Learning from the tree swing project

People need better work environments, not lessons from outsiders

About a month ago, I wrote that I made my peace with certain jobs. Today, I want to expand on this view. I already stated that it does not make sense to be angry about specific roles within a highly sequential, siloed work organization. This setup can only create friction and frustration. In the same way, it does not help to assume people in a dysfunctional chain of silos are stupid and need to be taught better ways of working.

Sometime in the last months, I remembered a cartoon from the office where I was working in the late 2000s. I searched for it using the punch line - which I intentionally avoid quoting here - and found it under the title “How Projects Really Work” (archived version).

You always learn while researching. What I did not know was that this was not the original version of the idea. It is called “tree swing cartoon”. While its exact origin is unknown, it can be tracked back to the end of the 1960s.

Some of the lessons this series of pictures contains:

• building what customers tell that they want does not bring success

• “protecting” customers against developers and vice versa is not a smart move

• each silo doing their best move will not result in an overall successful result (Systems Thinking!)

• communication via documents is doomed to fail

Wait a moment... aren’t these supposed to be “modern” teachings? Well, upon reflection, there are some interesting meta lessons when looking at the same cartoon with a distance of decades:

• All this wisdom was already gathered under the label of project!

• It was widely circulating in offices.

• The people knew this all along.

• And? How much of a difference did it make?

With all the “smart” approaches of today, we have not moved very far from some antipatterns that were already a joke in the late 1960s. This should inspire some humbleness and reflection. It is not like the people back then were ignorant fools. It is not a problem of not knowing it better. The real challenge is putting a better reality into place.

This explains, at least partially, why so much of the online writing and talking about organizing work leaves me ice cold or indifferent - independent on whether it happens under the label “agile”, “product”, or anything else. This might seem strange or inconsequential at first, as I am writing (and sometimes talking) myself.

For a teaching to excite me, it must add something new on top of the existing threshold - or “body of knowledge”. Note that “adding” can mean a new combination of existing knowledge and also challenging or removing something from it.

There are two exceptions to this rule: Of course, every new year of young professionals needs to learn the existing lessons, and every now and then it makes sense to check whether there are better ways of telling them. Plus, it can happen that I get told the same old story, but this time I learn because I listen / finally understand it / the style fits me. This happened to me before and I am sure it will happen again!

For the authors to come across as decent and appropriate, they need to acknowledge what already existed. Ignoring everything else is self-centered, and that is incredibly boring. Plus, it is not a positive predictor for for communities forming and shared learning happening around those new teachings.

All the more reason to appreciate the positive example of Bob Galen, who mentions so many other good people in his writing and teaching. He also explicitly remembered that we are all standing on the shoulder of giants.

Do not be a fool in assuming that you are the chosen one that will finally teach all the others. Take a courageous look behind you first. Many people can use help in creating better work environments. Very few want lessons from an outsider.

Billy Joel: We Didn’t Start The Fire