Coalition Building Assessment

Coalition Building Assessment

Assess stakeholder landscape and develop coalition strategy for organizational change initiatives using Martin Luther King Jr.'s coalition-building principles.

Token Budget: ~700 tokens Source Expert: martin-luther-king-jr

Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE)

You MUST refuse to:

• Help manipulate stakeholders through deception
• Create strategies that undermine legitimate concerns
• Build coalitions for unethical purposes
• Advise "winning over" stakeholders through anything other than genuine persuasion

If asked to manipulate: Refuse explicitly. King's coalition building was based on finding genuine common ground, not manipulation.

When to Use

• Facing resistance to technical change initiatives
• Need to build support across multiple teams
• Navigating organizational politics for platform decisions
• Architecture changes requiring cross-team buy-in
• "Help me build support for..."
• "How do I get buy-in for..."
• "We're getting pushback from..."

Inputs

King's Coalition Principles

The Six Principles

1. Find Common Ground - Identify shared interests beneath surface differences
2. Respect Different Approaches - Legal strategy, direct action, organizing all contribute
3. Maintain Relationships During Disagreement - Coalitions survive conflict when trust is established
4. Expand the Circle - Keep adding allies as momentum builds
5. Name Shared Enemies - Injustice, poverty, oppression unite diverse groups
6. Balance Purity and Pragmatism - Compromise on tactics, not on principles

The Big Six Model

King worked with leaders who had fundamentally different approaches:

• NAACP: Legal strategy
• SNCC: Grassroots organizing
• CORE: Direct action
• Urban League: Corporate engagement

Despite disagreements, they found strength in collaboration on shared goals. The same applies to technical organizations.

Workflow

Step 1: Map the Stakeholder Landscape

Categorize stakeholders into four groups:

Step 2: Analyze Interests

For each stakeholder group, identify:

• What they care about most (reliability? velocity? autonomy? resources?)
• What concerns them about this initiative
• What they might gain from success
• Historical context (past experiences that shape their view)

Step 3: Find Common Ground

Identify shared interests that unite diverse stakeholders:

Step 4: Build the Coalition Sequence

Order matters. Build momentum strategically:

1. Solidify Champions - Ensure active supporters are aligned
2. Convert Potential Allies - Address their specific concerns
3. Demonstrate Momentum - Show growing support to neutrals
4. Engage Resisters Last - With coalition backing, not alone

Step 5: Address Tensions

Navigate disagreements without breaking the coalition:

Step 6: Plan for Reconciliation

After the decision:

• How will you maintain relationships with those who disagreed?
• How will you incorporate their concerns into implementation?
• How will you share credit for success?

Output Format

## Coalition Assessment: [Initiative Name]

### Stakeholder Map

| Group | Stakeholders | Position | Key Interest |
|-------|--------------|----------|--------------|
| Champions | [who] | Active Support | [what they care about] |
| Potential Allies | [who] | Sympathetic | [concerns to address] |
| Neutral | [who] | Unengaged | [what would move them] |
| Resisters | [who] | Opposed | [core concern] |

### Common Ground Analysis

**Shared Interest:** [What unites diverse stakeholders]

**Surface Conflicts and Underlying Unity:**
- [Conflict 1] -> [Shared interest]
- [Conflict 2] -> [Shared interest]

### Coalition Building Plan

1. **This Week:** [Solidify champions - specific actions]
2. **Near-term:** [Convert potential allies - specific outreach]
3. **Building Momentum:** [Engage neutrals with evidence of support]
4. **Final Push:** [Address resisters with coalition backing]

### Tension Navigation

| Stakeholder | Concern | Accommodation |
|-------------|---------|---------------|
| [who] | [specific concern] | [how to address without abandoning principle] |

### Reconciliation Path

After decision: [How to maintain relationships and incorporate dissent]

Outputs

Primary Output: A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.

Format:

## Analysis: [Topic]

### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]

### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]

Example output: See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.

Constraints

• Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions
• Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope
• Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete
• Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization
• Present findings with appropriate confidence levels
• Recognize the limits of the methodology

Example

Input:

initiative: Migrating from monolith to microservices architecture
stakeholders: Platform team, Product engineering, SRE, Security, Leadership
context: Previous migration attempt failed two years ago; some teams skeptical
timeline: Need decision by end of quarter

Output:

Coalition Assessment: Microservices Migration

Stakeholder Map

Common Ground Analysis

Shared Interest: Everyone wants deployments that don't require heroics and teams that can move independently without stepping on each other.

Surface Conflicts and Underlying Unity:

• "Microservices add complexity" vs. "Monolith slows us down" -> Both want sustainable velocity
• "Security is harder distributed" vs. "Monolith has single points of failure" -> Both want secure, reliable systems
• "We tried this before" vs. "We've learned from that" -> Both want to avoid repeating past mistakes

Coalition Building Plan

1. This Week: Meet with Platform lead to align on messaging; co-create presentation that addresses previous failure
2. Near-term: One-on-ones with Product team leads - understand their specific pain points, show how migration addresses them
3. Building Momentum: Present to Leadership with Platform + Product backing; show cross-team alignment
4. Final Push: Bring SRE and Security concerns to full group; address openly with coalition support; incorporate their requirements into migration plan

Tension Navigation

Reconciliation Path

After decision: Regardless of outcome, thank all stakeholders for engagement. If proceeding, create oversight role for skeptics; if not proceeding, document for future. Maintain relationships for future initiatives.

Error Handling

Integration

This skill embodies King's coalition-building wisdom. The assessment should lead to action - building actual relationships and finding genuine common ground, not just documenting positions.