Vappu, Conversations — and the Way We Do Business Today
- May 1
- 5 min read
When communication feels effortless
Once a year, Finland offers a striking contrast to the way we experience interaction in business. During Vappu — the Finnish May Day celebration — entire cities move outdoors. Parks fill with people, picnic blankets stretch across hillsides, and groups form and dissolve almost organically. Students wearing their traditional white caps mingle with professionals, families, and visitors. Strangers start talking. Conversations begin without a clear purpose — and often without a clear end.
It is loud. Unstructured. Occasionally chaotic.And yet, it feels remarkably easy.
What stands out is not just the scale of the celebration, but the nature of interaction itself.
People talk. Directly. Spontaneously. Without preparation.
And that simplicity raises a question that feels increasingly relevant:
Why does communication in business often feel so much harder?
More connected — and yet more distant
From a technical perspective, communication has never been more accessible.
Across Europe, more than 90% of companies rely on digital tools in their daily operations. Messaging platforms, emails, shared systems — all designed to make interaction faster, clearer, and more scalable. According to recent studies by McKinsey and Microsoft, a large share of professional communication now happens asynchronously: written, delayed, and structured.
This shift did not start with Covid. But it accelerated significantly.
What began as a necessity became a habit. And in many cases, a new standard.
We write instead of calling. We send messages instead of interrupting. We respond when time allows — not when questions arise.
The result is efficient. Often highly efficient.
But it is also different.
Shorter exchanges. Less spontaneity. Fewer moments of genuine interaction.
A generational shift in expectations
One of the most significant — and often underestimated — drivers behind this shift is demographic. For the first time, up to four generations are working side by side. Not sequentially, but simultaneously. In the same teams. In the same meetings. Within the same processes. And they do not share the same understanding of communication.
Those who built their careers before digital tools became dominant often associate clarity and trust with direct interaction — a phone call, a meeting, a conversation where nuance can be explored in real time. Generation X learned to navigate both worlds.They adapted to digital communication, but still rely on direct exchange when things become complex.
Millennials tend to balance efficiency and interaction.They are comfortable switching between formats — but often prefer flexibility and speed.
And for Generation Z, communication is inherently digital. Not as an alternative, but as the default. Asynchronous, structured, and often text-based.
This is not just a preference. It is a fundamentally different expectation of how interaction should work. Studies by Deloitte and PwC consistently show that younger generations favor asynchronous communication — not out of avoidance, but because it offers control. Over timing. Over clarity. Over how and when to respond. At the same time, older generations tend to place more trust in direct exchange — especially when decisions are complex, ambiguous, or carry risk.
What emerges is not a conflict. But a tension. Subtle, but constant.
What one group experiences as efficient and respectful of time,another may perceive as distant, incomplete, or lacking commitment. And this tension rarely becomes explicit.
It doesn’t show up as disagreement. It shows up in how people choose to communicate —or avoid communication altogether.
The decline of presence
Another shift is harder to quantify — but easy to observe.
Presence is declining. Not dramatically. Not loudly. But consistently.
Since Covid, many interactions simply never returned.
Travel remains below pre-pandemic levels.On-site visits are no longer the default.What used to be “let’s stop by” now becomes “let’s schedule something” — or doesn’t happen at all.
At the same time, calendars have tightened. Calls require coordination. Meetings need justification. Spontaneity rarely fits into the day anymore. So we adapt.
We write instead of calling. We send messages instead of starting conversations. We respond when time allows — not when questions arise.
The system works.
It is structured. Documented. Efficient.
But it is also less immediate. Less fluid. Less… human(?)
Rethinking a core assumption
At WE Chem, one belief has always been central:
Business is done between human beings.
It shapes how we think about confidence, performance, and partnership. It is not just a statement — it is part of our identity. But identity, if taken seriously, is not static.
And this is where the question becomes uncomfortable.
If interaction increasingly moves into systems,into written exchanges,into asynchronous communication — then we need to ask:
Is human interaction still a competitive advantage —or, in some contexts, becoming a form of friction?
And if we follow that thought further, another question emerges:
If we believe that business is done between human beings — what happens if business no longer works that way?
Is this a strength we should actively defend?
Or a principle we need to reinterpret?
What are we gaining — and what are we losing?
There is no doubt that the current shift brings advantages.
Communication becomes faster. Decisions become traceable. Processes become scalable.
In many cases, reliability increases precisely because interaction is reduced.
At the same time, something more subtle may be changing.
Confidence may no longer depend on how often we speak — but on how consistently we deliver.
Performance may improve not because we align early — but because systems remove the need for alignment.
Partnership may rely less on personal relationships — and more on transparency, data, and predictability.
None of this is inherently negative.
But it changes the role of interaction.
WEvolution: asking better questions
At WE Chem, our vision — WEvolution — is built on the idea of continuous improvement.
That does not only mean optimizing processes or expanding capabilities. It also means questioning assumptions. Especially the ones we are most convinced of.
Because if we want to “do better”, we cannot simply repeat what worked before.
We have to understand whether it still works today —and under which conditions.
A reminder, not a conclusion
Vappu does not offer a model for business.
But it highlights a contrast.
A form of interaction that is immediate, unfiltered, and human —without being optimized.
Perhaps the real question is not whether business should work like that.
It clearly will not.
But rather:
Where does human interaction still create value? Where does it not? And are we actively deciding that —or simply adapting without noticing?
There are no simple answers.
But maybe that is exactly where improvement begins.
With the willingness to ask better questions.
Hyvää Vappua.
Comments