  the following wisdom: live the present moment, what has been has been and no one knows what will happen in the future. There is a lot wisdom in this idea, albeit it may be impossible for us as human beings to obey that wisdom in our life. In fact, it might be even awfull if we would only live in the present moment - no memories, no future; or what an earth that wisdom might actually mean. The wisdom of living in the present moment can also be challenged on the ground that past, present and future link inextricably to each other. It may be that past, present and future are more the same phenomenon than separate entities.

As a person who has studied accounting and T accounts I shy away of proceeding into very deep philosophical discussion about time and life (and probably the philosophy on its part shy away from me). However, I try say something about the concepts of past, present and future and how those concepts relate to the organizational life. This is very, very fascinating.

Let us start by exploring how those concepts are inextricably linked. I would propose that no organization knows exactly how good it is, where it is and what it can achieve. Instead people within organization tell stories and through those stories these matters are somehow settled, not in very exhaustive and straighforward way but at least to some extend. This also tells why stories are extremely important. Through stories we understand who we are, what we have echieved and what we may be able to do in the future.

Hence to some extend our action is based on stories, through stories we have created an understanding what we have done, where we are now and what we can try in the future. We create an conception what avenues and goals are within our reach.

At the same time the above said reveals the inextricable linkage between past, present and future. In order to know where we are now at the present moment we have to examine and interpret our past and also look in the future. The present situation has different taste if we think that future is bleak or full of extremely promising opportunities. And when we look to the future our understanding of our past and present will affect what we consider possible to try and achieve in the future.

Could it be that our stories about our past and present could for example hinder us to see some avenues to proceed? Certainly. On the basis of our understanding what we have been able to do in the past we may not even consider some options which at least in principle could be within our reach. What we may give up because of our stories? What we do not even see because our stories do not sensitise us to look that kind of opportunities? What new possibilities we might detect if we changed our stories?

Stories are powerfull tools in organizational life. So, will you tell the same old story in your next meeting? In case you decide to modify your story, do you think that you are still true to yourself? Good stories are not lies, they do not lead us to troubled waters, instead they help us to succeed in the future. And in case you have not been that active in storytelling front should you reconsider your position. Your stories could be worth of gold.

How to make more money - should it be the topic in Universities

How to make more money

- should it be the topic in Universities

Do not worry this is not about the big QE (quantitative easing). Instead I will ask how any organization could make more money and in particular how this topic could be approached. Also I will focus this blog so that the role of the University is central. That will mean that I will reflect how Univiersities have approached the question of making more money.


It is interesting to notice that Universities have a very special approach to the world. For instance it can be claimed that selling is a topic which has not been that interesting from the University's point of view, whereas marketing is seen as more appropriate realm for research and teaching. Similarly it might sound a bit odd if someone's major topic in the University would be "money making", whereas, for inctance accounting and other business disciplines are highly appreciated.

What is wrong in: making more money? Why it has failed to receive a prestigious position as a disciple? It is nevertheless an issue which extremely important in our world. Any organization (also probably any country or network of countries) which wish to exist has to make more money than what it uses (at least in the long or on the very, very long run).

So there must be something seriously wrong in "making more money". And there actually is something which must be discussed immediately. Namely no organization is likely to get more money just because it wants more or because it needs more. There must be something which justifies it's request to get more. Organization must produce something which is considered valuable and when organization wish to get more money it must produce something even more valuable and/or use less resources in preparing it's offering.

Does this mean that here we have a simple and all-encompassing answer to the question that why making more money is not a central discipline in Universities? As such the burning wish to get more money is empty idea, so there would be nothing to study? I am not certain that we can brush this question aside so easily. This is because unavoidably the issue of money is part of everything. There is the money side in every action and in every inaction.

Why then the making money is somehow a silent partner in everything? For instance, when we talk about marketing, strategy, leadership or any other discipline there is always the money side, and it is very important element when we estimate whether something make sense or not. An improved strategy is something which helps the organization to make more money in the future. And it is most important to understand as clearly as possible how that particular improved strategy really can to increasy positive money flow in the future. It can be claimed that also leadership is about money, or at least that there is also the money side which is present here as it is in everything. For instance, it is hard to imagine that for example improved coaching capability would mean that organisation has set its course for loosing more money? On the other hand it would be most interesting to study and understand how some changes in leadership thinking and style in any organization affects to the capability of that particular organization to make money. What are the complex reciprocal prosesses which lead in to some results?

So should it be that whenever something is discussed, researhed or lectured also the money side should be on display as clearly as possible. This is because the money side is so crucially important and it is the real element in this world. New fancy things, theories and systems can be developed and organizations may become interested in adopting and using them, but is it wise to use them, what are the consequences? How the money side will develop when something is done, that could be the central research topic for the University.

Hence, Universities in particular should be astute in discussing and even in finding out what is the money side of actions taken in organizations? So whenever something is discussed, be it a theoretical framework or some business case, that discussion should include examinination from the the perspective of money.

So what could be more scientific than an elaborate discussion about money?

Above a view which caught my attention when I was writing this blog.  So, some food for thought with a joking angle: In case balance sheet is in this condition, which side is assets and which is liabilities?

What it means to become better - as an executive

What it means to become better - as an executive

What makes you learn? What gives you the certainty that you have become better? Are you better now than what you were a year ago? The starting point here is that you are already an experienced actor, so you know what it takes to fill your position in your organization and you start to be ready for more challenging tasks. You also know where you are good if not excellent and you also know that in some areas you could be much better.

As such it is an interesting question how you would like to proceed from your current setting: do you want to be even better in the future? Probably, many of us has this kind of an stance to our existence. I would imagine that rather few like to be worse off in the future as compared the present situation by their own will. Whereas I dare to guess that there are very special individuals who by themselves feel that they have reached the high level which is possible for any human being to ever reach and thus they would like to stay where they are, but perhaps this attitude is somewhat rare (thank goodness).

But, what does it mean to be better, what is most important? Do you want to be wiser, or more efficient, or faster, or more energetic, or more caring, or what? Do you want to be better decision maker, better coach, better in presenting your arguments, or better in selling or managing sales people, or what? Or do you want to better in choosing right customers, excellent people in your team, predicting this year volumes and big events, anticipating where problems and new opportunities will emerge, do want to be better in initiating forceful action, or finding energizing vision for your organization, or what?

Also it is intriguing to think what kind of words and thinking patterns would be used if this text would belong to the wholly different realm of life than business and organizational reality. What if we would examine wheather sports enthusiastics would like to be better. I guess they certainly would like to improve their performance and we have a pretty good idea what it would mean (eg. more meters, less seconds, etc.). But what if we think for instance religious life, would people like to be better on that arena? Probably, also there the improvement in very fundamental way seems to be the goal, although it gets different forms and manifestations in different religions. Hence the desire to become better seems to be very prevalent human desire, which we can encounter in different spheres of life.

Let us zoom back to business life, and let us ask what it means to become better in that form of life? I would imagine that we might think that - of course we know the answer. Perhaps we have something in our mind and we think that it is self evident what it means to become better. However, perhaps this is one of those moments when we think that we know the answer but when we pause to think we may notice that the answer what we have in our mind is not at all self evident or that at least our answer does not cover the whole question.

In principle there are four different perspectives in evaluating whether someone is better than before:

1) Output perspective.
This is the simpliest perspective where something concrete is measured.In case someone is able to connect more pieces than before or make more phonecalls that before or do more interviews than before then s/he is better when things are estimated from this angle.

Clearly the problem here is that very rarely if ever anything like this is essential when we estime performance of an executive. Hence this level is rarely very useful. As such simple measurements do not capture the essence of the executive work and in any case quality is often much more important than quantity (eg. person makes more phonecalls in such a way that more people in the network becomes irritated - hardly an improvement).

2) Profit perspective
Here the crucial figure can be found from income statement. You might think that this solves all the problems in evaluation, because business is about profit and in case an executive is able to deliver more profit s/he becoming better. End of the story.

There is no denial that this measurument has its merits and this measument is the corner stone of modern business thinking. However, also this measurement is deficient in some important respects. For instance, any organization is part of a much larger world where everything is in the constant change. Sometimes some wave of change helps some organization to improve its results, sometimes something in the wider world makes it difficult or impossible for a certain organization to succeed, in particular when some periods are examined. Hence it can be difficult to say what part of the change in a profit figure relates to the actions taken (or not taken) by a certain executive.

3) Expert evaluation
Here the other experts evaluate performance. Clearly experts are not confined to one number or numbers in their evaluation, instead they can try to see the big picture and even the whole picture as far as it is possible for anyone. It is certain that this evaluation is actually in very wide use in the executive world. Even when officially evaluation is done on the basis of some numbers, be it a profit figure or figures from a balanced scorecard or any other metrics, even then people (experts) decide how we should read and interpret the numbers. In the business world experts use all the time their judgement in deciphering that when we can consider some performance as excellent and when as less excellent.

Also this evaluation has its challenges. Who are the experts, how they have created their knowledge base? Are they experts because they know a lot or because they fill some positions (sometimes these things are not the same). Also we may guess that sometimes experts may their own agenda which may affect to way how they exercise their judgement.

4) Self evaluation
Who knows best which particular things in your position are the real challenges and opportunities, who knows best what is difficult for you to do and what you master with ease? Clearly you are in very unique position in evaluating yourself. Old Indian proverb says that before you are able to evaluate another person walk a mile in her/his moccasin. Well, you are doing the walking.

But also self evaluation has its own pitfalls. Perhaps you are you too merciful or too harsh on yourself? Perhaps you use criterias which are not that relevant for those actors who on their part give you the resourses to act or the position to operate.

In sum what do you think when you look the path ahead. When do you will feel that you have become better, when do you know that you have become better? In any case, sunny days and enjoyable trails!

Business Education - Complex Endeavour

Business Education - Complex Endeavour

What it would mean to become really interested in what happens in this world? Isn't it a basic task for an University to understand better and deeper what is this very world where we we live in? Deeper understanding is crucial because it will also open possibilities to change things when deemed necessary.

One would assume that in business education this kind of an approach is a self evident reality. Business is practical thing and thus business education examines business world and its real challenges and possibilities - so one might think. However perhaps the reality in education realm is much more complicated. In fact it is not clear that  we as business educators can look where we should look. Are the business educators like astronomers who do not dare to look at the sky? Impossible, you may think, perhaps not, bear with me for a moment.

Perhaps you might think that the point here is to ridicule business educators. However, that is not at all the goal in this blog, I wish to be absolutely clear in that respect. Instead the point is to examine why it is most challenging to assume a real life approach in Business education. It would not be an easy stance for anyone involved, as we shall see.

The goal here is not try to cover Business education in its entirety, instead only one perspective is taken under discussion. I will guarantee that already that one perspective will show why real life approach would change a lot and why it would require a lot. It is also proposed here  that this discussion could be applied more generally when Business education is evaluated.

The perspective here is to discuss how local/regional business environment could be viewed as important research topic in Business education which would focus on real world. In fact local reality could be basic starting point in business education, perhaps the curriculum would run as follows: what we have here around us in our region, how those institutions operate, where are their challenges and possibilities, who are the key people, what are the crucial linkages with wider world, which elements determine the success of our area, what kind of actions and decisions could be done to make our region more successful, etc.

It is evident that real world approach would not be a simple solution for Business educators, or for anyone involved (students, wider world). Of course these real life topics as such would be complicated but also it would be most challenging that research would really focus on real organizations and also on named individuals. And now we would not talk about "nice" cases which are brought in the classroom but we would talk about real events, real choices, real capabilities, real organizations and real people in action. Hence we would soon face very complex questions: how much we can know about organizations - how to get information in the first place, what kind of information is already a business secret etc. That kind of questions would surface. And it would be even much more complicated to try to study key players in organizations, who they are, what are their motivations, their capabilities, their plans, etc.

I think this kind of questions may sound immediately somewhat impossible and improper. And the point here is not to suggest that this kind of questions should be asked and discussed. However, at the same we certainly agree that we wish and we must to talk about real life in Business education. Hence what kind of discussions we deem as pertinent and necessary, and where we would go over the line? Quite a conundrum. These are not simple questions.

At the same time the ability to steer forward among these questions will be very important determinant in defining how the Business education will succeed.

What is immediately apparent is that when one wishes to create a world class Business education that will also mean that the key players around the University will also need to be deeply involved in the setting. Are they ready to join in the learning process in which all parties examine the world where we live in? It is so easy for astronomers, Betelgeuse, Rigel and the whole Orion belt does not care a bit of they are examined and thorougly discussed in a classroom (or at least it will take some light years before the possible grievances which they may voice arrive to our planet). Whereas, in real world Business education the setting is totally different. The trust on which any connection can be created and developed is tested continuously.

What is actually the key capability of Business educators?

What we know in University - and in other places

HOW DO  WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW IN UNIVERSITY - AND IN OTHER PLACES

How we know what we know? Are we interested to examine how we know what we know? Is the real basis of our knowledge actually an understanding on how our knowledge is developed? How would our knowledge change if we really started to think together - if we started to know together?

Let us focus on one concrete situation. Now we go in to University but this setting is certainly somewhat analogical everywhere - whenever any of us does something, how do we know what we do? Do we decide to do something or do we just do it? And in case we deliberately decide to do something special, how do we know what we choose to do?

Picture 1. How do you know what you know (blackboard in Agora building, University campus, Jyväskylä Finland)

The picture above is bit blurry, sorry about that, but it is an authenting representation of a new framework which saw it's daylight 22nd of May 2012. On that exceptionally beautiful morning I had a privilege to speak in our program, University in Change, which we have tailored for the leaders in University of Jyväskylä.

In that picture a person (marked with letter H) develops and lectures a course (L) in the University setting. The question here is that how she knows what she does? How she knows, if she has freedom to develop her course,  what should be the topic and substance of her course. And in any case she has more or less freedom to choose what that course includes - how she knows what that are the particular issues she will discuss during different sessions?

Part of the new framework,  "How do you know what you know", is the age of the person. Is she just graduated and for instance 25 years old, or is she 30 years old who is doing or is just done her PhD dissertation. Or is she 40 years old researcher or professor or in some other position or is she 50+ years old an even more experienced person in some position. May I ask you to pause here for a moment and reflect your own experiences and observations. What is your understanding how different people know what they know, and how experience change this setting. It is interesting topic to ponder, or what do you think? I will not elaborate this perspective of age and experience any further in this blog because I wish to focus here on connection between person and people around her. The nature of that connection is very important - it may be a mark of a living disciple

Hence, let us concentrate to the connection between a person H and the people around her, they are marked with letter P in the framework. My bold proposal here is that we have failed to appreciate how crucial this connection could be both in creating most important knowledge which we can use in our work and in giving the reason for whole idea of working together in any organization. I would even suggest that the well developed and truly working connection between a person and people around her could actually be a basis of an living discipline.

The concept "living discipline" is new one and thus deserves a short discussion. Living discipline means that key people (H and P together) are willing and able share with each other an understanding what is most important knowledge at the certain point of time. Certainly people will have different views, perspectives and understanding, but this is seen more as a beneficial source than a hindrance for an active dialogue and knowing together.

I would argue that we can even test whether some unit (department, faculty, etc.) could claim that it has achieved the level of a living discipline as a modus operandi. The test is simple. When a person H goes in the classroom to do her work L, does she share what happens in the classroom with people around her?

This sounds deceivingly easy and many would probably hasten to say that: sure I tell what happens; some would probably say: I talk about those events rarely, anectodically and with few people. This is, however, not quite the essence of my point here. The essence is following: are people  (H and P together) creating in active collaboration an understanding what should be discussed in the classroom today (today means here, often, continuously)?

In case H and P are thinking together and they are trying to understand together what is most crucial knowledge today, this will mean that they are deeply interested to know all the time what happens in any classroom where anyone of the group (H and P) is doing her work. The living discipline is tested every day, the living discipline develops everyday.

It is surprising to realize how little people seem to need each other in any organization, Universities included. For me the way how social media works and how people share experiences together has opened an angle to examine organizations and the way how organizations and in particular how people within organizations operate. In many cases there are already technologies in place which would, at least in principle, create a basis for thinking and knowing together, but these systems and technologies are often utilized rather scarcely.

Perhaps we have not really paused to think how absolutely crucial it is how we connect with each other. Hence I decided to write this blog and suggest the idea of a living discipline. What we are talking here would be a huge change. In living disciple the people in any giving setting would really be in a position of creating and constantly developing relevant knowledge together. They would not work in any kind of isolation, far from it, all the active connections with researchers world wide, all the connections and experiments with practical organizations and all the knowledge of existing doctrines would be seen as an elementary building block in creating a living discipline.

Let us develop ourselves in our ways of knowing together.

Share your wisdom - tranparency in organizations

Share your wisdom - transparency in organizations

The hottest topic in organizational development today is transparency. It means that can you really think together with your colleagues and coworkers. Are you really willing to think together, are the others willing to think with you - these are crucial questions. The tools, technologies and equipments are here (and already in use in some organizations), but how we decide to work together - that is the question.

The question of transparency and working and thinking together is pivotal in every organization - however organizations are different and these issues manifest themselves differently in every organization. In this blog I will focus on University. It is a very special organization and certainly also Universities are different but I do believe that a lot what I talk here is relevent in many organizations and in particular in many highly professional organization.

I use as a background my experence when I worked as a teacher and as an acting associate professor in Finnish Universities. A lot may have changed during the last years but I would imagine that my experience is still relevant for our purposes here when we examine the issue of transparency.


It is intriguing to realize how the emerging topic of transparency changes to way how you see your work. I remember how I experienced my everyday job as an acting associate professor. It was most interesting work but from the point of view of the transparency I would see the challenges and possibilities of that work rather differently now than how I saw them back then without this transparency framework and without these tools and equipments which we can nowadays use (eg. this blogging system is fabulous)




Could our opening motto here be something like:

the transparency on overhead projector does not cover the whole area of tranparency 

(this tries to be humorous quatation).




Let us take three viewpoints: 1) classroom, 2) organization and 3) network. What the work was like and what would be different when looked through the transparency framework. What follows is an extremely brief elaboration, food for thought kind of discussion.

1) Classroom

The professor went in the classroom and gave his lecture.The students listened (discussed and learned) and then proved their learninng through some exams. The modus operandi at that time, which nicely illuminates how things were seen back then, was that in case someone was absent from some session his friends could deliver him the material (copies and/or notes of the lecture) so that he could also succeed in the exam.

What could be new:

The perspective of transparency makes us think how closed any setting really is and how rapidly and widely the information could/should flow. Perhaps these questions may not appear at the first glance highly relevant for degree students but these are higly relevant issues for executive students. It is important how rapidly and widely the executives are able to share the relevant issues which are discussed in the classroom within their own organizations. We are actually witnessing a period where a transformation is just happening - what is examined in the classroom is almost simultaneously shared in those organizations and in those networks where the executives work.


Of course what we are witnessing here is not a passive delivery of classroom material to a wider audience. Instead, executives play a very active and highly challenging role here. They are transforming the classroom wisdom into wisdom which is relevant in their organization and they also decide to who and to whom that transformed wisdom must be delivered immediately. It is interesting to think what actually constitutes excellent student work nowadays in this world.

The above said should make us think that how we create settings where also the degree students could find as many uses as possible for the knowledge which they get in the classroom. Rewriting the old Las Vegas mantra we could say that what happens in classroon should not stay in the classroom (or in a hermetic setting: input during the lecture - output in the exam = success / mark of wisdom).

2) Organization

The University is professional organization where experts cover certain areas, someone is a marketing professor, the other is strategy professor and some exceptionally lucky fellow is an accounting professor and so on. In hospital someone is expert on some part of human body and other one knows the other part, etc. (By the way Mintzberg's discussion on organizational structures is magnificent work).

What could be new:

Here the perspective of tranparency proposes nothing less than a Copernican Revolution in particular when we examine how we might see the collaboration in the professional organization. In the old world the coordination between experts was accomplished roughly speaking so that everybody knew somehow what was everybody elses area of expertise (what he had studied in his salad days). So everybody did their share in serving customers (students) and some people tried to look after the big picture so that somehow the "whole" customer need was covered. From the perspective of the transparency what was lacking was a continuous dialogue between experts where experts would learn from each other all the time.

Here we are talking about a special attitude towards work where you would all the time think what should I share with my colleagues, what would be most relevant to them to know just now. At least in the past the setting which I encountered was not a living and continuously developing conversation between colleagues which would aim to help each other and the whole organization to achieve even higher level of customer service and expertice. There was excellent discussions but they were sporadic in nature. How these excellent discussions could become the modus operandi? We now have technologies and equipments for that.

3) Network

A scholar makes research and he publishes his work in seminars and through journals and other outlets.

What could be new:

Also here the transparency makes us to think that collaboration could be wider and more intensive than what was/is often the case. One might think that modern technologies would open excellent possibilities to gather goups of colleagues from all over the world to examine certain topics. This is something what certainly happes a lot already, but I would assume that there is still a lot of  new possibilities to share wisdom and to create wisdom in a shared way. We have to be ready to rethink continuously who is close and who could be close, no matter whether he works on the other side of the globe or in the same building. Whether someone is truly approachable may relate a lot on his attitude whereas the role and importance of the physical distance is on the decline.

This is a hot topic - how to become better in thinking together. Let us work with this issue together.

Sunny days,

Ari

Knowledge in Business

How Do We Know What We Know

What does the concept "paramount reality of everyday life" mean? Does this concept have anything to do with those matters which we handle in business and other real life organizations? Well, a too short answer would be that it is theoretical concept and we in practice can manage nicely without thinking these kind of issues and realities any further. This stance is certainly possible, but please bear with me for a while. I propose that it could be very valuable for all of us in every organization to pause to reflect and to examine how we know what we know.


The paramount reality of everyday life means that it is typical for us to think that we see and understand how things are. Somehow things are self evident to us.  Certainly, we know that there are a lot of issues which we do not know and we are fully aware that there are all kind of matters which are totally out of our reach, eg. some technological issues and such matters. And yet, at the same time we seem to possess a very peculiar certainty - we know how things are, at least how the most relevant things are.


A way back in history philosopher Rene Descartes unraveled this puzzle mastefully. He pointed out that people always wanted more and more all kinds of things, there was, however, one thing what people tought that they had enough of that. Dare to quess what that was (is)? Yes, it was common sense. People were convinced that this part of life on their behalf was in good order.


Perhaps in that respect very little has changed. Have you, for instance, seen a person to buy a latest tabloid from a supermarket? There is no lack of certainty. He has seen, partly through his earlier readings, what is really happening in this world and what celebrities are doing and all that. He also seems to know without hesitation what kind of issues merit his attention. Yes, this is his free time and time to unwind, I grant that all. And being by myself a person who runs up and down different hills during free time I have very little gravitas to assess anyones's free time activities. Nevertheless, you may admit that we have some point here.


Just a few days ago I had pleasure to say few words to an esteemed eMBA delegation from Iceland. At some point in presentation I showed almost a similar picture as below: the end of the (typical)road. Could we claim that the eMBA studies are the end of a typical everyday attitude where we think without thinking what we think? Could it be that eMBA studies on their part give tools to decide to think what you think?




There are at leat two aspects of our thinking which we could reflect. Firstly, we could analyze how we build our tinking every day by focusing on certain issues and by leaving some other matters in the shadow. We could examine how we do that indivudually and how we construct our thinking in organizations. In very practical terms, what are the issues we talk (and even think) in our meetings? How people learn to know what is important in our organizations? How we, by ourselves,  have learned to think which issues are most important - are those issues still most crucial, do they merit to get our attention?

Secondly, we must value our thinking as most precious resourse. It is a resource which must be used very wisely. Here, David Rock and his fabulous book, Your Brain at Work, tells this message extremely powefully.

In sum, we may become much better in understanding how we know what we know. That understanding can be immensely valuable - also in practice.


***

This blog builds on phenomenolocal and ethnometodological thinking and I am most greatful to several authhors and thinkers who have explored the world from this perspective. For further reading please study thinkers like: Alfred Schutz and Harold Garfinkel.

Why it takes so long - organizations and the lacking agility

Organizations are extremely important. They are those institutions where we create things and services. It is vitally important how effective those organizations are. At the same time it is vitally important that those organizations offer excellent working conditions for us all. It feels somewhat awful to write something like this because when we think globally, the working conditions are certainly different in different places and at the same time there is room for improvement everywhere. To some extend it is almost surprising how little we as a human kind have been able to do in improving our living and working conditions throughout the history (and at the same time we are thankful for past generations of everything what they have created for us).


                                    


Could this somewhat slow progress of general development be explained partly so that we are not that clever in creating and running organizations which would provide results? Once again, there are extremely productive organizations but at the same time there seems to be organizations where "getting things done" take time - a lot of time sometimes.



In this blog the mountain gives a birth to a mouse, I have to admit that. This means that the opening paragraph hugs the world but what follows is something pretty defined, yet very important I think. What follows is an examination of something what I have sometimes encountered and which relate to the way how professional organizations operate. (Please note that a more explanation to the mountain-mouse expression is provided below).

It is always surprising to witness situations where almost everything seems to be ready  but then nothing happens. Quite often this "moment of petrifying" seems to take place just before to crucial moment, just before the phase where it would be possible to test whether the outlined and developed service/product would really work.

Here the term "really work" refers to that market reaction. What happens in the market defines whether the new service/product can succeed and develop. At some point organization must take this test and learn from their experience and make the necessary adjustments. Everybody knows this and yet - some times it really seems to take a lot of time before organizations take this crucial test and learn from it.

This phenomena of "why it takes so long" has made me to think following points:

The area of Agility

Organizations can not be agile and quick in everything. Metso makes world class paper machines, it can not start to make furniture very quickly (by the way this blog does not relate to Metso in any sense - the thoughts of this blog comes from working with totally different organizations than Metso). However, that Metso helps me to make this point succinctly, papermachines and furniture are different, clearly there are limits for reasonable agility. Having said that I take my comment back to some extend, it is a challenge to know what kind of an agility is most relevant for any particular organization. In fact, when we examine different organizations it may be the elementary strategic conundrum to define what are the areas where an organization should be quick in noticing new opportunities and creating new action. This question could be posed to any organization. What new opportunies could be relevant to Metso? What new opportunities are relevant and strategically important to an any organization which produces services to its customers.

It is important the every organization has an insightful and deepening understanding what it should be able to see and which are the areas where it needs to be quick and agile. What is the strategic area of agility?



                                  

Human side of Agility in organizations

It is always somewhat superficial to talk about organizations, we should always look deeper and try to understand how people think and act in any given situation. People create organizations, sometimes we are clever in creating organizational procedures and rules which make our organizations astoundingly effective, sometimes we play a role in creating organizations where things do not get done fast and effectively. (This sounds odd, how is this possible? It should not be in realm of possibility but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise - a closer examination of this phenomenon is needed in the future).

Hence it is always important to delineate whether people working in any organization are really interested and equipped to locate new opportunities? Do they have that kind of a mindset and is the organization around them such that it will support opportunity finding mode of working? Is that kind of an activity really encouraged in an organization,  or is it more a public statement? Does it really make sense to try something new? How the colleagues react when someone proposes something new?

Creating something new is rarely just a matter of individual insight, it is also a matter of shared interpretation where people create an understanding what the insight actually is and what it would mean to us to our organization. Hence, it is vitally important how the key people around "the event of insight" create room and support for new insight to develop and perhaps turn into action.

In Sum

The development and management work which aims to make organizations quicker and more agile is a worthy effort. It is of course a business issue but it also affects to the living conditions for all of us. I have a hunch that new technologies which are able improved connectivity between people will provide new ways to proceed and develop. Let us create organizations where it does not take that long to produce valuable services for people.


(An explanation to the mountain-mouse expression: When I started as Phd student many years ago, my professor once commented that in one of my research proposals a mountain gave a birth to a mouse - apparently what I promised to study was something huge, but the possibe results were not at the same level. That comment was pertinent, it was given so cleverly that it only motivated to move on and develop the proposal and to find some balance between promise and result).


                            
 

empty papers - what is strategy work

Empty papers in organization - what is strategy work?

Have you ever been in a meeting where you would talk about empty papers with your highly esteemed colleagues? Please do not deny this as such implausible scenario too easily. Let us image the setting where people sit around the table and they all have pile of empty papers on front of them. Let us envision further that they all are willing to present excellent comments concerning those papers. The comments are presented, debated even, but the papers remain empty. And perhaps the papers are taken to a next meeting where this happens again.







Well, I admit the above mentioned may have happened rather rarely in any organization. But let us change our approach a little bit. Have you ever been in a meeting where you talk about papers which probably will not change anything in your working life? And if you pause to think could it be that in that same meeting the papers under discussion will not change anything on the working life of anyone discussing about those papers. Have you experienced something like this? (Please tick the right option: never, sometimes, quite often, often, almost every time, always)

One question. Why do you talk about empty papers with your colleaques in different meetings? Is there a some force in play which make you to do it, or is there some special personal temptation that you crave to do it? Let us dig a bit deeper.

Do you think that it is really work to talk about papers which are not connected to anything in this world? Probably it can be called as work and even rather demanding work, but probably it is not that effective or productive to debate about empty papers. And yet, I would claim that to some extend empty papers are under discussion in many organizations and in numerous meetings all the time.






What I am proposing here is that meetings should not be about empty papers but about real issues. This appears obvious but it may not be so in real life and in real life meetings. Why this is the case is a very comlex issue and in order to be ready to answer to that question we really should go very deep in examining those forces which are in place in any organization and also to the ways how people see their work. That analysis escapes the limits of a single blog. However, I propose here something which might on its part make your organization and your meetings better. Could this blog on its part be a road sign, which helps you to find a way to meetings where the role of empty papers is as minimal as possible?

I suggest that in every meeting you should start the meeting with an open discussion and you would make it as certain as possible that all the participants woul feel as free as possible to voice their own opinions. Here I propose some questions which might help to develop your organization and your meetings. Perpaps you might actually to use the questions to some extend but of course the goal should be that gradually the culture in your organization whould become such where empty paper meetings would take as little time as possible.

The questions which could guide the discussion could be for instance following:

What are we doing

Why are we talking about these papers, what we wish to do with them? Do really see some relevant real life connections and consequences? What do we see, what is most important? What our discussion on the basis of those papers really mean in practice?

Connection to my working life

How the papers under discussion are relevant to me and to the other in that meeting? Should the relevance be so high that whatever we are talking about really mean or at least could mean something concrete to all of us or at least to some of us? In case the topics under discussion will not change anything relevent in some foreseeable future should we really talk about those papers? What we are really talking about then if the connection to reality is very vague? Why we are doing that kind of talking? At least the answer to these questions should be raised on the table.

Road ahead

In sum. The more I work with and withing organizations, the more I see that organizations could be much more effective, more agile and clearly better in providing valuable results and outsomes to people in this world. Often improvements would not add the workload for the people in that organization, probably quite the opposite.

I am very convinced that we are all doing important work when we try to make our dear organizations better. Let keep us doing that.

P.s.
While writing this blog it occured to me that Charles Handy has written an excellent book: The Empty raincoat, which I read years ago. If my memory serves, in that book he examines the role of us as real persons in organizations and whether there is room for us as individuals in the work life. In my blog I am in a way pondering whether real issues are really present and under discussion in our organizations. Is there room for facts and real issues in our meetings?

Enjoying life - use of language - the Savo case

There is a very special area in our dear Finland where people speak a bit differently - that area is Savo. You can find that part of a country around Kuopio city. The very special way how Finnish language is used in Savo region has caused several interpretations among other Finns.

The two main interpretations have been: 1) When a person speaks the Savo language it is a hearers task to be very vigilant and decide what part of the speak can be trusted and what part should be left in doubt. 2) And more directly the suspicion towards Savo speakers has been expressed by saying that users of the Savo language should be approached with care because it may difficult to know what they really mean. Generally speaking it is clear that Finland is a so called low context country where words are considered crucial in communication, please see Edward T Hall.

In Finland people do respect highly different parts of the country and also different dialects are considered as a national richness and hence all dialects and also Savo language are actually cherished. And it is simply just great that this is the way how things are here in this country. Hence, also the comments what people direct towards the Savo speakers should be viewed from this perspective of appreciative respect and interest.

Nevertheless, I think that it is now time to join this discussion which revolves around Savo language. Hence, in this blog I propose an other interpretation concerning the real essence of Savo language. Surely, this text is just a short commentary, but it still purports to offer a somewhat new angle to our everyday discussion. I believe that in more general terms this blog briefly examines the use of language in everyday situations and how clever people are in using their own language and their own dialects in Finland and certainly around the Globe. Also this text may on its part demonstrate that the whole world is really a learning environment - have you ever visited a cafeteria without learning something new?

My interpretation here is based on new anectode which happened just a moment ago. I had a lucky opportunity to hear from a side how very advanced Savo speaker, a person who had already celebrated her 70th anniversary spoke in a phone with her friend. As such the discussion was very general in nature, it was about everyday topics so there was no secrets in that phone conversation. Hence I did not consider my role as an accidental hearer any way difficult.

However, structure of the discussion was simply enchanting and I think that I understood something new about the Savo language. The speaker was telling about her everyday matters and events, but this was not the main crux in that phone discussion.  What was most arresting was that the speaker kept throwing verbal knuckleballs all the time (I will say few words about knuckleballs at the end of this blog). When looked from the outside people may think that Savo language, and apparently other dialects as well,  are mainly about somewhat peculiar pronunciation and special speak which is peppered with unique words.  But in essence dialects are about something else. The essence seems to be a way of being together, where a special way of speaking creates unique connection between people. Also a key element in that special speaking seems to be a celebration of a clever use of language - the use of words, expressions and images which all the time challenge and invite the other to join to that very active and certainly energizing interaction.



I would tentatively propose that perhaps the rich and joyful use of Savo language could be viewed against the history, against those conditions of life which where present not so long ago. The living conditions also in Savo region have been challenging, sometimes even the rye bread may have been a scarcely available - to put it mildly. Thus people have endured a lot of grueling, hard work and a lot of all kids of challenges and real suffering. Could it be that a very rich use of language has been a way say to the other - please join me to this rich use of language, we are both living now in this moment and there is so much enjoyment in this moment and in this life.

Joyful and invigorating discussions in every dialect and every language!

P.s. And what comes to the knuckleball I am enormously thankful to wikipedia because there this concept is opened with a masterful wording:

A knuckleball (or knuckler for short) is a baseball pitch with an erratic, unpredictable motion. The pitch is thrown so as to minimize the spin of the ball in flight. This causes vortices over the stitched seams of the baseball during its trajectory, which in turn can cause the pitch to change direction—and even corkscrew—in mid-flight. This makes the pitch difficult for batters to hit, but also difficult for pitchers to control. The challenge also extends to the catcher, who must at least attempt to catch the pitch, and the umpire, who must determine whether the pitch was a strike or ball.