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.

Leader, an onion analogy – part three

Leader, an onion analogy – part three

Let us move on with our arduous journey in sketching out “a whole picture” of a leader. It is hoped here that on its part this text shows that leadership is truly a complex, important and multilayered phenomenon.

Just as a reminder, let us mention the key elements or layers in our model. In our Onion model the leader herself/himself is seen the be the core of the model and the layers around him/her are: 1)gestures, 2) words, 3) action, 4)setting and 5) image.The part one of this blog outlined the Onion model and discussed about gestures layer, whereas the part two went deeper into the Onion analogy and discussed about layers two and three, ie. about words and action.

Hence we will now proceed to talk about layers: setting and image.



Fourth layer, setting, is perhaps the element in leadership which has been discussed rather little but which would certainly deserve close examination. Setting is the working environment where people around leader find themselves and certainly also a leader share the more or less similar setting as everybody else in any organization. Setting include things like work related rules, all practical work related arrangements, performance measurements and control and reward systems. These before mentioned elements of the setting are such things which could be described for all to see, for instance these things could explained in quality manual or in any other such document. However, setting is also action and human behaviour. For instance control systems outline general rules but often this desricption is rather thin portrayal of what happens when people meet and talk how control system should be applied in any everyday event, in particular if that event may include individuals who see things differently.

Thus setting is a very challenging element in many ways. Firstly, in different organizations settings are different and even in same organization settings change over time and sometimes very rapidly and unexpectedly. Probably we can assume that for instance a new leader always create a somewhat different setting.Secondly, also individuals see and interpret settings differently. Where someone sees a lot of room for creativity and individual autonomy the other thinks that s/he has to follow rules and guidelines.

Thirdly, all the actors within organization face an insurmountable task when they try to understand how setting is created. People wish to understand who has done what in the process of creating the setting. People are keen to understand which elements are created through actions and decisions of the previous leaders and what has been the role of existing leaders.

What is important here in this blog is the proposition that there are people in any organization who are interested to assess what has been a role of a incumbent leader in creating the setting where they work. It is proposed here that people are becoming more astute in delineating how the setting is created. Hence they in the future they are even more able to give credit to a leader which in their mind has created a setting in which they wish to work.

And finally let us proceed to the fifth layer - image. Our mission here was to examine what a leader truly is and how multilayered phenomena we are examining when we are talking about leader. In our examination we have gradually moved further away from a leader as a physical being (and we have also addressed the relevance of physical existence) and we have seen how a leader exist in different layers - gestures, words, action, setting - and now as a image. Image here is something what people carry in their mind. Whenever we meet any leader in any organization we form an image of that leader in our mind. Quite often people give to the leader a very prominent position and thus the image tends to be immensely important.

Thus to some extend we may propose that a leader is always everywhere, at least people carry the image of a leader with them. This is unavoidable. Hence the real question is what kind of an image people have in their mind, is it something positive which on its part brings meaning to the work and give courage to continue and develop new things or is it something different.

To sum up. The connection between leader and people around him/her is truly a multilayered and complex phenomena. These three blogs have been a very preliminary effort to outline what might be the whole picture of a leader. Certainly the impossibility of that task has been in our mind all the time - a whole picture is too much for any effort. Nevertheless we propose that perhaps the Onion model could valuable in showing something about the complexity relating to the phenomena leader and also our model takes a step or two in locating and naming elements which create a leader.

Sunny days and all the success for all leaders and for all people who have a privilege to work with leaders.

Leader, an onion analogy - part 2

Leader, an onion analogy – part two

Let us continue with our effort to sketch out “a whole picture” of a leader. As  I  humbly admitted in part one, this is not a theory, nor a framework, instead this is food for thought kind of a text. The question here is, what is a leader, what kind of elements are important when we talk about leader and what kind of phenomena can be connected to the word leader. This blog also takes up the question how other people around  a leader will perceive a leader and how sharp-witted they are in determining the effect of leader in their life.

Perhaps this blog might give to a leader new perspectives to reflect how wide and many sided her/his effect to others actually is. Also this text may make us to reflect how widely and cleverly people around a leader continuously examine how a leader operates. As we shall see a leader is experienced as a leader in many ways: it is important what a leader is, how s/he reacts to different things, what s/he says, how s/he says what s/he says and much more.


Clearly this text builds on a notion of socially created reality. Hence, it is proposed that we have, at least to some extend, a role in that complex interaction where we create the reality where we live in. Here we focus on work related life and in that sphere of life a leader has a pivotal position in the reality creating process.

In part one we started from the core of an onion. We proposed a picture where  a leader stands in the middle and s/he is surrounded by five layers, a bit like an onion has layers. Thus in the core of our picture is a leader him-herself. Here we examined a question what entity enters in an any given setting when the leader comes in. Then we started to talk about the first layer, in a way one realm of phenomena where leadership appears. In our discussion this first layer of leadership was named as gestures - layer.


Now, in this part two we travel through next two layers and we shall see that all the time these layers are material for people around a leader examine how a leader on his/her part builds the reality where people live on during their workdays and beyond. As we all know working day is not a strictly limited number of hours but it is part of our life. Hence work is both done and experienced in many ways and in many places - for instance it may happen in the evening when one is enjoying his so called free time and is deeply focused on the episode of Bold and beautiful, some work related idea comes in the mind...

It is proposed here that our Onion model may help us to examine how leadership weaves itself as part of our experience of life.  Next we name the five layers in our Onion model and we propose that these layers are in logical order. The logic of the order is as following: the first layer is tightly connected to the physical being of a leader. The idea here is that when we proceed other layers of a leader these layers relate and they are originated by the leader but the connection to a leader can be rather remote, both in physical terms and in time. Sounds interesting?

Let us name the layers first and then talk them through. In our Onion model the leader herself/himself is the core and the layers around him/her are: 1)gestures, 2) words, 3) action, 4)setting and 5) image.The part one of this blog outlined the Onion model and discussed about gestures layer. This part two goes deeper into the Onion analogy and discusses about layers two and three, ie. about words and action.

Words are certainly important and a leader operates through words. In his excellent book Koestenbaum tells a story where executives of a car company challenge the educator in a seminar by saying: what is truly your real capability  because you only talk and  whereas we build cars. At this point the educator asked that could the participants show the wrenches and  screwdrivers what they use. As we can guess this episode demonstrated the importance of words in car manufacturing and in executives toolbox in general.

In fact it is most valuable to examine and to be aware how words as used in different situations and what kind of consequences different uses of word create. For instance so called speech act theory offer an interesting starting point here. In speech act theory the idea is to elaborate what is done with different kind of speech acts. This viewpoint helps us to appreciate that words are truly clever and powerful tools in the process where the experienced reality is created. Words may offer encouragement or words may discourage and cause many other consequences. Also speech act theory makes a point that exactly the same words may courage or discourage - a lot depends how words are said, in what situation, in what context and in what way.  This comes back to our point the people around a leader continuously interpret the evolving situation and they make their own judgement about how a leader in his/her part is weaving the cobweb where we live. The words of a leader are always mighty powerful, even when they lack the power (in that case the powerlessness is the interesting issues).



Speech acts.


Third layer, action, is tightly connected to the words layer and clearly all layers  are in  the interplay because people around a leader read all possible signs all the time in order to understand better what is happening, what is expected from them, and how they could on their part participate in the reality building process. Here the action layer reminds us that words, plans, strategy documents and all such  elements are often just a starting point in complex processes which may lead to changes in real life.

       

People around a leader are anxious to know whether a leader is consistent and persistent. And we can certainly be assured that people around a leader learn to read to situation quickly. They will watch closely whether a leader remembers or cares what what s/he has said, or what has been agreed. People also follow intensively what happens if action deviates from a plan,  or if uttered word vanish in a thin air.  People follow closely what is the typical action from the side of a leader after words are said and plans are made. This is clearly a vitally important layer because here a leader demonstrates concretely how s/he on her/his part is creating the reality which surrounds all the actors around.

Let us take a deep breath here - this is not an easy text. This blog - part two covered two layers of our Onion model and the next blog will explore the remaining layers. Meanwhile - all the good things in most intriguing moments in the world of leadership.

Leader - an onion analogy: part 1

What is a leader, what would be a whole picture? Yep, a bit too much for a single blog, but I try provide one intriguing perspective. Clearly this is not a theory, not even a framework, perhaps this text could be best viewed as a food for thought. If this blog inspires new ideas, thoughts and discussions, I would be most pleased. And I do promise that this is a new way to try to outline what is a leader.

Lets get started. The onion analogy means that there a many layers in a leader as the picture above suggests. Here I will outline five layers and discuss briefly about those layers, although this first blog focues on the core and on the first layer. I hope that the concept layer, becomes clear enough when this text proceeds. And odd enough, although the concept layer is an important one, it is not that important to try to define it, but please make your own judgement as the text unfolds. 

First the core of the "onion", a leader as such, please see the picture above. One of our top speakers, Timo Myllykangas, proposes that each one of us should ask a following question: when I enter to room, what comes in? In our onion analogy the core  is the person and what s/he brings to any situation by being who s/he is. This is a huge question as a such, what any of us bring to a situation before we do, say or act. What is the message what each of us deliver and how we do this delivering? And what if we are not pleased to the effect which we seem to cause, how we could change the situation? Or if we are very pleased to the effect which we seem to facilitate when we join to any setting how we keep up the good work (or whatever it is what we do what seem to cause positive effects).

That got a bit philosophical (which should be a good thing as such), but now it is time to start to explore the first layer. To give some idea of layers, they can be seen as phenomena (all kinds of acts) what a leader does, intionally or unintentianally. These acts effect to the way how a leader is perceived by others around him/her and these acts are vital in determing how the leadership works. Hence the first layer are the gestures of a leader. Through his/her gestures a leader send powerfull messages, for instance is s/he listening or not, is s/he interested or not, does s/he seem to support the issue or not. This may sound like a trivial issue and a trivial layer, but perhaps we should at least consider the meaning and the potential power of this layer. At least all individuals around a leader pay a close attention to these things - intentionally or unintentionally. And these things effect what happens next and what develops in that given situation.

Let us stop here for a while. Perhaps this could well be a first part of this blog:  A Leader - an onion analogy. In fact, I think that I will very closely look around in order to see what kind of gestures surfaces in people around me when they encounter this text. Pretty interesting. And this is particularly interesting, bacause in this internet era we all seem the closely connected and messages travel fastly from one place to another. All comments from everywhere most welcome.