12 KiB
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):
- [Role Name]: [Brief description of this role's mandate and what they're accountable for]
- [Role Name]: [...]
- [Role Name]: [...]
- [Role Name]: [...]
- [Role Name]: [...]
- [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):
- Phase 1 (immediate): [What happens first, who owns, timeline]
- Phase 2 (near-term): [What follows, dependencies]
- 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