At some point in the annals of corporate history, we decided that “low-hanging fruit” was the perfect metaphor for easy wins, quick fixes, and tasks so obvious that any reasonable person could dispatch them before their second cup of coffee. And now, decades later, we’re all stuck with it – tossing the phrase around in meetings as though we’re all working in the same orchard while standing at the same height, with the same reach and/or the same ladder.
But who decides what scrumptious pieces of fruit are, in fact, hanging “low?
Because the fruit that’s dangling right at eye level for you might be somewhere around my kneecaps, or, depending on a dozen other variables I don’t have visibility into, it might require a cherry picker, three bucket trucks, and a cross-functional task force just to locate the tree. “Just grab the low-hanging fruit,” someone says, breezing into the room with the confidence of someone who has never once, or so they like to pretend, misjudged the distance between a concept and its execution.
What if I make the wrong call? What if I look at the situation, assess the orchard, and confidently pick something that turns out to be neither low-hanging nor particularly ripe and everyone else in the room knew it was the wrong choice, but no one said so, because the metaphor made the whole thing sound so obvious? There’s something slightly terrifying about that possibility … especially in workplaces where “just handle the easy stuff first” is code for a WHOLE set of unspoken assumptions that nobody has ever bothered to define.
A Question of Altitude
The existential problem with the low-hanging fruit directive is that it presupposes shared context, shared perspective, and roughly equivalent fruit-reaching capability across all parties. None of which can be assumed. The person issuing the directive may be working from a completely different vantage point – organizationally, politically, informationally – and the thing that looks effortless from where they’re standing might look, from where you’re standing, like it involves a significant amount of untangling, stakeholder navigation, and at least one uncomfortable conversation with someone in Finance.
This isn’t a complaint about the phrase itself – though I do have feelings – so much as it’s an observation about how casually we deploy it … as though “low” is a fixed point in space rather than a deeply relative one. Low compared to what? Low according to whom? The orchard looks different depending on where you enter it, and two people standing in the same grove will walk away with very different assessments of what was reachable and what wasn’t.
Which means, of course, that the directive itself is the problem – not because the fruit doesn’t exist, but because “low” is a relative term masquerading as an obvious one. So before anyone starts reaching, the more useful conversation is probably about the orchard itself: what we’re looking at, from whose vantage point, and whether we’re all even standing in the same grove.
Because perspective, it turns out, is the whole thing. The fruit just hangs there.
*****
