# 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