243 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
243 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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.
|