Tension Navigation Tactics

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Overview

While value_conflict_decomposition provides the framework for understanding conflicts, this procedure provides specific, tested tactics for navigating the most common tensions.

These are not abstract strategies — they are concrete actions that have worked.

Steps

Step 1: Identify the Tension

1. What two (or more) values, goals, or priorities are in conflict?
2. Is this a genuine conflict or a false dilemma? (Can you have both?)
3. What makes this tension feel unresolvable?
4. Who are the stakeholders on each side?

Step 2: Classify the Tension Type

Step 3: Apply Type-Specific Tactics

Speed vs Quality:

• Define “minimum viable quality” — below this, speed doesn’t matter
• Time-box: allocate fixed time, best quality within that constraint
• Ship with known debt: document what was skipped, schedule the fix
• Two-track: fast version now + quality version in parallel

Short vs Long term:

• Calculate: what’s the cost of short-term choice in 1 year? 5 years?
• Invest 80/20: 80% on short-term needs, 20% on long-term foundation
• Find overlap: which short-term actions also build long-term value?
• Set a threshold: short-term unless long-term cost exceeds X

Individual vs Collective:

• Make individual interest align with collective: incentive design
• Take turns: whose individual need gets priority this round?
• Find win-win: what serves both? (Often requires creative reframing)
• Negotiate: explicit trade — I’ll do X for the group if I get Y

Innovation vs Stability:

• Protected experiments: innovate in sandboxed area, stable elsewhere
• Incremental migration: replace one piece at a time
• A/B test: run both, let data decide
• Innovation budget: X% of resources for experiments, rest for stable

Breadth vs Depth:

• T-shaped: deep in one area, shallow in many
• Sequential: go broad to find the right area, then go deep
• Context-dependent: breadth for exploration phases, depth for execution
• Portfolio: team members specialize in different areas

Action vs Analysis:

• Reversibility test: if easily reversed, act; if irreversible, analyze
• Cost of delay: if waiting costs more than a wrong decision, act
• Information value: will more analysis actually change the decision?
• Default to action with checkpoints: act, review at defined points

Step 4: Apply to the Specific Situation

1. Which tension type matches the input?
2. Which tactic from that type applies best?
3. What would applying that tactic look like concretely?
4. What’s the risk of this tactic? What’s the fallback?

Step 5: Check for False Dilemmas

Before accepting the tension as real:

1. Is there a third option that avoids the tradeoff?
2. Can you reframe the problem to dissolve the tension?
3. Is the tension actually between the stated values, or between something else?
4. Would someone from a different context see this as a tension at all?

Step 6: Report

TENSION NAVIGATION:
Tension: [value A] vs [value B]
Type: [classification from Step 2]
Genuine conflict: [yes/no — false dilemma check result]

Recommended tactic: [specific tactic]
Application: [how it applies to this situation]
Risk: [what could go wrong]
Fallback: [if tactic doesn't work]

Resolution: [concrete next action]

When to Use

• After identifying a value conflict (via /vcd or other analysis)
• When you need specific tactics, not just frameworks
• When the abstract strategies feel too vague
• → INVOKE: /vcd (value conflict decomposition) for identifying the tension
• → INVOKE: /dcp (decision procedure) for making the final call

Verification

• Tension clearly identified (both sides stated)
• Tension type classified
• False dilemma check performed
• Specific tactic selected (not abstract advice)
• Concrete application described
• Risk and fallback identified