Quick Start

Everything you need to run your first Tree of Influence session, in 60 to 90 minutes.

The Tree of Influence on an index card

• What it is: a visual map of an interconnected problem space, made of sticky notes and arrows.
• What it does: builds shared understanding of problems, their causes, how they relate, and the outcomes people want.
• Nodes are sticky notes. Each one is a root / problem, an action / intervention, or a desired state / outcome. Some trees also use an artifact / deliverable.
• Arrows are directional. Each one means "this influences that."
• Layout follows a tree: problems at the bottom or left, outcomes at the top or right, actions in between.
• When to use it: when you need to understand a complex, interconnected problem space before solving it.
• Key principle: capture first, categorize later. Map the problem before designing solutions.

Your first session

A first session follows 5 steps, Prepare, Seed, Group, Connect, and Prioritize, then ends with a short close. The full method adds a sixth, Decompose, which you can skip the first time.

The diagrams below follow one example through every step: a team mapping why new hires take months to become productive.

Prepare

You need:

• Sticky notes in 3 colors: brown for problems, amber for actions, and green for outcomes
• Wall space or a large whiteboard, and markers
• Or a digital collaboration tool such as Miro, Mural, or Lucidspark

Before participants arrive, pre-seed the board:

• Write 5 to 10 problems everyone already knows about, and place them low on the board.
• Write 3 to 5 desired outcomes or goals, and place them high on the board.
• Mark an empty area as the parking lot, for nodes that do not fit yet.

A blank wall is intimidating. Seed nodes give people something to react to.

Seed

Explain the exercise:

We're mapping problems and outcomes, not solutions yet. Everything goes on sticky notes. We'll organize later.

Then ask:

What problems are you seeing? What outcomes do you want to achieve? What's making things difficult?

As the facilitator:

• Encourage volume and diversity.
• Keep meanings loose. A node can be a problem, a goal, an observation, or a half-formed thought.
• Put contributions on the board quickly. New nodes can stay white until their type is clear.
• Do not debate or judge yet.

Group

Ask:

What duplicates do we have? What's related?

• Cluster similar nodes next to each other.
• Stack duplicates, but do not delete them. Keep every original contribution.
• Move nodes that do not fit yet, such as solutions, to the parking lot.
• Label clusters if it helps.
• Do not debate which phrasing is correct, and do not force everything into neat categories.

Connect

Explain:

Now we draw arrows. This influences that. Direction matters.

Then ask:

What causes what? What blocks what? What leads to what?

• Let the group suggest connections and draw them as they are called out.
• Color each node as its role becomes clear: brown, amber, or green.
• Defer disagreements: "We'll refine it later."
• Do not worry about perfect cause and effect yet.

As arrows accumulate, the tree takes shape. Problems tend to have arrows going out. Outcomes tend to have arrows coming in.

Prioritize

Give each participant 3 to 5 votes, as dots, tally marks, or digital votes. Ask:

Which problems are most important to address? Which outcomes matter most?

Then discuss the result. What got the most votes? What is surprising? Use the answers to decide where to focus next.

Close

• Take a photo or save the digital board.
• Name 2 or 3 key insights the group discovered.
• Agree on next steps: who owns the tree, and when you will revisit it.
• Complete the legend before you finish: what the colors mean, what the arrows mean, the date, and the context. The legend in the diagram above is a complete example.

Do and don't

Do:

• Start broad and refine later. Volume first, precision second.
• Ask "what problem does that solve?" whenever people jump to solutions.
• Keep problems at the bottom or left and outcomes at the top or right.
• Include a legend, always.
• Defer disagreement: note both views and come back to them.
• Let the tree fade once it has done its job. When people move from mapping to acting, the tree has succeeded.

Don't:

• Don't solve problems while building the tree. The tree is for understanding, not for designing solutions.
• Don't force agreement on every arrow. Mark the disagreement and move on.
• Don't over-categorize. One relationship type is fine. Two is meaningful. Three probably means you are overthinking it.
• Don't aim for a perfect diagram. Messy is fine if it is useful.
• Don't throw away nodes that are hard to place. Put them in the parking lot.

Starting questions

To explore problems:

• What's making this goal difficult to achieve?
• What keeps breaking or needs constant attention?
• What are people complaining about?
• What decisions are we avoiding?

To explore outcomes:

• If we could wave a magic wand, what would be different?
• What does success look like?
• What capabilities do we wish we had?
• What cultural norms do we want?

To find connections:

• What causes this?
• What makes it worse?
• What does this lead to?
• What blocks this from happening?

Common first-time mistakes

• Skipping pre-seeding. A blank board stalls the room. Seed 5 to 10 problems and outcomes first.
• Debating details too early. Capture first, refine later.
• Forgetting the legend. Add it before you save the tree.
• Solution-dumping. The most dangerous mistake. Keep asking "what problem does that solve?" until problems dominate the board.
• Making it too complicated. Three colors, for problems, actions, and outcomes, and plain arrows are enough for a first tree.

After your first session

If the problem space persists across planning cycles, bring the tree back. Start from the previous version, delete resolved problems, add new problems and outcomes, and redraw connections as things shift. See evolving the tree.

If the tree did not help, ask why:

• Was the problem space simple enough not to need a map?
• Did the group jump to solutions too quickly?
• Was the scope too large or too vague?
• Did people not trust the process, or each other, enough to name real problems?

Adjust and try again.