Map Incentives
When to use
When behavior must be predicted from actual reward/penalty structures — internal stakeholders, competitors, channels, regulators — not stated motivations.
What this skill does not do
- Does not fix misaligned incentives — route structural fixes to
/operating-model:align-rewards-and-incentives. - Does not forecast competitive retaliation — route to
/market-intelligence:forecast-competitive-responseonce maps exist. - Does not accept vague motivations — insists on measurable incentive structures.
Preconditions
| Input | If missing |
|---|---|
| Situation and relevant players named | Ask once to scope |
| Incentive data (comp plan, KPIs, evaluation criteria) | Proceed with [PROVISIONAL] — flag predictions [review]; ask user for specifics |
Provisional mode
Without comp/KPI detail: state predictions as hypotheses from partial data; tag every player Actual incentive structure: incomplete — [review].
Trust spine
- Confidence bands (
hypothesis-driven-analysis):- High: Specific incentive structures cited; behavior predictions falsifiable; divergence analysis complete.
- Medium: Some structures inferred; divergences flagged openly.
- Low: Stated-motivation-only input — refuse to validate as incentive map.
- Failure modes:
- Strategic advice vs. support: Predictions are hypotheses for strategist validation, not behavioral verdicts.
- Client confidentiality: Comp structures may be sensitive — CONFIDENTIAL header.
- Accountability gap: Divergence flags force engagement with misalignment, not silent acceptance.
- Analytical Rigor: MECE player coverage; incentive-before-stated-motivation discipline enforced.
- Incentive Gaming: Names when players may game stated metrics — flag pattern explicitly.
- Escalation triggers: Internal misalignment threatens stated strategy — name as fixable problem, route to operating-model.
Workflow
- Name every player relevant to the situation.
- For each player, state actual incentive structure — measured, paid, evaluated, by whom, what timeframe. Reject "wants success" as substitute.
- Predict behavior from incentive structure alone — before checking stated motivation.
- Compare to stated motivation. Divergence = incentive prediction trusted.
- Flag misaligned incentives as named fixable problems.
- MECE check before output: all relevant players covered.
Output format
CONFIDENCE: [defensible recommendation | structured first pass]
PLAYER: [name/role]
Stated motivation: [what they'd say drives them]
Actual incentive structure: [how they're measured/paid/evaluated, by whom, what timeframe]
Predicted behavior FROM INCENTIVE: [...]
Predicted behavior FROM STATED MOTIVATION: [...]
Divergence: [none] or [significant — incentive prediction should be trusted over stated motivation]
[repeat per player]
MISALIGNED INCENTIVE FLAGS: [any internal player whose incentive works against the
stated strategy — name it as a fixable problem]
Worked example
Input: Premium positioning push; enterprise sales team paid on quarterly new-logo ARR only.
Expected output (excerpt):
CONFIDENCE: defensible recommendation
PLAYER: Enterprise AE team
Stated motivation: Win strategic accounts aligned with premium brand
Actual incentive structure: 100% variable on quarterly new-logo ARR; no retention component
Predicted behavior FROM INCENTIVE: Discount to close before quarter-end; prioritize volume over margin
Predicted behavior FROM STATED MOTIVATION: Hold price, walk from bad-fit deals
Divergence: significant — incentive prediction should be trusted
MISALIGNED INCENTIVE FLAGS: Sales comp undermines premium positioning — fixable via operating-model align-rewards-and-incentives [review]
Quality checks before delivering
- Every relevant player covered
- Incentive structures specific (not stated motivation disguised)
- Prediction-from-incentive stated before comparison
- Misalignments named as fixable problems
- Output does not read as concluded org redesign
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/market-intelligence/CLAUDE.md (org-wide facts go to org-profile.md), ask for confirmation, and write only on yes. Only /market-intelligence:practice-setup auto-applies a full profile write.
Outputs
Follows plugin CLAUDE.md § Outputs. Next: forecast-competitive-response, test-positioning, or operating-model:align-rewards-and-incentives.