version: "1.0.1" 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 for typical stakeholder configurations.

Step 2: Choose governance approach

For straightforward cases with clear stakeholders → Use resources/template.md for RACI/DACI and working agreement structures. For complex cases with multiple conflicts or nested decisions → Study 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 for facilitation techniques.

Step 4: Document agreements

Self-assess using 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):

• Responsible: Does the work
• Accountable: Owns the outcome (only ONE person)
• Consulted: Provides input before decision
• Informed: Notified after decision
• Use for: Process mapping, task allocation

DACI (Better for Decisions):

• Driver: Runs the process, gathers input
• Approver: Makes the final decision (only ONE)
• Contributors: Provide input, must be consulted
• Informed: Notified of decision
• Use for: Strategic decisions, product choices

RAPID (Best for Complex Decisions):

• Recommend: Propose the decision
• Agree: Must agree (veto power)
• Perform: Execute the decision
• Input: Consulted for expertise
• Decide: 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.