Just to keep this simple,  the original concept of Levels (then called Strata) came from the work of Dr Elliott Jaques (EJ),  originally conceived  in the heyday of the factory and mass production.  This meta model has continued evolving over more then 70 years and now, it is more relevant than ever. Why?

Volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity is the answer, plus climate change.  Not only corporate and governments MUST be accountable for long term planning and decision making, but all enterprises.  That means all prosumers (consumers and producers. (1)  It is not a luxury.  The 2.5 degree temperature rise is now the best scenario. As Harari says(2), ‘yet with all this information circulating at breathtaking speed, humanity is closer than ever to annihilating itself.’  Despoliation is unchecked.

Work Themes or Levels of Work (LoW), deals with increasing world in decision making.  It uses Time and Unique Value Adding as a differentiator between levels;.  This natural hierarchy is not about rigidity, power, control or prestige, the normal associated bullsh*t. 

Hand in hand with the Themes/Levels of Work, EJ used Time Span to sharpen the mind in order to estimate the work complexity involved.  He defined this to be the time to completion of the most complex task in a role… or the time that elapses before the Managerial Leader at the level above can see the completion of the task.  Thus work with similar time spans to completion belong in the same work theme/level of work complexity.

Very few people are able to think in long time –  we find making long term decisions really challenging and secondly, the market rewards short termism, measured by growth. Assistance is useful. Time span is a tool to help one think longer term.  It is  still a relevant measure as it’s about the complexity of work being undertaken in specific tasks. Consider it takes a few years to build a bridge, or to transform an enterprise using a new platform, or build an aircraft; yet it takes only a few months to sell real estate or half an hour for a dentist to fill a tooth. Yet it does not address consequences or impact.

What must be addressed for all goal directed work systems, is the issue of consequence or accountability for decision making. 

Not only internally, but to the broader community with which the enterprise impacts – directly or indirectly. That is tough.  How?  Returning to structure,  Time Span is a serious tool for gauging work complexity, but it is no dashboard of consequence once the task is complete. Technology has definitely impacted the relevance of Time Span in the first three operational work themes, while those at executive levels argue that it is impossible to plan longer term.  The best one can do is to build  organisational resilience.  This is a leadership fail, equivalent to fence sitting. 

While challenging, the impact of technology or short term market demands does not release us from accountability for thinking long term of consequences. 

 Time Span needs to be made more relevant to the current discourse of accountability. In practice, Time Span works well for operational roles, but becomes less relevant at the work themes of Corporate Citizenship (Level VI) and Corporate Prescience (Level VII).  In  Organisation Design (3)  I argued then that Time Span is no longer a fitting measure for work at the executive levels of enterprises or for state functions. 

Time Span is not about trying to envision the future.

Envisioning the impacts is referred to as the Time Horizon(4).

 A more suitable measure for these work themes is that of impact, namely Time Horizon.  I defined this in 2013 as;

“the amount of elapsed time before the outcome(s)  of the most complex decision can be confirmed.”

This by definition implies applying the mind systemically to envision all possible outcomes of the decision.  Time horizon may also be defined as: that distance into the future to which a decision-maker looks when evaluating the consequences of a proposed action.(4) This extends the functionality of the Time Span concept.  It allows for risk assessment by multiple stakeholders.  We should not do is confuse the terms. (5)  Jaques used Time Horizon to describe the individual future thinking capability. I have co-opted the term to use in planning and future envisaging, as a necessary extension to Time Span, as the onus now shifts to people, going beyond task completion.

 

What I struggle with is accountability.  How do you hold a board and CEO accountable for outcomes in a ten, twenty or thirty of forty year or more Time Horizon?  As we know, boards, CEOs and executive teams of large companies are not built for the long haul. How can they be accountable when we know with a 100% certainty they will not be there to answer for their decisions in as short a time as five to seven years?(5)

It is widely acknowledged that complexity of board work has grown.  A recent survey by Mckinsey & Company (6) of board members reported board members felt strategic activities require more active and regular board involvement. Examples were in the fields of linking strategy to purpose, assessing managements understanding of the drivers of value creation. The article was silent on long term consequences.

Accountability should be to stakeholders on the quality of thinking that made up the Time Horizon analysis.  Problem is of course, rewards are thin for long term thinking or planning.  So that leaves us in an uncomfortable place. Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.

A practical answer is we need to assume responsibility for longer term thinking in our own Life;  how we work, how we consume, how we influence, our activism, how we vote. Secondly, if you are leader think longer, work in longer time, its a duty of human care. Its not a luxury any longer.  Governance needs to evolve to a point where Time Horizons become part of the boards compliance duty and requires stakeholder approval and shared accountability for the future.

Time Horizons are part of board governance.

 

Reference.

1. Tofler, Alvin., (1999).,  Third Wave.  refers to producers/consumers.

2 Harari, YN (2024)  Nexus.  page xx.  Prologue.

3. Olivier, Andrew.  Organisational Design. What your University Forgot to Teach You.  (2013)

4. I could not find this specific quote as the site was updated 21/07/24.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_horizon

5.  Confusing Time Horizons and  Time Span is fairly common, see Elliot Jaques’ Concept of Time-Horizon | xraydelta 

5. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.  Average C suite tenure is 4.9 years and CEO 5- 7.2 years   August 4, 2023.

6.  Huber, C., Lund, Fritjhof., Spielman, N.,  Better together; Three ways to boost board-CEO collaboration.  Sept 25, 2024. Survey.