gh-lyndonkl-claude/skills/negotiation-alignment-governance/resources/methodology.md

Negotiation Alignment Governance Methodology

Table of Contents

1. Principled Negotiation (Harvard Method)
2. BATNA & ZOPA Analysis
3. Stakeholder Power-Interest Mapping
4. Advanced Governance Patterns
5. Conflict Mediation Techniques
6. Facilitation Patterns
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