2019 April

Back to time span?

I’ve been thinking more and more about the nature:nurture issue around the chicken egg situation if time span.

I think we have tended to rule it out through our discussions but…

Time span really matters until it doesn’t!

My point of context is the confounding nature of short-term thinking…or not as u might place it for consideration.

Here in ph, I watch the workers focus on immediate concerns without any, I mean any concern about the future of the work.

This is interesting as it creates only simple problems “usually.”

The longer the time span of concern, problems take on a lot of complexity—social security as an example.

What comes up for me is the idea of time span and all it’s tentacles.

Can time span happen before people do?

In other words (sorry it takes so long to objectify what is subject;)…

Can we teach and learn time span?

I don’t think so generally.

We can teach it and learn it as a part of KSEs in a context, but then—as we think about it—it’s not really time span—the capability of generalising a series of events.

For me, I see it 1000s of times as our people here can do cummulative reasoning.

So we can teach them a time span-like set of rules but as soon as context shifts they can’t apply the rule (indicating a lack of cumulative reasoning in my book).

Even when I say (cue), do you remember what the rule is there…

Still they can’t apply it until you recontexualize the rule to the different context.

This capability/ability? to pass information between related or unrelated contexts, especially as it relates to time span are important to examine.

We confuse KSEs with capability.

Good example is verbal abiliity.

I see highly articulate people continuously over-rated for general capability call it “gc”.

There is a shallowness in verbal ability that confuses people about gc.

In the same vein, time span is easily discussed and confused for “marshmallows.”

And back to the idea of chicken egg and time span.

I’m starting to back towards jaques ideas as he must have seen the phenomenon that haunts me here in my work around the world.

Using time span to predict gc.

Btw, I’m interested in gc because KSEs are evolving so rapidly in VUCA.

In other words adaptiveness, which some have coined “agility” cause it sounds cool related much more to gc than to KSEs?


In trying to solve problems in the environment of poverty, is it limited natural time span necessary for survival in A conditions? (SGD = AN-BEIGE).

It takes a lot of gc for time span generating reasoning to evolve past AN-BEIGE environments because survival means that you take care today, and tomorrow will be another thing to take care of when it becomes today—thus the time span is geared to the conditions?

I realise that this generally my struggle I’m discussing but there maybe relevance outside of that?

As society moves with the most adaptive, I wouldn’t say agile because to me that is a reserved set of capabilities that are not necessarily correlated with gc, more so personality which is born in; like AG = Anticipatory Guidance.

That’s fodder for different times.

So the idea which is forming comes back to graves in that conditions are best responded to by neurology?

Yet, once cues, scaffolding, support and lift (CSSL) are in place KSEs that CSSL individual, group and organisational behavior CSSL those that can and will.

Let me give a story.

Remember what San Fran tried to do with schools and it failed largely because “class-driven” supports are more robust than higher principles of say fairness, justice, discrimination.

If you have spent time among classes, you know that they are VERY DISCRIMINATING and prejudiced, and complain of same.

This idea then, of conditions and neurology holds the dissipating structures as organisational closed, yet energetically open!

This means that enormous amounts of CSSL can be absorbed without the closed organisation changing to accommodate , let’s say VUCA.

There is a veiled meaning here which can be applied to ideas like time span and without more gc available, change is thwarted, and problems as viewed superficially as “poverty” as solution resistant, as is time span which seems durable even in the face of contextual KSEs.

This is why large numbers of ph people will remain in poverty and the question is…do people need to develop over time, vs the Tony Robbins method.


Is dignity most served by honouring that development incrementally or trying to “force” people to take on the most complex memes.

This is my beef;) with the change people and the question that was asked in the Integral Interview…

We are attempting to teach pigs to sing and advancing those who show any proclivity—which means not allowing strong foundations to occur to hold up under VUCA.

The question needs reformatted imho.


11 replies on “Back to time span?”

Just a vocabulary note here;

– Time target – the maximum length of time the manager intends a subordinate to take to produce a given output

– Time span – the maximum length of time a manager intends a subordinate in a given role to be able to operate working marginally below the manager’s standard before the manager finds out.

– Time horizon – the furthest into the future a given person can work towards

Mike – I believe you’re mostly referring to time horizon below.

I believe time horizon is the psychological factor that time span is grounded in.

I expect time horizon matures. It may be possible to boost it, but I doubt it can be accelerated much.


Thanks for the note and definitions

Are these jaques or yours?

I might be referring to time horizon but I’m thinking time span even though it might be a reach

I’ll think about what I’m thinking about

Trust is a factor here.

As a side note.

People who u won’t trust to do what u tell them have a short time span—which I’m relating too from here in ph;)

Our people must be watched something our manager doesn’t understand;)

More story later.


Need to make sure these are in the glossary

Gary where is our /glossary



“Is dignity most served by honouring that development incrementally or trying to “force” people to take on the most complex memes.”

A smart person once provided a wonderful heuristic that’s paid off for me personally and provided wonderful reframing for clients:
**If you want to see behavior change, first assume the people themselves won’t change, and then scaffold from there.**

Back to your question above. It’s likely that a well-built scaffold will provide the incremental challenge. If the scaffold doesn’t work in practice, then it wasn’t well-built.


That’s not quite the answer to the question….or so I think.

My question is then:

Why should people be scaffolded for change?



People will want it, in themselves and others. Whether they “should” or not.


This question: “Is dignity most served by honouring that development incrementally or trying to “force” people to take on the most complex memes.”

This has a high likelihood of being a false choice between two options.

Alicia Parr

I’ll give it a shot.

How do humans coordinate multi-human activity in a way that sustains the dignity of each individual in the near-term, long-term, and generationally?

The “need” to develop, scaffold, or otherwise direct is contextual. Develop toward what? Scaffold for what? There are innumerable ways to answer those two questions, and I presume there is more to those answers than just “maximize dignity.” It seems there would have to be more to sustain the species over generations.


Comments are closed.