Are you an Indian woman that needs to talk to someone about same sex relationships?  WHaQ! now has a support number you can call. We are based in Bangalore, but we take calls from all over India.

Maybe you just need to know you're not alone.  Maybe you need counseling information.  Maybe you just want to know what is happening in your city and make connections with other women. 

Busy times we are living in my friends. Thankfully, a train-ride turned into a bus-ride due to railroad works lets me take some time off from being connected and contemplate on a buzzword that has been buzzing in my mind and life lately. That being creativity, which the sharpest of you probably picked up from the title.

Creativity is everywhere. It’s being proposed as the solution to all the problems which the developed (and even the developing) world is facing today. Anticipations are high, everything should be more creativity oriented in order to produce the innovative solutions necessary to reach the bright future ahead of us.

Overoptimistic? Sure. Wrong? Not so much. My personal opinion is that these developments are to the right directions. Though I’m getting tired of the word itself, the actual solution presented is rather intriguing. I like the idea of setting aside the restrictions of what we’ve before seen too artsy for the business world and the worlds big problems and truly working in ways that we have previously only seen used by artists and artist-minded. Surely we can’t do everything through heavy analysis and useful toolkits and methods, which can easily be modeled and mastered. The world is, and has always been too compile for that to be possible. Model-based methods work for many things, but not all the things. So being able to approach problems in novel ways, even so novel that you’re not quite sure what you’re embarking on, can produce insights unlike never before.

So the concept itself is in no way problematic to me. The thing I see problematic can be summed up in a few descriptive phrases, first being:

"Everyone can be creative!”

No, we can’t be. Not at all. Many of us are very very VERY terrible when it comes to being creative. And even more of us are mediocre when it comes to being creative. Being mediocre in creativity is maybe even worse than being totally uncreative. There’s another phrase which is described the most common reasoning for the above mentioned statement which I’ll bash next:

”We are all born creative, we are all creative as children”

Pardon my French, but that is total bullshit. Not all children are creative. Go to a kindergarten and you’ll see a few truly creative kids going through their daily life in such an unorthodox way that it’s just mind-blowing. But there’s also the big mass of kids spending their days eating crayons in the corner of the room or just simple copying the things that the more creative ones do. Then there are the kids that just simply do what they’re told. Some kids have the natural tendency to truly see things differently, but most don’t. Now, you might argue that kids are still more creative than the adult versions of themselves, which I fully agree on, but I still don’t see too much creative potential in the crayon eating bugger thirty years later wearing a grey suit and sucking on ball-point pens. (As a side not, yes eating crayons is a rather unorthodox and even creative interpretation of the use of crayons, but still not very useful. And I know that copying is in the heart of many truly creative success stories, but still the people behind the progress are of the creative kind. There is hardly any creativity in learning to use the CTRL+C combination and shifting the order of a neat PowerPoint which you saw the other day.)

But like I said, this growing interest toward creativity is a very positive matter. It gives us a new way of looking at the problems we encounter. The problem is that at the moment too much effort is going into building false hope and sense of can-do, when most of us in fact can’t.

What I’m proposing is that we mix up the discussion with a bit of reality. We can’t all be creative problem solvers who can tackle life’s big problems. Most of us won’t be able to create over 5000 prototypes of vacuum cleaners before finding the winning design. With a more creative touch to life we can have new ways of solving smaller, more personal problems and even enjoy life a lot more, but that’s most likely enough to fix everything there is to fix.

The true reason why this emphasis in creativity is meaningful and can have a truly powerful impact is the fact that it improves the acceptability of being creative. Also, as creativity comes closer to us and turns from an occultism to something we can better understand. The society will be more supportive to the truly creative masterminds who can do, what most of us cannot. It’s okay if you can’t think of a system which in the future prevents the economic crisis from ever happening again, nevertheless by building your understanding of creativity and creative problem solving you can better support and spot the ones who can. In a recent interview I conducted, two interviewed designers pointed out that the Finnish business life is lacking in design management abilities. I believe that that will be a problem of the past, as the understanding towards the value and possibilities of creativity become stronger.

To conclude and maybe aim your sights to the future I’ll end with a quote which I love:

"Novel problems require novel principles” - Gary Hamel

Yours truly,

I've eagerly been following the rise of this new-era of entrepreneurship. Mostly I've been really inspired by the bold risk-taking and it has been great to see the change which is happening in the overall attitudes. People are allowed to dream big and follow their dreams, no matter how dumb they might at first sound. People are having a lot of fun with doing business and, maybe the best part, people are allowed to have fun and be all out there. 

But as the trend grows ever stronger there seem to be some negatives changes happening. As "experimentation", "creativity" and "startup" are becoming everyday words they lead us to believe that businesses are only made to be created for the pure pleasure and the thrill. It seems to me that there is a growing number of people who see entrepreneurship as a purely hedonistic act, which delivers pleasure and quick cash-ins. So my question is, are startups becoming consumer goods for the business minded? Are they becoming disposable goods which are established only to get that few years of fun and hopefully a good chance to cash-in and move on?

I might be fussing over nothing but I'll fill you in with the reasons why this is bad. Firstly the world needs sustainability. If we were all to build these quick-fix-companies the world would soon be even more unbalanced and even more rapidly changing than it already is. Nothing new and exciting you find would be the same in a few weeks, when the original masterminds would have already moved on to the next project. Far less of the products and services would get polished to the jewels they could be, since the visionaries on whose insight the original idea was built on would just cash-in and move-on. Quality would deteriorate and everything would lack long-term stability and goals. Of course, my argument has this categorical imperative feel to it, and if you're familiar with game theory even a little you'll now that there are a few problems with this logic. Firstly the benefits to the individual from this shortsighted action is so immense that one simply doesn't care for the rest of the world when faced with the chance to have all the fun or cash-in. This is only human and there is very little wrong with this. Secondly, the first phrase of the argument is not logical in any way; all of us will never start building companies.

But why I still think this matters is because the forefront of the new entrepreneurial movement keeps repeating one word as their mantra "change". They (or should I say we, I'm not quite sure in which team do I stand in) want their actions to have an impact and change the state of the nation. But if this is truly the change that is going to happen, I think it's time to take a look in the mirror and ask "is this the dystopia I want to create?"

From my vantage point I also see one more problem rising. It the thinness of the ideas. I hate to say this but what started as something new and exciting has started to repeat itself as it grows. If entrepreneurship is all about breaking the old barriers of business, why am I seeing so many new walls being build up? Here's an example; AaltoES (Entrepreneurship society of Aalto-University, HQ can be found from Otaniemi very near to Helsinki, Finland) was founded 2008. From what I understand the model for the society was discovered from abroad and proved very good for Finland as well. Soon the same model started to get copied to other cities as well. There probably are differences between these organizations, but keep in mind, this is from my vantage point. 

See where I'm going with this one? If every entrepreneurship society is basically formed on the same principles, how can they create novel novel ideas and startups? Just like the massive corporations (the total opposites to startups) which are all based on the same boring bureaucratical systems and have middle managements which seem to be effective only at killing new ideas, so can the entrepreneurial ecosystem soon be built on clone societies all following the same principles and rules. Albeit these new principles might be more abstract, flexible and leave more room for the magical creativity, the risk still remains. And the model which so far has seemed successful might end up only able to create certain type of startups. We might end up with too much of the same kind.

So a few questions to think about and help reflect the current actions; are we headed the right way? Are we building something which we can take full responsibility of? Should we take a step back and try to find more sustainable, long-term business innovations and not just disposable apps etc. which to cash-in during the next few years? Are there other movements which would have a different change in mind and might help to generate a more heterogenous ecosystem? How can we keep challenging our selves and the world to improve the quality of life for all?

Big questions indeed, but they are necessary if we wish to make sure that entrepreneurship doesn't become a fad or a buzzword which dies as fast as it became popular? Remember, it's not at all long ago when career path was the it-word and people just like you and me couldn't get enough of repeating it.

My wine glass seems to be empty and the action in which my mind is at it's most creative (sleep) awaits!

Until next time,

Yours truly,

It's been a nice and warm summer so far and I've had plenty of time to read and think of stuff to write about. However, the topic for this post is something that has been in my mind for a longer time. I want to discuss about the quality of teaching and what actually is good quality of teaching in the university. This topic is something which I've spent hours and hours of time discussing about with my fellow students from my line of study as well as from others. The subject being very wide I'm going to start of by writing down some of my views on one matter and then hopefully continue building on my views later on. So lets begin thinking of "bad quality teaching" and what is good with it.

For those who don't know, I study Forest Products Marketing in the University of Helsinki. My third year of studies is starting soon. I also study my minor in the Aalto University and have had a pretty wide variety of courses around the different campuses in my uni. As far as a single persons experiences on different types of teaching which these different places can go, I'd say I have a pretty good overall picture of the three but of course most experience I have had is around my own faculty. And unfortunately, most of my experience with low-quality teaching also comes from our faculty.

One could say that my line of study is quite old-fashioned and the industry itself isn't perceived as the most modern of them all. Our teaching (so far) has been pretty straight forward, students sit and listen and the lecturer praises. No innovative methods, not a lot of small group dynamic discussion type of things, not too much creative thinking, no case exercises with real companies etc. Many of the things which I believed to be a part of university studies before beginning are missing. This sometimes upsets me a lot.

But where has this lead to in my case? I've channeled a lot of my frustration on my uni studies to my personal studies. I've sought optional events, like seminars to attend, started reading more on my own time, found more interesting (and in my opinion more economically potent) areas of interest inside the forest industry then the absurdly boring paper and pulp markets and so on. I also started this blog in order to write down somethings that I've found interesting, but what I'd never hear talked about at my home faculty. If only gave me some study credits for this...

So what has happened is that the lame quality of teaching at my faculty has taught me to find out more myself, to explore and read about everything else than the obvious topics which are handed to every single person studying FPM and to possibly even find novel solutions to future problems of the forest industries. The bad teachings have given me a good lesson.

So should the teaching of the university be based on this principle? Heck no! Forest industries in Finland will be faced with many challenges in the future and it won't be enough if a few people challenge their thinking to surpass the given facts of the studies. Like Gary Hamel said "Novel problems require novel pronciples" and my time just isn't enough to find all the necessary principles!

Until next time,

Yours truly,

WHAQ, Axel

the unofficial savior of the forest industry

A couple of weeks back I attended this seminar which was about sales, success and what these two have to do with entrepreneurship. Before moving on to the actual topic and how it's related to the seminar, I just wanna thank the organizers from Aalto Universitys alumni relations and other organizations for an inspiring seminar.

As exciting as the seminar itself was, the part that really made a lasting impression on me was the not-so-formal after-seminar networking session, which was held by Rasmus Nybergh from Creo Consulting. People who know me probably have had their fair share of my somewhat negative views on networking, but now it's time to take back some things I've said and admit that my views were built on many false assumptions. To add shock-value to my text I'll admit; I enjoyed networking.

Previously I've felt annoyed by the thought of getting to know people, just to use them later on as "good contacts" in order to get some sort of utility out of knowing people. In fact, I still somewhat stand behind this view, but not entirely. I think there surely is some people that see networking so one dimensionally that it's all about the input (you  acting interested in someone), becoming this valuable output some day. But the people I met in this speed-networking session, actually seemed to be different from my previous, a bit prejudicious view on networking. 

I strongly believe that human interaction is at its best when all the interacting people gain from it. The gain can be emotional, but it can also be positive in other ways as well. The point is, it's all about synergy (hate that word too). And the same goes to networking. I believe that it is at its best when there is a common interest, or even better, a common problem which can be solved. The problem can be something drastic and huge or it can just be as simple as not getting enough chances to tell what you do in order to get reactions. What is good about networking events is that they getpeople with similar interests or people who have "problems" together, to optimal conditions. 

Not to say that networking as a word still wouldn't sound kind of lame to me, but at least now I've got a more comprehensive understanding of the whole game of networking. It's not about making friends, though you might make friends through networking. It's more about making life easier for all, wether it's right at this moment or in the future. 

One more thing I found very amusing and fun about the whole speed-networking thing was that it really put the Finnish mentality in front of a challenge. I often share my views of the negative aspects which the typical Finnish mentality brings with it, but it's good to see that we are able to break away from the stereotype when necessary. I would probably have said that speed-networking couldn't work in Finland, because the whole idea of being obligated to talk to people who one doesn't know, simply just clashes with the cliché of Finnish shyness. Well, apparently I was wrong and we are actually really funny and outgoing people, when we want to. But I'm still not going to abandon my view of the Finnish stereotypes existence. After all, I'm just another stereotypical stubborn and sulky Finn...

Yours truly,