355 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
355 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
# 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
|