Winning in the Age of Bohonomics

WaaI – New Solution for work in post-post industrial world


A lot of talk about the future of work is going on around the world.  Almost everybody seems to be worried about what will happen when robotization and digitalization take over more and more of jobs that used to belong to us humans.

Indeed there is a great need for new solutions because there are jobs that will never require a pair of human hands and the development does not show signs of getting slower. Just the opposite is happening, as robots get cleverer and handier they keep on moving to new areas of business, not avoiding even the work of the scientists, nerds or customer servants.

Following the discussion of the future of work in Finland, it seems that a lot of effort is put into making old models solve the new challenges. That will not happen, we think, and therefore we suggest a new design for thriving in the working life where in addition to humans there are several different artificial agents keeping the wheels of economic life and societies rolling.

Work Is Dying – Long Live Work!

Professor Richard Florida has shown  in his study ”Occupational and Industrial Distribution in Peterborough” that the number of jobs that include service and creativity will increase whereas jobs in the farming and manufacturing sectors will decrease to an extent that it is not reasonable to compile statistics in those fields anymore – even though growth is strong in those sectors. Somebody or something is working hard in farms and factories!

The former CEO of the International Federation of Robotics Dr. Shinsuke Sakakibara foresaw in 2013 that in the coming five years robots will create millions of high quality jobs – there where robots are used, we would like to add. The benefits of the development are seen for example in the US where Paul Krugman thanked robots for reshoring jobs to America ( . Reshoring seem to be trending in other countries too, thanks to robots and automation.

The window of opportunity is open. Robots and automation create new jobs, innovations, new companies and most important: new possibilities to solve the enormous global challenges we face in our times. However, the window might be closing. What happens when robots storm into service sector, offices and hospitals – places where we are used to see many post-industrial workers? The closing time for the window can be closer than we think – or want to believe. We need to get prepared.

Some politicians still hold on to a dream of a factory to where people swarm to work in five continuous shifts. We have bad news for those politicians: your dream will not come true. The first fully automated factories are running as well as fully robotized hotels. We can see the signs of the new world, now we need to act.

The Future of Work: From Worker to Investor

So, what is the future of work? Micro jobs, part-time jobs, entrepreneurship, these are some of the solutions presented, many of them are seen a part of sharing economy. However, will sharing economy be a sustainable solution? Even Uber that is often portrayed as a leading example of sharing economy have started to put a plan to use robots instead of people in action

Will entrepreneurship be a solution to guarantee jobs for all? Perhaps not. Not all want to become entrepreneurs and probably there will be companies that need human workers also in the future.

What about basic income? A guaranteed minimum income could be a part of the solution but it does not solve the challenges of globalizing, complex and fragmented job markets. We need new solutions to offer people possibility/possibilities to create a concept for work, a way to combine several jobs in a portfolio that provides economical means for living and wealth creation, inspiration and incentive to use their own capacities optimally and enough safety to enable freedom from fear of survival.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Please allow us to present Work as an Investment!

Work as an Investment means that a person offers her/his work to a company or organization in a same way as an investor invests in shares. During the investment, a dividend is payed, and if the investment is profitable, it can continue. If the investment does not create sufficient value it can be denounced and the company pays the ”price of the day” for the investor. WaaI includes incentives for both the ”employee” investor and the ”employer” or the organization where the investment is placed.

WaaI is a way of doing business with one’s competencies and capabilities. It is not a time-bank where people exchange tasks. It is not a way of crowdsourcing either, even though there are some similarities.

Work as an Investment is a new way of thinking work and job markets, it is based on business- and investment concepts. Elina Lepomäki, a Member of the Finnish Parliament, writes: ” … a direct or indirect border-crossing trade of anybody’s competence is going on. There will be work only for those who have something to give in their domain and can provide it with a market price.”

WaaI is a tool for human beings to deal with their work input like an investor. The work input can be invested in several organizations and by so means build an investment portfolio where the capital produces best interest and grows optimally.

From CV to the competence portfolio

For workers it should be useful to assess their own skills and capabilities in relation to their factual (1) core work knowledge, (2) customer-specific knowledge and (3) strategic competence and knowledge. Each individual has his or her own competence portfolio. They negotiate and make work contracts in the labor market based on their own personal competence portfolio.

On the other hand, each has its own employee talent portfolio, which they can develop through training, education and self-improvement. When an employee goes to work for any organization, new work represents an opportunity to develop his/her competence portfolio more versatile and add something valuable to their own competence portfolio. Also, the employer has the chance to develop the whole company’s total human/intelligence capital portfolio. In the best case both parties will benefit based on Win-Win principle, i.e. the employee can increase the value of his/her competence portfolio and the employer receives an additional contribution to the knowledge-based capital portfolio. In addition, this kind of competence portfolio may be the great possibility for a wide range of investment opportunities and business agreements.

Like in the business world, start-ups and companies develop new business models, workers should also develop new kind of competence portfolio models, which help them to diversify risks and work investments in their personal life. Modern portfolio theory (MPT) is a theory on how risk-averse investors can construct portfolios to optimize or maximize expected return based on a given level of market risk, emphasizing that risk is an inherent part of higher reward. This kind of MPT thinking can be applied also to work markets, where workers invest in their competence portfolios. Why we allow risk management based concept/model? On the MPT for companies, but we do not allow the MPT for workers? Indeed, the WaaI model allows portfolio thinking for all workers.

Like in stock markets investors invest in many companies, WaaI suggest that workers could invest their work input in several companies. A WaaI -investor can have a number of human capital portfolio contracts. This requires, of course, that the investors’s and the company’s roles are very clear, which is  not always true in the conventional labor market.

There are also many trainers and educational organizations, that can be involved in the contract and competence portfolio model. For example, today through crowdsourcing business models citizens will reach very “divergent model” agreements in the labor market. Actually, some of these new contract models are not particularly fair. If you want to see work as an investment, it requires a kind of an investment agreement with an investment commitment to a genuine on both sides of portfolio contractors. Admittedly, new research is needed to clarify the operating work contract models in which both workers and employers are free to agree on the terms of the work carried out. In the very traditional model of “paid work”, involved parties do not have a clear idea of the portfolio investment model, which makes it a high-risk contract model in the rapidly changing labor markets. The traditional model of “paid work” or employment also displaces many people from the labor market, if they are not ready to set up their own companies. This is a real problem in the freelancer work market.

A useful model to understand the key components of competence portfolio was developed by Professor John Holland when the RIASEC personality model was formulated. According to this model, people´s orientation can be classified as Realistic (Realistic), Investigating (Investigative), Artistic (Artistic), Social (Social), Enterprising (Enterprising) and Conventional (Conventional). This model has proven to be useful and reliable scientific basis as a model example of competence portfolio with strong career planning point of view. When the work is seen as an investment, the WaaI model can help people in their career planning and support people’s inherent personality traits and talents.

Figure 1 shows an integrated WaaI model with key elements: (1) Human capital classification of core work knowledge customer knowledge and strategic skills knowledge, (2) human personality and competence model based on Holland’s RIASEC model, and (3) competence & qualifications needs analysis of organizations and companies, which should have a very clear connection with companies needing core work knowledge, customer knowledge and strategic skill knowledge.


This kind of integrated WaaI model could be useful, for example, when labor unions, public agencies and private agencies want to develop effective local bargaining system (in Finland?). This conceptual model would also help to orient training and educational organizations providing the right kind of core work knowledge, customer knowledge and strategic knowledge. In Finland, the key challenge is to form a correct big picture of the knowledge capital of future(s?) of labor markets. In addition, correct precision training of national talent pool is by no means an easy thing to accomplish. Integrated WaaI model and the associated WaaI -portfolio competence model could be an effective and realistic approach to these future challenges.

Digital applications WaaI’s tools

In Finland, which is modern knowledge and innovation society, we can easily develop new intelligent digital applications, that  would help to improve matching of firms and employees to the knowledge capital in a rapidly changing global labor market. Work as an Investment model could be a more realistic way of working in the changed social circumstances. The local intelligent bargaining model of labor markets, which functions digitally, could be sufficiently ambitious and bright model for the future developments of the labor market.

WaaI is a new social innovation. All sides of labor market stakeholders can benefit from WaaI in a big way. Like all inventions, the WaaI model also calls people for the further developments and piloting. After WaaI 1.0 comes WaaI 2.0. Nowadays, when more labor market flexibility is much desired, we need more dynamic experiment cultures and courage to make a new WaaI idea function in changing realities of work markets.

Helsinki 8.3.2016

Cristina Andersson and Jari Kaivo-oja

More information:

Bridgstock, R. (2009) The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: enhancing graduate

employability through career management skills. Higher Education Research & Development

28(1), 31–44.

Eby, L., Butts, M., & Lockwood, A. (2003) Predictors of success in the era of the boundaryless

career. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6), 689–708.


Foray, D., & Lundvall, B. (1996). The knowledge-based economy: From the economics of

knowledge to the learning economy. In Employment and growth in the knowledge-based

economy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.


Harvey, L. (2001) Defining and measuring employability. Quality in Higher Education, 7(2),


Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Jones, C., & deFillippi, R.J. (1996). Back to the future in film: Combining industry and selfknowledge

to meet the career challenges of the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 89–103.

Mind Tools (2016) Holland’s Codes. Shaping a Career That Suits Your Personality

Smart, J. C. (2010) Differential patterns of change and stability in student learning outcomes in Holland’s academic environments: The role of environmental consistency. Research in Higher Education, 51, 468-482.

Smart, J. C., Feldman, K. A., & Ethington, C. A. (2006) Holland’s Theory and Patterns of College Success, Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialog on student success, National Postsecondary Educational Cooperative.

Smart, J. C., Feldman, K. A., & Ethington, C. A. (2000) Academic disciplines: Holland’s theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Smart, J. C., & McLaughlin, G. W. (1974) Variations in goal priorities of academic departments: A test of Holland’s theory. Research in Higher Education, 2, 377-390.

Tracey, T. J. (2008) Adherence to RIASEC structure as a key decision construct. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 146–157.

Florida, Richard, (2013) Occupational and Industrial Distribution in Peterborough:  A Benchmark and Comparison Study. Martin Prosperity Institute.


Monipaikkatyö vai muuttoauto, Outi Lammin blogi 22.1.2016

Suomella yllättävän hyvät aseet robottien vallankumoukseen, Yle 24.1.2016

Robots and Bohemians: Unholy Alliance for Better Futures?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA Jari Kaivo-oja (Research Director, Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku)

“Science, says Kevin Kelly, is the process of changing how we know things.  It is the foundation our culture and society.  While civilizations come and go, science grows steadily onward.  It does this by watching itself.” – Rise of the Robots is a landmark book which continues the provocative analyses of Lights in the Tunnel of Martin Ford (2009).

Silicon Valley entrepreneur Martin Ford gives us new and updated arguments to the discussion of technological revolution we are facing today everywhere, in the US, in the Euro zone and in the BRICS countries. Not only developed post-industrial countries rely on advanced robotics – but also developing countries are adopting new AI and robotics solutions. Only few eminent thinkers think about the futures of corportions and nations after rise of robots. Fortunatelly – we have eminent scholar and engineer Martin Ford to think forward. Technological foresight analyses tell that next 15-20 years are meaning enormous and disruptive changes in our economies and business networks. The threat of jobless future and massive technological unemployment are real and evidence-based. Only the very fool conventional neoclassical economist doubts it.

System modeler Martin Ford provides a lot of empirical evidence from US, which indicate not marginal changes but massive technological disruptions in the US economy. Martin Ford continues the tradition of John Maynard Keynes in his discussion about technological unemployment. He also continues the tradition of Joseph Schumpeter in his discussion of disruptive technological changes (McKinsey Global Institute 2013) . Martin Ford has now updated these classical analyses to meet the grand challenges of today and tomorrow. We must give full respect to him.

AI and robotics are making “good jobs” obsolete and vanishing. Smart software, robots and AI-based solutions replace many white-collar jobs. Paralegals, journalists, office workers, teachers, health care professionals and even computer programmers are poised to be replaced by disruptive technological innovations. Autonomous robotics and swarm robotics change many service architectures and service designs. Key change – identified by Martin Ford is that a tight relationship between wages and productivity does not hold any more in the US economy. This is a dangerous phenomenon for the future welfare of people. Robotics is not a novel issue in the economic history. In industries and agriculture there have been a lot of robots and automation solutions. All we know the Luddites discussion and Race Against Machine analyses of Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2011) ( ).

Now newest thing is the emergence of service robotics. We can see many service robotics innovations in health care, hotel and recreation industries, retailing, and libraries – and in many other service sectors. Personally, I think that Mr Martin Ford is absolutely right when he notes that we are moving towards a new economic paradigm of smart machines. He is not in bad company, because there are such research fellows like Ray Kurzweill and Michio Kaku, who think in similar way. Personally, I respect these eminent research fellows. It is also good to remember that Gardner Inc notes that “CIOs must start considering how to develop ethical programming for smart machines”. Realizing the potential of smart machines and AI — and ensuring successful outcomes for the businesses and societies that rely on them — will hinge on how trusted smart machines are and how well they maintain that trust. The trust matters. Central to establishing this trust will be ethical values that people recognize and are comfortable with. Transparency of rise of the robots will be needed.

There will be need to develop policies and social innovations which recognize disruptive innovations and their impacts on industries and services. As Martin Ford says we need transformation of higher education, new thinking in the health care sector, new industrial Industry 4.0 strategies (as Germans say it), national robotics strategies (like From Internet to Robotics, 2013) and new kind of consumer politics. We need also new social innovations for the super-intelligence solutions and for the singularity. Radical innovations cannot be managed by incremental innovations. More fundamental new ideas and inventions will be needed. These ideas must go beyond crazy year of  1848 (see De Maesschalck 2005 and We are busy now to respond to these “old challenges of capitalism”. New capitalism needs BohoBusiness (2015) thinking if we want to be honest to ourselves.

It is interesting to compare our recent book BohoBusiness – Winning in the Age of Bohonomics with Martin Ford´s outstanding book Rise of the Robots. Our book shares many similar themes with Martin Ford´s book.  In our book key theme is a question: What human beings should do in the conditions of disruptive changes?  Our approach to question is linked to the analyses of learning, bohemian attitude, flexible radical organization culture, role of human creativity and social innovations. These issues are vital in the conditions of radical and disruptive changes. We are also discussion much about global trends and associated changes. In this context the ownership and distribution of wealth are not marginal issues. For example, creating a learning and creative hybrid economy in the conditions of robotics will be a very challenging social and cultural issue. Our book provides some new fresh insights to this broad old challenging issue.

Probably a biggest issue in robotics debate will be the question: “How are we organizing society when too many people are coming into the labor market and too many machines are throwing people out?”.  Our sincere answer is focused on self-organization of individuals, organizations and institutions of capitalism, because we rely on the learning capacity of capitalism. First pre-condition for this kind of self-organization is, of course, future awareness. Both Martin Ford´s book (2015) and our book (2015) have already now improved future awareness of many people and decision-makers. We need more political and economic decision-makers who understand complex social problems like robotics and AI driven society. However, a new economic paradigm is not automatically developed. We know quite well this societal challenge. One can just study the current storyline of post-modern Greece and its economy to understand this.

I just was an expert in the EU OSHA Bilbao conference in Bilbao, Spain in May 2015, where the official delegate member of Greece explained to me in EU OSHA workshop session what robotics means for Greece. I was informed that it means cosmetics robotics in isolated islands for them and they were very happy with this strategic economic growth approach.  In the session, the German delegate explained to me much more comprehensive program of the robotics strategy in German economy. To conclude …. pre-conditions on robotics matter – whether it is in the U.S. or China – just to mention it for curiosity. Of course, I know that US strategy “From Internet to Robotics” (2013) is a smart strategy and Ford focuses on it. Smart action from him, indeed. To sum up … the real character of corporations and organizations still matters. Organizations´ culture can make or break their existence and business. We still need visionaries and change makers. In many cases they are radical and bohemian game changers. In BohoBusiness we propose an unholy partnership: bohemian individuals and organizations combined with smart machines.

This combination is motivated with Win + (Win*Win) logic: A manager is saying: “I” = Win. A leader is saying: “Me = Win * Win”. A social innovator is saying: “We all” = Win + (Win*Win). Our message is: Grand robotics and AI strategy should follow “We all” –logic.

BohoBusiness book tells how this strategy will be implemented in real life contexts. Mercenary futures (not fragmented and alienated) futures wait for us, if we understand this BohoBusiness -equation.

Buy BohoBusiness


A Roadmap for U.S. Robotics From Internet to Robotics, 2013 Edition. Web:

Andersson, Cristina & Kaivo-oja, Jari (2015) BohoBusiness. Winning in the Age Bohonomics. Talentum. Helsinki.

Brynjolfsson, Erik & McAfee, Andrew (2011) Race Against the Machine: How the Digital Revolution Is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy. Digital Frentier Press. Lexinton, Massachusetts.

Cunliffe, John and Guido Erreygers (2001) “The Enigmatic Legacy of Fourier: Joseph Charlier and Basic Income”, History of Political Economy 33(3), pp. 459–484. De Maesschalck, Edward (2005) Marx in Brussel. Davidsfonds. Louvain.

Ford, Martin (2009). Lights in the Tunnel. Automation Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future. Acculant Publishing. USA.

Ford, Martin (2015) Rise of the Robots. Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. Basic Books. New York.

McKinsey Global Institute (2013) Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy. May 2013. Report by James Manyika, Michael Chui, Jacques Bughin, Richard Dobbs, Peter Bisson, and Alex Marrs.

Changes, changes, changes …


Eric Abrahamson (2000) noted in his famous Harvard Business Review –article that “To change successfully, organization should stop changing all the time.” Today we know that almost all organizations need dynamic stability and ability to change, but if there are too many changes there will be problems to manage all these changes. Often changes cannot be implemented without pain. However, an ideal change process should happen without pain.

One way to implement changes is to create modular elements of change. If change is too big, it creates a lot of stress and pain. Small change efforts that involve the reconfiguration of existing practices and business models are often the best practices of change. If we create big and massive change processes, risks are going to be bigger that planned massive change process is going to be a failure. If we can do this, change process will be organic change, not mechanic change.

To be ready for changes, we should develop change-able and learning organisations. One of the worst barriers against organic change is keen and even active refusal of learning. If we do not want to learn, all changes will be unsuccessful. Some beings are able to learn, some others are not able learn. If we want to develop change-able organisations, we must pay special attention to learning capacity of individual and social teams of organizations.

Professor Robert W. Rowden (2001) has recognized in his scientific article that there are three types of change: planned change, implementation-focused change and readiness-focused change. All these “change types” need a special attention. Sustainable, high performance depends on organisation´s ability to respond quickly and efficiently to changing circumstances in their decision environments, which are today networks, markets and crowds. Especially, our abilities and skills to make sense of changes, matter. Nowadays making sense is not easy. We must analyse a lot of data, information and knowledge. If we do not understand the nature of changes in critical networks, new markets and emerging crowds, we are out of success. Some other organisations, which do it better, will be more successful.

Today´s organizations operate in a challenging environment. In a more complex world, change has become the constant. Just add globalisation to technological shifts and multiply it by today´s volatile economic trends and the pace of change is breath-taking. Making sense of changes is today one of the biggest challenges in organisations and companies.

We should also understand that people are very interested why they need to change. Often people are very tired of changes, before planned changes. Generally speaking, the motivation of people depends on our sense making skill and abilities. If we cannot explain, in a good way, why changes are needed, we cannot motivate people to learn new things, change their habits and find better ways to work. Motivation is a key issue in change management process. If motivation level is low, change process is not going to be successful.

In change-able organizations a way of being is different. In this kind of organisation people are able to change fast, but also they are able to manage knowledge. For such learning organisations, typical characters are: constant readiness, continuous planning, improvised implementation and action learning. These characters require training and tutoring inside organisations. They do not emerge automatically in organizations.

People resist changes for many reasons. Sometimes they want to deny the needed changes. Sometimes people are anger and they blame managers and leaders. “Over my dead body” is one typical reaction to needed changes. “This is nothing new” is another reaction to changes. Sometimes people are simply confused. Then “I do not understand what is going on” is a typical reaction.

In classical Lewin´s study “Field Theory and Social Science”, he described the tendency by people to consolidate negative behaviours as “freezing”. This phenomena is still relevant for change management. Smart leaders can find ways to “unfreeze” by right messages, implementation activities and role models.

The organisational climate of change must be created every day in companies and organisations. Leaders of today need to manage implementation in ways that protect and grow business rather than destroy the very organisational skills and motivations which offer the potential for innovation and new business models. From this perspective we are living interesting times. Many organisations are not able to survive. Some others will find their ways from chaotic conditions.

Whether you are leader, manager or worker, we can ask: is your personal attitude right and mature enought to create optimal organisational climate of change?

Further reading

Abrahanson, E. (2000) Change without pain. Harvard Business Review, July-August 2000, 75-79.

Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science. London: Tavistock.

Rowden, R. (2001) The learning organization and strategic change. Society for the Advancement of Management Journal, 66(3), 11-16.

How to handle decision making in the management teams? In many companies’ management and leadership processes seem to work well, but suddenly something surprising happens. In spite of many cross-checks and meetings, things turn into a non-expected direction. All think that everything was in place … but then something emerges and business plans are outdated in a day. Why this happens?

It is typical than there are always some biases in management teams of companies. It is typical that for individuals it is not easy to make question marks on official agreements and strategies. Even though all nod in agreement and look happy it is not easy to say something critical. “It was settled” or “we all agreed” are typical notes on the memos of companies in this kind of decision situations.

Raising dissenting voice is not easy – especially when the chief boss decides something. It is much easier to be among “yes-sayers” than among “critical questioning men”. Self-fulfilling prophecy is the tendency to engage in behaviors that elicit results that will (consciously or subconsciously) confirm our beliefs. “Yes men” cause self-fulfilling prophecies. There can be also a halo effect, the tendency for a person’s positive or negative traits to “spill over” from one area of their personality to another in others’ perceptions of them.

In many case studies of management processes, some typical mistakes have been identified. First, there is tendency to devote attention only to those events seen as most likely. Secondly, once the team of decision makers had made up its mind as to what was going to happen, even conclusive information that the decision was poor did not change the prediction and associated decision. Thus there is typically a problem of groupthink in management teams. One reason for this problem is homogenous social and cultural backgrounds.

Often management teams have similar backgrounds: university degree holders, men with similar hobbies, career paths, middle-class people, and homogenous values. False consensus effect means the tendency for people to overestimate the degree to which others agree with them. Sometimes there can be anchoring decision-making biases, where there is the tendency to rely too heavily, or “anchor,” on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.

Another problematic issue in management teams is overcoming overconfidence. The future looks assured for them. Their judgments are made with deep confidence. However, people may feel confident that they do know the right answer but actually don´t. They don´t know they don´t know. Other options of knowing are: (1) They do know they know; (2) they don´t know they do know and (3) they do know they don´t know. Obviously the best option would be to know that they know. In reality this option is not often available for a management team.

Third typical bias of a management team is a confirmation bias. What it means? It means that we don´t place ourselves in situations where we can test the quality of our judgment. We want to seek that information that will confirm the quality of our predictions and decisions. It is quite human character of people, wanting to be in right – winning team. In this way we are selective in our observations.

Fourth bias in management teams, is so called hindsight bias, which is connected to our readiness not learn from experiences. In general, we don´t learn from experience because experience has little to teach us. That is why our recollections of our judgmental predictions confirm these to have been accurate. Some call this bias “I-know-it-all-along-effect”. Thus, our judgments are rooted to history and it cause biases to emerge.

Fifth bias can emerge because we rely on expert predictions too much. We can call this bias as an expert bias. Also experts can cause group thinking bias and other people may suffer from this kind of bias. There are many other kinds of biases, too like randomness bias, sunk-cost bias, self-serving bias and escalation and commitment bias. Projection bias is close expert opinion bias. It is the tendency to unconsciously assume that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions.

Sixth bias, randomness bias means that there is a tendency people have to seek patterns where none exist and to invent the existence of unjustified causal relationships. It is the tendency of people to make sense out of events which are so random in nature that not enough should be read into them. Close to randomness bias is Gambler´s fallacy, the tendency to assume that individual random events are influenced by previous random events.

Seventh type of bias, sunk-cost bias is often connected to too optimistic thinking. Sunk-costs are costs that cannot be recovered once they have been incurred. Sunk-costs bias greatly affects the decisions, because humans are inherently loss aversive and thus normally act irrationally when making economic decisions.

Eight type of bias, self-serving bias occurs when people attribute their successes to internal or personal factors but attribute their failures to situational factors beyond their control. The term, “self-serving bias”, is used to describe a pattern of biased causal inference, in which praise or blame depend on whether success or failure was achieved in reality.

Ninth type bias, escalation and commitment bias means tendency to invest additional resources in an apparently losing proposition, influenced by effort, money, and time already invested. The term is also used to describe poor decision-making in business, government, information systems in general. Escalations and commitment biases are typical in software project management, in politics, and in addictive gambling. To sum up: there are 9 key sources of bias in management teams:

• Overcoming overconfidence;
• Group thinking bias;
• Confirmation bias;
• Hindsight bias;
• Expert opinion bias;
• Randomness bias;
• Sunk-cost bias;
• Self-serving bias and
• Escalation and commitment bias.

It is good to be aware of these potential decision making biases in decision making situations. We could avoid these typical biases, if we were aware of these potential biases. The lessons from history can tell us that many management teams do not identify these biases and serious management failures happen. A sad truth is that we don’t always learn from experiences. There are very many historical lessons available for decision makers but we should learn something from these old lessons. From this perspective “learning organization” is a modern myth.

There is need to question some issues (and biases) in many management teams. That why bohemian persons and “out of box” thinkers may be very valuable members in management teams. It is easy to say that we should be free of biases, but in reality we are often slaves of biases and fallacies. Only personal and critical reflections can help us to be free from these biases. Open and critical discussions in management teams should be encouraged and supported too. Daily illusions about effective control should be avoided in all the decision-making situations and processes.

Further reading

Wright, George (2001) Strategic Decision Making. A Best Practice Blueprint. John Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
Goup 3: Bhavesh, Brunica, Deepak, Kane, Kiran, Lisette & Monica (2012) Biases in Decision-making. Web:
Scribd, “gaea_myzticmoon” (2012) Biases. Web:

Hypercompetition and Hybrid Economy: How to Save Capitalism?

Financial Times Lexicon defines hypercompetition in a following way: ”A situation in which there is a lot of very strong competition between companies, markets are changing very quickly, and it is easy to enter a new market, so that it is not possible for one company to keep a competitive advantage for a long time”. (See Many economists have noted that hypercompetition leads markets to unstable conditions. Theories of general equilibrium in markets and automatic stabilization of markets do not hold, if markets are in unstable conditions. Richard A. D’aveni introduced this concept to scientific discussion of company and corporate theories. His book “Hypercompetition” is a classic book in the international management literature. One key statement of his book was that competitive advantage can no longer be sustained.

Hypercompetition results from the dynamics of strategic maneuvering amongst many competitors. It is the condition of rapid escalation of competition based on price-quality positioning.

Corporations and companies want to use other tools to compete under conditions of hypercompetition. They do not want to start price wars. In such conditions corporations want to be Cost & Quality (C-Q)-leaders or followers. They may want to create Timing and Know-How (T-K)-Value chains and build new efficiencies. In some case they may rely on Strongholds (S)-Core or on Distinctive Competencies. Deep pockets strategy is based on the availability of financial capital. (see

To escape disastrous price wars, modern companies try to occupy different locations on the price like brand strategies, offering mass customization, quality axis, using micro-marketing, and shifting strategies based on the changing anatomy of industry trends.

To sum up, new arenas of hypercompetition are:

  • Cost & Quality (C-Q),
  • Timing and Know-How (T-K),
  • Strongholds (S), and
  • Deep pockets (D).

Hypercompetition is emphasized on several occasions – in particular, in the creative economy in the context of organizational development. Success is based on the fast changes in hypercompetitive business environment. Agents and leaders must change rapidly and understand and internalize weak signals in their decision environment. For a company to stay alive and competitive it must very innovative. It mean that a company delivers novel and advanced products and services for which there is little or no equal in the marketplace. Commodity differentiation and branding are key aspects of hypercompetition.  Hypercompetition is focused on is new ideas, inventions and innovations.

Now many experts have started discuss about hybrid economy. What is hybrid economy? How it is connected to hypercompetition? A hybrid economy is any type of local, state, or national economic system that involves a more or less equal focus on two or more different types of economy.

This hybrid economy model is a relatively common structure that has been utilized in many different settings over the history of humankind. For example, in traditional agricultural society there were exchange and storage economies. Some examples of a hybrid economy may include a creative economy, a military-industrial based economy, a university-industry based economy, or hybrid economy based primarily on a mix of business and government. Thus, there are various forms of hybrid economy. New forms of hybrid economy include typically e-business and internet economics.

These forms of hybrid economies are not fitting well to pure exchange mechanisms of market economy. The reason for the existence of hybrid economies is that they promote stable systemic mechanisms than market economy or unstable hypercompetition.  The element of public good is typical for hybrid economies. We can even claim that in the future we need more elements of hybrid economies to make capitalism work better. If we want that capitalism delivers benefits and positive values to everyone, there is need to develop more innovative patterns for the hybrid economy. New forms of hybrid economy can also include dynamic elements of social innovation.

The transition to a hybrid model of competition does not mean that the market would disappear, and markets would not be relevant for transaction mechanisms. This is something that should be emphasized. Also hybrid economy is based on competition. Hybrid competition is a very important new element in the global hypercompetition. Hybrid competition is also connected to good governance systems and to trust of democratic agencies and institutions.

We can take a number of reasons why the hybrid competition has risen and continues to rise as an important part of people´s and organizations´ wealth creation processes:

• Globalisation and its associated cultural interactions;

• The penetration of the Internet and related digital networking;

• Digital technology innovations (Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and Web 4.0 etc.);

• Pressures and unstable processes of  the hypercompetition;

• Ubiquitous r/evolution, the Internet of Things and other digital forms of evolution like Cloud Computing and Big Data), and

• Co-creation (co-creation processes) with the growing economic importance.

The global economy means a new division of labor in the world. Workplaces are lost in some countries and regions and in some other places people are creating new jobs.

Frequently asked question is what kind of new work places can be created after old work places are lost? One obvious answer is: “Something else”. People have always developed something else after the loss of permanent jobs. The big problem is that it may take too much time to find new jobs, if we do not make systemic changes to the postmodern societies.

If we rely only on the hypercompetition and market mechanism, our societies will be very unstable and cause a lot of social losses. If we really can develop new social innovations and new forms of hybrid economy, we can expect that social and economic transition processes will be faster, less unstable and cause less welfare losses.

Today we must allow multiple stakeholders to negotiate over how to attain a desirable future. Developing new innovative forms of hybrid economy will require new forms of dialogue and debates. The only option is not unstable hypercompetition, which mostly delivers benefits of exchange and markets unethically and unequally.

It is worth of underlining that people create their economies and systems of governance. It is worth of noting that in capitalism people are allowed to think freely. These two things are relevant if we want to save capitalism and re-invent it as a dynamic form of global governance.

Further reading:

Anderson, Theresa Dirndorfer (2011) Beyond eureka moments: supporting the invisible work of creativity and innovation. Information Research. Vol. 16, No. 1., Web;

D’aveni, Richard A. (1994)  Hypercompetition. Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering.  Web:’aveni/9780029069387

Florida, E. (2001). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Howkins, J. (2001) The Creative Economy. London: Penguin Books.

Howkins, J. (2009) Creative Ecologies. Where Thinking is a Proper Job. St Lucia, Queemsland: Queensland University.

Lessig, Lawrence (2008) Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: The Penguin Press.

Palmer, Tom G. (Ed.) (2012) The Morality of Capitalism: What Your Professors Won’t Tell You. Ottawa, Illinois: Students For Liberty & Atlas Network Jameson Books, Inc.

Wolff, Richard D. & Barsamian, David (2012) Occupy the Economy. Challenging Capitalism. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Media and Ubiquitous Computing

Mark Wiesner, HCI chief scientist at Xerox PARC, formulated that ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) can be called “third wave” of the computing revolution, where computing culture moves off the desktop and out into the world.

In a ubicomp world, everything is animated. Today, we still live in a world where objects count themselves. In the future, whether it is radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags or another kind of sensor, one finds information systems that in real time track objects whose presence can be read by satellite, radio or scanner. The Internet of Things is the name of the growing movement in ubicomp design in which sensor-linked objects, actions and capacities are tethered to a network. The Internet of Things describes a consortium of web-designers who are creating sense-able objects that can be located and interacted with across a network. Implicit in the logic of the Internet of Things is also an idea of the sensible object.

For media houses ubiquitous revolution means big challenges. Already multimedia included many challenges for the media and journalists. One of big challenges will be increasing mobility of media coupled with an increasingly consequential relation to space, place and time where the physical world and virtual platform intersect. Some people are talking about X-reality engagement in the ubicomp context.

Pervasive computing is leading us to pervasive media, to the world of the Internet of Things, where media houses are operating fluently. Before we are facing the era of pervasive media, there will be a transition period. With ubicomp the computational work of information processing is integrated to objects, activities and sites of the everyday. Such obvious objects and activities are smart media houses, home studios of journalists and their smart cars. The ubicomp has not yet achieved the full scale of pervasive computing to which it aims.

The term pervasive media is used to describe a global culture that engages a spectrum of networked technologies. The pervasive media includes many issues, especially many novel ubiquitous technology platforms. Such issues are virtual worlds, voice-over-Internet protocol, mobile rich media and texting, microblogging formats like Twitter, Web-based video (You Tube), social profile pages (Facebook) and web logs (blogs). Together this spectrum of media technologies is leading us to transmediated communication. There will be convergence of pervasive media technologies. This converge process can lead to surprising results with many technological affordances. Probably pervasive media as a whole simulates presence, where ability to be authentic matters. Digital technologies change conventional static media and multimedia. As Marshall McLuhan said: “We become what we behold. We shape our tools, and then our tools.” Key concepts of pervasive media are:

  • Social networking
  • Social media
  • Social bookmarking
  • Blogging
  • Wiki
  • Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and Web 4.0.
  • Structural modularity
  • User-generated content
  • Content sharing
  • World Wide Web

The word media means “ways of transmission”. It encompasses all of the various technologies we use to record information and transmit it to others. The era of pervasive media means hyperconnectivity, whereby people and machines stay perpetually connected via an ever expanding network of diverse communication channels. New digital devices provide new possibilities for hyperconnectivity. Hypermedia is a term which refers to a host of digital technologies that enable the presentation of multimedia content in a nonlinear form.

Hypermedia is probably a key future issue in the pervasive media development. Media will almost never be a standalone kind of product any more. Multiple touch-points are available for the consumers of media content. Interaction with the audiences will be two way creating a conversation media. Some pieces of news are serial and some media content are tailored for very sophisticated global audiences. Hypermedia is used as a logical extension of the term hypertext in which audio, graphics, plain text, video and other hyperlinks intertwine to create a generally non-linear medium of information.


Costello, V., Youngblood, S.A. & Youngblood, N.E. (2012) Multimedia Foundations. Core Concepts for Digital Design. USA: Focal Press.

Coleman, B. (2011) Hello Avatar. Rise of the Networked Generation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Big Science and Big Innovations: An Adventure between Holism and Reductionism

As we know reductionism is the view that the behavior of a system can be explained by understanding its components. Reductionism is the basis of how any researchers starts to solve a complex problem. S/he divides the problem into sub-problems, analyzes them, and finds their solutions and may divide them to sub-sub problems for more simplification. And so progress of science continues. Mostly, this is the basis of the western science. When reductionist model is used as an explanation it depends on an analogy between the components of the model and the components of the system. The analogy is between the components of the model and the parts of the model. For example, Descartes proposed an idea that non-human animals could be reductively explained as automata.

Reductionism can mean either (1) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things. Reductionism can also mean (2) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. Methodological reductionism is the strong position that the best scientific strategy is to attempt to reduce explanations to the smallest possible entities. Thus, according to methodological reductionism, all scientific theories either can or should be reduced to a single super-theory through the process of theoretical reduction.

Reductionists do not view that systems somehow function as wholes and that their functioning cannot be fully understood solely in terms of their component parts. They believe that sub-systems of the whole system do not have any problematic functioning. Reductionism in science means that a complex system can be explained by reduction to its fundamental parts.

Holism is another view to understand systems. The idea of holism was broadly presented by Jan Smuts, the famous military leader and a philosopher, but the principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: “The whole is more than the sum of its parts”. Holism is the view that some phenomena that appear at the system level do not exist at the level of components, and cannot be explained in component-level term. Thus, holistic models are more focused on similarities between systems and less interested in analogous parts. A holistic modeling approach to modeling often consists of two steps (not necessarily in this order): (1) Identify a kind of behavior that appears in variety of systems and (2) find the simplest model that demonstrates that behavior.

Holism is based on a basic idea that the whole has some properties that is parts lack. Holism has traditionally appeared as a model of thinking in the philosophy of biology, psychology and in the human sciences. Holism is the big modeling idea that natural systems (social, economic, physical, mental, biological, chemical, linguistic, etc.) and their properties should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts.

In the latter half of the 20th century, holism led to systems thinking and its derivatives, like the sciences of chaos and complexity analysis. There are hard systems theory and soft systems theory. Systems are frequently so complex that their behavior is, or appears, “emergent”: it cannot be deduced from the properties of the elements alone. Thus it is also “new”. Emergent, self-organizing systems are a part of the whole system in many scientific analyses of psychology, sociology and biology. Scientific holism holds the idea that the behavior of a system cannot be perfectly predicted, no matter how much data is available. Even “big data” does not solve this fundamental scientific problem.

We cannot explain the existence of synergy without holistic thinking. According to scientific interpretation of holism, there are good ontological reasons that prevent reductive models in principle from providing efficient algorithms for prediction of system behavior in certain classes of systems. This is a very serious question for many fields of new inventions and innovations. Why to accept limits for ideas?

With roots in Joseph Schumpeter, the evolutionary approach might be considered the holist theory in economics. Evolutionary economics deals with the study of processes that transform economy for organizations, companies, institutions, corporations, industries, employment, production, trade and growth within, through the actions of diverse agents from experience and interactions, using evolutionary methodology. Evolutionary economics share certain language game elements from the biological evolutionary approach. Thomas Kuhn, the author of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (1962), accepted this kind of evolutionary approach to scientific (r)evolutions.

Innovation processes are not easily explained by reductionist models. Evolutionary economics is typically used when innovation processes are explained. Evolutionary economics analyses the unleashing of a process of technological and institutional innovation by generating and testing a diversity of ideas which discover and accumulate more survival value for the costs incurred than competing alternatives.

One can note that holism and reductionism are different models with different purposes. For reductionist models, realism is the primary value, and simplicity is secondary. For holistic models, it is the other way around.

Thus, the choice of modeling is a normative choice. We should be open for both perspectives of the big science. Reductionism helps us to focus. Holism helps us to open our eyes.




Weinberg, S. (1992) Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature. New York. Pantheon Books.

Jones, R.H. (2000) Reductionism: Analysis and the Fullness of Reality. Bucknell University Press.

Thomas Kuhn


Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Sructure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.




Dennett, D. (1995) Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Downey, A.B. (2012) Think Complexity. Sebastopol, CA: O´Reilly.

Jan Smuts


Audi, R. (1999) The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ameba Organizations, Serendipity and the Multiverse

Serendipity is not a new concept, because Horace Walpole committed the word serendipity to paper for the first time about 250 years ago.  Horace Walpone said he formed the concept from the Persian fairy tale The Three Princes of Serendip. In the book, three successful princes “were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things they were not in quest of”. Today serendipity is widely accepted concept with 5 670 000 hits in a 0,20 second in the Google (evaluated 11.6.2012).

Serendipity means a “happy accident” or “pleasant surprise”. Serendipity is an accident of finding something good or useful without looking for it. It is not easy to see when serendipity is really happening, because it is not easy to define when human behavior unintentional and things happen like an accident. Thus serendipity is the faculty of making happy and unexpected discoveries by accident. The concept of serendipity is connected to innovation theory. In innovation research, authors have found that sometimes also innovations are discoveries by accident. If people are very active, sometimes happy accidents really happen.

Only one sure thing in serendipity is that activity of people matter. And proactivity matters even more. If people are active there will more possibilities, more accidental discoveries and more pleasant surprises. Various thinkers discuss the role that good luck can play in science. Good examples are Colombus’ discovery of America, Nobel’s discovery of dynamite and Fleming’s discovery of penicillin. The serendipitous quality of innovation is highly recognized by many professionals of innovation research. It is also linked to the success of corporations and companies to their ability to create knowledge not by processing information but rather by tapping the tacit and often highly subjective intuitions and insights.

The higher the probability of an event is, the more certain we are that the special event will occur. Thus, probability in an applied sense is a measure of the confidence a person has that a random event will occur. Serendipity as a concept is closely connected to the concept of probability. A probable action or opinion was one such as sensible people would undertake or hold, in the special circumstances. Typically happy accidents have a low probability level. If an event has a high probability level, it is not a happy accident, it is an expected event. If there are some intentions behind an event, it is not a serendipity issue.

So intentionality is typically a elementary part of strategic and visionary thinking.  Serendipity is relevant in such a business environment where agents do not have special intentions – they just act without intentions.  They just act somehow and try to survive. From this perspective the concept of serendipity is an evolutionary concept.

An interesting question is whether a corporate or small company can do serendipity management and also have some strategies and vision, which are intentional ones. My personal answer is: Why not? If some things cannot be planned properly, why try to do these things with stress and lose much scarce resources? It is not worth of try too much. It is good to work like an ameba. Better way to success is to be relaxed and give serendipity a free room in organizations, whether they are small companies or large corporations. This kind of free and flexible organization can be called an ameba organization.

In the future many organizations will find this kind of flexible ameba organization a good solution when they operate in the multiverse. The term “multiverse” was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James. The multiverse or meta-universe is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them.

New technology will make multiverse a very relevant concept. In the future technological development with ubiquitous technology, nanotechnology, robotics and material technology change our relation to time, space and matter. This process will lead us to different realms of multiverse. There will be 8 realms of multiverse: Reality as such, augmented reality, physical virtuality, mirrored virtuality, warped reality, alternative reality, augmented virtuality and virtuality.

Multiverse will create for us infinite possibility for serendipity and ameba organizations. Business gurus B. Joseph Pine and James H. Gilmore have noted in their updated  book “the Experience Economy”, that work will be theatre and every business is a stage. This is a working principle of serendipity management.


Serendipity: How the Vogue word became Vague




Infinite possibility

Pine II, B.J. & Korn, K.C. (2011) Infinitive Possibility. Creating Customer Value on the Digital Frontier. San Francisco: CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Experience economy

Pine II, B.J. & Gilmore, J.H. (2011) The Experience Economy: Work Is Theatre & Every Business a Stage. Updated Edition. Boston (MA): Harvard University Press.

The Boho Bottom Line

Inarguably are we entering a new era where all kind of measuring based on the means of the industrial age are passé, and not only that. They can be pernicious as well. An old saying claims that you get what you measure and that is quite true – we have been measuring beans and coins and that is what we’ve got, lot’s of money somewhere marked with a minus and somewhere else with a plus. Funny thing is that actually the beans and coins game has ended up as a minus sum game as the global debt shambles is out of control.

Companies CSR efforts have not resulted in radical betterings partly perhaps because they are used merely as tools for PR.

In 1994 John Elkington suggested Triple Bottom Line approach where the companies bottom line should be expressed three dimensionally: people, planet & profit. The idea faded away with cost cutting being the main priority for businesses.

An interesting discussion about Shared Value is going on and leading us once again to discuss capitalism and it’s benefits and flaws. Prof Michael Porter presents a positive view while John Elkington is a bit dubious.

Why is the discussion of the bottom line and capitalism so important for the modern Bohemians and BohoBusinesses? We do not believe that money is going away as a tool for exchange. As Prof. Tom G. Palmer says: money is an tool for dignified exchange of products and services. As a creative worker I more than agree with Tom’s statement, bartering can be satisfactory for some time but in the long run it brings about dissonance between people. Well, and does not contribute to the society in form of taxes neither.

When thinking about the new solutions for businesses to contribute to the common global good we  cannot and should not forget the people’s and companies pursuit to win and by so means create profits that can be invested in new endeavors for development and better lives.

Therefore we see that the Bohemian way to look at sustainable business, BohoBusiness, is the win*win(+win). In this equation the partie’s create multiple wins and also cause beneficial impacts to third parties. In other words we are not denying the creation of wealth, profitable business and the thriving of individuals, teams and organizations but we suggest they along with their strategies and actions strive to find ways to contribute to the society and the planet as well, not only as individual companies but as a part of partnerships as well.

In the win*win(+win) way we believe that the Bohobusinesses can take CSR, Shared Value and TBL into their strategies, tactics, operations and daily actions. The win*win(+win) provides also the artistic and innovative Bohemians an ethical scheme to look at their work also from the point of view of profits and on the other hand for the economics and material oriented a way to take the +win as a part of their paradigm.

Actually the +win is the key to great victories and profits in the more and more robotizing world. The deals between partners are often times such that they do not require broad and creative intelligence. Seeing the future, the planet and the needs of humanity on the other hand require such abilities to conceive that the robots are hardly getting there yet in some decades.

Besides, we are here to have fun, enjoy our lives, our families, to work with passion, to connect and cooperate with others. We all have unique talents and skills. It is our birthright to live up to our best selves. This is to win and with win*win(+win) we can multiply the joy and make life and business a co-thriving journey.

All set up for a win*win(+win) session at The Helsinki Music House.

Meeting Robotization and Automation Challenge of the Ubiquitous Society: Towards Infinite Possibility Frontiers?

Technological and in broad sense ubiquitous revolution is today delivering a world of opportunity and leisure. Today computer technology is cheap. People are expensive. Computers are becoming smaller and smaller, and can be attached, embedded or blended to almost all things from man-made to natural ones in the world. During ubiquitous revolution computers become integrated parts of these things instead of independent individual artifacts. Due to the attachment, embedment and blending as well as emerging ubiquitous networks, ordinary things surrounding us are capable of (1) computing and communicating, (2) connecting and/or being connected to each other, and (3) behaving and acting rationally with some smartness or intelligence. Smart ubiquitous machines and robots are so called “everywhere” systems.

But this kind of new technological opportunity will not be delivered to all. For many people coming ubiquitous tech revolution will deliver misery and decline. Because of economic cost structures many workers will be replaced by the new technologies over the coming decades. Robots and automation mean silent revolution in many work places and societies. The economics of this new world will be revolutionary.

One big problem of this revolutionary technology wave is that our policy makers do not understand it. They are not understanding, what is happening when computers and robots are doing most of the work. This means that our world has the potential to become immeasurably wealthier and richer. It is up to us to decide who will benefit and how the benefits of ubiquitous revolution should be distributed and redistributed. The basic dynamics of the cyber age creates many open windows for us.

The advance of science and technology is offering us a gift. But do we know how to receive it? The gift could be nothing less than prosperity for all. More wealth is available for not just those people who are able to grab it for themselves. Big link to prosperity to wealth has been the job. New technologies are powerful creators of jobs, until the moment it becomes mature and breaks free of human involvement. Many technologies have an infant age, an adolescent age, a mature stage and finally an old age. This technological cycle create promises, but need constant care and attention. During this technology cycle many jobs are created. New technologies open new horizons, but they also destroy some old structures and models of behavior. Some innovations are also disruptive, not constructive.

In its mature stage the old technology is well understood and can fend for itself. It does not require assistance to get on with its work. Jobs are eliminated but it still delivers the goods. However, in its old age old technology is subject to attack and replacements. This cycle is a typical process of capitalism. Capitalism can only be understood as an evolutionary process of continuous innovation and creative destruction as Joseph Schumpeter defined it.

B. Joseph Pine II and Kim C. Korn (2011) have presented a big vision of future technologies in their book “Infinite Possibility”. They see that ubiquitous revolution will create for us infinite frontier concerning the progression on economic value. Customization and commoditization of goods, services, experiences and transformations are key activities in this process of “infinite possibility”. The digital frontier provides us many possibilities in the universe, where time, space and matter create many alternative possibilities.
Real and virtual spaces are creating one interesting dimension of the space. Atoms and bits are creating second key dimension of the matter. Thirdly, actual and autonomous time is third critical dimension of the time. These 3 dimensions of time, matter and space create new frontiers for wealth creation and innovative solutions in economies and societies.

To understand the scale and scope of new possibilities in these 3 dimensions can help us to create more wealth and more jobs in the future. Infinite possibility is not gross overstatement. It is analogical to LEGO brick game, a simple thing of material substance, which is genuinely immeasurable, and truly limitless.

Now need bohemian creativity to build our own LEGO games of the future. This means that we must be ready to build up new technological innovation, new business innovation and new social innovations for a society with new technological infrastructures and settings. We must be able to create modular and systemic innovations, which are really reshaping human futures.

1 Ubiquitous robot
2 Joseph Schumpeter
3. Infinite possibility paradigm
Pine II, B. Joseph and Korn, Kim C. (2011) Infinite Possibility. Creating Customer Value on the Digital Frontier. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Ltd.
4. LEGO thinking
Gregersen, Hal, Dyer, Jeff and Christensen, Clayton M. (2012) Book excerpt: How strong are your Lego thinking skills? April 27th, 2012. Web:

DIY – A Bohemian Lifestyle

Great artwork and handicraft – or artisanry – are in the very heart of the Bohemian Culture.  We have seen pictures of beautiful and extremely skillful embroideries, laces and knitwear. Artisanry is a growing trend. Sudip Dutta, the founder of Aporv – Empowering Artisans and Promoting Culturally Rich Art Forms via eCommerce says there are 23+ million artisans in India. Based on the amount of  artisans in India, the number of them worldwide must be enormous.

German journalist and the digital boheme Holm Friebe wrote 2008  “The end of mass production is in sight. Its demise is a creeping guerilla movement inspired by self-initiative and self-organization. This new type of production recognizes the value of human work and the dignity of the producer. It will change the landscape of more than just our economies.”

We cannot reverse the course of globalization or stop the development of artificial intelligence. But what we can do is to develop our abilities to do what the robots can not do and use the tech to our benefit – of which the least is not the opportunity to connect with interesting and likeminded people worldwide.

DIY do-it-yourself is a trend, perhaps a megatrend that extends not only to handicraft and home equipments. DIY can and it will and it has also bring about great business opportunities. Often in greenfields where there are outstanding chances for remarkable benefits and revenues. In 70’s a few people gathered together in a club called “The Homebrew Computer Club”. Two of the members were Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Well, I do not need to say more.

DIY extends more and more to all areas of our life. The technology provides us with new tools to help ourselves with health and well being. Participatory Medicine will help more and more people to cure from disease and injury.

As a Vice President of an Inventor’s Association I oftentimes hear the inventor’s complain about how difficult it is to get instutional funding for the inventions. The problem is that if the invention is really great and groundbreaking, the institutions have very little abilities to understand the invention. Actually if they did, the invention wouldn’t be especially radical. A Homebrew Club would be  a solution for inventor’s too. A place where the brains meet to find solutions that money cannot buy. In that sense our association,  “Inventor’s Factory” aims to be such a place.

So, we are writing a book to help the people win in the world where robots get more and more intelligent with capacities to learn and express emotions. A machine can write books too, we naturally hope that humanwritten literature will hold it’s position because of it’s creative, visionary, deep, meaningful, artistic and insightful content. In other words writing is a part of the DIY trend!

My writing process includes times when I need to concentrate on learning new material. The most effective way for me to learn is to listen and at the same time do something with my hands. So I crochet. During the time of writing the BohoBusiness my aim is to crochet a half curtain to my mother in law. Here’s is a pic of the first half. I am sure the robots can do the same and even better but what they cannot do are the mistakes and pitiful attempts to repair them afterwards. The imperfections make the curtain personal and I hope that in her summer house the mother in law thinks sometimes of me, her ex daugther in law. Besides, hand-made is luxury.

The first half of the half curtain that Cristina crotchets for focus and therapy during the writing process of the BohoBusiness.

Source: Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think Highly recommended reading!

by Peter H. Diamandis , Steven Kotler

Towards A New Capitalism In The World Of Bohos

Think about yourself walking in a thick jungle. In a jungle where the branches, bushes, lianes and the thick undergrowth makes your progress hard. Bristling with fear and anxiety you bulldoze your way forward with a help of sticks and knives. The knowledge that there might be dangerous beasts lurking among the vegetation doesn’t make your race any easier. You must constantly be prepared to attack and protect yourself.

Now imagine, that the jungle is finished and you entered a deciduous forest. The vegetation is still lush but not stickingly thick. However you keep your knife and stick ready and from time to time you cut a low hanging branch. And you are hoping that you’d get out of the jungle one day.

You are not ready to adopt the new environment even though you are in the middle of it. You are in deciduous woods clamouring for a change in the jungle.

We are so used to live depending on one big truth. To believe in one big truth. Not necessarily because it would be the only one but because it makes our lives easier.

The world has changed from a space divided with frontiers to a boarderless web of people. Different truths and ideas can wander freely and meet people also there, where the one truth nepotism has selfishly built isolated societies.

The discussion about the morality of capitalism is a sign of the change that is already going on. A crowd of people has left the jungle capitalism and moved into a grove of new economics. Yet many cry “it’s a jungle out there”, dangerous and hard.

”Capitalism is a system of cultural, spiritual and ethical values” says professor Tom G. Palmer in his book “The Morality of Capitalism”. Yes. And the mission for the people is to create for that system a content that serves the highest purposes of the human kind. Then capitalism can be a system where the right to ownership and the freedom to make agreements in the spirit of free will can be realized.

Marc Luyckx Ghisi a professor of Future Studies from Belgium says “Truth is in the empty center of the common table around which all cultures are sitting on an equal footing. Women and men are also equal. The urgent scope of life is to care together for our survival. But the main goal in life for everyone is to reach the center, the “divine light” or the “absence of light”. And the more you approach the center, the less you can define what the illumination is. You are only able to experience it. And nobody owns or controls this “empty” truth. It is impossible.” The nature, animals and plants are part of this consciousness and thus respected.

The truth, the light in the middle of the world-table, is a common emotional experience that the value that the individuals bring to the table creates something big and meaningful when it is integrated into the common flow of values.

This is the new world we are living in. Call it transmodern or post-post modern or a world of people, without definition… I kind of a world where “… the value grows by mobilizing the energy and capacity for invention of the people in an unprecedented scale, so that wealth is created to a common man…” in Tom’s book the sentence begins with the word “capitalism”.

Why do we need words? We need ideological vehicles so that we can realize in what kind of woods we are walking in. The word capitalism is difficult to accept for many. It is loaded with heavy accusations  but perhaps it is the right word when we seek for a vehicle to express the economics of this new world.

But if capitalism has made damage to people’s souls then we need to find a new vehicle to describe the system of freedom, spiritual values, the uniqueness and talent of the individuals, creative projects of societies, tribes and movements, holism without reductionism in the name of economics, wealth building without exploitation and robbery. “Substituting power with persuation and envy with achievements” says Palmer. Yes. Palmer emphasizes that capitalism does not include greedy exploitation and robbery because they lack the element of mutual free will.

My credo is ”we are built to win”. A human being is endowed with unique potential and her/his life is a work of art that we all must respect. The world is simultaneously a collection of talents and a shared, cooperative performace, “a concert of a globalized planet” *, where each and every one adds value with her own talents and uniqueness. In a cocreative process an awesome tapestry with thick value is formed combining the spiritual and the material. The economy is a part of that performance and that, the economy,  must be made to serve the human kind with the understanding that everybody is important and equally valuable.

Professor Bjorn Wahlroos talked about India. He reminded that it is not that long time ago the news we heard from India were those of famine. Nowadays we are hearing more and more good news from India. About flourishing businesses, great universities and exciting innovations. When the economy grows there will be space to handle other issues as well, human rights for example.

It would be unwise to push capitalism aside because of the greediness that has ruined it’s good parts. We need creation of economic value so that we can continue to develop well being of both people and the earth. But the capitalism must change. It must see that people have come out from the jungle.  I’ll quote John Mackey who was interviewed by Tom G. Palmer:

”Capitalism is a source for value. It is the most awesome tool for cooperation. This is the story we need to tell. We must change the way we approach it. From the viewpoint of ethics we need to change the description of capitalism so that we can show that capitalism is about creating shared value, not for some but for all. If people would see capitalism as I do, they would love it as much as I do.”

*) The great concert of the globalized planet”, Mario Vargas Llosa,  in Palmer’s book.

Tom G. Palmer, ed., Morality of Capitalism, 2011.

“We are built to win” you can find also from Mike Babcock’s book Leave No Doubt

On The Way To Performance Centered Organizations?

Today many entrepreneurs, managers and business leaders think what are the secrets to business success? And where shall we find these secrets? The typical answers are: new technologies, new young smart people, new management techniques, and the active use of social media.

Another way to answer to this question is to ask: What destroys business efficiency, productivity, competitiveness, product quality and profitability?

An obvious answer is average performance which is based on average management techniques and average workers. Going beyond average is not easy because we love to be average persons with a normal and standard behavior. “I am only working here – do not expect too much” is so typical attitude in many workplaces.

We like to meet the expectations of an average behavior. Actually being something beyond the average is often punished by managers. There are also many trendy fashions in the management literature of organizations. That is why some answers about business success are short-lived.

Building up the performance-centered organization has been an obvious answer to business success. The key to avoiding the performance gap and the “average dilemma” is to become a performance-centered organization.

To build a performance-centered company or a team is not easy. Even more difficult it is to create a performance-centetered network. Unfortunatelly we cannot “photoshop” our organizations, teams or networks to be “performance-centred”. We must seek other more realistic management solutions.

Of course, we remember some business gurus told us some years ago that we must learn the habits of ancient Samurai sword fighting and Attila the Hun leadership secrets in an effort to be more competitive. They said we must look at our mirror and make changes.

Some gurus told us to rely on knowledge and knowledge management. They said that knowledge will be the new capital of the twenty-first century. Information technology, then, must be the big answer, right? Yes of course, because the world now is too complex, too competitive for companies and agencies to be successful without powerful and integrated knowledge management systems. However, knowledge is not enough to guarantee business success. We need real social and intellectual capital There are many companies, who certainly have a lot of expertise, information and knowledge, but something is still missing. What is this small something?

One missing element can be the way we work in organizations, how we perform our jobs in workplaces. Are we working like average persons or are we trying to reach something special? Are we dreaming about something out of box?

The natural tendency in many organizations is to seek high-level, single-focus solutions, business process re-engineering, strategic planning, new technology and system architectures and designs.

These tendencies are important – no doubt – but often we must also think our values, attitudes and real actions. We may need more bohemian attitudes and actions in workplaces. We need more bohemian spirit. We may need also more every day’s creativity and more ambient ideas and inventions. Then we may be on a way to a performance-centered workplace.

The real performance of working people will make up the organizations. Moments of value creation are important for the business success.

When someone really presents new ideas, novelties, decides, invents, acts or thinks in a radical way, they are probably moving towards a performance-centered organization.

The Bohemian X Factor is probably a very good answer to a better business success. We must believe in bohemian diversity as a key resource of business success. Too formal and homogenous corporate culture may not be very smart approach to a performance-centered workplace. As the Richard Florida proposed tolerance is a key explanatory variable in the success of cities. Flocks of bohemian types, or bohos, are important to the future of any city. This tolerance argument is also relevant in the context of organizations and companies. Other T:s of Richard Florida were technology and talents.

1. Samurai sword fighting

2. Attila the Hun
3. Richard Florida
4. Bohos
Wellman, L. (2002) Freaks, geeks, bohos — hey, it’s the Bay Area. Turday, June 6, 2002. Web: bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2002/06/06/MN161689.DTL

From Baby Boomers to Bohemian Late Bloomers

“Demographics is the single most important factor that nobody pays attention to, and when they do pay attention, they miss the point”.  – Peter Drucker

“Why does longevity matter?” asks Professor Amlan Roy at the seminar “People Plan: Designing For Finland’s New Economy” organized in the Helsinki City Hall by AmCham  and Mandatum Life.

The governments’ answer is that we need to rise the age of retirement and invest in healthcare. But that is not the answer we hear from Professor Roy. Whilst he does not deny the need for the action presented by the governments he says that the most important question we must ask is “what are people doing during their at least 20 years of life post retirement”.  Prof. Roy repeats “don’t look at people’s ages look at what they do and what they consume” so many times that you cannot but think that he has a point there. Not only does he say it but he presents an impressive study to support his words. Yes, what he says is truly disruptive – yet so Bohemian: people indeed are not groups of different age categories; they are individuals, consuming and working on different things.

The fingers are often pointed at the Baby Boomers. Younger people say that they are afraid what happens when the Baby Boomers retire. Who is going to pay for their terminal care? Seldom, hardly never, have I heard anybody ask: what will they do on their years of post-retirement?

The Baby Boomers is a most interesting group. They are people who perhaps sacrificed fulfilling their dreams to the common purpose of building great societies, infrastructures, markets and democracies – countries and states where it would be good to live in. And they succeeded. Take Finland for example. From a war-torn wreck of a country to a blooming economy, and in a reasonably short period of time. Many thanks go to the Baby Boomers.

Baby Boomers saw the rise of the Bohemian. They experienced  the golden age of the music and movies. On their holidays they travelled to Rostock, Woodstock and Human Be-In.  They saw the rise and fall of the Hippie movement. They shared the vision of world peace and contributed to a better world by working in factories to create the wealth that the nations needed to keep up with the development of the markets and social systems. They wanted to see their children educated with better possibilities for good life than they had received in birth.

But the also the hippies are retiring. What will they do? Is the dream still alive and strong? Will they re-invent the movement? Unite to a powerful tribe with flowers in the hair?

From the Boho point of view the Baby Boomers might just be the best thing that is going on in the world. The Baby Boomers are still looking for a chance to start living the dream they once had. The dream where they will make a difference as a human being, as an individual – as a person who does something that has meaning and value. They are one of the key ingredients of the Generation M. M for Movement, a definition by economist Umair Haque. Haque says: “… generation M is a… growing number of people who are acting very differently. They are doing meaningful stuff that matters the most. ” Generation M is obviously the generation of the Modern Bohemians, Bohos, and we believe that a vast number of Baby Boomers are included in this generation. We might as well call them the Late Bloomers. People who make their talent bloom in the late phase of their lives.

There are already learning programs clearly aimed at the Late Bloomers. Such as The Swing which purpose is to teach the world to sing with a target group of Late Bloomers. Surely many of the Baby Boomers wish to make their artistic talent bloom once they have the time and many also the necessary resources.

Yes indeed. The Late Bloomers are a most potential group to make the Boho vision come true. They once helped to build the material world now they can contribute to the mental and spiritual powers of people. As robotization and automation strongly progress the Late Bloomers will be needed as artists, athletes, inventors, leaders, mentors, thinkers, celebrities, philosophers, scientists, role models, supporters, serendipitors, networkers, connectors, authors, readers. Bohemians. Yes we need them mostly as free souls who detach, break loose from the old patterns. People who come out of the closets and boxes, and show that embarrassment is only a stupid word that can be translated as “barrier to creativity”.

Talent is capital for all, not only for the children and the young. Hidden or latent talent can be awakened at any age and also turned into economic activity and – why not – a career. In fact we need to do so in order not only to help the retirees to enjoy a good life but also to help create a new competitive edge for nations, companies and entrepreneurs.


Cultural Mediocrity and Bohemians as Change Makers of Organizational Cultures

Bohemian persons are often feeling otherness, and often they feels they are in some way misunderstood. A bohemian, who do not fit the typical “average” category, has many challenges and problems, because this “average” category is considered in many organizations the only right category. Many talented people have to deal with the fringes of society in order to realize their dreams and visions.

In many cases bohemians are neglected because of “work place democracy”. However, we know that the limitations of democracy lie in the moral, and even spiritual, quality of the electorate. A democracy is as good as its people and tends to promote a moral and cultural mediocrity. One paradox of today is that modern democratic society seems to be characterized by a rising tide of trivia and empty entertainment. Ordinary citizens may want more, but also bohemians want more, much more.

For many organizations it is typical that they allow the bold thinking only in specific circumstances. Courage to break with can be taken in general in the context of “development Days”, “creativity workshops” or “spring assembly events”. On other days of a year bohemian experts will be “hippies”, “nerds” and “persons with propeller hats”. They are the ones all other in the “organizational chart” can laugh at good will. For a bohemian it is typical that they are not taken particularly seriously or other experts underestimate their performances.

When one talks about bohemians, there are often presented different characterizations of a bohemian person. Typical classifications for bohemians are:

• The diversity of competences,
• spontaneity,
• robustness
• living in the moment,
• artistry,
• ambivalence, and ambivertism,
• the ability to be inspired,
• vagary,
• angularity,
• roughness, and
• a strong character.

These characterizations are certainly in the right direction to characterize the bohemian tribe. In the reality, however, bohemians can be found from very different social and ethnic origins. Bohemians may be both men and women, as well as a bohemian can also be found in different age groups. Actually, there is no single psychological standard definition for the bohemian people. Bohemians are special kinds of people who also want emphasize the specificity of their own.

Bohemian man can be extroverted, but there are also inward-looking bohemians, not so expressive. Bohemian people work very often in creative professions and have broad innovative potential of the toughest technical and social applications. Art, science, sports, and economic life are attractive fields of life for bohemians. Bohemians can provide creative contributions to these important areas of life.

A bohemian is a person who is often not suitable for the average person’s profile. Bohemians often want to consciously stand out from the masses and have different social contexts and “tribes”. People see and perceive bohemians usually strange – even the difficult people to handle. The authenticity and the inner voice, listening oneself are important things for bohemians. Bohemian people are generally interested in unconventional ideas and novel practices. They are interested in new ideas, inventions and proposals.

Generally, they are often called to invent and re-invent different policy areas and to be pioneers of new ideas and ideologies.
In many organizations, bohemian life style is a challenge and many organizations have difficulties to rigid adapt organizational systems and relationships to bohemian styles. Many corporate organizations and public sector organizations want – consciously or unconsciously – to recruit – not so bohemian employees, who work quietly to make standards things and projects routinely and in a mechanical way like in old industrial organizations. In the future, these types of people and organizations trying to be mechanic robots and robot societies will be easily substituted with robots and new smart technologies.

Many organizations are also such that bohemians cannot easily present their new ideas and take active initiatives on new challenges. Rigid hierarchies and inflexible organizational silos prevent organizations from obtaining access to the best creative human capital. New, bohemian types of organizations are first facing major challenges to do the right thing. If bohemian personalities are allowed to take creative and new roles and flexible job descriptions, they also tend to engage actively in these roles and job descriptions.

Bohemian persons are able to change schemata in the organizations. Schemata, whether plural of schema, are knowledge structures a person forms from past experiences. Bohemian can create new forms of schemata and reformulate old schemata.

Incentive structures of bohemian organizations are different compared with industrial organizations of Taylorism. “Synthesized workflows” approach of Taylorism is not the right approach to create unique products and services. So called “scientific management” must be reformulated, if we want to keep members of creative class inside the box of scientific management. This challenge is not a small one. We must re-define organizational paradigms, control systems, organizational structures, power structures, symbols, organizational rituals and routines. Even stories and myths of organizations must be re-invented.

For many business organizations would do well to think about it they are able to offer reasonable opportunities for bohemian talents to make a special contribution in their organization. Without re-inventing their organizational systems, leadership patterns and management styles this will be a mission impossible. Why organizational cultures develop in organizations is due to external adaptation and internal integration. Bohemian people play a special role both in external adaptation process and internal integration process. That is why bohemians´ role cannot be neglected in the post-modern organizations. External adaptation reflects an evolutionary approach to organizational culture. Internal integration is an important function since social structures are required for organizations to exist. Thus bohemians are key players from the evolutionary and functional organizational perspectives. Bohemians can create strong cultures inside organizations. The “average approach” leads to weak culture. Weak culture means that there is little alignment with organizational values and control must be exercised through extensive procedures and bureaucracy. Strong culture is said to exist where staff respond to stimulus because of their alignment to organizational values.

If the organization’s culture is too “average oriented” and favors “middle of the road” recruitments, bohemians of the creative class do not offer their unique talents to such organizational structures and cultures. In this old-fashioned organizational culture scenario, they will have to seek new dynamic organizations or start-up their own businesses. General and very typical assumption is that the workers should be as robots. This approch will not help to attract bohemian talents, because they do not want to be like robots. Permissiveness, tolerance and deeper cultural understanding of diversity are important issues for organizations that really want to get top experts and keep them in their organizations.


1 Beyond mediocrity
2 Organizational culture
3 Schemata
Mandler, J. M. (1984) Stories, Scripts, and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Widmayer, Sharon Alayne (2012) Schema Theory: An Introduction. George Mason University.
4 Organization research
Handy, Charles B. (1976) Understanding Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barney, J. B. (1986) Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), pp. 656-665.
Shein, Edgar (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Zhang, Xibao (2009) Values, Expectations, Ad Hoc Rules, and Culture Emergence in International Cross Cultural Management Contexts. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
5 Frederick Winslow Taylor
6 Scientific management

Challenging Futures of Human Beings and Creative Class: Visions of Robots, Bohemians, Bohemian Robots and Robotized Bohemians

The concept of robotization was presented in 1927. Robotization is the process of turning a human being into a robot. Close synonyms of robotization are mechanization and automation. In the on-going process of robotization humans will be made persons who are machinelike, as in giving responses or performing work. Robotized assembly lines are good examples of robotization. Robotization has not reached saturation point.

Just as William Whyte’s 1956 classic book The Organization Man showed how the organizational ethos of that industrial age permeated every aspect of life, Richard Florida described a society in which the creative ethos is increasingly dominant. The rise of creative class is today´s reality in the global economy. Millions of people are beginning to work and live much as creative types like artists and scientists always have done. This “creative class” is found in a variety of business fields, art to science, research to development, biotech to education, from engineering to theater, and architecture to small business. In this way the scale and scope of bohemian cultures is broadening. In the future, members of the creative class will determine how workplaces are organized, what companies will prosper or go bankrupt, and even which cities will thrive or wither. Bohemians of the creative class are really important social group. Our mind sights, core values, tastes, our personal relationships, our choices of where to live, and even our sense and use of time are changing radically.

Now robotization is coming to other business and societal areas, to more complex work tasks, even to the works of creative class. For example, robotization of war and robotization of many welfare health services are going on. In the field of information technology applications, ubiquitous technologies make robotization more intensive and fast. Robots will be combinations of hardware and software. Ubiquitous technologies combine hardware and software systems.

Now, it is actual situation to reflect what human´s destiny is in the highly robotized society. Reorganization of the labor market is in front of us. For example, we can just ask, what China and India will do with the on-going robotization process?
Bohemians are very different compared to bohemians. Bohemians are not as obedient as robots. An obedient worker is still the ideal employee compared to the bohemian workers. Bohemian employees are expected to be more sick leaves compared with the robots. Robots need just technical maintainers. People need more extensive support services, for example, occupational health services and holidays. Robots do not go crazy. Robots can also work on weekends. So robots are having a lot of advantages compared to the bohemian people.

In the robotized society leadership, management and strategies will change significantly. The term “singularity” was coined by science fiction writer Vernor Vinge, who argues that artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement or brain-computer interfaces could be possible causes of the singularity. Especially people’s own self-management strategies and models will be important issues. The big challenge of post-modern societies is the thorough preparation of the fact that robots are superior workers compared to humans. We can reasonably argue that in the conditions of robotization, people should become even more human, unique and special. Man cannot survive in the competition with robots in other way than by highlighting her/his own special human characters.

Actually all the humans will face a strong pressure to be more bohemians, very special persons. A bohemian robot is a future vision, which is not so easy to engineer or re-engineer. Avoiding becoming an average is a big challenge for people in the robotized industries and business life. Always some of the medium must be matched. This problem will remain.

A bohemian robot is less likely to be the future mission that a robotized bohemian. Actually both “robot” missions are still challenging. We can expect that in the futures there will be all the variations of robotization.

And machine intelligence, a product of human design, will be far more intelligent than its human creator. Thus, there will be bohemians, robots and robotized bohemians and bohemian robots. How long this process takes, is still an open question.

Technological singularity refers to the hypothetical future emergence of greater-than-human intelligence through technological means, very probably resulting in explosive super-intelligence. Singularity expert and scholar Raymond Kurzweil notes that the expected milestone year will be 2045 in terms of when he expects computer-based intelligences to significantly exceed the sum total of human brainpower.

Kurzweil predicts also that silicon-based life forms with the thinking capacity of humans should start arriving on the scene around 2029. This technological forecasting estimate is based on Kurzweil’s theory of “time and chaos,” which suggests that evolutionary time is accelerating. To sum up, there are very good reasons to think the future of robotized society. The bohemian alternative is one way to create counter forces and alternatives for a robotized society.

1 Robotization
2 Robotization of war
3 Willian H. Whyte
4 The Organization Man
5 Richard Florida
6 Creative Class
Florida, Richard (2002) The Rise of Creative Class. And How it’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Perseus Book Group.
Florida, Richard (2005) The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent. HarperBusiness, HarperCollins.
Hoyman, Michele & Faricy, Christopher (2009) It takes a village: A test of the creative class. Social capital and human capital theories. Urban Affairs Review. Vol. 44, pp. 311-333.
7 Raymond Kurzweil
8 Vernor Vinge
9 Technological singularity
Kurzweil, Raymond (1999) The Age of Spiritual Machines. New York: Viking.
Kurzweil, Raymond (2005) The Singularity is Near. Penguin Group.

Authenticity and Bohemian Culture

In philosophy authenticity is a technical term in existentialist philosophy. The term of authenticity is also used in the philosophy of art and psychology. From this perspective it is easy to connect to bohemian culture. Most people keep the bohemians as people with high level of authenticity. Why?

One answer can be presented by philosopher Charles Taylor, who argues in his book “The Ethics of Authenticity” that all humans have a natural feeling to tell the difference between right and wrong.  Taylor discusses in his famous book about the big idea of getting in touch with your inner self to find your true self identity. In the life shape of human beings people try to keep touch with their inner true self identity. Inner virtues are crucial for the ethics of authenticity. Today modern psychology views authenticity as integral to well-being.

Charles Taylor states that trying to listen to the inner-self may be very difficult because of own social dependence on others. If we continue to depend on other people, the voice of our inner nature will be drowned out and we become oriented un-authentically. We can lose ourselves and lose bohemian attitude.  Also social pressures of middle-class culture or average behavioral norms can lead people to inauthentic ways of living. Heidegger in his later life associated authenticity with non-technological modes of existence, seeing technology as distorting a more “authentic” relationship with the natural world.

In conventional philosophical thinking, the conscious self is seen as coming to terms being in a material world and with encountering external forces, pressures and influences which are very different from, and other than, unique itself. Thus, authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character, despite these external social and cultural pressures. In the art an authentic signature is telling to us about undisputed origin or genuine authorship. An authentic account is telling to us about accuracy in representation of the facts, about trustworthy work and about reliability. In bohemian culture authentic signatures and authentic accounts are issues of pride.

Being in touch with our inner voice is very important because it tells us what the right thing to do is.  In bohemian culture this kind of attitude is very important, because in many biographies of bohemian persons the biggest struggles of them have often been internal struggles to be true to one´s own personality and character. Often a lack of authenticity is considered to be bad faith. Even an unpleasant truth is valued in bohemian culture.

One of the greatest problems facing such abstract approaches like authenticity is that the often culture bound. Objectivity of one´s inner voice cannot be evaluated easily. Maybe that is a reason why bohemian people are often seen as ultra-subjective and ambient persons seeking ultimate freedom. On the other hand bohemians are seen as real and original persons, not playing social role games. Inside bohemian culture, non-authenticity or un-authenticity are not appreciated.


1                          Charles Taylor


2                          Authenticity


3                    Authentic personality

Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M. & Joseph, S. (2008) The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization, and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, pp. 385-399.

4                    Martin Heidegger

Martin Heidegger (2010)  Being and Time. Trans. by Joan Stambaugh; revised by Dennis J. Schmidt. Albany: State University of New York Press.


Enjoy Your Life with Bohemian Attitude and Lifestyle! Navigation Guidelines for Trans-mediated Reality from the History of Art

Lifestyle is one of the most important things for today´s people. It is even more important for tomorrow´s people and youngsters. Lifestyle affects the way people work and live their leisure time. A key trend for change in lifestyles has been the individualization, or even ultra-individualization. Many people seek after distinctive way of life or very special work profile. Everyday life is a series of events with the meaning and intention. Human relations, clothing, patterns of consumption and entertainment are parts of lifestyle. Lifestyle affects person’s values, attitudes and general outlook on life. We select our lifestyle in order to enjoy our lives.

With a special bohemian attitude life can be more interesting and more enjoyable. We can understand our realities from the art perspective, not only from science or religious perspective.

People want to live their own lives so that they stand out from other people in some way. “Be unique or do not exist” is one behavioral rule of bohemian people. For bohemians the way of life is a key issue. It’s hard to imagine that bohemian persons would like to be part of a social establishment, or the bohemian expert settle for mediocrity. On the contrary, bohemian people shun mediocrity. They make themselves look like the operating environment, very personal and tailored for very special cultural rules. They are thinking: The more special – the better; the more strange – the better. In competitive urban environments many experts are talking about the Warhol economy, where bohemians drive creative industries like fashion, art and music. The cultural scene of New York is an arena of trendsetters and emerging trends.

Bohemian is a word developed in the 1800s in France. This generalized term describes many artists, creators and writers, who spend their unusual and irregular life. One Finnish poet and legendary rock musician Juice Leskinen described this kind of life style by writing a bohemian note: “I received a tattered life”. He really did it.

Originally the word meant the Bohemian Czech historical region of Bohemia population. Original Bohemian artists resembled the French view, wandering gypsies, who lived outside of the established social practices, and who were uninterested in conveying conventional circuit disapproval. Bohemian lifestyle is exceptional, avoiding traditional parties and the public acceptance. Often they have sharp contradictions with conventional political views, beliefs and opinions. Bohemian are having typically quite liberal sexual activity, non-material, very, very modest lifestyle and often living in voluntary poverty. In addition, a bohemian culture is a kind of “romanticism of misery.” Bohemians often make virtue out of necessity.

In history, typical bohemian lifestyle cultures have been avant-garde, the culture of the Beat-generation, Goth culture, hippie movement, liberalism and French Moulin Rouge. For example, avant-garde (referring to “advance guard “) refers to people or works that are experimental and a violation of the established trends of their time. The word is used especially in the fields of visual arts, film, literature and music in the context of new trends, but also for any new paradigm, for example when talking about culture or the novel political sphere.

The concept of avant-garde has become a topical debate on the fate of modernism. Bohemians are avant-garde persons in their lifestyle. For bohemians – the average has always been over.

Avant-garde artists and people are sometimes combined with street art, graffiti, or with anti-trends, wild cards and the ground-breaking new emerging issues. However, avant-garde is not a single art movement such as surrealism and cubism, since important concepts are constantly changing over time. Some of the avant-garde strategy of action is publication of manifest/s. It is usually a series of strong statements expressing the direction of movement of artistic ideas and intentions, and what the opposing advocates. The manifesto can be one key achievement of the artist or artist team achievement. Provocations are important part of the bohemian communications. Manifests are underlining new forms of cultural expression. Looking for new means of expression was almost willful in all artistic fields of avant-garde. Teenagers are often having bohemian sub-cultures because they like provocations.

Often the big idea is polarized and manifests to the publication of a major fuss as possible “fanfare”. Management of art and cultural creative industries is more demanding than conventional business branches. It is close to innovation management, but underlining art and aesthetics as key issues of management. Organizations wanting to attract bohemian personalities and creative thinkers need to emphasize a strong commitment to excellence and artistic integrity to be successful beyond the short term. Often great world class artists are working outside the establishment and the major system. For example, great film maker Woody Allen wants to work outside big film studios. He seeks actively distribution in the USA and Europe as a precursor to securing financing to see his art and film projects to fruition. Artistic ventures are sometimes very controversial and provocative. Sometimes artists are very focused on non-profit management organizations and do not want to be “Wall Street capitalists”.

In the 20th century it became very clear that the avant-garde did not fit in the totalitarian societies. Bohemians are not “fitting in” to totalitarian cultures. The German Nazis did the Bauhaus art school and thought it impossible to operate all of the modernist trends of “decadence of art.” Also Soviet Bolshevik repression of the century was an impassioned avant-garde. Spanish philosopher and essayist Jose Ortega y´Gasset says that the immediate effect of every avant-garde is that it creates its own top-level elite. He said that avant-garde creates obscure phenomena to divide audiences who understand and those who do not understand the new genres of avant-garde. This cultural gap does not follow any political or economic lines. There is also trans-avant-garde, which means the ultimate avant-garde border, the other side of the art. This “other side” is very interesting zone for bohemian artists and scientists. This kind of trans-avant-garde culture is having many impacts on economy and politics, when political and economic agents cannot trust in existing cultural structures and organizations. Trans-avant-garde is a vital source of wild cards of our times.

Avant-garde is key concept of bohemian culture. There have been artist forms of avant-garde. Such artist avant-garde movements have been avant-garde-jazz, cubism, Dadaism, futurism, impressionism, expressionism, abstract expressionism, modernism, surrealism and so called Zaum movement.

Another key concept of bohemian culture is activism. Activism is a policy of direct action. The concept of citizenship or civic activism means a national public functioning of society, such as the actions of different associations. Activism can be profiled as a case for or against an issue. A citizen, who actively works either independently or in a group pushing something, is often referred to as an activist.

Activism is receiving public attention in forms of demonstrations and civil disobedience. Change activism includes campaigning, lobbying, publications, seminars, and non-formal co-operation with policy makers. Civil action is framed by non-governmental organizations and movements, which bring in the same way-minded people together, organize, and organize their activities and act in some forms.

Today, Internet activism has moved to the virtual networks, and, is has taken new forms of web logs and wikis. Internet activism is today having a dynamic nature of trans-media and it has challenged both the traditional policy making and the old established media, and it has created a new and alternative publicities as well as exposing the politically sensitive information that traditional media has not been able to “find out”. The attention economy or experience economy are the key strategic arenas of bohemian tribes and individuals.

1 Lifestyle
2 Mediocrity
3 The Warhol economy
Currid, E. (2007) The Warhol Economy. How Fashion, Art and Music Drive New York City? Princeton & Oxford. Princeton University Press.
4 Juice Leskinen
5 Bohemianism
Niman, Michael I. (1997) People of the Rainbow: a Nomadic Utopia. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press.
6 Woody Allen
Bjorkman, Stig (2005) Woody Allen on Woody Allen. Faber.
7 Non-profit management
Lowell, S. et al (2001) Not-for-profit management. McKinsey Quarterly 1, 147-155.
8 Beat-generation
Holmes, John Clellon (1952) This is the beat generation. Web:
9 Goth culture
Hodkinson, Paul (002) Goth: Identity, Style and Subculture. Dress, Body, Culture Series. Berg.
Venters, Jillian (2009) Gothic Charm School: An Essential Guide for Goths and Those Who Love Them. Harper Paperbacks.
10 Hippie movement
11 Liberalism
12 French Moulin Rouge
13 Avant-garde
Philip Nel. (2009) The Avant-Garde and American Postmodernity: Small Incisive Shocks. University Press of Mississippi.
Wood, Paul (1999) The Challenge of the Avant-Garde. New Haven: Yale University Press.
14 Bauhaus
Frampton, Kenneth (1992) The Bauhaus: Evolution of an Idea 1919–32. Modern Architecture: A Critical History (3rd ed. rev. ed.). New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, Inc.
15 José Ortega y Gasset
16 Cubism
Cauman, John (2001) Inheriting Cubism: The Impact of Cubism on American Art, 1909-1936. New York: Hollis Taggart Galleries.
17 Dadaism
Jones, Dafydd (2006) Dada Culture. NY and Amsterdam, Rodopi.
Richter, Hans (1965) Dada: Art and Anti-Art. London: Thames and Hudson.
18 Futurism
John Rodker (1927). The Future of Futurism. New York: E.P. Dutton & company.
Gentile, Emilo ( 2003) The Struggle for Modernity: Nationalism, Futurism, and Fascism. Praeger Publishers.
19 Impressionism
Moskowitz, Ira & Sérullaz, Maurice (1962) French Impressionists: A Selection of Drawings of the French 19th Century. Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.
Rewald, John (1973) The History of Impressionism (4th, Revised Ed.). New York: The Museum of Modern Art.
20 Expressionism
Gordon, Donald E. (1987) Expressionism: Art and Ideas. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dijkstra, Bram (2003) American Expressionism: Art and Social Change, 1920-1950. New York : H.N. Abrams. In association with the Columbus Museum of Art.
21 Abstract expressionism
Anfam, David (2008) Abstract Expressionism— A World Elsewhere. New York: Haunch of Venison.
22 Modernism
Crouch, Christopher (2000) Modernism in Art Design and Architecture. New York: St. Martins Press.
Eysteinsson, Astradur (1992) The Concept of Modernism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
23 Surrealism
Durozoi, Gerard (2004) History of the Surrealist Movement. University of Chicago Press.
Breton, André (1973) Surrealism and Painting. Icon.
24 Zaum movement
Knowlson J. (1996) The Continuing Influence of Zaum. London: Bloomsbury.
25 Attention economy
Simon, H. A. (1971) Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World. In Martin Greenberger, Computers, Communication, and the Public Interest, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Simon, H. A. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, Davenport, T. H. & Beck, J. C. (2001). The Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Schmid, H. (2009) Economy of Fascination: Dubai and Las Vegas as Themed Urban Landscapes. Stuttgart, Berlin: E. Schweizerbart science publishers.
Haque, U. (November 8, 2005). “The Attention Economy”. Bubble generation – Strategies for a discontinuous future. Retrieved November 27, 2005. Web:
26 Experience economy
Pine, J. & Gilmore, J. (1999) The Experience Economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Schmitt, B. & Simonson, A. (1997) In Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity, and Image. New York: The Free Press.

Bohemian X Factor: Bohemians and Future Management of Organizations

Sometimes you hear people say: “That person cannot be lead”. It is very likely that in this case one refers to a slightly bohemian person. Bohemian people are often willful, dissidents, original, differ from ordinary habits, and have many rich ideas. They do not “sit” inside “organization chart” very easily. From the point of management view, they can show themselves be in response “against everything”, with which management team is difficult to get along with. On the other hand, these individuals could have a lot of good ideas and promising novel innovations for different type of organizations.

In societies, there are some evolutionary principles which matter. Especially two evolutionary principles matter. First, there is to be a producer of variety. Secondly, there is a filter of variety. Variability is a key factor of evolution and development. Life is at the transition between order and disorder. This is a critical issue for organizations too. Too structured organization may be problematic, but also too unstructured organization may also be problematic. To manage any kind of organizations, one must pay attention to variability factor.

To be effective, any organization should be composed of different types of people. If your organization is consisting from very similar type of people, it undermines the organization’s efficiency and development capacity. Also productivity of an organization can be much lower than if the organization would have different types of people working in the organization. Rigid group thinking can prevent the organization from implementing changes in the needed operating speed. In this non-optimal case an organization remains inside a comfort zone. No one in this kind of organization is necessarily interested in new development issues and challenges. The members of intellectual elite do not want to work in these kinds of non-dynamic organizations.

Surely it is easy to agree with that all the new challenges and opportunities will live their own lives. These kinds of organizations keep their historical traditions and their good “rituals” and old habits. In this case an organization may become too structured. There are not only “technological lock-ins” but also “social lock-ins”. However, over time, this “rigid structure” management style may become dangerous for an organization, if new ideas and challenges are not seriously discussed inside the organization. Little by little an organization becomes blind to essential changes in their social environments and competitive markets.

How rigid group thinking can be avoided? Perhaps the previously mentioned bohemian people should be taken more seriously? How one should lead them? We know very well that bohemian persons do not like steep hierarchies, nor the rigid line or “silo” organizations. Hierarchical culture, bureaucracy, and rigid organizational boundaries should be avoided, if the intention is to get a Bohemian X Factor serving the organization. Bohemian X Factor helps organizations to take all the real future challenges of change into consideration. Effective change management requires participation of bohemian persons. Dynamics of organizations require that management professionals understand Bohemian X Factor.

Tight authorial orders to bohemian persons do not work in the bohemian organizational culture. In the worst case scenarios of organizations, bohemian people become “mind terrorists” and critical opponents for hierarchical and bureaucratic organization cultures. Wrongly treated bohemians can even attack companies and corporations – in the real life, but also in the social media and in various other Internet environments.

A better mobilization of Bohemian people’s intellectual capital is a very important strategic thing for the organizations of creative class. Often, bohemian people are very goal-oriented. Bohemian people appreciate the creative thinking and real-life problem solving. The active generation of new ideas is important challenge for them. That is why it is important to listen to them carefully. In this case the management emphasizes access to different types of organizations, work cultures and also alternative cultures. The best option would be to have very open mind and also open communication, which is applied for open dialogue and open debate in different social contexts. The variation of opinions matters. Only after these open communicative processes the Bohemian X Factor can get involved in the development of organizations.

“The war for talent.” will not be won without Bohemian X Factor. Thus, a talent management system must be worked into the business strategy and implemented in daily processes throughout the organization as a whole. If bohemian persons are not recognized in business strategies, we can expect problems in the implementation of business strategies. Companies and agencies that engage in talent management are strategic and deliberate in how they attract, select, source, train, develop, retain, promote, and move people through the organization.

It may also be wise to simply delegate new R&D projects to bohemian experts and allow them to perform tasks independently and self-directed. In this case, change management means that leaders find talented people to prepare and implement challenging projects. It might be wise to develop flexible rather than rigid organizational structures, and fast organizations to move on. This approach does not allow firm turfs inside an organization. Leadership role should be a gathering of hot teams and manage these teams.

Already Socrates in ancient Greece taught that the inspiration of poets is an essential form of enthusiasm. Key challenge of bohemian talent management is to produce and keep enthusiasm level as high as possible. If the enthusiasm capital is lost, a lot of intellectual capital is lost inside an organization, but also in a society.


1 Variety
2. Bohemian
3. Talent management
4. Socrates
Vlastos, Gregory (1991). Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
5. Enthusiasm

The BohoCompany Takes (W)initiative

The future winners are those who take the initiave. Those who create winning opportunities and change the game to favor their own strengths and capacities. These are people and companies we call The Bohos. The Bohos are builders for a better world, better functioning communities and more effective systems.

From AdHoc to WinHoc

Amidst changes, new ways and means of work people and companies often find themselves acting adhoc. In other words they invest on forming teams to solve problems. Mending systems. Filling gaps. Dousing fires. They examine the past and make decisions based on history, not the future. Not the scenario and vision they said they so much believe in.

It is always as staggering to realize the chasm between the powerpoints and real life decisions. The fancy terms on a white board doesn’t seem to have much to do when the reason of the now resurrect the deeds of the past, the terms of yesterday and the good old strategies that used to help when the pecking order was more important than knowledge.

The ice cold truth thus is: best practice wont help you. Next practice can be out of date when you learn it. You need to create your own, authentic, inimitable winning practice.

“The ice cold truth is: best practice cannot help you. Next practice can be out of date when you learn it. You need to create your own, authentic, inimitable winning practice.”

There is no way you can trust the traditional strategic competence. Your strategy train may not visit the station where the opportunities are showing up and things are happening. The old idea about tactics might be out of date – unethical. You cannot justify your actions with company policy nor argue that the good purpose will hallow the means.

Forget about agility. Agility means lean and lean means production and production means industries which will be taken over by automats and robots. They are agile – if you program them to be. Core competencies? No way! The effectiveness of the industrial age is not for the humans of today. And definitely not for the Bohos creating the future. Learning, enthusiasm and the ability to find right people to the right places beat the core competents with flying colours.

The Bohos take winning initiatives, they build winning oppotunities and situations. They plant seeds for new victories. They act WinHoc and their guiding principal is win*win(+win). They take care that winning results are achieved for both parties and also for a third party – for those who need to be considered be it the environment, the poor, the weak, the less fortunate.

From Initiative To Victory

The WinHoc is a dynamic version of AdHoc. When the AdHoc emerges as a reaction to a perceived need, the WinHoc starts up voluntarily and on one’s own initiative. In a WinHoc you take a powerful initiative. An initiative where you see a great potential to win. A person or a company acting WinHoc builds situations that are beneficial for their strengths and capacities and the strive to thrive in those situations.

WinHoc is inventorship with courage to bring up something totally new into discussions, markets and to the development – without having an order to do so *). The valuebase  win*win(+win) guarantees that WinHoc is ethical. Win*win aims to multiple wins and profits between partners and (+) challenges to create winning effects there where those effects are needed. Win*win(+win) can turn every action, plan and communication into a world bettering project, if you just conceive the philosophy in a right way and turn it into an every day practice.

“Win*win(+win) can turn every action, plan and communication into a world bettering project.”

To wrap this post up: The Bohos act WinHoc. WinHoc is a strategic/tactical way of action based on:

  1. Powerful initiative
  2. Dynamic creation of opportunities and situations where the potential to win is ample
  3. Winning the situations with the values and principles of win*win(+win)

WinHoc is more than being proactive. WinHoc is about dynamic creation and co-creation. Bohos acting WinHoc constantly ask: “what do we want to create?” and “what is next?”.

Competition Is A Happy Place

Many think competition is a bad and an exhausting place. This should not be true. Competition is not bad nor good. It is what you make it. Competition should be a place to come together and measure skills in order to find ideas for learning and improvement. Competition is  a way to find the right people to the right places and to create winning results. Authentic winning results emanate good. Competition comprehended in a right way does not exhaust but invests on greatness, character and challenge. Exhaustion is born from the constant constraint of peak performance. In a winning BohoCompany it is accepted that  a peak performance is not always needed but for the most of the times a winning performance where you align the energy with task at hand is sufficient.

What could prevent WinHoc from succeeding? A wrong attitude. It is impossible to act WinHoc if you do not accept that creative capacities, skills, sharp opinions, powerful insights go before status and strongholds. You need a lot of courage if you want to be a Boho and co-create with other Bohos who refuse to lie doggo in the comfybox of the status quo but are true to their highest values and authentic selves.

It takes a lot of  courage to act WinHoc but if you want to create a beautiful future, it is necessary.

To act WinHoc is to plant a rose where the other’s cannot see the opportunity for beauty and growth.


(*)”Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.”  Albert Einstein

The Time of Unholy Alliances: Join the Radical Rebel Army!

As we know an alliance is an agreement or friendship between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests. Typically alliances are made in the fields of military, politics and business organizations. Typical alliances are between international airlines. Alliance is a way to gain novel competitive advantages in the business life. We can define them to be holy alliances, very conventional and popular organizations.

As we know from history there was a Holy Alliance between Russia, Austria and Prussia, created in 1815. In European international relations, the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, was signed in 1373 between the Kingdom of England and Portugal. This is the oldest international alliance in the world which is still in force. These holy alliances have made a difference in history, but even the most holy alliances tend to break down.

There are also other kinds of alliances: unholy alliances. These alliances are not so popular always. Often history writers forgot them. Unholy alliances are not so obvious organizations. Very often unholy alliances and “the usual suspects” or shadow organizations. Parties of these organizations are mixed and non-homogenous. These organizations and teams are occupied with rough personalities and typically with boho people with very special characters.

Many classical movies are based on the idea of an unholy alliance, where group of “aliens” and “monsters” make something “out of box”. As we movie fans know big jail breakouts are done by this kind of “dream teams”. Someone can call them “radical rebel alliances”. There is some wise and smart thinking behind these alien stories.

We know very well that each organization is different. Each organization must find its own way through the authentic process. Each will have a very specific goal. Each will have a different sense of social commitment. Each will have a different sub-culture. Each will have different barriers and different advantages. Shadow organizations are not bureaucratic organizations. The “shadow organization” is an informal organization, superimposed upon existing official organizations, consisting of active teams with names like steering committee, task force and action teams.

Today science is showing us that so called normal persons are not necessary the best people to question old truths. Today provocative thinking has become one of the most valuable assets. Radical thinkers are often presenting dangerous ideas and the holy alliances cannot do it easily because of group thinking problem and other socio-economic commitments. Shadow organization concept may help individual bohos to shock them into change by stepping out of their comfort zone.

If you are a part of a system, it is difficult to join the radical rebel alliance. For bohos joining the radical rebel “army” is more obvious solution than for senators of the parliaments or Fortune 500 leaders. Consensus builders have other targets than innovation leaders. Typically the real bohos are freedom fighters – but not pets of the consensus democracy. They are participants in a rebellion.

Even holy alliances need unholy alliances. Often a holy alliance is actually based on an unholy alliance. This is a paradox of our times. We can claim that when many development processes are accelerating, the need for unholy alliances is growing exponentially, and it is growing also fast.

First, there is a growing need for questioning many processes, which are too fast. Secondly, there is also growing need to apply new technological, social and business possibilities too. There is an endless frontier for development ahead, where unholy alliances can play a big role.

1. Web:
Holy Alliance
2. Web:
The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance
3. Web:
Shadow organization
4. Denhard, Robert B. (1989) In the Shadow of Organization.
Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
5. Web:
6. Web:
Consensus democracy
7. We:
Dangerous ideas
8. Rehn, Alf (2011) Dangerous Ideas. Asia: Marshall Cavendish
International Pte Ltd.

Bohos in Co-creation: Meeting the New Criteria of Quartet Helix Model

Many people say that there cannot be many “chief cooks” in a kitchen. This old wisdom is so strong that some people really behave like this wisdom should be realized everywhere in the society. Personally, I claim that questioning this old wisdom is a critical gate to better results and to new breakthrough innovations. Co-operation of people who are “able to make a difference” is a key challenge for talent management. If we don´t see this challenge, many promising possibilities are lost forever.

Co-creation is one key concept of today´s management sciences. Interactive value-creation is one element of co-creation. How to make co-creation process work? This strategic question is in many smart minds of management gurus.

The power of co-creation will be a big challenge for 21st century organizations. Famous scholars Venkat Ramaswamy and Francis Gouillart (Free Press, 2010) are talking in their book, “The Power of Co-Creation” about the co-creation (CC) principle. This principle means: “engaging people to create valuable experiences together while enhancing network economics”. According to the authors, co-creation principle has four components: (1) Experience mindset, (2) context of interactions, (3) engagement platforms and (4) network relationships. All these components are critical for the winning teams.

For example, Apple embraced co-creation principle to enhance the speed and scope of its innovation, generating over 1 $ billion for its Apple-Store partner developers in two years. Also Starbucks has launched its to create and tap into new ideas from customers. Many other successful corporations (like Nike and Unilever) have adopted the co-creation principle. We can say that the co-creation principle is already working and bringing good results. We can expect that many other organizations can get nice results with the adoption of the CC principle.

Ongoing ubiquitous technology revolution includes different kind of innovations, not only technical innovations. We will need new technical innovations, new business innovations and social innovations to “survive” ubiquitous revolution. Also the relative importance of systemic innovations is growing because of the ubiquitous revolution. Autonomous innovations are not easily developed in the ubiquitous technology environments. New innovations are built in multidisciplinary teams.

But can the CC principle work even better with the bohos? Yes it can. Co-creation means the adoption of Quartet Helix Principles, which is more challenging than Triple Helix Principle. The traditional Triple model with industries, the government and the academia is not enough for a successful innovation system. We must add consumers and users to the innovation game. Well educated and informed consumers are ready to take advantage of choice.

Mass consumption society is over, at least in post-industrialized societies. We must pay more attention to both supply and demand side of the business networks, we must take also very critical and smart lead consumers into attention. Can we do it without boho energy and knowledge? The answer is “no”.

Modern organizations need discovery-driven planning and pilot experiments. The rigid supply chain management is not enough. We must understand complex interactions of stakeholders. With the little help of ambitious boho teams we can understand d many things in a better way. How this will happen?

Moves towards the Quartet Helix Model are like baby´s walk to innovation success.

The steps are small but strategically important ones. There must be incremental goals, but also visionary goals. We must be able to set incremental goals which embower hot boho teams to make a difference. Starting small and manageably is a key issue in the co-creation processes. We must be able to specify clearly what the user and service professionals expect to do. One motivational challenge is to keep joint records achievement and performance success.

A big mistake is to give just one option for the boho teams. It is better to present many options through which they can achieve the goals and visions. The one road model does not work in the boho team management. It is also important to frame the strategy in an aspirational way to excite ambition inside a boho teams. Wise managers also understand that also bohos need role models and peer-to-peer support to build personal confidence. Information, incentives and resources are needed to make remarkable changes. Anybody understands this basic fact. We cannot expect top level results in the Mental Olympic Games without these resources. The next Prada collection is not created without information, incentives and resources. Aspirational brands are based on these kinds of special resources.

Building inner special resources inside the boho team is key issue for the management of boho teams. Boho teams needs “safe places” for co-creation processes. As we noted above, experience mindset, context of interactions, engagement platforms and network relationships are the four critical elements. All the elements are connected to the “safe places” thinking. Any place for co-creation does not work, because mental images are a critical element of co-creation process. Confidence with personal mental images plays a very important role in creative interaction and co-creation. Craze, mania, rage are words that are often used in the context of new idea creation. We cannot expect these words to be realized in dull and non inspirational environments.

We must be very critical concerning “safe places” where we will work. For very successful boho teams this issue is a critical pre-condition for innovation success.


1 Ramaswamy, Venkat and Gouillart, Francis J. (2010) The Power of Co-Creation: Build It with Them to Boost Growth, Productivity, and Profits. Simon and Schuster.
2 Ramaswamy, V. (2009) Leading the transformation to co-creation of value. Strategy and Leadership. Vol. 37 No. 2, 32-37.
Apple Store
3 Web:
4 Web:
5 Web:
6 Web: Web
7 Web:
Triple Helix Model
8 Web:
9 Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (eds.) (1997). Universities in the Global Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Cassell Academic, London.
Quartet Helix Model
10 Kaivo-oja, Jari (2011) Futures of Innovation Systems and Systematic Innovation Systems: Towards Better Innovation Quality with New Innovation Management Tools. E-book 9/2011. Turku: Finland Futures Research Centre.
Ubiquitous technology
11 Weiser, Mark (1991) . The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3): 94—104
12 Greenfield, Adam (2006) Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
13 Jurvansuu, Marko (2010) Roadmap to Ubiquitous World. Where the Difference between Real and Virtual is Blurred. VTT Research Notes 2574. VTT: Helsinki.
14 Web:
Aspirational brands

Innovation Flow: A Process of Making a Difference

One of the most puzzling mysteries of contemporary culture is how do changes in style and taste come about? Who are those people creating changes? There are some predictable socio-cultural patterns behind trends which shape our futures.
F. Scott Fitzgerald, the famous “boho of jazz swing time”, noted:

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

Boho people are able to live with paradoxes and ambiguities. The rational one variable model is not a key issue for the bohos. Without bohos, it is not possible to lead an organization towards excellence because excellence requires the ability to live with paradoxes and ambiguities. Bohos can live easily with ad hoc groups, playfulness, temporary structures, hubs, unusual weak signals, technology of foolishness, shadow organizations, skunk works, cabals, wild cards and unjustified variations.
We know that trend creators and trend setters are not the most conventional people. Often they are bohemians (bohos), or geeks or even freaks. They are extremely innovative and inventive. They are not prisoners of the past. They are children of the future. They invent the future. That is why Richard Florida and other city researchers have invented “tolerance index” because they have found that bohos are needed for innovations, development and economic growth. The bohos create the bohemian city.

These groups of people are not big groups, but they are small special groups in our society. Trend creators are not homogenous group, they are very special personalities. The anatomy of emerging trends is based on trend creators and trend setters. There are both micro and macro trends. Some people create new ideas and inventions and trendsetters want to adopt these ideas and inventions.

These two special groups are at the very top of the trend model. Very often these groups are having many bohemian people – people who do things in a different way – going “out of box”. “Out of the box” is an expression that describes nonconformal, creative thinking. These people are responsible for creating or doing something special that can offset the trend.

Trend creators and trendsetters must have the potential skill that is the basis for both emotional and social intelligence. The mind involves a flow of energy and information. Some people talk about the innovation flow. Innovation flow is a psychological issue, the foundation of all innovations. It is a very interesting psychological issue, because it is a fundamental source of new ideas and inventions. Energy is the capacity to carry out an action. Energy is moving out limbs or it is an embowering though. Ability “to do stuff” is a key issue for changes in our society. Energy, information and innovation are inter-related issues in an innovation flow process.

There are many forms of human energy. We can feel radiant energy when we sit in the sun. We can use kinetic energy when we walk on the sunny beach or go for a swim. We can utilize neural energy when we think or when we talk or listen, or when we read. By definition information is anything that symbolizes something other than itself. Energy and information are complementary things in a dynamic innovation process. Without energy and information it is not possible to develop new ideas and introduce new inventions. Energy and information go hand in hand in the movement of our mind and mindsets. Our minds regulate innovation flow as well as energy and information flows. We can feel the reality of these two forms of mental experience.

We can feel energy levels and rich information flow. These two critical elements, energy and information are always present in an innovation process. We can even claim that energy and information flows create innovation flow. Because they change across time, we can sense their movement from one movement to the next movement in a dynamic, fluid and moving process. The mind´s regulation creates new pattern of energy and information flow.

Thus, we are not just observing these moving processes. We are both monitoring and modifying. The mind is real. Also our mindsights are real. The mind is a regulatory process. The mindset is creating many regulatory processes. Without strong mindsight, life becomes deadened.

It is possible to create a culture where mindsight is absent. In this kind of society we can become stuck in the physical domain, blind to the internal reality at the heart of our lives. In this kind of society no new ideas and inventions are created. Blind minds cannot lead the change. A blind mind cannot lead other blind minds. We must have bright minds and mindsets. Bright minds with energy and information flows are the foundation of innovations and innovation dynamics.

Thus, big challenge of innovation management will be deeper understanding of innovation dynamics of contemporary network organizations, fast companies and mega corporations. Understanding innovation flow, bohos, boho team dynamics and the origins of trends will be long and fascinating intellectual journey for us.

Innovation Flow
1 Web:
2 Web:
F. Scott Fitzgerald
3 Web:
4 Web:
5 Web:
Ad hoc
6 Web:
Weak signal
7 Mendonça, S., Cunha, M.P., Kaivo-oja, J. & Ruff, F. (2004) Wild Cards, Weak Signals and Organisational Improvisation. Futures. The Journal of Forecasting, Planning and Policy, Vol. 36, Issue 2, pp. 201-218.
8 Web:
Out of box
9 Web:
10 Siegel, D.J. (2010) Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation. New York: Random House.
Dan Siegel
11 Web:
12 Vejlgaard, H. (2008) Anatomy of a Trend. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bohemian Attitudes and Actions

One way to define who is a bohemian person is that a bohemian person is living an unconventional life. People who are living very conventional lives are not bohemians according to this definition. This definition is including a hidden assumption that bohemian people have unconventional attitudes and they perform unconventional actions. Bohemians have many subcultures.

Attitudes, values and actions are together creating a certain kind of lifestyle. An attitude is a hypothetical construct that represents an individual’s degree of like or dislike for something. As we know an attitude matters. Lifestyle is a way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group. Bohemians have their own bohemian lifestyle. Bohemian lifestyle is a term to describe the way a bohemian lives.

While many things change, most things remain constant. Everything is not changing. For example, there have been bohemians in societies a very long time in history. Only their attitudes, values and actions have been changing.
We can say that a person is Bohemian or lives a Bohemian life, if s/he lives her/her own way, without following the conventional rules of behavior accepted as normal by the society. Typically writers, artists, poets, musicians and philosophers could commonly be found leading bohemian lifestyles in 19th century Paris, France. In Paris, drugs, alcohol and a freer attitude towards sexual expression were considered special part of the subculture and lifestyle.

Conventional way to understand bohemian lifestyle and culture is expects that bohemians are mostly artists including painters, poets, musicians, etc. who live that kind of unconventional life. There are bohemians in many occupations.
Classical examples of bohemians are Lord George Gordon Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley, the famous British poets, who were Bohemians, because they did not live the way most other people of their time did. For example, Lord Byron was said to be “mad, bad and dangerous to know” as Lady Caroline Lamb described him. Poet Shelley was famous about his “uncompromising idealism”.

Idealism as a philosophical school offers an explanation of reality or human experience in which ideas or spiritual, non-materialistic elements are central and important. From this perspective we can outline that historical contexts define who are living like a bohemian lives. Bohemians in history had different attitudes and values than today´s bohemians. We can note that idealism is always based on ideas. New ideas are the foundation of bohemian thinking. In the field of arts, similarly, idealism affirms imagination and seeks to portray a mental conception of beauty, a standard of perfection, in distinction from naturalism and realism. Many bohemian artists share this kind of thinking.

Typically we can expect that who is a Bohemian just do not care what others think of their way of life. They like to be free individuals, ultra type individuals. Extreme attitudes and extreme actions are typical for bohemians. One definition of a bohemian is that a bohemian person is one who lives an artistic lifestyle, placing freedom of self-expression above all other desires, including wealth, social conformity and status.

All the bohemians are not going to be successful in their actions, although they may have a very bohemian attitude. Thus, talent level does not necessarily correlate with the level of bohemian lifestyle and associated habits. Some people end up just leading Bohemian lives without becoming great “some ones” (like great innovators or admired artists).

…all the bohemians are not winners, reaching grand victories.
Winner is one that is successful especially through praiseworthy ability and hard work.

A win is a victory. It is good to know that all the bohemians are not winners, reaching grand victories. Winner is one that is successful especially through praiseworthy ability and hard work. Bohemians are often having many abilities but they are not always hard workers. Usually society and power elite does not tolerate Bohemian attitudes, but when the person who is Bohemian is really top talented, it gives them the regard due to them.


1 Attitude
2 Value
3 Social action
4 Lifestyle
5 Bohemian
6 Bohemianism
7 Bohemian lifestyle
8 Lord George Gordon Byron
9 Percy Bysshe Shelley
10 Idealism.

The New Bohemians – The Game Changers

Yes, we want to be free.
Yes, we want to create.
Yes, we want to do what we feel passionate about.

And we are many.

Change starts never as a water-fall. Change starts from small bubbles. It emerges from those tiny movements in grassroots. From a susurrus in the willows.

Microtrends. Weak signals. Weak connections. Seeds of change. Signs of a new era where humansize is the new economics.

People want to become who they are – who they were born to be. They want to live, work and act like the Bohemians. Free and creative.

They want to win with their own unique talents and follow the mission that strikes a chord with their values. They want awesomeness instead of strongholds.

The New Bohemians are the future, they invent the future. 

Bohobusiness is a blog. It will grow into a book.  Boho is a new way to look at business. It is an eyeopener and a ticket to the outside of the box. Boho shares a new visions how a world, where the Bohemian attitude is the key to excellence, looks like.

The authors Jari Kaivo-oja “The Academic” and Cristina Andersson “The Bohemian” are experienced in studying the future and in creating ideas, inventions and innovations.

Jari and Cristina will meet the gurus, the leaders, the artists, the influencers who have the Bohemian code in their DNA. And they will share their knowledge, ideas and wisdom  to transform the Bohemian energy into a winning business.

They also want to communicate with you. You are warmly welcome to comment the blog, follow Bohobusiness on Twitter or join the conversation on Facebook.


What is life?

It is the flash of a firefly in the night.
It is the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime.
It is the little shadow which runs across
the grass and loses itself in the sunset.
– Crowfoot, chief of the Canadian Blackfoot tribe 

***** . order to maintain your Bohemian status, you must walk to the beat of your own handmade drum...


Dynamic Capitalism, Bohonomics and Future Singularity Circus


Big shift of capitalism

A major shift towards an entrepreneurial economy has been a key phenomenon in the global economy. About a quarter of a century ago Bruce Kirchhoff (1989, p. 161, Kirchoff 1994) presented his analysis of this big shift: “There is growing interest in dynamic modeling of capitalism as recent experience has demonstrated the importance of innovation in shaping the structure and growth rate of capitalist nations”. A managed economy with large multinational enterprises is today a dominant model of organization in the global economy.

The inventions of the division of labor, economics of scale, economics of scope, paid labor and the fine-tuning cooperation between man and machine has led to the rise of multinational enterprise. In previous history, there was better balance between “big business”, “big government” and “big labor” than today. Some scholars say that “golden age of capitalism” was in 1945-1975. Stability, continuity and homogeneity were cornerstones of managed economy. Now we are observing more instability, non-continuity and heterogeneity in our societies. The years of financial crisis have been a big demonstration of long-lasting instability.

Because of long-lasting instability in financial markets many scholars have started to hesitate the “Price Is Right” and the “No Free Lunch” principles of capitalism. Critical thinkers have noted that capitalism can include fundamental inefficiencies like old historical Soviet planning economy thinking included. In all cases markets do not reflect available information and accurate signals for resource allocation, which lead to fundamental inefficiency. In the global landscape many trends seem to unbalance economies and cause non-continuities for organizations and institutions. Some authors like Frederik Berend Blauwhof (2012) consider that capitalism can either grow or collapse. Obviously, these two scenarios are main scenarios of development of capitalism.

We can note that stable managed economy have been replaced by the entrepreneurial economy. The entrepreneurial economy is defined by as an economy where economic performance is related to the emergence and growth of innovative start-ups and distributed innovations. In most developed countries this kind of replacement of economic activity has happened. It did not happen only in Silicon Valley or in the US Research Triangle in North Carolina. There are many dynamic innovation clusters with innovative entrepreneurs all around the world.

This shift of capitalism towards entrepreneurial economy involves a move towards a more dynamic form of capitalism. Many experts have noted that actually technological change is the crucial element of the explanation why shift from managed economy towards entrepreneurial economy has happened. The big shift has been embedded in a myriad of supporting factors, including increased globalization, increased knowledge production, new scientific breakthroughs, corporate reorganization and higher levels of prosperity. Accumulation of material and immaterial capital and more uneven distribution of wealth has been one key element in this change as Thomas Piketty (2014) has shown to us. Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz (2015) has noted that inequality has increased in the Western world. Professor Stiglitz has also noted that inequality is a choice – the cumulative result of unjust policies and misguided priorities. As sharply noted by professor Ha-Joon Chang (2010) “making rich richer does not make the rest of us richer”. Joseph Stiglitz says that our choice is not between growth and fairness; with the right policies, we can choose both. How we could be smart enough to do it?

The only policy solution is not “taxing the rich and subsidizing the poor”, but in very unstable economic conditions policymakers obviously will select this straightforward policy option. In Europe, and in especially Greece we have already seen strong signals about this kind of countervailing economic policies. In Greece the Coalition of Radical Left (SYRIZA) has started a counter-neoliberal mobilization. The trinity of liberalization, deregulation and privatization was not seen a grand solution to the economic problems of Greece.


“Singularity Circus” and AIRo approach

How people can live in unstable and highly unpredictable capitalist economy where “big business”, “big government” or “big labor” cannot any more provide good answers to citizens? One good answer will be better understanding of technological development of disruptive technologies. Second good answer will be to give more attention to bohemian change makers and radical entrepreneurs. Of course we must also understand dynamics of globalization, knowledge production, scientific breakthroughs, corporate reorganization and higher levels of prosperity.

However, there is one major variable, which could help us in all these fields of vital change: It is AI and robotics (AIRo) together. So called “singularity circus” is in many ways based on these fast and disruptive technological developments. In spite of fast AIRo developments, it is important to take human beings into consideration because they are really playing roles in the turbulent world of “singularity circus”, where AI and robotics boost many economic developments. Ordinary people have still something to say about wealth and prosperity, entrepreneurship, knowledge production, corporate reorganization and the use of novel technologies.

If singularity with modern AIRo means such great unlimited smartness for citizens and firms, we can expect that singularity developments will surely have some potential to solve wicked problems of new dynamic and unstable capitalism. One good idea would be the use of modern technologies to build up better stability of future developments in the global economy and local societies. Abundance vision (Diamandis & Kotler 2012) must be taken seriously, because the smart combination of technology, people and capital can meet any grand challenge of our time. This kind of systemic development would mean new kind of capitalism, where people are still winning in the age of smart machines. In the book “BohoBusiness – Winning in the Age of Bohonomics” (2015) we call this kind of economy: Hybrid Bohonomics Economy. This kind of economic thinking is not questioning the role of market economy, but it reminds us that there also other ways to organize economic activities than relying only on markets.


Strong AI: The Element of the Next Society

Strong AI refers to a machine that is approaching (1) human intelligence level or over; (2) a machine that can make typical human matters; (3) a machine that can be used to analyze extensive background information, (4) a machine, with some kind of consciousness, the so-called machine consciousness. Our outstanding inspiration expert and AI specialist Monica Andersson sees that, in the future, the development of intuitive Artificial Intelligence will be possible.

The book “Age of Spiritual Machines” is a non-fiction book about artificial intelligence and the future course of humanity by inventor and futurist Raymond Kurzweil, published on January 1, 1999. In this book, Kurzweil outlines his vision of technological progress during the 21st century. The idea of intuition in the AI applications was presented a long time ago; now we are approaching the new frontier of AI development. Technology visionary Raymond Kurzweil believes evolution provides evidence that humans will one day create machines more intelligent than they are. He has presented his law of accelerating returns to explain why, in the future, key breakthroughs will happen more frequently as time progresses.

Kurzweil also explains why the computational capacity of computers is increasing exponentially. He notes that this increase is one key ingredient in the creation of strong artificial intelligence. The other ingredients are automatic knowledge acquisition and algorithms like recursion, neural networks, and genetic algorithms. Once robots evolve to be smarter the roles of humans and robots could likely change, obviously not a desirable situation for human beings. The development of robots will depend on the development of strong AI, Artificial Intelligence generally referred to a machine/automaton equipped with artificial intelligence.

The form of Artificial Intelligence is assumed to be a computer program, set to think like humans do, in fields such as accounting and decision making. At the moment, Artificial Intelligence applications include natural language generation and identification of specialized systems, expert systems, robotics, and entertainment applications. The definition of Artificial Intelligence is still very controversial, because the concept of intelligence is difficult to define.

Key future challenge is to create synergy between dynamic capitalism and smart, AIRo driven “singularity circus”. For this purpose we need to understand the concept of hybrid economy and Bohonomics. Human beings and companies are already now living in hybrid economies, where the rules of Bohonomics are the actual economy. Capitalism needs an updated reality-check.


Hybrid Economy and Bohonomics

Hybrid Bohoeconomics are activities in broad hybrid economy includes four principles: (1) The principle of market economy,(2) the principle of exchange economy, (3) the principle of subsistence economy and (4) the principle of creative economy. It is very important to underline that this kind of economic thinking is not questioning the role of market economy, but it reminds us that there also other smart ways to organize economic activities than relying only on markets. Bohoeconomics are activities in this broad hybrid economy. In Bohonomics we realize the existence of these four economies and create smart combination of technology, people and capital, which can meet any grand future challenges in a better way than current linear market focused thinking. Bohonomics includes the popular idea of sharing economy, where people perform and share Do-It-Yourself (DIY) capabilities. The idea of Bohonomics includes also the idea of “garage capitalism”, where production is not very capital intensive with garages, basements, ground-floor flats, entry halls, common and other ad-hoc premises in buildings.

One key problem in modern societies is that legislation, the tax system and real politics have not taken real economy, hybrid economy and Bohonomics into serious societal consideration. This is one of the reasons why current systems are lagging behind the real economy, i.e. the hybrid economy. Technological progress, novelties and growth of Do-It-Yourself movements require more flexibility and political and tax reforms in order to create a real living economy and social activity in the future. Bohonomics requires more attention from political and economic elites. In many societies key attention of politics is focused on market economy leaving exchange economy, subsistence economy and creative economy without serious recognition. In the global setting new economic thinking cannot work by this kind of one-dimensional approach. Managerial responsibility and civic-market compromises will be needed instead of one-sided industrial-market compromises.

The new Bohemian economic system is a systemic innovation including social, technological and business innovation in strong mutual synergies. It would be important to focus in particular on the social innovation field to find new solutions to the challenges or problems. We should analyze social phenomena and life from new perspectives, and find new needs for new equipment, services, policies, procedures, networks, or a smart combination of these. We should develop things bearing in mind the future, not history. This would be a new perspective in politics where old ideological border-lines do not make sense any more.

Wealth can be increased in the future, but we need new kinds of practices, management styles and attitudes. We need also new leadership. It is very likely that we cannot meet the challenges of the future on the basis of the old “isms”. We need a new economic system of innovation; we need a more innovative societal policy, which will not be a copy of the Nordic welfare state model from the 1960s. Nor can it be a copy of the 1800s American Industrial Capitalism. We cannot move Silicon Valley and California to everywhere, but we can develop your own innovative societies with the free attitude of Bohonomics. The new economic system should take into account the formation of new mechanisms of wealth, including the technological singularity scenario.


New Wealth Creation in Bohonomics

In May 2012, Wired Magazine (Goetz 2012) asked eight of the world’s leading foresight and innovation specialists, how they see the future of innovation and what key issues they will pay particular attention to assessing the development of innovation in enterprises and in R&D organizations. Each expert emphasized different aspects of innovative activities and their adoption. In response to the key question, they presented the seven key principles of innovation:

  1. Pay attention to the transferability of ideas across disciplines and interdisciplinary industries.
  2. Watch for exponential processes carefully, for example, Moore’s Law, in accordance with the processes.
  3. Avoid tyrannies of thinking and unnecessary restrictions, and think positively on the business models.
  4. Let ́s give value of courage and bravery.
  5. Place a priority on openness and open systems.
  6. Demand a thorough design and engineering know-how and execution.
  7. Take the time with idle people and let you be idle to a certain extent.

This list gives a strong indication of how wealth is created in the creative economy, in Bohonomics. Wealth creation requires right kind of values and attitudes like entrepreneurship and openness. If the organization does not give space for new procedures, it is very unlikely that they would be able to generate significant added value and wealth. Of course, they can provide good “business-as-usual” results. Dynamic capitalist economies require new firm entry and growth to assure that innovation does not become the mechanism of “winner takes it all”, where increased concentration of industrial and economic activity will be boosted.

There are many obvious structural and world-view differences between the old and the new system of capitalism. Evolution towards Bohonomics type of economy will take some time, but there are many technological and social trends with wicked problems, which require new solutions. Avoiding systems of big failure requires novel thinking and new innovative approaches. Hybric Economy with Bohonomics is such a new innovative approach.

Jari Kaivo-oja



Andersson, Cristina & Kaivo-oja, Jari (2015). BohoBusiness – Winning in the Age of Bohonomics. Talentum, Helsinki.

Blauwhof, Frederik Berend (2012). Overcoming accumulation: Is a capitalist steady-state economy possible? Ecological Economics. Volume 84, 254–261.

Chang, Ha-Joon (2010). 23 Things They Do Not Tell You About Capitalism. The Benguin Book, London

Diamandis, Peter & Kotler, Steven (2012). Abundance—the Future is Better Than You Think. Free Press, US.

Goetz, Thomas (2012). How to Spot the Future? Wired 04.24.1 Web:

Kirchhoff, B.A., (1989). Creative Destruction among Industrial Firms in the United States. Small Business Economics 1(3), 161-173.

Kirchhoff, B.A., (1994). Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capitalism: the Economics of Business Firm Formation and Growth. Praeger, Westport, CT.

Piketty, Thomas (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2015). The Great Divide. WW. Norton & Company. New York.

Boosting Corporate Creativity

There is a critical need of every business today: leveraging creativity. There are not “hocus-pocus” solutions how to develop, nurture and manage models for sustained innovation. One thing is certain issue in a process of boosting corporate creativity: It is not one-man show. Collaboration must be embedded into corporate culture as a way to foster ideas, inventions and innovations of products, services and processes.

One self-evident starting point for boosting corporate creativity is the following: Creative people make innovative organizations. If there are no creative persons and change agents inside an organization, this kind of organization never will be innovative.

Too often organizations and corporations want have average persons with average abilities and teams. Going beyond the average with high level of diversity is seen to be too dangerous and risky in many corporations.

Uniform business culture is seen safer than more individual and proactive business culture. Many managers and leaders want to be inside their “safety zones”. However, we really need unique products and services to be competitive in the markets of hyper-competition. There is not too much fresh thinking in organizations and corporations. Sometimes our wrong self-images, rigid self-esteems and self-punishment mechanisms prevent us to innovate. In corporations we must destroy the barriers to get new ideas.

Too uniform approaches do not help us to make a difference. Infinite possibility awaits those willing, able, and prepared to make the journey to creativity and innovations. We must be brave to explore and exploit new possibilities. First we do it in our imaginations, then with our technology, and finally through our direct action and experience. Creating new ideas and innovations is inherently fun, but also necessary. People need muscles, but they need also big creative muscles and strong brain power.

How to boost creativity in the corporate world? It is possible to present 10 principles to boost creativity:

  1. Develop many new channels and sources for new ideas and inventions.
  2. Make barriers to getting new ideas as low as possible.
  3. Collect many ideas with predictable, directional and surprising ways and evaluate them with collaborative models and co-creative ways.
  4. Implement ideas and inventions. Test and pilot ideas and inventions.
  5. Develop a broad understanding of innovation management and creative thinking.
  6. Identify blocks to creative thinking and the skills individuals can use – and managers can foster to increase creative responses.
  7. Use knowledge and intuition based methods to get fresher ideas and solutions more often.
  8. Allow a personal creative drive and innovation flow which will help people to achieve their personal and professional goals.
  9. Create creativity programs for individuals to improve their creative abilities inside the corporation.
  10. Motivate and give value to creativity and new ideas. Create an effective incentive system, which motivatescreative thinking, inventors and innovations.

Organizations need also bohemian game changers. They never settle for average performance. They know that you can perform a task better this time than you performed it in previous times. With any task you set your mind to, always give it your best. They have stopped living their life in a routine calendar system.

Mediocrity mentality will never help your organization to big success. It will do damage in the material as well as in your spiritual life. Only doing enough to get by is considered mediocrity, not excellency. Mediocrity is dangerous for creativity and destroying innovation activities. Mediocrity is ordinariness as a consequence of being average and not outstanding. Mediocrity refers to a person of second-rate ability. The individuals that practice mediocrity take on its characteristics, which is inferiority and inadequacy.

Bureaucracy and too formal administration mechanisms can also destroy innovation activity inside organization.

To boost creativity is a big possibility for all the corporations. There is need to take creativity seriously and develop systemic strategic thinking and actions in favor of creativity and innovative organization.


1 Creativity

Gardner, H. (1993) Creating Minds. New York: Basic Books.

Mauzy, J. & Harriman, H. (2002) Creativity Inc. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.

2 Corporate creativity

Lockwood, T. & Walton, T. (2008) Corporate Creativity. Developing an Innovative Organization. New York: Allworth Press.

Post Navigation