role-switch

---
name: role-switch
description: Analyzes decisions from multiple stakeholder perspectives (engineering, product, legal, finance, users) to uncover blind spots, surface tensions, and synthesize alignment paths with explicit tradeoffs. Use when stakeholders have conflicting priorities, need to pressure-test proposals, build cross-functional empathy, or when user mentions "what would X think", "stakeholder alignment", "see from their perspective", "blind spots", or "conflicting interests".
---

# Role Switch

## Table of Contents
1. [Workflow](#workflow)
2. [Role Selection Patterns](#role-selection-patterns)
3. [Synthesis Principles](#synthesis-principles)
4. [Common Patterns](#common-patterns)
5. [Guardrails](#guardrails)
6. [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)

## Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

```
Role Switch Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Frame the decision or situation
- [ ] Step 2: Select relevant roles
- [ ] Step 3: Inhabit each role's perspective
- [ ] Step 4: Surface tensions and tradeoffs
- [ ] Step 5: Synthesize alignment and path forward
```

**Step 1: Frame the decision or situation**

Clarify what's being decided, key constraints (time, budget, scope), and why alignment matters. See [Common Patterns](#common-patterns) for decision framing by type.

**Step 2: Select relevant roles**

Choose 3-6 roles with different goals, incentives, or constraints. See [Role Selection Patterns](#role-selection-patterns) for stakeholder mapping. For complex multi-stakeholder decisions → Study [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for RACI + power-interest analysis.

**Step 3: Inhabit each role's perspective**

For each role, articulate: what they optimize for, what they fear, how they measure success, what constraints they face. Use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for structured analysis. For realistic roleplay → See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for cognitive empathy techniques.

**Step 4: Surface tensions and tradeoffs**

Identify where perspectives conflict, map incompatible goals, articulate explicit tradeoffs. See [Synthesis Principles](#synthesis-principles) for tension analysis.

**Step 5: Synthesize alignment and path forward**

Find common ground, propose resolutions that address core concerns, sequence decisions to build momentum. Self-check using [resources/evaluators/rubric_role_switch.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_role_switch.json). Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5.

## Role Selection Patterns

**Classic product triad (most common):**
- **Engineering**: Feasibility, technical debt, system complexity, maintainability
- **Product**: User value, roadmap prioritization, market timing, feature completeness
- **Design**: User experience, accessibility, consistency, delight

**Business decision quads:**
- **Finance**: Cost, ROI, cash flow, unit economics, margin
- **Sales**: Customer acquisition, deal closure, competitive positioning, quota attainment
- **Marketing**: Brand perception, customer lifetime value, positioning, conversion funnel
- **Operations**: Scalability, process efficiency, risk management, resource utilization

**Regulatory/compliance contexts:**
- **Legal**: Risk mitigation, liability, contract terms, IP protection
- **Compliance**: Regulatory adherence, audit trail, policy enforcement, certification
- **Privacy/Security**: Data protection, threat model, access control, incident response
- **Ethics**: Fairness, transparency, stakeholder impact, values alignment

**External stakeholders:**
- **End Users**: Usability, reliability, cost, privacy, delight
- **Customers** (B2B): Integration ease, support quality, vendor stability, total cost of ownership
- **Partners**: Revenue share, mutual value, integration burden, strategic alignment
- **Regulators**: Public interest, safety, competition, transparency

## Synthesis Principles

**Finding common ground:**
1. **Shared goals**: What do all roles ultimately want? (e.g., company success, customer satisfaction)
2. **Compatible sub-goals**: Where do objectives align even if paths differ?
3. **Mutual fears**: What do all roles want to avoid? (e.g., reputational damage, security breach)

**Resolving conflicts:**
- **Sequential decisions**: "Do X first (satisfies role A), then Y (satisfies role B)" (e.g., pilot then scale)
- **Hybrid approaches**: Combine elements from multiple perspectives (e.g., freemium = marketing + finance)
- **Constraints as creativity**: Use one role's limits to sharpen another's solution (e.g., budget constraint forces prioritization)
- **Risk mitigation**: Address fears with safeguards (e.g., eng fears tech debt → schedule refactoring sprint)

**When perspectives are truly incompatible:**
- **Escalate decision**: Flag for leadership with clear tradeoff framing
- **Run experiment**: Pilot to gather data, convert opinions to evidence
- **Decouple decisions**: Split into multiple decisions with different owners
- **Accept tradeoff explicitly**: Document the choice and reasoning for future reference

## Common Patterns

**Pattern 1: Build vs Buy Decisions**
- **Roles**: Engineering (control, customization), Finance (TCO), Product (time-to-market), Legal (vendor risk), Operations (support burden)
- **Typical tensions**: Eng wants control, Finance sees build cost underestimation, PM sees opportunity cost of delay
- **Synthesis paths**: Pilot buy option with build fallback, build core/buy periphery, time-box build with buy backstop

**Pattern 2: Feature Prioritization**
- **Roles**: PM (roadmap vision), Engineering (technical feasibility), Design (UX quality), Sales (customer requests), Users (actual need)
- **Typical tensions**: Sales wants everything promised, Eng sees scope creep, Users want simplicity, PM balances all
- **Synthesis paths**: MoSCoW prioritization (must/should/could/won't), release in phases, v1 vs v2 scoping

**Pattern 3: Pricing Strategy**
- **Roles**: Finance (margin), Marketing (positioning), Sales (close rate), Customers (value perception), Product (feature gating)
- **Typical tensions**: Finance wants premium, Sales wants competitive, Marketing wants simple, Product wants value-based tiers
- **Synthesis paths**: Tiered pricing (serves multiple segments), usage-based (aligns value), anchoring (premium + standard)

**Pattern 4: Organizational Change (e.g., return-to-office)**
- **Roles**: Leadership (collaboration), Employees (flexibility), HR (retention), Finance (real estate cost), Managers (productivity)
- **Typical tensions**: Leadership sees serendipity loss, Employees see autonomy loss, Finance sees sunk cost, HR sees turnover
- **Synthesis paths**: Hybrid model (balance), role-based policy (nuance), trial periods (data-driven), opt-in incentives (voluntary)

**Pattern 5: Technical Migration**
- **Roles**: Engineering (technical improvement), PM (feature freeze), Users (potential downtime), DevOps (operational risk), Finance (ROI)
- **Typical tensions**: Eng sees long-term benefit, PM sees short-term cost, Users fear disruption, Finance wants ROI proof
- **Synthesis paths**: Incremental migration (reduce risk), feature parity first (minimize disruption), ROI projection (justify investment)

## Guardrails

**Avoid strawman perspectives:**
- Don't caricature roles (e.g., "Finance only cares about cost cutting")
- Inhabit perspective charitably—what's the *strongest* version of this viewpoint?
- Seek conflicting evidence to your own bias

**Distinguish position from interest:**
- **Position**: What they say they want (surface demand)
- **Interest**: Why they want it (underlying need)
- Example: "I want this feature" (position) because "customers are churning" (interest = retention)
- Synthesis works at interest level, not position level

**Acknowledge information asymmetry:**
- Some roles have context others lack (e.g., Legal sees confidential liability exposure)
- Flag assumptions: "If Legal has info we don't, that could change this analysis"
- Invite real stakeholders to validate your perspective-taking

**Don't replace actual stakeholder input:**
- Role-switch is for *preparing* conversations, not *replacing* them
- Use to pressure-test before presenting, not as substitute for gathering input
- Best used when stakeholder access is limited or to refine proposals before socializing

**Power dynamics matter:**
- Not all perspectives carry equal weight in decision-making (hierarchy, expertise, accountability)
- Synthesis should acknowledge who has decision authority
- Don't assume consensus is always possible or desirable

## Quick Reference

**Resources:**
- **Quick analysis**: [resources/template.md](resources/template.md)
- **Complex stakeholder mapping**: [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md)
- **Quality rubric**: [resources/evaluators/rubric_role_switch.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_role_switch.json)

**5-Step Process**: Frame Decision → Select Roles → Inhabit Perspectives → Surface Tensions → Synthesize Alignment

**Role selection**: Choose 3-6 roles with different goals, incentives, constraints

**Synthesis principles**: Find shared goals, resolve conflicts (sequential, hybrid, constraints as creativity), escalate when incompatible

**Avoid**: Strawman perspectives, position vs interest confusion, replacing actual stakeholder input