By Wayne Limberger
Whenever I’m at a loss for subject matter to inspire a new tarot spread, I often fall back on the topic of project management, a combined form of decision-making and problem-solving. Nearly everyone is involved in creative projects of one kind or another, whether at work, at home or in social group settings. Every project experiences a range of variables based on the style and degree of oversight applied to its proceedings. This spread is designed for high-stakes management scenarios that typically occur in commercial and professional environments, but it can be used wherever executive control mechanisms are (or need to be) instituted to direct the course of events.
Every creative project, whether industrial, commercial, civic or personal, is a tightrope walk between too much hands-on management oversight/meddling and too little. Human beings hate to leave well enough alone when they smell a potential “edge” to be gained through tinkering with fundamentals. Even the most self-regulating processes that seem to run fine on “autopilot” aren’t immune to this inclination. (I’m convinced it’s what keeps MBAs employed and project managers awake at night.) Conversely, we are sometimes slow to react when things start to go haywire.
This spread is designed to explore the consequences of: a) leaving a fledgling or ongoing process alone; b) proactively attempting to optimize it; or c) tolerating or ignoring signs of deterioration. The two branching sequences are to be interpreted as modifying and clarifying the testimony of the vertical chain, either facilitating success or impeding it. Cards #4 and #6 can also be read as a triplet with Card #3 as the focus card to show a matrix of competing influences. (This would be a good place to use Elemental Dignities). This spread may be performed repeatedly for different intervention initiatives, in a “what-if” landscape of separate but cross-connected decision-making scenarios.
Cards #1 through #3 are pulled from the top of the deck and show the straightforward “steady-state” tendencies of the established process flow. The “growth potential” quint card is calculated next, coming into play at the point in time when the project is in its early phases. It describes possible gains to be made through active pursuit of improvement incentives. Cards #4 and #5 are then drawn from the top of the deck to fill out the “advancement opportunity” scenario. This series is characterized as “clockwise,” or following the diurnal course of the Sun toward its zenith at noon (prospects are getting brighter). Read it as the “best case” scenario for constructive intervention.
The “loss potential” quint card is calculated to show the point in time at which the project is starting to go “off the rails” or is projected to do so due to normal entropy or encumbering disincentives, both internal and external. It describes the risk exposures associated with neglecting the warning signs. Cards #6 and #7 are then drawn from the bottom of the deck to symbolize a counterclockwise flow, backsliding against the daily progress of the Sun and seeking its nadir at midnight (prospects are dimming). The structure of the layout is modeled after a gear drive or crankshaft, which can produce both forward (clockwise) travel and reverse (counterclockwise) movement. Read it as the “worst case” scenario for failure to effectively intervene.
The quintessence cards should be derived numerically using whatever method of calculation you prefer. I like to include the unnumbered court cards as 11 through 14, and I apply reversals as negative numbers so I can get down to zero (the Fool) and even obtain reversed quint cards, which I consider a plus. The result of the calculation is always a trump card between 0 and 22 or -22 (after numerological reduction if necessary).
This spread presents a perfect example of the countervailing effects of “good” cards in “bad” positions and vice versa. In one case they can mitigate otherwise damaging consequences and in the other they can diminish the benefit of nominally positive indicators. In both situations they can provide insight on the kinds of supportive, contradictory or ambivalent feedback to expect out of each one. In its aggregate, the bottom line of the reading represents a “conditioning” of the outcome card (Card #3) by the helpful and harmful influences of effective and ineffective in-process steering.