# Role Switch Template

## Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

```
Role Switch Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Frame decision and context
- [ ] Step 2: Select 3-6 relevant roles
- [ ] Step 3: Inhabit each role's perspective
- [ ] Step 4: Map tensions and tradeoffs
- [ ] Step 5: Synthesize alignment path
```

**Step 1: Frame decision and context**

Complete the [Decision Framing](#decision-framing) section. Clarify what's being decided and why it matters.

**Step 2: Select 3-6 relevant roles**

Identify stakeholders in the [Roles Selected](#roles-selected) section. Choose roles with different goals or constraints.

**Step 3: Inhabit each role's perspective**

For each role, complete the [Role Perspectives](#role-perspectives) section. Articulate what they optimize for and fear.

**Step 4: Map tensions and tradeoffs**

Identify conflicts in the [Tensions & Tradeoffs](#tensions--tradeoffs) section. Document where perspectives are incompatible.

**Step 5: Synthesize alignment path**

Propose resolutions in the [Synthesis & Path Forward](#synthesis--path-forward) section. Find common ground and actionable next steps.

---

## Role Switch Analysis

### Decision Framing

**Decision/Situation**: [What's being decided or analyzed]

**Key Constraints**:
- **Timeline**: [Deadline or urgency level]
- **Budget**: [Financial constraints or cost sensitivity]
- **Scope**: [What's in/out of scope, non-negotiables]
- **Quality bars**: [Performance, security, compliance requirements]

**Why alignment matters**: [Stakes—what happens if we get this wrong? Why do these stakeholders need to align?]

**Current state**: [Where we are today, what prompted this decision]

**Success looks like**: [Desired outcome that would satisfy most stakeholders]

---

### Roles Selected

**Primary roles** (3-6 with different goals/incentives):

1. **[Role Name]**: [Brief description of this role's mandate and what they're accountable for]
2. **[Role Name]**: [...]
3. **[Role Name]**: [...]
4. **[Role Name]**: [...]
5. **[Role Name]**: [...]
6. **[Role Name]**: [...]

**Why these roles**: [Rationale for selection—what diversity of perspective do they bring?]

**Roles intentionally excluded**: [Any stakeholders not included, and why (e.g., not directly impacted, defer to their delegate)]

---

### Role Perspectives

For each role, complete this analysis:

#### Role 1: [Role Name]

**Core mandate**: [What is this role responsible for? What's their job?]

**What they optimize for**:
- [Primary success metric or goal, e.g., "Customer retention rate"]
- [Secondary goal, e.g., "Support ticket volume reduction"]
- [Tertiary goal, e.g., "Team morale and retention"]

**What they fear** (risks they want to avoid):
- [Top risk, e.g., "Customer churn from poor experience"]
- [Secondary risk, e.g., "Team burnout from unsustainable workload"]
- [Tertiary risk, e.g., "Losing competitive differentiation"]

**How they measure success**: [Metrics or indicators, e.g., "NPS >40, ticket resolution <24h, team tenure >2 years"]

**Constraints they face**:
- [Resource constraint, e.g., "Headcount freeze—can't hire"]
- [Time constraint, e.g., "Quarterly business review in 2 weeks"]
- [Process constraint, e.g., "Must comply with SOC 2 audit requirements"]

**Perspective on this decision**:
- **Position** (what they say they want): [Surface demand, e.g., "I want this feature built"]
- **Interest** (why they want it): [Underlying need, e.g., "Because customers are churning and cite this gap"]
- **Proposed solution**: [What would this role advocate for?]
- **Tradeoffs they're willing to accept**: [What would they compromise on?]
- **Non-negotiables**: [Where they won't budge]

---

#### Role 2: [Role Name]

**Core mandate**: [...]

**What they optimize for**:
- [...]
- [...]

**What they fear**:
- [...]
- [...]

**How they measure success**: [...]

**Constraints they face**:
- [...]
- [...]

**Perspective on this decision**:
- **Position**: [...]
- **Interest**: [...]
- **Proposed solution**: [...]
- **Tradeoffs they're willing to accept**: [...]
- **Non-negotiables**: [...]

---

#### Role 3: [Role Name]

[Repeat structure for each role...]

---

#### Role 4: [Role Name]

[Repeat structure...]

---

#### Role 5: [Role Name]

[Repeat structure...]

---

#### Role 6: [Role Name]

[Repeat structure...]

---

### Tensions & Tradeoffs

**Where perspectives align** (common ground):
- **Shared goals**: [What do all/most roles want? E.g., "All want company to succeed, customer to be happy"]
- **Compatible sub-goals**: [Where objectives overlap, e.g., "Marketing and Product both want clear value proposition"]
- **Mutual fears**: [What do all want to avoid? E.g., "No one wants reputational damage or security breach"]

**Where perspectives conflict** (tensions):

| Tension | Role A → Position | Role B → Position | Nature of Conflict |
|---------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|
| [Tension 1, e.g., "Speed vs Quality"] | [Eng: "Ship fast"] | [QA: "Test thoroughly"] | Sequential bottleneck—thorough testing delays launch |
| [Tension 2, e.g., "Cost vs Capability"] | [Finance: "Minimize cost"] | [Product: "Premium features"] | Resource allocation—budget caps feature scope |
| [Tension 3, e.g., "Privacy vs Personalization"] | [Privacy: "Minimize data collection"] | [Marketing: "Rich user profiles"] | Incompatible goals—less data = less personalization |

**Explicit tradeoffs**:

For each major tension, articulate the tradeoff:

**Tradeoff 1: [Tension name]**
- **Option A** (favors [Role]): [Description, e.g., "Launch in 2 weeks with minimal testing"]
  - **Upside**: [What this achieves, e.g., "Hit market window, revenue starts sooner"]
  - **Downside**: [What this sacrifices, e.g., "Higher bug rate, potential customer complaints"]
  - **Who wins/loses**: [...]

- **Option B** (favors [Role]): [Description, e.g., "Delay 4 weeks for full QA cycle"]
  - **Upside**: [What this achieves, e.g., "High quality launch, strong first impression"]
  - **Downside**: [What this sacrifices, e.g., "Miss market window, competitor may launch first"]
  - **Who wins/loses**: [...]

- **Hybrid option** (if exists): [Description, e.g., "Launch core features in 2 weeks, full feature set in 4 weeks"]
  - **Upside**: [...]
  - **Downside**: [...]
  - **Who wins/loses**: [...]

**Tradeoff 2: [Tension name]**
[Repeat structure...]

**Tradeoff 3: [Tension name]**
[Repeat structure...]

---

### Synthesis & Path Forward

**Common ground identified**:
- [Shared goal 1 that can be starting point for alignment]
- [Shared goal 2...]
- [Mutual fear that all want to mitigate...]

**Proposed resolution** (synthesis):

**Decision**: [Recommended path forward that addresses core concerns]

**Rationale**: [Why this resolution addresses most critical interests across roles]

**How it addresses each role's core interests**:
- **[Role 1]**: [How this meets their key need or mitigates their key fear]
- **[Role 2]**: [...]
- **[Role 3]**: [...]
- **[Role 4]**: [...]
- **[Role 5]**: [...]
- **[Role 6]**: [...]

**Explicit tradeoffs accepted**:
- [Tradeoff 1: What we're sacrificing and who bears the cost]
- [Tradeoff 2: ...]

**Sequencing** (if relevant):
1. **Phase 1** (immediate): [What happens first, who owns, timeline]
2. **Phase 2** (near-term): [What follows, dependencies]
3. **Phase 3** (later): [Longer-term steps, contingencies]

**Risk mitigation**:
- **Risk 1** ([Role's fear]): [Mitigation plan, e.g., "To address Eng's fear of tech debt, schedule Q2 refactoring sprint"]
- **Risk 2** ([Role's fear]): [Mitigation plan...]
- **Risk 3** ([Role's fear]): [Mitigation plan...]

**Accountability**:
- **Decision owner**: [Who has final call, authority to commit resources]
- **Execution owner**: [Who drives implementation]
- **Stakeholder communication**: [Who updates which stakeholders, cadence]
- **Success metrics**: [How we'll know this is working, review timeline]

**Escalation path** (if consensus fails):
- **Level 1**: [First escalation point if implementation stalls, e.g., "Team leads meet to resolve resource conflicts"]
- **Level 2**: [Second escalation if unresolved, e.g., "VP decides tradeoff between cost and quality"]
- **Level 3**: [Final escalation for fundamental conflicts, e.g., "CEO call on strategic direction"]

**Open questions**:
- [Question 1 that needs answering before committing]
- [Question 2...]
- [Question 3...]

**Next steps**:
- [ ] [Action 1, owner, deadline, e.g., "PM drafts feature spec - Alice - 2 weeks"]
- [ ] [Action 2, owner, deadline, e.g., "Finance models ROI scenarios - Bob - 1 week"]
- [ ] [Action 3, owner, deadline, e.g., "Eng spikes technical feasibility - Carol - 3 days"]
- [ ] [Action 4: Schedule alignment meeting with stakeholders - You - Tomorrow]

---

## Guidance for Each Section

### Decision Framing

**Good framing** (specific, bounded):
- ✓ "Should we deprecate API v1 in Q1 2025 or extend support through Q4 2025?"
- ✓ "Choose between building in-house analytics vs buying Mixpanel (decision by Dec 1)"
- ✓ "Set return-to-office policy: full remote, hybrid (2 days/week), or full in-office"

**Bad framing** (vague, open-ended):
- ❌ "Improve our product"
- ❌ "Make customers happier"
- ❌ "Do the right thing"

### Role Selection

**Choose roles with different**:
- **Goals**: Marketing (brand), Sales (quota), Finance (margin)
- **Incentives**: Eng (technical excellence), PM (shipping features), Support (ticket reduction)
- **Constraints**: Legal (risk), Operations (scalability), Users (usability)
- **Time horizons**: Leadership (long-term vision), Sales (quarterly quota), Customers (immediate pain)

**Avoid**:
- Too many roles (>6 becomes unwieldy)
- Too few roles (< 3 misses diversity)
- Redundant roles (two perspectives that would be identical)

### Inhabiting Perspectives

**Make perspectives real**:
- Use specific metrics (not "sales wants more", but "sales measured on quarterly quota attainment")
- Articulate genuine fears (not "eng doesn't like change", but "eng fears tech debt will compound and slow future velocity")
- Distinguish position (surface demand) from interest (underlying need)

**Avoid caricature**:
- ❌ "Finance only cares about cutting costs"
- ✓ "Finance optimizes for sustainable margin and cash flow to fund growth while managing risk"

### Synthesis Quality

**Strong synthesis**:
- Addresses interests, not just positions
- Proposes concrete, actionable resolution
- Acknowledges tradeoffs explicitly
- Sequences decisions to build momentum
- Includes risk mitigation for key fears

**Weak synthesis**:
- "We should find a middle ground" (no specifics)
- "Everyone needs to compromise" (no proposed resolution)
- Ignores power dynamics (pretends all roles have equal weight)
- Avoids naming tradeoffs (pretends win-win is always possible)

---

## Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

**Decision framing:**
- [ ] Decision is specific and bounded (not vague)
- [ ] Constraints explicitly stated (time, budget, scope)
- [ ] Stakes articulated (why alignment matters)

**Role selection:**
- [ ] 3-6 roles selected with different goals/incentives/constraints
- [ ] Roles cover key stakeholders (internal + external if relevant)
- [ ] Rationale for inclusion/exclusion stated

**Perspectives:**
- [ ] Each role has clear mandate, success metrics, fears
- [ ] Position vs interest distinguished
- [ ] Perspectives charitably inhabited (strongest version, not strawman)
- [ ] Non-negotiables and tradeoff willingness stated

**Tensions:**
- [ ] Shared goals and mutual fears identified (common ground)
- [ ] Conflicts explicitly named (not glossed over)
- [ ] Tradeoffs articulated with upside/downside for each option

**Synthesis:**
- [ ] Proposed resolution is concrete and actionable
- [ ] Resolution addresses core interests (not just positions)
- [ ] Tradeoffs explicitly accepted (who bears cost)
- [ ] Risk mitigation for key fears included
- [ ] Accountability (decision owner, execution owner) assigned
- [ ] Next steps with owners and deadlines

**Quality standards:**
- [ ] Analysis would prepare you well for actual stakeholder conversations
- [ ] Synthesis is realistic (not wishful thinking or forced consensus)
- [ ] Power dynamics acknowledged (who has authority)
- [ ] Escalation path defined if consensus fails