negotiation-alignment-governance

$npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/negotiation-alignment-governance

Negotiate stakeholder alignment through formal governance frameworks.

  • Resolves decision authority ambiguity and cross-functional conflicts.
  • Depends on stakeholder mapping and governance template resources.
  • Selects approach based on case complexity and tension levels.
  • Delivers structured progress checklists and documented agreements.

SKILL.md

.github/skills/negotiation-alignment-governanceView on GitHub ↗
---
name: negotiation-alignment-governance
description: Creates explicit stakeholder alignment through negotiated working agreements, clear decision rights (RACI/DACI/RAPID), and conflict resolution protocols. Use when stakeholders need aligned working agreements, resolving decision authority ambiguity, navigating cross-functional conflicts, establishing governance frameworks, 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

## 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.

More from lyndonkl/claude

SkillDescription
abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".