Initial commit
This commit is contained in:
Zhongwei Li
242
skills/negotiation-alignment-governance/SKILL.md
Normal file
242
skills/negotiation-alignment-governance/SKILL.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: negotiation-alignment-governance
|
||||
description: Use when stakeholders need aligned working agreements, resolving decision authority ambiguity, navigating cross-functional conflicts, establishing governance frameworks (RACI/DACI/RAPID), negotiating resource allocation, defining escalation paths, creating team norms, mediating trade-off disputes, or when user mentions stakeholder alignment, decision rights, working agreements, conflict resolution, governance model, or consensus building.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Negotiation Alignment Governance
|
||||
|
||||
## Table of Contents
|
||||
- [Purpose](#purpose)
|
||||
- [When to Use](#when-to-use)
|
||||
- [What Is It](#what-is-it)
|
||||
- [Workflow](#workflow)
|
||||
- [Common Patterns](#common-patterns)
|
||||
- [Guardrails](#guardrails)
|
||||
- [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Create explicit stakeholder alignment through negotiated working agreements, clear decision rights, and conflict resolution protocols—transforming ambiguity and tension into shared understanding and actionable governance.
|
||||
|
||||
## When to Use
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision Authority Ambiguity:**
|
||||
- Multiple stakeholders believe they have final say
|
||||
- Unclear who should be consulted vs informed
|
||||
- Decisions blocked because no one owns them
|
||||
- Frequent "I thought you were doing that" moments
|
||||
|
||||
**Cross-Functional Conflict:**
|
||||
- Departments optimizing for different goals
|
||||
- Resource contention between teams
|
||||
- Trade-off disputes (quality vs speed, innovation vs stability)
|
||||
- Scope disagreements between stakeholders
|
||||
|
||||
**Alignment Needs:**
|
||||
- New team forming and needs working agreements
|
||||
- Org restructure creating unclear boundaries
|
||||
- Cross-functional initiative requiring coordination
|
||||
- Partnership or joint venture needing governance
|
||||
|
||||
**Negotiation Scenarios:**
|
||||
- Competing priorities requiring resolution
|
||||
- Stakeholder expectations needing alignment
|
||||
- SLAs and commitments to negotiate
|
||||
- Risk tolerance differences to reconcile
|
||||
|
||||
## What Is It
|
||||
|
||||
Negotiation-alignment-governance creates explicit agreements on:
|
||||
|
||||
**1. Decision Rights (Who Decides):**
|
||||
- RACI: Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed
|
||||
- DACI: Driver, Approver, Contributors, Informed
|
||||
- RAPID: Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide
|
||||
- Consent-based frameworks
|
||||
|
||||
**2. Working Agreements (How We Work):**
|
||||
- Communication norms (sync vs async, response times)
|
||||
- Meeting protocols (agendas, decision methods)
|
||||
- Quality standards and definition of done
|
||||
- Escalation paths and conflict resolution
|
||||
|
||||
**3. Conflict Resolution (When We Disagree):**
|
||||
- Structured dialogue formats
|
||||
- Mediation protocols
|
||||
- Disagree-and-commit mechanisms
|
||||
- Escalation criteria
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
Product wants to ship fast, Engineering wants quality. Instead of endless debates:
|
||||
- **Decision rights:** Product owns feature scope (DACI: Approver), Engineering owns quality bar (veto on production issues)
|
||||
- **Working agreement:** Weekly trade-off discussion with data (bug rate, tech debt, customer complaints)
|
||||
- **Conflict resolution:** If blocked, escalate to VP with joint recommendation and decision criteria
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Negotiation Alignment Governance Progress:
|
||||
- [ ] Step 1: Map stakeholders and tensions
|
||||
- [ ] Step 2: Choose governance approach
|
||||
- [ ] Step 3: Facilitate alignment
|
||||
- [ ] Step 4: Document agreements
|
||||
- [ ] Step 5: Establish monitoring
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1: Map stakeholders and tensions**
|
||||
|
||||
Identify all stakeholders, their interests and concerns, current tensions or conflicts, and decision points needing clarity. See [Common Patterns](#common-patterns) for typical stakeholder configurations.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2: Choose governance approach**
|
||||
|
||||
For straightforward cases with clear stakeholders → Use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for RACI/DACI and working agreement structures. For complex cases with multiple conflicts or nested decisions → Study [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for negotiation techniques, conflict mediation, and advanced governance patterns.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3: Facilitate alignment**
|
||||
|
||||
Create `negotiation-alignment-governance.md` with: stakeholder map, decision rights matrix (RACI/DACI/RAPID), working agreements (communication, quality, processes), conflict resolution protocols, and escalation paths. Facilitate structured dialogue to negotiate and reach consensus. See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for facilitation techniques.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 4: Document agreements**
|
||||
|
||||
Self-assess using [resources/evaluators/rubric_negotiation_alignment_governance.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_negotiation_alignment_governance.json). Check: decision rights are unambiguous, all key stakeholders covered, agreements are specific and actionable, conflict protocols are clear, escalation paths defined. Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 5: Establish monitoring**
|
||||
|
||||
Set up regular reviews of governance effectiveness (quarterly), define triggers for updating agreements, establish metrics for decision velocity and conflict resolution, and create feedback mechanisms for stakeholders.
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
### Decision Rights Frameworks
|
||||
|
||||
**RACI (Most Common):**
|
||||
- **R**esponsible: Does the work
|
||||
- **A**ccountable: Owns the outcome (only ONE person)
|
||||
- **C**onsulted: Provides input before decision
|
||||
- **I**nformed: Notified after decision
|
||||
- Use for: Process mapping, task allocation
|
||||
|
||||
**DACI (Better for Decisions):**
|
||||
- **D**river: Runs the process, gathers input
|
||||
- **A**pprover: Makes the final decision (only ONE)
|
||||
- **C**ontributors: Provide input, must be consulted
|
||||
- **I**nformed: Notified of decision
|
||||
- Use for: Strategic decisions, product choices
|
||||
|
||||
**RAPID (Best for Complex Decisions):**
|
||||
- **R**ecommend: Propose the decision
|
||||
- **A**gree: Must agree (veto power)
|
||||
- **P**erform: Execute the decision
|
||||
- **I**nput: Consulted for expertise
|
||||
- **D**ecide: Final authority
|
||||
- Use for: Major strategic choices with compliance/legal concerns
|
||||
|
||||
**Advice Process (Distributed Authority):**
|
||||
- Anyone can make decision after seeking advice from:
|
||||
- Those who will be affected
|
||||
- Those with expertise
|
||||
- Decision-maker is accountable
|
||||
- Use for: Empowered teams, flat organizations
|
||||
|
||||
### Typical Stakeholder Conflicts
|
||||
|
||||
**Product vs Engineering:**
|
||||
- Conflict: Feature scope vs technical quality
|
||||
- Resolution: Product owns "what" (feature priority), Engineering owns "how" and quality bar
|
||||
- Escalation: Joint recommendation with data to VP
|
||||
|
||||
**Business vs Legal/Compliance:**
|
||||
- Conflict: Speed to market vs risk mitigation
|
||||
- Resolution: Business owns opportunity decision, Legal has veto on unacceptable risk
|
||||
- Escalation: Risk committee with quantified trade-offs
|
||||
|
||||
**Centralized vs Decentralized Teams:**
|
||||
- Conflict: Standards vs autonomy
|
||||
- Resolution: Central team sets minimum viable standards, teams choose beyond that
|
||||
- Escalation: Architecture review board for exceptions
|
||||
|
||||
### Working Agreement Templates
|
||||
|
||||
**Communication Norms:**
|
||||
- Synchronous (meetings): For collaboration, negotiation, brainstorming
|
||||
- Asynchronous (docs, Slack): For updates, approvals, information sharing
|
||||
- Response time expectations: Urgent (<2h), Normal (<24h), FYI (no response needed)
|
||||
- Meeting defaults: Agenda required, decisions documented, async-first when possible
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision-Making Norms:**
|
||||
- Reversible decisions: Use consent (no objections) for speed
|
||||
- Irreversible decisions: Use consensus or explicit DACI
|
||||
- Time-box decisions: If no consensus in N discussions, escalate with options
|
||||
- Document decisions: ADRs for architecture, decision logs for product
|
||||
|
||||
**Conflict Resolution Norms:**
|
||||
- Direct dialogue first (1:1 between parties)
|
||||
- Mediation second (neutral third party facilitates)
|
||||
- Escalation third (manager/leader decides with input)
|
||||
- Disagree-and-commit: Once decided, all commit to execution
|
||||
|
||||
## Guardrails
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision Rights:**
|
||||
- Only ONE person/role is "Accountable" or "Approver"
|
||||
- Avoid "everyone is consulted" (decision paralysis)
|
||||
- Consulted ≠ consensus—input gathered, then decider decides
|
||||
- Define scope: What decisions does this cover?
|
||||
|
||||
**Working Agreements:**
|
||||
- Make agreements specific and observable (not "communicate well" but "respond to Slack in 24h")
|
||||
- Include both positive behaviors and boundaries
|
||||
- Revisit quarterly—agreements expire without review
|
||||
- Get explicit consent from all parties
|
||||
|
||||
**Conflict Resolution:**
|
||||
- Assume good intent—conflicts are about goals/constraints, not character
|
||||
- Focus on interests (why) not positions (what)
|
||||
- Use objective criteria when possible (data, benchmarks, principles)
|
||||
- Separate people from problem
|
||||
|
||||
**Facilitation:**
|
||||
- Remain neutral if mediating (don't take sides)
|
||||
- Ensure psychological safety (no retribution for honesty)
|
||||
- Make implicit tensions explicit (name the elephant)
|
||||
- Don't force consensus—sometimes need to escalate
|
||||
|
||||
**Red Flags:**
|
||||
- Too many decision-makers (slows everything)
|
||||
- Shadow governance (real decisions made elsewhere)
|
||||
- Agreements without accountability (no consequences)
|
||||
- Conflict avoidance (swept under rug, not resolved)
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Reference
|
||||
|
||||
**Resources:**
|
||||
- `resources/template.md` - RACI/DACI/RAPID templates, working agreement structures, conflict resolution protocols
|
||||
- `resources/methodology.md` - Negotiation techniques (principled negotiation, BATNA analysis), conflict mediation, facilitation patterns, governance design for complex scenarios
|
||||
- `resources/evaluators/rubric_negotiation_alignment_governance.json` - Quality criteria
|
||||
|
||||
**Output:** `negotiation-alignment-governance.md` with stakeholder map, decision rights matrix, working agreements, conflict protocols, escalation paths
|
||||
|
||||
**Success Criteria:**
|
||||
- Decision rights unambiguous (one Accountable/Approver per decision)
|
||||
- All key stakeholders covered in framework
|
||||
- Agreements specific and actionable (observable behaviors)
|
||||
- Conflict resolution protocol clear with escalation path
|
||||
- Regular review cadence established
|
||||
- Score ≥ 3.5 on rubric
|
||||
|
||||
**Quick Decisions:**
|
||||
- **Clear stakeholders, simple decisions?** → RACI or DACI template
|
||||
- **Complex multi-party negotiation?** → Use methodology for principled negotiation
|
||||
- **Active conflict?** → Start with mediation techniques from methodology
|
||||
- **Distributed team?** → Consider advice process over hierarchical approval
|
||||
|
||||
**Common Mistakes:**
|
||||
1. Multiple "Accountable" roles (diffuses responsibility)
|
||||
2. Everyone consulted (decision paralysis)
|
||||
3. Vague agreements ("communicate better" vs "respond in 24h")
|
||||
4. No review/update cycle (agreements decay)
|
||||
5. Shadow governance (official RACI ignored, real decisions made informally)
|
||||
6. Forcing consensus (sometimes need to disagree-and-commit)
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Insight:**
|
||||
Explicit governance reduces coordination costs over time. Initial investment in alignment pays dividends through faster decisions, less rework, and lower conflict.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,300 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Negotiation Alignment Governance Evaluator",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluate quality of stakeholder alignment frameworks—assessing decision rights clarity, working agreements specificity, conflict resolution protocols, and governance sustainability.",
|
||||
"version": "1.0.0",
|
||||
"criteria": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Decision Rights Clarity",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates whether decision authority is unambiguous with exactly one Accountable/Approver per decision",
|
||||
"weight": 1.3,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "Ambiguous or missing",
|
||||
"description": "Decision rights not defined, or multiple people believe they're Accountable/Approver. No RACI/DACI/RAPID matrix. Unclear who decides what."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Partial clarity",
|
||||
"description": "Some decisions have clear owner but many ambiguous. RACI/DACI present but has multiple Accountable roles, or doesn't cover key decisions. Consulted vs Informed unclear."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Basic clarity",
|
||||
"description": "Decision rights defined for most key decisions. One Accountable/Approver per decision. RACI/DACI covers major decisions. Some minor gaps or ambiguities remain."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Clear decision rights",
|
||||
"description": "All key decisions have exactly one clear owner. RACI/DACI/RAPID comprehensively covers decision space. Consulted vs Informed well-defined. Scope of each decision type clear."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Unambiguous governance",
|
||||
"description": "Complete decision rights framework with zero ambiguity. One Accountable/Approver per decision (rigorously enforced). All decision types covered with clear scope boundaries. Edge cases explicitly addressed. Decision rights tested against real scenarios."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Stakeholder Coverage",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates whether all relevant stakeholders are identified and appropriately engaged",
|
||||
"weight": 1.1,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "Incomplete stakeholder mapping",
|
||||
"description": "Missing key stakeholders. No stakeholder analysis. Unclear who cares about what. High-power stakeholders ignored."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Partial stakeholder coverage",
|
||||
"description": "Some stakeholders identified but significant gaps. Limited analysis of interests/concerns. Engagement strategy missing or generic."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Reasonable stakeholder coverage",
|
||||
"description": "Most key stakeholders identified. Basic power-interest mapping. Engagement strategy defined for high-power/high-interest stakeholders. Some minor stakeholders may be missing."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Comprehensive stakeholder coverage",
|
||||
"description": "All relevant stakeholders identified with power-interest analysis. Interests, concerns, and positions documented. Engagement strategy tailored per quadrant (manage closely, keep satisfied, keep informed, monitor)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Strategic stakeholder management",
|
||||
"description": "Complete stakeholder ecosystem mapped including indirect stakeholders. Power-interest analysis with influence patterns and coalition potential. Proactive engagement plans with specific actions, frequency, and success metrics. Stakeholder relationships managed dynamically."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Working Agreement Specificity",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates whether working agreements are specific, observable, and actionable (not vague)",
|
||||
"weight": 1.2,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "Vague or missing",
|
||||
"description": "No working agreements, or agreements are platitudes ('communicate well,' 'be respectful'). Not observable or actionable."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Generic agreements",
|
||||
"description": "Working agreements present but generic. Example: 'Respond quickly to messages' without defining 'quickly.' Hard to verify adherence."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Somewhat specific",
|
||||
"description": "Working agreements have some specificity. Example: 'Respond to Slack within 24 hours for normal requests.' Observable but may lack edge case handling."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Specific and actionable",
|
||||
"description": "Working agreements are observable and measurable. Example: 'Respond to Slack: Urgent (<2h), Normal (<24h), FYI (no response needed).' Clear communication norms, decision-making protocols, quality standards. Behavioral expectations explicit."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Operationally precise",
|
||||
"description": "Working agreements are unambiguous and testable. All norms (communication, decision-making, quality, escalation) have clear criteria. Examples provided. Edge cases addressed. Compliance measurable. Consequences for violation defined."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Conflict Resolution Protocols",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates whether conflict resolution process is clear with escalation paths",
|
||||
"weight": 1.2,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "No conflict resolution process",
|
||||
"description": "No protocol for handling disagreements. Conflicts escalate chaotically or are swept under rug. No escalation path."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Ad-hoc conflict handling",
|
||||
"description": "Vague guidance like 'talk it out' or 'escalate to manager.' No structured process. Escalation path unclear or too aggressive (goes straight to top)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Basic conflict protocol",
|
||||
"description": "3-level process defined: direct dialogue, mediation, escalation. Escalation path identified. Some guidance on techniques (e.g., focus on interests)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Clear conflict resolution",
|
||||
"description": "Structured 3-level process with specific techniques per level. Escalation criteria defined (when to move to next level). Deciders identified per decision type. Disagree-and-commit protocol. Psychological safety emphasized."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Comprehensive conflict system",
|
||||
"description": "Robust conflict resolution with detailed facilitation techniques, mediator neutrality requirements, caucusing guidelines, interest-based problem solving steps. Multiple escalation paths per decision type. Conflict resolution principles documented (separate people from problem, objective criteria). Training plan for mediators. Conflict metrics tracked."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Governance Sustainability",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates whether framework includes review cadence and maintenance mechanisms",
|
||||
"weight": 1.0,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "Static framework",
|
||||
"description": "No review or update mechanism. Governance treated as one-time exercise. No adaptation as context changes."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Vague maintenance",
|
||||
"description": "Mentions 'review periodically' but no specific cadence or triggers. No metrics to track effectiveness."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Basic maintenance plan",
|
||||
"description": "Review cadence defined (e.g., quarterly). Triggers for ad-hoc review identified (org change, recurring conflicts). Basic metrics (decision velocity, escalation rate)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Sustainable governance",
|
||||
"description": "Quarterly review cadence with clear triggers (org change, new stakeholders, recurring conflicts, declining decision velocity). Metrics tracked (decision velocity, time to resolve conflicts, adherence to working agreements). Stakeholder feedback mechanisms. Update process defined."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Dynamic governance system",
|
||||
"description": "Comprehensive maintenance with multiple review cycles (quarterly formal, monthly check-ins). Detailed metrics dashboard (decision velocity by type, escalation frequency, conflict resolution time, stakeholder satisfaction, shadow governance incidents). Continuous improvement process with retrospectives. Governance health indicators with alerts. Training and onboarding for new stakeholders. Documentation versioning."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Negotiation Sophistication",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates use of negotiation techniques (BATNA, interests vs positions, objective criteria, options generation)",
|
||||
"weight": 1.1,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "Positional bargaining",
|
||||
"description": "Purely positional (I want X, you want Y, let's split difference). No analysis of interests, BATNA, or objective criteria. Win-lose framing."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Basic negotiation",
|
||||
"description": "Some attempt to understand interests but mostly positional. BATNA not explicitly developed. Limited option generation. Few objective criteria used."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Principled negotiation basics",
|
||||
"description": "Separates people from problem. Identifies interests behind positions. Some option generation. Uses some objective criteria. BATNA considered."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Sophisticated negotiation",
|
||||
"description": "Clear application of principled negotiation: interests articulated, BATNA explicitly developed, creative options generated for mutual gain, objective criteria proposed and used, ZOPA analysis. Techniques like bundling, phased approaches, low-cost/high-value trades."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Expert-level negotiation",
|
||||
"description": "Masterful application of negotiation theory. BATNA rigorously developed and used strategically. Deep interests uncovered through skilled questioning. Extensive option generation with creative packaging. Objective criteria researched and agreed upfront. ZOPA explicitly analyzed. Coalition building and multi-party dynamics managed. Power-interest mapping informs strategy. Documented negotiation preparation and post-negotiation analysis."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Facilitation Quality",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates whether framework was created through inclusive facilitation or imposed top-down",
|
||||
"weight": 1.0,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "Top-down imposition",
|
||||
"description": "Framework dictated without stakeholder input. No buy-in. Likely to be ignored or create resistance."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Limited stakeholder input",
|
||||
"description": "Some consultation but major stakeholders not engaged. Framework feels imposed. Mixed buy-in."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Consultative development",
|
||||
"description": "Key stakeholders consulted during development. Input gathered and incorporated. Reasonable buy-in from most parties."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Collaborative development",
|
||||
"description": "Framework co-created with stakeholders through structured facilitation. All key parties involved in defining decision rights, working agreements, conflict protocols. Strong buy-in. Explicit consent obtained."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Expert facilitation",
|
||||
"description": "Framework developed through skilled facilitation using proven techniques (structured dialogue, round robin, silent writing, gradient of agreement). Psychological safety maintained. All voices heard. Power dynamics managed. Conflicts surfaced and resolved during creation. Unanimous or near-unanimous consent. Strong ownership and commitment from all parties."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "Actionability",
|
||||
"description": "Evaluates whether framework can be immediately implemented and enforced",
|
||||
"weight": 1.1,
|
||||
"scale": {
|
||||
"1": {
|
||||
"label": "Theoretical only",
|
||||
"description": "Framework interesting but not implementable. No connection to how work actually gets done. Will be ignored."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"2": {
|
||||
"label": "Partially actionable",
|
||||
"description": "Some elements actionable but missing implementation details. Example: RACI defined but no process for using it. No consequences for violations."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"3": {
|
||||
"label": "Basically actionable",
|
||||
"description": "Framework can be implemented with some effort. Roles clear, processes defined, escalation paths identified. May need additional tools or training."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"4": {
|
||||
"label": "Immediately actionable",
|
||||
"description": "Framework ready to implement. Decision rights operationalized (people know what they decide), working agreements observable (can check adherence), conflict protocols stepwise (anyone can follow), escalation paths specified. Consequences for violations defined."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"5": {
|
||||
"label": "Operationally complete",
|
||||
"description": "Framework is production-ready with implementation plan, training materials, communication templates, decision logging tools, conflict resolution scripts, adherence checklists, metrics dashboards, review meeting agendas. Can be deployed immediately with high confidence. Enforcement mechanisms clear and fair."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"guidance": {
|
||||
"by_context": {
|
||||
"new_team_forming": {
|
||||
"focus": "Prioritize working agreements specificity (1.5x weight) and facilitation quality. Need strong buy-in from start.",
|
||||
"typical_scores": "Working agreements and facilitation should be 4+. Decision rights can start at 3 and evolve.",
|
||||
"red_flags": "Top-down imposition, vague agreements ('be respectful'), no conflict protocol"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"org_restructure": {
|
||||
"focus": "Prioritize decision rights clarity (1.5x weight) and stakeholder coverage. Authority is being redefined.",
|
||||
"typical_scores": "Decision rights and stakeholder coverage should be 4+. Conflict resolution 3+ minimum.",
|
||||
"red_flags": "Ambiguous decision rights, missing stakeholders, no escalation for contested decisions"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"cross_functional_initiative": {
|
||||
"focus": "Prioritize stakeholder coverage, conflict resolution, and negotiation sophistication. Many parties with different goals.",
|
||||
"typical_scores": "Stakeholder coverage 4+, conflict resolution 4+, negotiation 3+.",
|
||||
"red_flags": "Missing key stakeholders, no conflict protocol, positional bargaining"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"partnership_joint_venture": {
|
||||
"focus": "Prioritize negotiation sophistication, decision rights clarity, and governance sustainability. Long-term relationship.",
|
||||
"typical_scores": "Negotiation 4+, decision rights 4+, sustainability 4+.",
|
||||
"red_flags": "Weak BATNA analysis, ambiguous decision rights, no review cadence"
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"by_organization_type": {
|
||||
"startup": {
|
||||
"decision_rights": "Start simple (DACI for key decisions). Avoid over-process.",
|
||||
"working_agreements": "Focus on communication norms and decision speed. Keep lightweight.",
|
||||
"conflict_resolution": "Direct dialogue + founder arbitration. Formal mediation overkill.",
|
||||
"sustainability": "Monthly check-ins (quarterly too slow). Expect frequent updates."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"corporate": {
|
||||
"decision_rights": "Comprehensive RACI/RAPID. Document thoroughly for compliance/audit.",
|
||||
"working_agreements": "Formal and detailed. Cross-reference policies.",
|
||||
"conflict_resolution": "Full 3-level process with documented mediators. Legal/HR involvement.",
|
||||
"sustainability": "Quarterly formal reviews. Metrics dashboard. Training programs."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"distributed_remote": {
|
||||
"decision_rights": "Advice process or DACI. Avoid synchronous approvals.",
|
||||
"working_agreements": "Async-first communication. Documentation over meetings. Timezone consideration.",
|
||||
"conflict_resolution": "Written conflict protocols. Asynchronous mediation possible. Video for sensitive issues.",
|
||||
"sustainability": "Monthly remote check-ins. Monitor shadow governance (decisions in DMs)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"nonprofit_community": {
|
||||
"decision_rights": "Consent-based or consensus. Avoid hierarchical.",
|
||||
"working_agreements": "Emphasize inclusivity and accessibility. Multiple communication channels.",
|
||||
"conflict_resolution": "Restorative justice approach. Community mediation.",
|
||||
"sustainability": "Community retrospectives. Governance co-owned by members."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"common_failure_modes": {
|
||||
"multiple_accountable": "More than one Accountable/Approver per decision diffuses responsibility. Fix: Designate exactly ONE person as decider.",
|
||||
"everyone_consulted": "Consulting everyone on everything creates decision paralysis. Fix: Limit Consulted role to those with essential expertise/impact.",
|
||||
"vague_agreements": "Generic agreements like 'communicate well' are unenforceable. Fix: Make observable ('respond to Slack in 24h').",
|
||||
"no_escalation_path": "Conflicts fester without clear escalation. Fix: Define 3-level protocol (dialogue, mediation, escalation) with deciders.",
|
||||
"shadow_governance": "Official RACI ignored, real decisions made informally. Fix: Ensure framework reflects actual decision-making. Review and update.",
|
||||
"static_framework": "Governance never updated as context changes. Fix: Quarterly reviews with explicit triggers for ad-hoc updates.",
|
||||
"top_down_imposition": "Framework dictated without buy-in. Fix: Co-create with stakeholders through facilitation.",
|
||||
"positional_bargaining": "Pure position-taking without exploring interests or options. Fix: Apply principled negotiation (interests, BATNA, objective criteria)."
|
||||
},
|
||||
"excellence_indicators": [
|
||||
"Exactly one Accountable/Approver per decision (rigorously enforced)",
|
||||
"All key stakeholders mapped with power-interest analysis and tailored engagement",
|
||||
"Working agreements are specific, observable, and measurable",
|
||||
"3-level conflict resolution process with clear escalation criteria and deciders",
|
||||
"Quarterly review cadence with metrics (decision velocity, escalation rate, adherence)",
|
||||
"Principled negotiation applied: BATNA developed, interests articulated, options generated, objective criteria used",
|
||||
"Framework co-created through structured facilitation with stakeholder buy-in",
|
||||
"Immediately actionable with clear implementation steps and enforcement mechanisms",
|
||||
"Sustainability mechanisms: review triggers, metrics dashboard, feedback loops, continuous improvement",
|
||||
"Documentation complete: decision logs, conflict records, governance versions, training materials"
|
||||
],
|
||||
"evaluation_notes": {
|
||||
"scoring": "Calculate weighted average across all criteria. Minimum passing score: 3.0 (basic quality). Production-ready target: 3.5+. Excellence threshold: 4.2+. For new team formation, weight working agreements at 1.5x. For org restructure, weight decision rights clarity at 1.5x.",
|
||||
"context": "Adjust expectations by organization type. Startups can have lighter processes (3+ on sustainability OK). Corporates need comprehensive documentation (4+ on all criteria). Distributed teams must prioritize async protocols. Nonprofits should use consent-based frameworks.",
|
||||
"iteration": "Low scores indicate specific improvement areas. Priority order: 1) Fix decision rights ambiguity (highest ROI—eliminates most conflicts), 2) Clarify working agreements (make specific/observable), 3) Establish conflict protocols (prevent escalation), 4) Set review cadence (prevent decay), 5) Improve negotiation sophistication (better outcomes)."
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
486
skills/negotiation-alignment-governance/resources/methodology.md
Normal file
486
skills/negotiation-alignment-governance/resources/methodology.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,486 @@
|
||||
# Negotiation Alignment Governance Methodology
|
||||
|
||||
## Table of Contents
|
||||
1. [Principled Negotiation (Harvard Method)](#1-principled-negotiation-harvard-method)
|
||||
2. [BATNA & ZOPA Analysis](#2-batna--zopa-analysis)
|
||||
3. [Stakeholder Power-Interest Mapping](#3-stakeholder-power-interest-mapping)
|
||||
4. [Advanced Governance Patterns](#4-advanced-governance-patterns)
|
||||
5. [Conflict Mediation Techniques](#5-conflict-mediation-techniques)
|
||||
6. [Facilitation Patterns](#6-facilitation-patterns)
|
||||
7. [Multi-Party Negotiation](#7-multi-party-negotiation)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Principled Negotiation (Harvard Method)
|
||||
|
||||
### Concept
|
||||
Separate people from problem, focus on interests not positions, generate options for mutual gain, and use objective criteria.
|
||||
|
||||
### Four Principles
|
||||
|
||||
**1. Separate People from Problem:** Attack problem, not people. Use "I feel..." not "You always...". Frame as joint problem-solving.
|
||||
|
||||
**2. Focus on Interests, Not Positions:** Positions = what they want. Interests = why they want it. Ask "Why?" to uncover underlying needs. Interests are negotiable, positions often aren't.
|
||||
|
||||
**3. Generate Options for Mutual Gain:** Brainstorm without committing. Look for low-cost-to-give, high-value-to-receive trades. Bundle issues across dimensions. Consider phased approaches.
|
||||
|
||||
**4. Insist on Objective Criteria:** Use fair standards (market rates, benchmarks, precedent, technical data) instead of arguing positions. Propose criteria before solutions.
|
||||
|
||||
### Application
|
||||
|
||||
**Prepare:** Identify interests (yours/theirs), develop BATNA, research criteria.
|
||||
**Explore:** Build rapport, listen for interests, share yours, ask why.
|
||||
**Generate:** Brainstorm options, build on ideas, find mutual gains.
|
||||
**Decide:** Evaluate against criteria, discuss trade-offs, package deal, document.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. BATNA & ZOPA Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
### Concept
|
||||
**BATNA:** Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement—what you'll do if negotiation fails
|
||||
**ZOPA:** Zone of Possible Agreement—range where both parties are better off than BATNA
|
||||
|
||||
### Developing BATNA
|
||||
|
||||
**Steps:**
|
||||
1. List alternatives if negotiation fails
|
||||
2. Evaluate each alternative's value
|
||||
3. Select best alternative (your BATNA)
|
||||
4. Calculate reservation price (minimum acceptable)
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:** BATNA = hire next-best candidate for $120K. Reservation for top candidate: $150K.
|
||||
|
||||
### Estimating Their BATNA
|
||||
|
||||
Research alternatives, ask what they'll do if no deal, observe eagerness. Strong BATNA = harder to negotiate.
|
||||
|
||||
### ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement)
|
||||
|
||||
Exists when your reservation > their reservation. Any price in ZOPA works. No ZOPA = no deal possible.
|
||||
|
||||
**Improve Position:**
|
||||
- Strengthen your BATNA (more/better alternatives)
|
||||
- Weaken their BATNA (reduce their options)
|
||||
- Expand ZOPA (add value, reduce costs)
|
||||
|
||||
**Walk away when:** Offer worse than BATNA, bad faith negotiation, cost exceeds gain.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Stakeholder Power-Interest Mapping
|
||||
|
||||
### Concept
|
||||
Map stakeholders on two dimensions: Power (influence on decision) and Interest (care about outcome).
|
||||
|
||||
### Power-Interest Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
**High Power, High Interest:** Manage Closely (engage deeply, collaborate, veto/approval rights)
|
||||
**High Power, Low Interest:** Keep Satisfied (prevent blocking, don't over-engage)
|
||||
**Low Power, High Interest:** Keep Informed (updates, gather input, build support)
|
||||
**Low Power, Low Interest:** Monitor (minimal engagement, check periodically)
|
||||
|
||||
### Mapping Process
|
||||
|
||||
1. Identify stakeholders (affected, authority, can block, expertise)
|
||||
2. Assess power (1-5): formal authority, informal influence, resource control
|
||||
3. Assess interest (1-5): how much outcome matters, energy invested
|
||||
4. Plot on matrix and identify quadrant
|
||||
5. Plan engagement per quadrant
|
||||
|
||||
### Stakeholder Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
For each key stakeholder: Identify interests/concerns/constraints, position (support/oppose/neutral), influence patterns, engagement plan (frequency, format, needs).
|
||||
|
||||
### Coalition Building
|
||||
|
||||
**When:** Multiple approvals needed, overcome opposition, shared ownership
|
||||
**How:** Identify allies, start 1:1, frame as their interest, formalize at critical mass
|
||||
**Types:** Blocking (prevent), Sponsoring (drive), Advisory (legitimacy)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Advanced Governance Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
### Pattern 1: Federated Governance
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Case:** Balance central standards with local autonomy
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
- **Center:** Sets minimum viable standards, provides shared services
|
||||
- **Edges:** Freedom to exceed standards, adapt to local needs
|
||||
- **Escalation:** Center reviews exceptions, adjusts standards over time
|
||||
|
||||
**Example (Engineering):**
|
||||
- Center: Security standards, deployment pipeline, observability
|
||||
- Edges: Language choice, frameworks, architecture patterns
|
||||
- Review: Quarterly tech radar updates standards based on edge innovations
|
||||
|
||||
**Governance:**
|
||||
- Central: DACI for standards (Approver = Architecture board)
|
||||
- Local: DACI for implementations (Approver = Tech lead)
|
||||
- Escalation: RFC process for proposed standard changes
|
||||
|
||||
### Pattern 2: Rotating Leadership
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Case:** Shared ownership across teams, avoid permanent power concentration
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
- Leadership role rotates (monthly, quarterly)
|
||||
- Role has decision authority while held
|
||||
- Handoff includes documentation and context
|
||||
|
||||
**Example (On-call):**
|
||||
- Weekly on-call rotation
|
||||
- On-call engineer has authority to escalate, roll back, make emergency decisions
|
||||
- Handoff includes incident summaries, ongoing issues
|
||||
|
||||
**Governance:**
|
||||
- Clear scope of rotating role authority
|
||||
- Fallback to permanent leadership if needed
|
||||
- Retrospective to improve rotation
|
||||
|
||||
### Pattern 3: Bounded Delegation
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Case:** Empower teams while maintaining guardrails
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
- Define "decision boundary" with constraints
|
||||
- Within boundary: Team decides (advice process)
|
||||
- Outside boundary: Escalate for approval
|
||||
|
||||
**Example (Budget):**
|
||||
- Team has $50K discretionary budget
|
||||
- Under $50K: Team decides after advice process
|
||||
- Over $50K: Requires VP approval with business case
|
||||
|
||||
**Governance:**
|
||||
- Document boundary explicitly (what's in/out)
|
||||
- Review boundary periodically (expand as trust grows)
|
||||
- Escalation for gray areas
|
||||
|
||||
### Pattern 4: Tiered Decision Rights
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Case:** Different decision speeds for different risk levels
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
- **Tier 1 (Fast/Reversible):** Consent (no objections), execute quickly
|
||||
- **Tier 2 (Medium/Partially Reversible):** DACI with light analysis
|
||||
- **Tier 3 (Slow/Irreversible):** DACI with deep analysis, executive approval
|
||||
|
||||
**Example (Product):**
|
||||
- **Tier 1:** UI copy changes, feature flag toggles, A/B test parameters
|
||||
- **Tier 2:** New features (reversible via flag), pricing experiments
|
||||
- **Tier 3:** Sunsetting products, changing business model, major integrations
|
||||
|
||||
**Governance:**
|
||||
- Define criteria for each tier (reversibility, cost, customer impact)
|
||||
- Different approval workflows per tier
|
||||
- Review tier assignments quarterly
|
||||
|
||||
### Pattern 5: Dual Authority (Checks & Balances)
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Case:** Decisions requiring both opportunity and risk perspective
|
||||
|
||||
**Structure:**
|
||||
- **Proposer:** Recommends decision (opportunity focus)
|
||||
- **Reviewer:** Veto power (risk focus)
|
||||
- Both must agree to proceed
|
||||
|
||||
**Example (Product Launch):**
|
||||
- **Product (Proposer):** Decides what to build, when to launch
|
||||
- **Engineering (Reviewer):** Veto on quality/security/technical risk
|
||||
- Must both agree to ship
|
||||
|
||||
**Governance:**
|
||||
- Proposer has default authority (bias toward action)
|
||||
- Reviewer can block but must explain objection
|
||||
- Escalation if persistent disagreement
|
||||
- Avoid making reviewer "decider" (creates bottleneck)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Conflict Mediation Techniques
|
||||
|
||||
### Technique 1: Active Listening
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** Ensure each party feels heard before problem-solving
|
||||
|
||||
**Process:**
|
||||
1. **Listen without interrupting:** Let speaker finish completely
|
||||
2. **Paraphrase:** "What I hear you saying is..."
|
||||
3. **Validate emotion:** "I can see why you'd feel frustrated about..."
|
||||
4. **Clarify:** "Can you help me understand...?"
|
||||
5. **Check understanding:** "Did I capture that correctly?"
|
||||
|
||||
**Mediator Role:**
|
||||
- Enforce turn-taking (no interruptions)
|
||||
- Paraphrase to ensure understanding
|
||||
- Separate facts from interpretations
|
||||
- Acknowledge emotions without judgment
|
||||
|
||||
### Technique 2: Interest-Based Problem Solving
|
||||
|
||||
**Process:**
|
||||
1. **State the Problem:** Frame as shared challenge
|
||||
2. **Identify Interests:** Each party shares underlying needs
|
||||
3. **Generate Options:** Brainstorm without evaluating
|
||||
4. **Evaluate Options:** Test against both parties' interests
|
||||
5. **Select Solution:** Choose best option, document agreement
|
||||
|
||||
**Facilitator Moves:**
|
||||
- Ask "Why?" to surface interests
|
||||
- Prevent position-arguing
|
||||
- Encourage creative options
|
||||
- Use objective criteria for evaluation
|
||||
|
||||
### Technique 3: Reframing
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** Shift perspective to enable resolution
|
||||
|
||||
**Common Reframes:**
|
||||
- **From blame to shared problem:** "Instead of whose fault, let's solve it together"
|
||||
- **From positions to interests:** "You both want [shared interest], just different paths"
|
||||
- **From past to future:** "We can't change what happened; let's prevent recurrence"
|
||||
- **From personal to structural:** "The issue is the process, not the people"
|
||||
|
||||
**Examples:**
|
||||
- ❌ "You always ignore security" → ✓ "How can we integrate security earlier?"
|
||||
- ❌ "You're blocking progress" → ✓ "You're raising important risks we should address"
|
||||
- ❌ "This failed because of X" → ✓ "What can we learn to improve next time?"
|
||||
|
||||
### Technique 4: Finding Common Ground
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** Build on agreement before tackling disagreement
|
||||
|
||||
**Process:**
|
||||
1. **Areas of Agreement:** What do both parties agree on?
|
||||
2. **Shared Goals:** What outcome do both want?
|
||||
3. **Complementary Needs:** Where do needs not conflict?
|
||||
4. **Mutual Interests:** What benefits both?
|
||||
|
||||
**Example:**
|
||||
- **Agree:** Both want product to succeed
|
||||
- **Agree:** Both care about customer satisfaction
|
||||
- **Disagree:** Timeline and scope
|
||||
- **Reframe:** "Given we both want customer satisfaction, how do we balance speed and quality?"
|
||||
|
||||
### Technique 5: Caucusing (Separate Meetings)
|
||||
|
||||
**When to Use:**
|
||||
- Emotions too high for joint session
|
||||
- Need to explore options privately
|
||||
- Build trust with mediator individually
|
||||
- Develop proposals before joint discussion
|
||||
|
||||
**Process:**
|
||||
1. Meet separately with each party
|
||||
2. Understand their perspective, interests, constraints
|
||||
3. Test potential solutions privately
|
||||
4. Build trust and rapport
|
||||
5. Bring parties together with prepared proposals
|
||||
|
||||
**Mediator Confidentiality:**
|
||||
- Clarify what can be shared vs private
|
||||
- Don't carry messages blindly
|
||||
- Use caucus to prepare for productive joint session
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Facilitation Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
### Pattern 1: Structured Dialogue
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Case:** Ensure all voices heard, prevent dominance
|
||||
|
||||
**Formats:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Round Robin:**
|
||||
- Each person speaks in turn
|
||||
- No interruptions until everyone speaks
|
||||
- Second round for responses
|
||||
|
||||
**1-2-4-All:**
|
||||
1. Individual reflection (1 min)
|
||||
2. Pair discussion (2 min)
|
||||
3. Quartet discussion (4 min)
|
||||
4. Full group share out
|
||||
|
||||
**Silent Writing:**
|
||||
- All write ideas on sticky notes simultaneously
|
||||
- Share by reading aloud or clustering
|
||||
- Prevents groupthink, amplifies quiet voices
|
||||
|
||||
### Pattern 2: Decision-Making Methods
|
||||
|
||||
**Consent (Fast):**
|
||||
- Propose solution
|
||||
- Ask: "Any objections?"
|
||||
- If none: Adopt
|
||||
- If objections: Modify to address
|
||||
|
||||
**Fist-to-Five (Quick Poll):**
|
||||
- 0 fingers: Block (have alternative)
|
||||
- 1-2: Concerns (need to discuss)
|
||||
- 3: Accept (neutral)
|
||||
- 4-5: Support (will champion)
|
||||
|
||||
**Dot Voting (Prioritization):**
|
||||
- List options
|
||||
- Each person gets N dots
|
||||
- Place dots on preferences
|
||||
- Tally for ranking
|
||||
|
||||
**Gradient of Agreement:**
|
||||
1. Wholehearted endorsement
|
||||
2. Agreement with minor reservations
|
||||
3. Support with reservations
|
||||
4. Abstain (can live with it)
|
||||
5. More discussion needed
|
||||
6. Disagree but will support
|
||||
7. Serious disagreement
|
||||
|
||||
### Pattern 3: Time Management
|
||||
|
||||
**Timeboxing:**
|
||||
- Set fixed time for each agenda item
|
||||
- Visible timer
|
||||
- "Parking lot" for tangents
|
||||
- Decide: More time or move on?
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision Point Protocol:**
|
||||
- State decision needed
|
||||
- Clarify options
|
||||
- Time-boxed discussion
|
||||
- Decision method (consent, vote, etc.)
|
||||
- Document and move on
|
||||
|
||||
**Escalation Trigger:**
|
||||
- If no decision after N discussions: Escalate
|
||||
- Prepare escalation: Options, analysis, recommendation
|
||||
- Escalate to: [Specified decider]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Multi-Party Negotiation
|
||||
|
||||
### Challenge
|
||||
More parties = exponentially more complexity (preferences, coalitions, communication)
|
||||
|
||||
### Strategy 1: Bilateral Then Multilateral
|
||||
|
||||
**Process:**
|
||||
1. Negotiate with each party separately (bilateral)
|
||||
2. Identify common ground across pairs
|
||||
3. Bring all parties together with draft agreement
|
||||
4. Address remaining differences in group
|
||||
|
||||
**When to Use:**
|
||||
- Strong personality conflicts
|
||||
- Very different interests
|
||||
- Need to build coalitions first
|
||||
|
||||
### Strategy 2: Issue-by-Issue
|
||||
|
||||
**Process:**
|
||||
1. Break negotiation into separate issues
|
||||
2. Tackle easiest issue first (build momentum)
|
||||
3. Trade across issues (I give on X, you give on Y)
|
||||
4. Build package deal
|
||||
|
||||
**When to Use:**
|
||||
- Multiple dimensions to negotiate
|
||||
- Opportunity for trade-offs
|
||||
- Need small wins to build trust
|
||||
|
||||
### Strategy 3: Mediator-Led
|
||||
|
||||
**Process:**
|
||||
1. Neutral mediator facilitates
|
||||
2. Mediator controls agenda and process
|
||||
3. Mediator caucuses with parties separately
|
||||
4. Mediator proposes solutions for group reaction
|
||||
|
||||
**When to Use:**
|
||||
- High conflict
|
||||
- Power imbalances
|
||||
- Deadlocked negotiations
|
||||
|
||||
### Coalition Management
|
||||
|
||||
**Building Coalitions:**
|
||||
- Identify parties with aligned interests
|
||||
- Approach individually before proposing publicly
|
||||
- Frame as their win, not "help me"
|
||||
- Build critical mass before going public
|
||||
|
||||
**Breaking Opposing Coalitions:**
|
||||
- Identify weakest member
|
||||
- Offer terms that peel them away
|
||||
- Reduce opposition from majority to minority
|
||||
|
||||
**Avoiding Coalition Paralysis:**
|
||||
- Don't require unanimity unless necessary
|
||||
- Use supermajority (e.g., 2/3) instead
|
||||
- Have tie-breaker mechanism
|
||||
|
||||
### Multi-Party Decision Rights
|
||||
|
||||
**Voting:**
|
||||
- Simple majority (>50%)
|
||||
- Supermajority (2/3, 3/4)
|
||||
- Unanimity (all agree)
|
||||
|
||||
**Consent:**
|
||||
- Proposal passes unless someone objects
|
||||
- Objections must propose alternatives
|
||||
- Faster than consensus
|
||||
|
||||
**Consensus:**
|
||||
- Everyone can live with decision
|
||||
- Not everyone's first choice
|
||||
- Focus on acceptable, not optimal
|
||||
|
||||
**Advice Process (Scaled):**
|
||||
- Proposer seeks advice from affected parties and experts
|
||||
- Proposer decides after considering advice
|
||||
- Works in groups up to ~50 people
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Reference: Methodology Selection
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Principled Negotiation when:**
|
||||
- Two-party negotiation
|
||||
- Need creative solutions
|
||||
- Both parties negotiating in good faith
|
||||
|
||||
**Use BATNA/ZOPA when:**
|
||||
- Evaluating whether to accept offer
|
||||
- Preparing negotiation strategy
|
||||
- Understanding your leverage
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Power-Interest Mapping when:**
|
||||
- Many stakeholders to manage
|
||||
- Unclear who to prioritize
|
||||
- Building coalitions
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Advanced Governance when:**
|
||||
- Standard RACI/DACI too simple
|
||||
- Need to balance central/local authority
|
||||
- Different decision types need different processes
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Mediation Techniques when:**
|
||||
- Active conflict between parties
|
||||
- Emotions running high
|
||||
- Direct negotiation failed
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Facilitation Patterns when:**
|
||||
- Group decision-making needed
|
||||
- Risk of groupthink or dominance
|
||||
- Process needs structure
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Multi-Party Negotiation when:**
|
||||
- Three or more parties
|
||||
- Complex coalitions
|
||||
- Need to sequence negotiations
|
||||
398
skills/negotiation-alignment-governance/resources/template.md
Normal file
398
skills/negotiation-alignment-governance/resources/template.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,398 @@
|
||||
# Negotiation Alignment Governance Template
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Start
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose:** Create explicit stakeholder alignment through decision rights matrices (RACI/DACI/RAPID), working agreements, and conflict resolution protocols.
|
||||
|
||||
**When to use:** Decision authority is ambiguous, stakeholders have conflicting priorities, teams need coordination norms, or conflicts need structured resolution.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 1: Stakeholder Mapping
|
||||
|
||||
**Context:** [Brief description of situation requiring alignment]
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Stakeholders:**
|
||||
|
||||
| Stakeholder | Role/Team | Primary Interest | Current Concerns | Power/Influence |
|
||||
|-------------|-----------|------------------|------------------|-----------------|
|
||||
| [Name] | [Role] | [What they care about] | [Worries/blockers] | High/Medium/Low |
|
||||
| [Name] | [Role] | [What they care about] | [Worries/blockers] | High/Medium/Low |
|
||||
| [Name] | [Role] | [What they care about] | [Worries/blockers] | High/Medium/Low |
|
||||
|
||||
**Stakeholder Relationships:**
|
||||
- **Aligned:** [Who agrees on what]
|
||||
- **Tensions:** [Who conflicts on what]
|
||||
- **Dependencies:** [Who needs what from whom]
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision Points Needing Clarity:**
|
||||
1. [Decision 1]: Currently unclear who decides
|
||||
2. [Decision 2]: Multiple people believe they decide
|
||||
3. [Decision 3]: Decisions blocked due to ambiguity
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 2: Decision Rights Framework
|
||||
|
||||
### Option A: RACI Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
Use for: Process mapping, task allocation, operational clarity
|
||||
|
||||
| Decision/Activity | R (Responsible) | A (Accountable) | C (Consulted) | I (Informed) |
|
||||
|-------------------|-----------------|-----------------|---------------|--------------|
|
||||
| [Decision 1] | [Who does work] | **[ONE owner]** | [Who gives input] | [Who gets notified] |
|
||||
| [Decision 2] | [Who does work] | **[ONE owner]** | [Who gives input] | [Who gets notified] |
|
||||
| [Decision 3] | [Who does work] | **[ONE owner]** | [Who gives input] | [Who gets notified] |
|
||||
|
||||
**Key:**
|
||||
- **R (Responsible):** Does the work to complete the task
|
||||
- **A (Accountable):** Owns the outcome (exactly ONE person—neck on the line)
|
||||
- **C (Consulted):** Provides input BEFORE decision (two-way communication)
|
||||
- **I (Informed):** Notified AFTER decision (one-way communication)
|
||||
|
||||
### Option B: DACI Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
Use for: Strategic decisions, product choices, high-stakes calls
|
||||
|
||||
| Decision | D (Driver) | A (Approver) | C (Contributors) | I (Informed) |
|
||||
|----------|------------|--------------|------------------|--------------|
|
||||
| [Decision 1] | [Runs process] | **[ONE decider]** | [Must consult] | [Gets notified] |
|
||||
| [Decision 2] | [Runs process] | **[ONE decider]** | [Must consult] | [Gets notified] |
|
||||
| [Decision 3] | [Runs process] | **[ONE decider]** | [Must consult] | [Gets notified] |
|
||||
|
||||
**Key:**
|
||||
- **D (Driver):** Runs the decision process, gathers input, recommends
|
||||
- **A (Approver):** Makes final decision (exactly ONE—thumb up/down)
|
||||
- **C (Contributors):** Must be consulted for input (but Approver decides)
|
||||
- **I (Informed):** Notified of outcome
|
||||
|
||||
### Option C: RAPID Matrix
|
||||
|
||||
Use for: Complex strategic decisions with compliance, legal, or technical veto requirements
|
||||
|
||||
| Decision | R (Recommend) | A (Agree) | P (Perform) | I (Input) | D (Decide) |
|
||||
|----------|---------------|-----------|-------------|-----------|------------|
|
||||
| [Decision 1] | [Proposes] | [Must agree/veto] | [Executes] | [Advises] | **[ONE decider]** |
|
||||
| [Decision 2] | [Proposes] | [Must agree/veto] | [Executes] | [Advises] | **[ONE decider]** |
|
||||
|
||||
**Key:**
|
||||
- **R (Recommend):** Proposes the decision with analysis
|
||||
- **A (Agree):** Must agree (veto power for legal/compliance/technical)
|
||||
- **P (Perform):** Implements the decision
|
||||
- **I (Input):** Consulted for expertise
|
||||
- **D (Decide):** Final authority
|
||||
|
||||
### Option D: Advice Process
|
||||
|
||||
Use for: Empowered teams, flat organizations
|
||||
|
||||
Anyone can decide after seeking advice from affected parties and experts. Decision-maker accountable for outcome.
|
||||
|
||||
**Scope:** [Which decisions use advice process]
|
||||
**Guardrails:** [Minimum advisors, escalation criteria]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 3: Working Agreements
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication Norms
|
||||
|
||||
**Sync (Meetings):** Use for brainstorming, negotiation. Agenda required 24h advance. Max [30/60 min]. Document decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
**Async (Docs/Slack):** Use for updates, approvals. Response times: Urgent (<2h), Normal (<24h), FYI (none).
|
||||
|
||||
**Documentation:** Decisions in [ADRs/log/wiki]. Meeting notes in [tool]. Source of truth: [location].
|
||||
|
||||
### Decision-Making Norms
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision Speed vs Quality:**
|
||||
- **Fast/Reversible decisions:** Use consent (no strong objections)
|
||||
- **Slow/Irreversible decisions:** Use explicit DACI with analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**Time-boxing:**
|
||||
- If no consensus after [N] discussions, escalate with:
|
||||
- Options analysis
|
||||
- Recommendation
|
||||
- Decision criteria
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision Documentation:**
|
||||
- Architecture decisions: ADRs (Architecture Decision Records)
|
||||
- Product decisions: Decision log with rationale
|
||||
- Process changes: Updated handbook/wiki
|
||||
|
||||
### Quality & Standards
|
||||
|
||||
**Definition of Done:**
|
||||
- [Criterion 1]: [Specific requirement]
|
||||
- [Criterion 2]: [Specific requirement]
|
||||
- [Criterion 3]: [Specific requirement]
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Bar:**
|
||||
- Minimum: [Non-negotiable requirements]
|
||||
- Target: [Aspirational standards]
|
||||
- Trade-offs: [When quality can flex]
|
||||
|
||||
**Review Requirements:**
|
||||
- [Type of work]: Requires [N] approvals from [roles]
|
||||
- Approval SLA: [Timeframe]
|
||||
- Escalation: If not reviewed in [timeframe], [action]
|
||||
|
||||
### Escalation Paths
|
||||
|
||||
**When to Escalate:**
|
||||
- Decision blocked for > [N days]
|
||||
- Stakeholders fundamentally disagree after structured dialogue
|
||||
- Decision impacts outside agreed scope
|
||||
- Risk or compliance concern
|
||||
|
||||
**How to Escalate:**
|
||||
1. Document the issue and options considered
|
||||
2. Clarify the decision needed and by when
|
||||
3. Escalate to: [Manager / Committee / Executive]
|
||||
4. Include joint recommendation if possible
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 4: Conflict Resolution Protocols
|
||||
|
||||
### Level 1: Direct Dialogue (Default)
|
||||
|
||||
**When:** First response to disagreement
|
||||
|
||||
**Process:** 1:1 conversation. Assume good intent. Focus on interests (why) not positions (what). Use data/criteria. Seek understanding. Propose solutions addressing both interests.
|
||||
|
||||
**Outcome:** Agreement or escalate to Level 2
|
||||
|
||||
### Level 2: Facilitated Mediation
|
||||
|
||||
**When:** Direct dialogue fails after [N] attempts
|
||||
|
||||
**Process:** Neutral facilitator. Each party explains interests, concerns, constraints. Facilitator clarifies agreement/disagreement, objective criteria. Brainstorm options meeting both interests. Test solutions against criteria.
|
||||
|
||||
**Outcome:** Agreement, compromise, or escalate to Level 3
|
||||
|
||||
### Level 3: Escalation & Decision
|
||||
|
||||
**When:** Mediation doesn't resolve within [timeframe]
|
||||
|
||||
**Process:** Document for decider (context, options, positions, recommendations). Decider reviews, may request more info or facilitate final discussion, then decides. Disagree-and-commit: All parties commit once decided.
|
||||
|
||||
**Decider:** [Role / Name per decision type]
|
||||
|
||||
### Conflict Resolution Principles
|
||||
|
||||
**Separate People from Problem:**
|
||||
- Attack the problem, not the person
|
||||
- Use "I feel..." not "You always..."
|
||||
|
||||
**Focus on Interests, Not Positions:**
|
||||
- Position: "I want X"
|
||||
- Interest: "I need X because Y"
|
||||
|
||||
**Generate Options Before Deciding:**
|
||||
- Avoid false dichotomies
|
||||
- Brainstorm win-win solutions
|
||||
|
||||
**Use Objective Criteria:**
|
||||
- Data (metrics, user research, benchmarks)
|
||||
- Principles (company values, best practices)
|
||||
- External standards (industry norms, regulations)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 5: Negotiation Framework (For Trade-offs)
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Clarify Interests
|
||||
|
||||
**Party A:**
|
||||
- **Wants:** [Position]
|
||||
- **Because:** [Underlying interest/need]
|
||||
- **Success looks like:** [Outcome]
|
||||
- **Can't compromise on:** [Hard constraints]
|
||||
|
||||
**Party B:**
|
||||
- **Wants:** [Position]
|
||||
- **Because:** [Underlying interest/need]
|
||||
- **Success looks like:** [Outcome]
|
||||
- **Can't compromise on:** [Hard constraints]
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Identify BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement)
|
||||
|
||||
**Party A's BATNA:** [What happens if no agreement]
|
||||
**Party B's BATNA:** [What happens if no agreement]
|
||||
|
||||
**Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA):** [Where both parties are better off than BATNA]
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Generate Options
|
||||
|
||||
**Option 1:** [Proposal]
|
||||
- Party A gets: [Benefits]
|
||||
- Party B gets: [Benefits]
|
||||
- Trade-offs: [Costs]
|
||||
|
||||
**Option 2:** [Proposal]
|
||||
- Party A gets: [Benefits]
|
||||
- Party B gets: [Benefits]
|
||||
- Trade-offs: [Costs]
|
||||
|
||||
**Option 3:** [Proposal]
|
||||
- Party A gets: [Benefits]
|
||||
- Party B gets: [Benefits]
|
||||
- Trade-offs: [Costs]
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Evaluate Against Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
| Option | Criterion 1 | Criterion 2 | Criterion 3 | Total Score |
|
||||
|--------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|
|
||||
| Option 1 | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Sum] |
|
||||
| Option 2 | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Sum] |
|
||||
| Option 3 | [Score] | [Score] | [Score] | [Sum] |
|
||||
|
||||
**Selected:** [Option X] because [rationale]
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Agreement Terms
|
||||
|
||||
**What:** [Specific outcome agreed]
|
||||
**Who:** [Responsible parties]
|
||||
**When:** [Timeline]
|
||||
**How:** [Implementation]
|
||||
**Review:** [When to revisit]
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Part 6: Governance Maintenance
|
||||
|
||||
### Review Cadence
|
||||
|
||||
**Quarterly Governance Review:**
|
||||
- What's working well?
|
||||
- What's not working?
|
||||
- Emerging gaps or ambiguities?
|
||||
- Updated decision rights matrix
|
||||
- Revised working agreements
|
||||
|
||||
**Triggers for Ad-Hoc Review:**
|
||||
- Org structure change
|
||||
- New stakeholders or teams
|
||||
- Recurring conflicts in same area
|
||||
- Decision velocity declining
|
||||
|
||||
### Metrics to Track
|
||||
|
||||
**Decision Velocity:**
|
||||
- Time from decision needed to decision made
|
||||
- Number of decisions blocked > [N] days
|
||||
- Escalation frequency
|
||||
|
||||
**Conflict Resolution:**
|
||||
- Time to resolve conflicts
|
||||
- Escalation rate (Level 1 → 2 → 3)
|
||||
- Repeat conflicts in same area
|
||||
|
||||
**Agreement Adherence:**
|
||||
- Working agreement violations
|
||||
- Shadow governance incidents (decisions made outside framework)
|
||||
- Stakeholder satisfaction with process
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Output Format
|
||||
|
||||
Create `negotiation-alignment-governance.md`:
|
||||
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# [Initiative/Team]: Negotiation Alignment Governance
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
|
||||
**Review Date:** [Quarterly]
|
||||
|
||||
## Stakeholder Map
|
||||
[Table of stakeholders, interests, concerns]
|
||||
|
||||
## Decision Rights Matrix
|
||||
[RACI / DACI / RAPID matrix for key decisions]
|
||||
|
||||
## Working Agreements
|
||||
|
||||
### Communication
|
||||
- Sync vs async guidelines
|
||||
- Response time expectations
|
||||
- Documentation requirements
|
||||
|
||||
### Decision-Making
|
||||
- Fast vs slow decision criteria
|
||||
- Time-boxing and escalation
|
||||
- Documentation standards
|
||||
|
||||
### Quality & Standards
|
||||
- Definition of done
|
||||
- Quality bar (minimum vs target)
|
||||
- Review requirements
|
||||
|
||||
### Escalation Paths
|
||||
- When to escalate
|
||||
- How to escalate
|
||||
- Who decides
|
||||
|
||||
## Conflict Resolution Protocols
|
||||
|
||||
### Level 1: Direct Dialogue
|
||||
[Process for peer-to-peer resolution]
|
||||
|
||||
### Level 2: Mediation
|
||||
[When and how to bring in facilitator]
|
||||
|
||||
### Level 3: Escalation
|
||||
[Final decision authority]
|
||||
|
||||
## Governance Maintenance
|
||||
- Review cadence: [Quarterly / Ad-hoc triggers]
|
||||
- Metrics: [Decision velocity, conflict resolution, adherence]
|
||||
|
||||
## Key Insights
|
||||
- [What alignment this creates]
|
||||
- [What conflicts this prevents]
|
||||
- [What enables faster decisions]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before finalizing:
|
||||
- [ ] Decision rights: Exactly ONE Accountable/Approver per decision
|
||||
- [ ] All key stakeholders covered in framework
|
||||
- [ ] Working agreements are specific and observable (not vague)
|
||||
- [ ] Conflict resolution has clear escalation path
|
||||
- [ ] Agreements include review/update cadence
|
||||
- [ ] No shadow governance (framework covers real decisions)
|
||||
- [ ] Psychological safety (people can disagree without fear)
|
||||
- [ ] Stakeholders have consented to framework
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Tips
|
||||
|
||||
**For RACI/DACI:**
|
||||
- Start with most contentious decisions
|
||||
- One Accountable/Approver only (resist pressure for multiple)
|
||||
- Consulted ≠ consensus—input gathered, decider decides
|
||||
- Review quarterly—roles change, decisions evolve
|
||||
|
||||
**For Working Agreements:**
|
||||
- Make observable (not "communicate well" but "respond in 24h")
|
||||
- Include positive behaviors AND boundaries
|
||||
- Get explicit consent from all parties
|
||||
- Revisit when violated or ineffective
|
||||
|
||||
**For Conflict Resolution:**
|
||||
- Assume good intent (conflicts are structural, not personal)
|
||||
- Make escalation safe (not punishment, but decision support)
|
||||
- Document decisions to avoid re-litigating
|
||||
- Disagree-and-commit once decided
|
||||
|
||||
**For Facilitation:**
|
||||
- Stay neutral (don't take sides)
|
||||
- Make implicit tensions explicit
|
||||
- Use objective criteria when possible
|
||||
- Don't force consensus—escalate when stuck
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user