The ‘strategic horizon‘ most nonprofits use is between 3-5 years. That seems to be about as far into the future as we feel able to project – either in terms of what we might confidently predict about our operating environment, or the timespan over which we are willing to commit to achieving our goals.

Such relatively short time frames are good when we want to innovate and achieve quick wins. When it comes to more enduring issues and gains though, we may need to employ longer planning and action horizons. The header image above suggests that depending on the nature of the decision to be made, quite different time horizons and considerations will be involved.

Culture change, for example, does not happen on demand. While we can possibly change some behaviours by adopting rule changes or new standards, enduring change usually requires the internalisation of the rationale involved, along with sustained reinforcement of net benefits from the change. Requiring adherence to an externally imposed mandate tends to result in ‘performative’ compliance, without the commitment and drive for success that comes with personal belief in the value of the change.

The ‘long now’

Some years ago Stewart Brand‘s book ‘The Clock of the Long Now‘ highlighted a set of six time horizons – from short (fast) to very long (slow). Each offers a temporal lens through which to consider the cost/benefit/risk tradeoffs associated with a decision. Brand argues not so much for one lens being better than any other, but rather for the benefits of balancing the six different perspectives to gain a more fulsome analysis to inform your decisions.

While commenting on the importance of tempering one perspective with others, Brand notes:

“Education is intellectual infrastructure.  So is science.  They have very high yield, but delayed payback.  Hasty societies that can’t span those delays will lose out over time to societies that can.  On the other hand, cultures too hidebound to allow education to advance at infrastructural pace also lose out.”
Pace Layering: How Complex Systems Learn and Keep Learning

The following chart describes these six decision lenses and their associations with various timeframes. While the two viewers involved represent only two of the six perspectives, they highlight the priorities attached to the perspectives at each end of the spectrum (short-term and long-term).

Kahneman V. Brand versions of ‘fast’ and ‘slow‘

Most readers will be familiar with the ideas in Daniel Kahneman‘s book ‘Thinking Fast and Slow‘. Kahneman’s Nobel Prize in Economics recognised his contribution to behavioural economics. His groundbreaking behavioral science research changed our understanding of how people think and make decisions. (See also my December 2023 post Hurry Up and Slow Down).

Fast and slow perspectives are also employed in Stewart Brand’s PACE layers of civilisation. I therefore sought to compare the two ‘models’, to see how thought speed and time scales are employed in each.

As this chart reveals, the concepts and time scales referred to in each of these models are so different that we are not really comparing like with like. Kahneman’s model is anthropocentric, zooming in on human thought processes over short to medium time frames (seconds to years). Brand’s Pace Layers on the other hand provide a more macro view, scaling from immediate cultural fads (Innovation/Fashion) up to the vast geological and ecological scales of Nature.

Aligning these two temporal perspective models with various time scales offered by selected disciplines or domains, we can see that neither model seeks to address the full spectrum. Nonetheless, both offer valuable ways of interacting with various time scales, that are likely to enhance aspects of our deliberative and decision-making processes and outcomes.

Multilevel Selection (MLS)

David Sloan Wilson and Elliott Sober, writing about the evolution of pro-sociality make this observation about scale when describing how Multilevel Selection evolved from Darwin’s Natural Selection theory:

“MLS theory tells us that we can evolve systems that function for the common good, but only by selecting at the scale of the whole system and suppressing the potential for disruptive lower-level selection within the system.” https://www.prosocial.world/posts/natural-selection-and-multilevel-selection-as-causal-theories

In a separate article Wilson also notes:

“MLS theory makes it crystal clear that unless competition is appropriately structured and refereed, it can do a lot more harm than good. To make matters more complex, the logic of MLS theory applies to all levels of a multi-tier hierarchy, including the tiers of a single hierarchically organised corporation. What’s good for a single employee can be bad for her unit. What’s good for her unit can be bad for other units, and so on, all the way up to what’s good for the corporation being bad for the global economy and environment.” https://www.prosocial.world/posts/the-business-world-needs-multilevel-selection-theory

Another way to think about the PACE layered approach to decision-making therefore, is to think about the scale of the outcomes and impacts we are seeking. The larger the scale, the further towards the slow end of the spectrum of temporal perspectives we need to move.

Comparing ‘Fast’ and ‘Slow’ Temporal Lenses

Using a simplified comparison of each end of the PACE layer continuum (note the six layers divide into three faster and three slower layers), Brand identified several contrasting features of fast and slow temporal lenses. As illustrated in the following chart, these relate primarily to the kinds of learning associated with each approach.

‘Fast’ and ‘Slow’ in Spacetime

As we have come to understand from Albert Einstein, intertwined time and space (spacetime) are relative. Events unfold differently when different spatial and temporal scales are involved.

The chart above identifies four key insights from relativity that can inform our decision-making and adaptive leadership.

Writing about spatial and temporal scales in design thinking, Daniel Christian Wahl notes:

“Temporal and spatial scales have to be considered together, since slow and fast processes manifest differently at different scales of magnitude. In focussing on a certain spatial scale, a scale linking approach to design would at least consider the next scale down of boundaries that define component parts, and the next scale up of the wider whole that encompasses the scale in focus.” https://blog.prototypr.io/spatial-and-temporal-scales-in-design-thinking-ba64336255b3

This advice reminds us that the boundaries between nominal segments of a scale are ephemeral and fluid – not fixed and hard-edged. All the more reason to consider the levels or layers on either side of the one on which we are primarily focussed.

The graph highlighted in the next chart was designed by Flavia Gargulio and appears in Wahl’s 2016 book, ‘Designing Regenerative Cultures‘. While the PACE layered model identifies culture as one of the six temporal lenses, Wahl alerts us to the differences in culture depending on the scale under consideration (amongst other variables). In the graph, local, regional, and global are identified, but of course we could identify many other scales across the spacetime continuum.

A key point I take from the graph is that as we move to larger scales, we need to allow more time for adaptation (to our change initiative) to occur. Changing the circumstances faced by a small local group is an entirely different proposition to changing circumstances at regional, national, or global scales.

Teaching us the ‘Long View‘

Various cultural and philosophical traditions promote long-range perspectives when making decisions – whether they be personal or group-oriented choices. These traditions can teach us a good deal about the uses of temporal lenses in the slower (long-range) portions of the PACE layer spectrum.

The next chart highlights a selection of these traditions, which employ several of the longer time horizons, from decades to infinity. In our haste to seize the future, we can learn a great deal about the value of longer range perspectives for certain types of decision – especially those involving culture and sustainability.

Contemporary Long-View Approaches

In recent history, over say the last 4-5 decades, a number of movements have fostered long-range thinking, as listed in the chart below. You may find one or more of these adaptable to decision-making within your nonprofit entity.

‘Watch where you are going‘

While it is entirely in order for us to use ‘agile sprints’ and other short range methods to move towards our goals, keeping our eyes focussed on the ground right in front of us doesn’t necessarily get us to a worthy destination. We need to lift our heads and look towards the ultimate destination from time to time. Sometimes the truly worthy destination is long way from where we stand at this moment, and we need to correct course to make sure we get there in the end.

This post urges nonprofit leaders to apply a range of temporal lenses to their goal setting and strategy execution plans. The 3-5 year horizon may be good for some of your goals, but other desired outcomes will benefit from much longer temporal perspectives.

See also:
Temporal Sensemaking and Reflective Governance
‘Time is of the essence’: temporal factors in NFP productivity & efficiency
Fusing experience and expectation in decision-making
Temperament and Temporality
Hurry Up and Slow Down