Tempus Impleri Overview
Tempus Impleri, meaning ‘a time to be filled’ stemmed from a desire to satisfy two diminished aspects of my own interpersonal relationships. I noticed in my years after graduating college that I yearned for a meaningful community and deeply desired to have conversations on generative topics. These desires appeared to be prevalent with my peers, sentiments from other recent graduates and alumni. If so many people wanted a stronger connection why was it not naturally occurring? Life happens and logistics easily get in the way of some of our strongest wishes. It was difficult to remain in deep connection with the hustle and bustle of many full-time working adults.
Along with two friends of mine, Spencer Gressen and Kayla Fixel, we aimed to replicate what we did on a one-on-one basis for a community. Thus the idea of a group of people to gather on a consistent basis around meaningful conversations was born. The hope for the group would to be the catalyst for change that had already proliferated the community’s consciousness but scattered in the illusion of isolation, disconnection, and individualism.
The project would be an informal gathering of minds looking for connection and change.
Event outline
Connection Time:
For meaningful conversation to grow, a surface level knowing of each participant would not suffice. As persons would join it was important to accomplish two things. Recognize the stories each of us bring to the table, and the mindsets and paradigms that will coat the dialogue that will follow. Each event started with time dedicated to connection. The amount of time was contextual to those participating and the evening in question. Is the community that day already familiar with each other and in close contact outside of the Tempus meeting? Then the connection time could be limited to a grounding exercise before moving on. If the closeness of any participant was weaker, then more time can be devoted to really get to know each other on a deeper level. Connection in this aspect is not about the small talk or trivial aspects of our lives - the facts that can be easily and quickly shared to provide a textual-like understanding of our being. Connection is an attempt to move beyond the simplistic definitions of our lives and explore more the essence of our narratives and our existential knowings.
For example, one question used was “What is the story you tell yourself about yourself?”. The scope of the question is at the discretion of each participant, with the hope that the revelations from their own reflection provide a new way of knowing each other as well as ourselves. This sort of question illuminates the reasons we’re brought to the Tempus Impleri circle, and also sets the tone for the sorts of reflection and dialogue needed for the main question.
Included in connection time is a more straightforward explanation for what’s about to come. A breakdown of the question posed, what that question means, and why we might want to engage with it.
Dialogue Prompt: “What is dying in your system and what is yearning to be born?”
The two part question is aimed at the very juxtaposition for why systematic change is rare in society and aligns with the very reason for the creation of the Tempus project. The inquiry is to dive into the very nature of what aligns our being but is hidden in isolation due to fear of the status quo. The language of the question mirrors the loss that change requires. In order for something new to come into life, something that came before it must no longer exist. The questions duality serves to provoke a reflection of our own lives different than our own typical involvement. I find that as leadership educators the idea to provide a space to reflect is beneficial in so much as it creates a pause that might be difficult to otherwise find, but does little to actually evolve our normal mental faculties. A new, challenging, reflection works better as a means to develop our understandings of the world.
The question begins ‘what is dying in your system’ as an attempt to shock out the frustrations in our current situations. Beginning with what feels stuck, diminishing, and life depleting can bring forward powerful emotions and reactions quickly. The use of ‘dying’ is not only sensational, it also seeks to illustrate the very nature of these stuck situations. Without changing what is dying in a system, the very system will eventually create a bubble and burst. The collapse brings not only destruction to the system itself, those involved in it, it also diminishes the environment that previously supported it. The dying provides the impetus and the significance for why this topic must be engaged. In this prompt, system is any interconnected parts, forces, and factors. A system can be a simple as a single person, to a workplace or hobby club, to global politics and the human race. The scope of the system is entirely up to the participant. It remains significant if the thought of what is dying in the system continues to be present in our reflection.
‘What is yearning to be born’ aims to capitalize on the deep desires that are left unshared. With each division of the system there exists a generative potentiality. The very questioning of the way things are currently done brings into existence an idea of an emergent future. Tempus Impleri seeks to cultivate the community leadership to recognize this emergent future and through dialogue birth it into existence. ‘Yearning’ is the key word as the potentiality of such a future has an intense desire to be brought fourth. This aspect of the prompt asks each person to listen to the voice, internal or external, loud or soft, and feed it attention to see where it lies. This aspect of the prompt counteracts the destructive and diminished as it focuses on the constructive and life generating.
Beyond the prompt itself, this question can be returned to in order to refocus the dialogue. After reflection, the group will listen as someone volunteers to answer the prompt. The group then attempts to engage in generative dialogue, rather than attempting to resolve the problem. Generative dialogue contrasts against the notion of lecture, debate, and discussion. It requires listening in an engaged whole body experience that allows both the speaker to know their being heard and the listener to seek to understand what is being said. The listening here is not simply to respond but it is not sufficient to not respond to the speaker once they’re finished. This sort of authentic listening requires considered effort and is only possible after the grounding and connection exercises previously completed. Debate is not found in Tempus Impleri even if the stuckness of one’s dying system is something thriving for other’s listening. There are no sides to the broken system and to view a polarity is to miss the interconnected nature of all involved with the system’s potential bubble. By entraining a generative dialogue all are lifted and benefited in the emergent future. Finally, discussion attempts to build upon point and argument after another. This sort of construction is limited in a linear fashion and due to it’s structure can only recreating the very system already in place. In order for real transformative change to be brought into existence a new paradigm must be used from the beginning. Generative dialogue is such a mechanism as it infuses whole body listening, empathetic understanding, seeking to understand, and through it’s practice starts to evolve the collective understanding our our reality.
There are times when the dialogue will slow or find itself off topic. A gentle facilitator can inquire with the presenter if they have further thoughts on the subject in an attempt to redirect or reframe the topic. Or, the prompt can be restated as a means of resetting the conversation. This restatement can trigger new ideas and energies to the topic, but it should be noted that once appetite is lost by the group the topic should be retired for the meeting and a new topic engaged with a new volunteer to answer the prompt. Some topics serve as a means of speaking into existence the frustrating nature of our individual lives, while others will spark desires previously unspoken. Both sorts are important. The topic is important, not the amount of time spent on it.
Topics can be appear as simple as ‘I wish my boss would recognize my efforts at work more often’ or as complex as ‘what are the reasons that a political divide appears to be growing in America’. Each are valid and reasonable to bring to the table as long as they answer the prompt ‘what is dying in your system and what is yearning to be born.’
Radical Inclusion:
Tempus Impleri answers the question ‘who should be invited to this event’ with the philosophy of radical inclusion. Simply put, everyone and anyone as long as they want to be included. An invitation is earnest, authentic, and ever lasting. If a person cannot make the event one time they’re always welcome to join a future session and anyone part of the community is always considered to be a part of it. To exclude is anathema to the notion that we are interconnection and the systems in which we are all apart of require a community to improve and change. The emergent future cannot be realized without this sort of radical inclusion.
On a more practical front, I frame this philosophy in two parts. In order to ensure the community thrives there are two pools of persons that must be invited. Those that need this conversation and those this conversation needs. This distinction is temporally relative as each of us throughout our lives certainly move between camps. There are times when our lives lead with a life depleting tone and the generative qualities of community and dialogue are needed. These persons are essential to the dialogue and bring about the strongest responses to the prompt if they’re able to engage. With a tinge of irony, these persons are also the most difficult to invite due to their very nature of being too rescinded. Active invitations will be necessary to help fuel their tanks, and if the event of itself is not congruent a new means of rejuvenation should be found.
However the generative dialogue still requires those that can hold the container to allow for this rejuvenation to occur. Persons with the capacity to sit with the struggles, burdens, and heaviness of a dying system are essential to helping cultivate the emergent future waiting to be born. An invitation is simply the question asking a person for their participation and a celebration of that person’s gifts that have the possibility of improving the community. The invitation is an opportunity free of judgement and decidedly not a decision made for the invitee. That is to say that any true invitation can always be declined, and through in the spirit of radical inclusion can always be invited again. The invitation’s decision is also not made prior to the ask itself. As a facilitator, it is improper to consider a person and decide for them that their life is too busy or inopportune to not engage. That choice is reserved solely for each individual.
Consistent, arbitrary time:
Last, and perhaps least important for generative dialogue, come the logistics. When, where, and how often should Tempus Impleri happen? I argue for a consistent yet ultimately arbitrary treatment of the planning. In our experience there was appetite for frequent meetings but an inability to engage meaningfully more than once a month. So we opted for the first Wednesday of every month - tornado drill style for those in the midwest. Of course this sort of calendar ought to be shifted as the needs of the community demand.
Ideally a comfortable location where food and beverages can be enjoyed is found. This could mean a rotation of homes, or a stable coffee shop as long as each person is freely invited and able to be heard. Keep in mind that for some traveling to a home of a stranger can be a significant hurdle and is no longer welcoming as it might be for those familiar with the home. However public spaces can also place demands on the decibel levels or have restrictions on the time limit. Each of these must be considered, but ultimately the right choice is contextual.
Theoretical Background
The Tempus Impleri practice was informed by leadership scholars and texts that have influenced me and my studies. The primary driver behind the prompt ‘what is dying in your system and what is yearning to be born’ comes from Sharmer (2009) and his work on the ways in which systems can change. Phrases like the emergent future and the social divide are further explored by Sharmer and Kaufer (2013) as they explore the ways in which society may be diminished and separated as well as the ways it can evolve and grow. The very nature of finding a collective solution to life’s complicated and wicked problems is the foundation for Sharmer and Kaufer’s writing. In this sense, Tempus Impleri is more of a practicum of the Theory U pedagogy, in an attempt to find local solutions to massive issues in the way that we exist socially. Furthermore, Senge’s (2008) influence over Sharmer’s Theory U should not be understated, and the urgency attributed to ‘what is dying in your system’ is a direct result of the need for system-level changes as discussed in Necessary Revolution.
The hope of illuminating the life depleting nature of our current system as a means to find the potentiality of change comes from Kegan and Lahey’s (2008) work Immunity to Change. They describe the notion of competing values that we hold individually or as a collective as hidden assumptions and desires that limit our ability to properly change the way we think and behave. The emphasis on the yearning to be born is the marriage between Sharmer’s (2009) emergent future writing and the collective wisdom and ability to adapt as described by Kegan and Lahey (2008). The interconnection between a realization of a collective value that was previously unspoken and perhaps unknown seeks to elucidate the adaptive changes required to shift towards an actual transformative change. Such a change is reinforced by Heifetz and Linsky (2008) as a leader’s responsibility is in part to be able to recognize the collective need that is currently too fearful to be brought forward. Tempus Impleri is a container in which the capacity for leadership through skilled facilitation, meaningful connection, and a generative prompt can germinate the seeds of change.
The philosophy of radical inclusion is fundamentally adapted from Block (2009). The meaningful invitation to recognize and ask for the unique contributions of each person is an idea that Block introduces in order to establish a healthy community. A recognition of the different roles each person plays, and their adapting over time, is influenced with Heifetz and Linksy (2008) as well as the necessarily flexible nature of a Block’s (2009) transformative community. Block’s relevance is also introduced by the notion of Tempus Impleri seeking to evolve a stuck system into something generative and transformative. Block’s writing describes not just an organization but a group of deeply interconnected persons forming a community beyond the simple action of cohabitation.
Block and Greenleaf (2002) are then evoked for their writings on servant-leadership and it’s capacity for a deeper listening ability. Greenleaf explains a distinction between listening for response, empathetic listening, and a whole-body experience of generative listening, the later being attempted in Tempus Impleri. A similar distinction exists in the servant-leadership literature from Greenleaf in regards to dialogue, using it’s Greek etymology as a co-constructed creation as opposed to a linguistic fight that debate implies. The collaborative nature of dialogue matches the co-constructive approach of the emergent future from Sharmer and Kaufer (2013).
Finally, in order to set up the prompt for success, the connection ability imperatively is adapted from Heifetz’s teaching as described by Parks and Bennis (2005). The ability to dive deeper than the surface of typical ice-breakers is a technique used in case-in-point leadership pedagogy, and the compassionate standards evoked by Block (2009) transform such an exercise into it’s capacity to create newer, deeper, and positive understandings of ourselves and our community members.
References
Block, P. (2009). Community: The structure of belonging. San Francisco, Calif: Berrett-Koehler.
Greenleaf, R. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2008). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Press.
Parks, S. D., & Bennis, W. G. (2005). Leadership can be taught: A bold approach for a complex world. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Press.
Scharmer, C. O. & Kaufer K. (2013). Leading from the emerging future: From ego-system to eco-system economies-applying Theory U to transforming business, society, and self. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.
Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges: the social technology of presencing. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Senge, P. M. (2008). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. New York, NY: Doubleday.