Loading...
Loading...
Short-termism isn't a character flaw—it's architecturally encoded. When capital cycles are shorter than mission cycles, long-term thinking becomes structurally impossible.
Capital cycles (how often funding needs to show returns) are fundamentally shorter than mission cycles (how long real outcomes take).
This creates a structural impossibility: organizations must demonstrate value on capital timelines, but real value emerges on mission timelines. The result is optimization for what can be measured quickly rather than what actually matters.
Every sector faces the same structural tension—different timelines, same problem.
| Domain | Capital Cycle | Mission Cycle | Consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Publicly-traded companies | 90 days (quarterly earnings) | 5-10 years (market leadership) | R&D sacrificed for quarterly numbers |
| Venture-backed startups | 18-24 months (funding rounds) | 7-10 years (market maturity) | Growth at all costs, sustainability deferred |
| Nonprofits | 1-3 years (grant cycles) | 10-50 years (systemic change) | Mission drift to match funder priorities |
| Government agencies | 1 year (budget cycles) | Decades (infrastructure, policy) | Use-it-or-lose-it spending, no accumulation |
Performance is measured on the capital cycle, not the mission cycle. Managers who sacrifice short-term for long-term get fired before the long-term arrives.
Future value is discounted at rates that make long-term investments mathematically irrational. A dollar next quarter is worth more than five dollars in five years.
Average CEO tenure is 5 years. Average fund manager tenure is 4 years. Nobody stays long enough to see long-term strategies pay off.
Quarterly earnings calls, annual reports, grant milestones—all demand evidence of progress on timelines shorter than real outcomes.
Many organizations try to solve short-termism through culture:
The problem: Structure beats culture. A "long-term thinking" culture inside a quarterly earnings structure still produces quarterly optimization. The manager who sacrifices this quarter for next decade gets replaced before the decade arrives.
IRSA's Regenerative Cycle Architecture proposes decoupling capital cycles from mission cycles:
Capital that regenerates across cycles rather than depleting within them. Principal preserved, returns deployed.
Evaluation on mission timelines, not capital timelines. Success measured in decades, not quarters.
Key insight: To enable long-term thinking, change the capital architecture. When capital doesn't need to prove itself every 90 days, strategy can extend to actual mission timelines.
Short-termism isn't a character flaw—it's structurally encoded. When capital cycles (quarterly earnings, grant periods, budget years) are shorter than mission cycles (building market leadership, systemic change, infrastructure), organizations are forced to optimize for the capital cycle. Managers who sacrifice short-term for long-term get replaced before the long-term arrives.
No. Even long-term-oriented CEOs face structural pressure from capital cycles. Average CEO tenure is 5 years; strategic initiatives often take 7-10 years. The structure, not the individual, determines time horizons.
Culture helps but can't overcome structure. A 'long-term thinking' culture inside a quarterly earnings structure still produces quarterly optimization. To enable long-term thinking, you need to change capital architecture—longer cycles, different metrics, aligned incentives.
IRSA's concept for separating capital cycles from mission cycles. By creating capital structures that regenerate across cycles (perpetual capital) rather than depleting within cycles (grants, quarterly returns), organizations can align their time horizons with their actual missions.