I agree with the analysis, but it’s really just a restatement of Bill Sharpe’s original statement of the model, detailed in his book(s). The horizons were never meant to be timelines; they were always more like dispositions. What might follow is that the original claim- that all three are essential- used to be clear to a relatively small group of people, but it is now increasingly clear to everyone.
I think you’ve misunderstood the Three Horizons model. I always perceive those three horizons as existing simultaneously.
And maybe misunderstood the type of change. We are seeing rapid technological change. Are we seeing rapid change at the level of unconscious assumptions about how the world functions?
It's safe to say that frameworks are now devoid of utility. Building clarity about what is worth aspiring towards even if, for all practical purposes, there isn't a means to realize those aspirations, is what matters.
We are part of a evolutionary flow. The semblance of control or casual determinism was likely a fleeting correlation.
When we realize that most of the communally aligning elements were prescribed by institutions that sought to control and extract by colonial powers, accelerationalism and anarchy feels like the right medicine. Stability always gets coopted by bad actors.
Love this - such a clear articulation of what makes this moment so disorienting.
And it begs the question of what gets absorbed by humans (and the more-than-human) from the friction generated when our institutions can barely hold one horizon at a time. We are collectively carrying collapses that have yet to be named - while lacking the collective rituals to mourn together.
Working within higher education, the reflection(s) this leaves me with is: what kind of relationships and collective practices - as individuals, communities and institutions - does it take to inhabit all three horizons simultaneously - with coherence and care - without fragmenting, burning out or checking out?
IF temporal spacing is collapsing, THEN a new framework or transitional model needs to emerge: perhaps "phase transition" is a better metaphor, an abrupt, discontinuous change in the properties of the system itself.
Perhaps the Three Horizons are not horizons at all. What if they are three architectural functions operating simultaneously in every living system? Continuity maintains viability. Pressure drives adaptation. Orientation preserves direction. The challenge is not balancing horizons across time, but maintaining coherence across functions.
The reframe from sequence to simultaneity is the right move, and the "losing a horizon" section is where it earns its keep — each horizon dominating alone produces a distinct, nameable failure. But that section also exposes where the piece stops short. "Hold them in dynamic balance" is doing almost all the work of the conclusion, and it's the one phrase left undefined. If the three horizons are concurrent functions rather than stages, then the holding itself is a fourth function — not balance as an outcome but balance as a structure with its own requirements. That seems like the question the compression actually forces: not how to act within each horizon, but what holds them in relation when they can no longer be sequenced.
I love this framework, it’s the foundation of the training I’ve designed around positive transformation - where I believe every industry has to deal with.
Agree with frameworks being obsolete, however I find this framework really helpful with structuring our thinking.
Thanks a lot for your thoughtful responses!
We took the critique seriously and worked to refine the language, sharpen the assumptions, and translate the thread into a more practical follow-up: https://10x100.substack.com/p/from-chaos-to-cadence
Let us know if that resonates or propose a better way to approach it.
I find this theory + praxis or strategy + tactics double post an excellent rhythm. I encourage you to keep it up
I agree with the analysis, but it’s really just a restatement of Bill Sharpe’s original statement of the model, detailed in his book(s). The horizons were never meant to be timelines; they were always more like dispositions. What might follow is that the original claim- that all three are essential- used to be clear to a relatively small group of people, but it is now increasingly clear to everyone.
Agreed. The three horizons always existed together in the same temporal space. That’s the essence of the model, as I understood it.
I think you’ve misunderstood the Three Horizons model. I always perceive those three horizons as existing simultaneously.
And maybe misunderstood the type of change. We are seeing rapid technological change. Are we seeing rapid change at the level of unconscious assumptions about how the world functions?
It's safe to say that frameworks are now devoid of utility. Building clarity about what is worth aspiring towards even if, for all practical purposes, there isn't a means to realize those aspirations, is what matters.
We are part of a evolutionary flow. The semblance of control or casual determinism was likely a fleeting correlation.
When we realize that most of the communally aligning elements were prescribed by institutions that sought to control and extract by colonial powers, accelerationalism and anarchy feels like the right medicine. Stability always gets coopted by bad actors.
Love this - such a clear articulation of what makes this moment so disorienting.
And it begs the question of what gets absorbed by humans (and the more-than-human) from the friction generated when our institutions can barely hold one horizon at a time. We are collectively carrying collapses that have yet to be named - while lacking the collective rituals to mourn together.
Working within higher education, the reflection(s) this leaves me with is: what kind of relationships and collective practices - as individuals, communities and institutions - does it take to inhabit all three horizons simultaneously - with coherence and care - without fragmenting, burning out or checking out?
Thank you for this reflection.
IF temporal spacing is collapsing, THEN a new framework or transitional model needs to emerge: perhaps "phase transition" is a better metaphor, an abrupt, discontinuous change in the properties of the system itself.
Perhaps the Three Horizons are not horizons at all. What if they are three architectural functions operating simultaneously in every living system? Continuity maintains viability. Pressure drives adaptation. Orientation preserves direction. The challenge is not balancing horizons across time, but maintaining coherence across functions.
The reframe from sequence to simultaneity is the right move, and the "losing a horizon" section is where it earns its keep — each horizon dominating alone produces a distinct, nameable failure. But that section also exposes where the piece stops short. "Hold them in dynamic balance" is doing almost all the work of the conclusion, and it's the one phrase left undefined. If the three horizons are concurrent functions rather than stages, then the holding itself is a fourth function — not balance as an outcome but balance as a structure with its own requirements. That seems like the question the compression actually forces: not how to act within each horizon, but what holds them in relation when they can no longer be sequenced.
Call it the Triple Horizon Framework
I love this framework, it’s the foundation of the training I’ve designed around positive transformation - where I believe every industry has to deal with.
Agree with frameworks being obsolete, however I find this framework really helpful with structuring our thinking.
Thanks for your great article!
Let's shift from a consumer society of mass indoctrination to creator cultures of emancipatory learners. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/share-emancipation-song-set-us-fair-free-hack-playbook-rick-botelho-xivne/
Helpful and steadying for how to think and talk in and about change; constant present task.
Very eloquently summarizing of our discussion, Indy! And so much more!