Interview with Ilkka Hara

Juha Kivistö

Could you tell us a little about your background and how you ended up studying finance?

Sure! I haven’t been a strict career planner, so at the end of upper secondary school, I started thinking about how to keep my options open. Therefore, I chose the school of economics to avoid limiting myself and to delay making final career decisions. We also have a couple of generations of graduates from the school of economics in the family, which might have some effect on the choice.

I began my studies in an English Track, which progressed slightly faster than the regular courses. This allowed me to start taking finance courses earlier, even before selecting my major, which ultimately reinforced my decision to major in finance. At the time, I found topics related to economics and finance particularly fascinating because they combined mathematics with behavioral science. This was particularly an intriguing combination. While many concepts in finance can be explained through formulas and theory, the human and behavioral aspects added an extra layer of interest for me.

During my first year, I also joined the Representative Council and KY’s board. This was not only a lot of fun but also a valuable experience for my future career. I learned many fundamental skills, especially around leadership and motivating others. Representing the student body also required me to take a deeper look at student life and the university from the perspective of students, which was incredibly rewarding. 

You started your career at Morgan Stanley in 2001. How did you decide to start your career in London and how was your stay?

In the final years of my studies, I did an exchange semester at the Stockholm School of Economics. I had heard great things about the school’s reputation and teaching quality, but I also wanted to improve my Swedish. I didn’t improve my Swedish as much as I hoped, since I used mainly English at the lectures and with other exchange students, but I did get some practice outside the classroom.

The school provided plenty of opportunities to connect with large banks, which led to me interviewing for summer internships. I was fortunate to get an offer and experience London, but I hadn’t made any final career decisions. After the internship, I was offered a full-time position, which was extremely compelling. I took some time to consider my options and ultimately decided to accept the offer.

During my studies, I also worked at Evli’s asset management, where I gained exposure to the tech sector. This was during the dot-com bubble, which made it interesting to follow. Starting my career in finance immediately after the bubble burst was fascinating. Suddenly, gravity had started to affect tech assets and their valuation. The sector also needed funding, even for companies that are now performing well and crucial to the whole technology sector, such as semiconductor companies.

Joining Morgan Stanley’s technology group at that time was a unique opportunity. The group shrank significantly after the bubble burst, but this allowed me to take on a variety of responsibilities right from the beginning. I believe that having diverse opportunities to contribute is critical, especially at the beginning of your career. 

The working environment at Morgan Stanley was exceptional, and of course, London is a major financial hub that attracts the world’s leading finance professionals. While the workload could be demanding, the projects were incredibly engaging and offered opportunities that few organizations can match. Moreover, it encourages you to start prioritizing tasks to identify which are the most crucial and which are not. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of communication with the team to set goals and identify the most critical tasks.

I enjoyed my time at the bank, but over time, the pace became exhausting. Living in a different country from my wife and working during weekends didn’t help it. This led to a conclusion to move on. Overall, I think working abroad gives great perspectives on working, which is beneficial later. This is why I recommend to anyone to work outside Finland even a little while, because you can always come back.

After leaving Morgan Stanley you took a short detour to Alfred Berg and then joined Nokia’s mergers and acquisitions (M&A) team in 2004. How did Morgan Stanley prepare you for corporate M&A? Did you experience any culture shock transitioning from the high-tempo environment of an investment bank?

Morgan Stanley prepared me well for my future work at Nokia. The transaction volume alone offered broad exposure to various deals, clients, and industries, creating an excellent learning environment. Moving from investment banking to a corporate role brought a shift in focus. At Nokia, strategic and risk assessment as well as integration played a more significant role.

In the case of Nokia, for example, we weren’t just looking at financial numbers, but we had to evaluate the entire portfolio of technologies and their future potential. This required a much more strategic approach, as we considered which technologies to pursue and what possibilities they might create.

Another major difference was team leadership. In a corporate setting, you lead teams that evaluate transactions, helping bring out their best work. This contrasts with investment banking, where the primary focus is on transaction execution and closing deals. While both environments have their positives, the corporate role broadened the scope of responsibilities but came of course with a drop in deal volume. Inhouse M&A also concentrate much more on the pre-deal preparation and integration. 

One standout aspect of Nokia’s M&A team was its speed and ambition. The team was highly motivated to be the best in the world. This drive made the work inspiring and rewarding, though it often extended working hours. Nevertheless, the learning opportunities and meaningful goals more than compensated for the effort.

When reflecting on your experience, what do you think are the most important aspects of M&A from a corporate or acquirer perspective, especially at Nokia?

One of the most critical aspects of corporate M&A is incorporating diverse perspectives and fostering critical thinking throughout the process. You can always put the hours into the models and hone the numbers, but real-world decisions are rarely straightforward. High inclusion and diversity within teams enable smarter and more balanced decisions.

Secondly, it’s easy to look back and see the “right” decision in hindsight. However, in the moment, choices are time-sensitive and made with incomplete information. Trusting the team and evaluating multiple scenarios is key to navigating uncertainty and making sound decisions.

After nearly three years, you transitioned to finance roles from M&A. What motivated that move?

I found myself at a crossroads: return to investment banking or stay at Nokia and explore other opportunities. Transitioning to group finance felt like a natural next step, allowing me to leverage my skills in a new context. The opportunity itself rose after one R&D transaction where I first integrated the target and after that started to push it forward into Nokia’s own teams. 

This transition was a significant change, as my job moved beyond the familiar deal-centric work. I now had a team to lead and worked more closely with finance routines, which pushed me to learn it more comprehensively. My job’s focus shifted to optimizing division efficiency, prioritizing investments, and ensuring long-term profitability. Additionally, the time horizon changed from the immediate deal execution to longer-term strategic planning over quarters and years.

You worked in the S60 Software R&D, Symbian R&D, and Mobile Phones Business Units during the years 2008 to 2012. What differences did you observe between these roles?

I joined Nokia’s smartphone R&D unit shortly after the acquisition of Symbian, serving as Head of Finance and Business Control. Two years later, I transitioned to Vice President of Finance for the Mobile Phones Business Unit, which focused on “ordinary” phones.

The Mobile Phones Unit was particularly interesting because it generated significant cash flow and strong profits. Its primary markets were in developing countries, though its products were sold globally. This brought a contrasting perspective compared to the innovation-driven mindset of the R&D units. Instead of focusing solely on cutting-edge technology, we started by asking what kinds of phones are needed in regions like India or Africa.

One memorable experience was traveling to Nairobi shortly after taking the role. I witnessed how a young woman used a 30-euro phone to build a music career, conducting most of her business digitally. This was before streaming platforms and other digital services became mainstream. It was eye-opening to see how mobile phones empowered individuals and highlighted the importance of understanding consumer needs in different markets.

How do you think financial management differs between Nokia and Kone?

There are similarities, but also significant differences, primarily because the mobile phone unit was a business-to-customer (B2C) business, whereas Kone operates in business-to-business (B2B) space. With phones, new models are introduced yearly, creating a fast-paced environment. In contrast, elevator models don’t change annually. Additionally, Kone is very much a service- and people-oriented business, whereas phone market at that point were more concentrated on the product. 

That said, the fast pace of B2C is gradually influencing the B2B world due to digitalization. Companies are beginning to approach business with assumptions shaped by individual consumer behavior, which is fascinating to observe. As people increasingly expect fast ordering and payment processes in their personal transactions, these expectations are starting to manifest in the B2B space as well.

Just before Kone, you spent two years at Microsoft in Seattle after they bought Nokia’s mobile phone business. How was the transition to the USA?

I was involved in the integration process when Microsoft acquired Nokia’s phone unit, which included frequent visits to Seattle even before officially starting there. Although the job description itself didn’t change much, it was an exciting opportunity to see the inner workings of Microsoft.

At Microsoft, the phone unit became part of the device unit that included other devices, such as laptops and accessories. Additionally, I get to act as an ambassador for the phone business. While the experience was highly rewarding, it came with challenges and hefty workload. Especially coordinating across development units in Europe and China was challenging given the significant time zone differences. 

What stood out about the difference between Finnish and American working cultures?

One notable difference is the entrepreneurial spirit that permeates American companies, even large ones like Microsoft. This entrepreneurial mindset makes them relatively agile. Technology companies in the U.S. also tend to be younger compared to more traditional firms, which likely influences their approach.

Another striking difference is the scale of operations. At the time, Microsoft was almost able to purchase Nokia’s phone unit with just one quarter’s cash flow. This scale allows for bold moves in business, including substantial investments in R&D. For instance, their heavy investments in AI and data centers during the more recent years highlight their ability to commit to long-term projects, even when immediate returns are uncertain. Such decisions require patience and a strong stomach, but they are often the foundation for long-term success.

Nokia has always drawn public interest. During your time there, did you feel any public pressure, or did it impact your work?

I wouldn’t say public pressure directly influenced the job. The greatest pressure came internally and from a shared desire to do excellent work, innovate, and be the best in the world. People at Nokia were deeply motivated to develop leading technologies. However, when financial targets aren’t met, it does affect the work environment. 

I think one of Nokia’s strengths was its ability to adapt and make smart decisions in challenging circumstances. The company also attracted exceptionally creative and intelligent colleagues, which was one of the highlights of my time there.

Then you moved to Kone in 2016, which marked a bit of a shift given your background in the technology sector. How did you find your way to here?

My family and I were enjoying life in Seattle, and moving back to Finland wasn’t something we had planned at the time. However, Kone stood out as one of the most intriguing companies in Finland and Europe, which made the decision compelling.  

The opportunity to become CFO at Kone was exciting. The business is strong, with excellent longevity, but what truly stood out was its unique culture and its role in sustainable development. Kone plays a key part in improving energy efficiency in buildings and cities, which aligns with priorities around sustainability.

Though the decision to leave Seattle was tough, I’m incredibly happy with my choice. This position has offered invaluable experiences and opportunities for growth.

What do you think the CFO position offers compared to your previous experiences? How do you manage your time between responsibilities in the role?

The CFO position provides an unmatched perspective on the company and its business. It also offers the flexibility to adapt the role to your strengths and areas of interest. What makes it particularly dynamic is the interaction with a wide variety of stakeholders and teams, which presents its challenges but also creates a rewarding learning environment.

One factor that eased the transition into this role was my previous experience in leading large teams, managing significant changes, and focusing on long-term planning. These experiences gave me a foundation to handle the pressures of the CFO role, because there is a lot to learn.

In this position, you face demands from clients, shareholders, internal teams, and other stakeholders. This makes time management and prioritization critical. You need to identify what tasks are most important and allocate your energy accordingly. Fortunately, the role itself brings a little bit of a natural rhythm through regular executive and board meetings, as well as earnings reports, which help structure your time. 

Another essential lesson is to consciously choose where to focus your efforts, as priorities inevitably shift over time. Being active in this is crucial, as the schedule will always fill up. 

Kone is a truly global company with over 95% of our revenue and workforce are outside Finland. This also means that travelling is an essential part of staying connected with your people. I dedicate time to visiting our global units, meeting local teams, customers, and assessing where we stand in each region.

Two principles I would point out about leadership are empathy and empowerment. Empathy is about listening and understanding the people around you to understand where the business is headed and what the teams need. Empowerment involves challenging people and creating opportunities for them to thrive. These values affect and enhance communication, which is important at a global company like Kone.

How do you think Kone, as a company and business, has evolved during your tenure?

One of the most significant changes has been the situation in China. For years, China was a major driver of growth, but this has shifted dramatically, impacting profitability as well. On the bright side, other regions have seen positive development, contributing strongly to our growth and profitability. Kone has successfully transitioned from being a product-heavy, China-centric company to a more balanced service and modernization-oriented business. This transformation is reflected in the much-improved growth figures we’re now seeing, and it positions us well for the future.

In recent years, we’ve also been active in M&A, particularly acquiring local service companies in Europe. These transactions are an important part of growth, but also particularly interesting because they often involve bringing someone’s life’s work into Kone. They are about more than numbers, because they’re built on trust and human connection. For this reason, we strive to be a reliable and respectful partner in these transactions.

How have you managed to maintain a work-life balance throughout your career?

Achieving work-life balance is never easy, and it looks different at various stages of life. I like to say that life is a marathon, not a sprint—if you push too hard at the start, you risk burning out before the finish line.

For me, maintaining balance involves making time for activities like sports, which are crucial for both physical and mental well-being. Given the frequent travel my job requires, I also ensure there’s time for recovery. But it’s not just about how much time you dedicate to rest but it’s also about the quality of that time.

It’s important to understand your energy levels and focus on being at your best during critical moments of the day. While it’s impossible to get everything perfect, managing your time effectively and being aware of when you need to perform at your peak can make a big difference, even during long and demanding hours. You don’t have to be at the peak performance all the time, so manage your energy. 

Finally, what advice would you give your 25-year-old self?

The best advice I’d offer is to concentrate on what you’re doing right now and do it well. It’s easy to get caught up thinking about what’s next, but success often comes from excelling at the task in front of you. 

While planning for the future is important, life rarely follows a fixed blueprint. Many career paths that seem carefully planned in hindsight are often the result of seizing opportunities as they arise. Trust in your abilities, focus on your current role, and believe that opportunities will come to those who consistently deliver their best. Success is built step by step, and the doors will open naturally when the time is right.


Juha Kivistö is the previous Editor-in-Chief of AFA Quarterly.