Something that is closely tied to how we think about uncertainty is our perception of time and how we choose to organise ourselves within it.

But Martin! Time is objective, there is only one way you can perceive it. 

No, we know that we culturally perceive time differently, and as a result, different cultures organise themselves in time differently. Asian cultures has a tendency to see time as circular, southern Europe as relational and “west” as linear. You can also divide perception of time into monochronic and polychronic cultures. (Single or multitasking mode).

We also know that there are individual differences in how we perceive time. Eg. Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) are conditions that are described as having temporal short sightedness. People with these conditions have difficulty regulating their attention and managing their time effectively. The perception of time and how they organise themself in it is here described as a medical condition. A neurophysical inability to subscribe to the cultural norm. 

The way that ADD and ADHD are perceived and treated is very much influenced by cultural perceptions of time and ideal ways of organising yourself in it. A perspective that values efficiency, productivity, and rapid problem solving views individuals with ADD and ADHD as defect. In the same way the western mode of thinking is dominant in shaping strategic management and norms around that. Therefore the linear, rational way of organising yourself in time is perceived as good and desirable, while other modes and ways are seen as bad, non rational and unwanted. Luckily, now the concept of diversity is replacing norms.

Once again, let’s use the progression of thought through eras to explain why we are perceiving time as we do and how we organise ourselves in it. 

In traditional societies, the creation of value was centred around stability and predictability. Time was perceived linearly, and the primary focus was on ensuring that resources were used efficiently to meet basic needs and maintain the status quo. In this mode of thinking, value was created through the production of goods and services that met the basic needs of society. The future was a fixed straight road ahead looking exactly as the road already travelled.

The industrial revolution marked a shift towards modern modes of thinking, the creation of value shifted towards growth and development where one organised oneself by long term goals and objectives. The emphasis was placed on producing goods and services that would drive economic expansion, and value was created through the generation of wealth and the expansion of the economy. The future was still a fixed road ahead but now man decided its destination. Through reason and logic one could arrange activities to close the gap between the present and the desired goal. The world is viewed as ordered and therefore there is also a belief in a strong causality.

The information age brought about a shift towards postmodern modes of thinking, where time was perceived as relativistic and organised by flexibility and adaptation. The creation of value was centred around creativity and innovation. The postmodern mode of thinking forced organisations to be more agile and innovative, better equipped to respond to the rapid changes brought about by technological advancements. Now the future is no longer a fixed road ahead. We use scenario planning, positioning, values and other tools to tame the unpredictability of the unfolding of reality. The world is messy but we still believe that what we set out to do will achieve desired outcome.

Perception of time and how we organise ourselves within it now play a critical role in shaping our success. This concept can be seen through the lens of the Red Queen Hypothesis, which states that individuals and organisations must continually evolve to maintain their competitiveness in an ever-changing landscape. “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”

In the meta-modern era, the world is complex and there is only weak causality. It is instead the interaction of the parts that defines the whole. Each time you interact with the world it changes. Doing the same thing over and over again will render different outcomes each time. Time is no longer seen as a linear progression, but rather as a fluid and multi-dimensional concept that is constantly in flux. This perspective challenges traditional ideas about the past, present, and future, and emphasises the importance of personal experience and subjective interpretation in shaping our understanding of time. A more diverse perception of time.

Similarly, the creation of value is no longer seen as something that is created in the production or transaction of the service or product. Instead, meta-modern thinkers view value as something that is co-created by individuals and communities in the moment of usage of the service. Therefore, in the meta-modern perspective, time and value are not fixed or predetermined, but are constantly being shaped and reshaped through the interactions and relationships between individuals and the world around them.

In conclusion, as you see, this post is almost a copy of my earlier about uncertainty. but I think that if you compare the two you too could make the conclusion that what we perceive as uncertain has during this progress moved from a physical, via a political to now a temporal domain. We now realise that no one really knows what will happen next and this changes the strategic agenda in its core. And it will require a different approach to temporal understanding and a toolification of it into a strategic playbook.