gh-lyndonkl-claude/skills/role-switch/resources/template.md

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 section. Clarify what's being decided and why it matters.

Step 2: Select 3-6 relevant roles

Identify stakeholders in the Roles Selected section. Choose roles with different goals or constraints.

Step 3: Inhabit each role's perspective

For each role, complete the Role Perspectives section. Articulate what they optimize for and fear.

Step 4: Map tensions and tradeoffs

Identify conflicts in the Tensions & Tradeoffs section. Document where perspectives are incompatible.

Step 5: Synthesize alignment path

Propose resolutions in the 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