Initial commit

skills/negotiation-alignment-governance/resources/methodology.md

@@ -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