daddia Align Rewards and Incentives
When to use
Star Model integration check — whether rewards, processes, and capabilities reinforce structure intent, not just the org chart.
What this skill does not do
- Does not redesign structure — route to
/operating-model:diagnose-structure-fit. - Does not map external incentives — route to
/market-intelligence:map-incentivesfor competitors/partners. - Does not implement comp changes — recommends specific changes for HR/leadership.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|---|
| Structure intent (current or proposed) | Ask what behavior the structure should produce |
| Reward mechanism (practice profile or user) | Ask how people are measured/paid; flag [PROVISIONAL] |
| Process and capability context | Ask; proceed with labeled gaps |
Provisional mode
Without comp detail: reward fit labeled [review]; do not assert "supports" without mechanism evidence.
Trust spine
- Confidence bands (
structured-aggregation):- High: Reward, process, people checks complete with specific mechanisms named.
- Medium: Some gaps inferred; verdict qualified.
- Low: Structure intent unstated — halt.
- Failure modes:
- Strategic advice vs. support: Verdict is diagnostic; leadership owns implementation.
- Client confidentiality: Comp details highly sensitive — CONFIDENTIAL header; internal-only gate.
- Accountability gap: "Structure alone sufficient" only when all three fits support intent.
- Analytical Rigor: MECE across reward/process/people dimensions.
- Incentive Gaming: Predicts behavior from actual incentives, not values statements.
- Escalation triggers: Reward system actively undermines structure — state plainly reorg will fail without reward change.
Workflow
- Read practice profile for how people are measured and paid.
- State structure's intent plainly.
- Check reward fit — apply
map-incentiveslogic internally; predict behavior if unchanged. - Check process fit — approval chains, planning cycles assuming old structure.
- Check people/capability fit — skills the new structure assumes.
- Recommend specific changes beyond org chart.
- Completeness check before output.
Output format
CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
STRUCTURE'S INTENT: [what behavior this is meant to produce]
REWARD FIT: [supports / undermines] — [specific mechanism, predicted behavior if unchanged]
PROCESS FIT: [processes still assuming old structure, if any]
PEOPLE/CAPABILITY FIT: [capability assumed — present / gap]
RECOMMENDED CHANGES (beyond the org chart): [reward, process, capability — specific]
VERDICT: [structure change alone is sufficient] or [structure change will likely NOT
produce the intended behavior without the changes above]
Worked example
Input: Matrix for cross-functional delivery; bonuses 100% on functional P&L.
Expected output (excerpt):
REWARD FIT: undermines — functional bonuses predict siloed behavior despite matrix [review]
VERDICT: structure change will likely NOT produce intended behavior without reward changes
Quality checks before delivering
- Structure intent stated
- Reward fit uses incentive mechanism, not values doc
- Process and capability gaps named
- Verdict direct when misalignment real
- Comp-sensitive content gated
Propose profile update
When a stable convention surfaces during this run (thresholds, naming, tone, output format, or recurring corrections), propose a profile update: show the exact diff against ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-strategy/operating-model/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /operating-model:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.
Outputs
Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: HR/people leadership review, design-decision-rights, or revise structure.