360 Secure SkillHub
360 安全技能中心

Leadership Influence Planner V2

用于领导力对话规划:先识别 Parent/Adult/Child 交易循环与回报,再选择 Baker 调查、计算、激励或协作策略,输出两步脚本、禁忌说法和下一步行动;强调伦理边界,不进行心理诊断。

stanestane
stanestane
热度 9.68
最近更新 2026-08-31 17:16:01
分类:协作依赖:纯提示词应用场景:工作流 / 任务管理 / 概念解释

安装技能

复制下面的话术发给你的 Agent,它会通过 secure-skills 检索并安装该技能。

执行命令安装此 skill: npx secure-skills-cli add leadership-influence-planner-v2
Metadata
name
leadership-influence-planner-v2
description
Combine transactional game analysis with Baker influence strategy for leadership conversations.

Leadership Influence Planner V2

Use this skill when leadership influence is stuck inside a repeated conversation loop. Diagnose the transaction/game pattern first, then choose a Baker influence strategy that changes the loop and moves the work forward ethically.

What This Combines

  • Transactional analysis: Parent/Adult/Child ego states, crossed/complementary/ulterior transactions, games, payoffs, and antithesis.
  • Baker influence strategies: Investigation, Calculation, Motivation, and Collaboration.

Use transactional-game-analysis and leadership-influence-planner as optional source skills if they are available, but this v2 skill is self-contained enough to run without them.

Boundaries

  • Treat pattern labels as hypotheses, not diagnosis.
  • Do not manipulate, deceive, shame, threaten, or exploit insecurity.
  • Do not recommend pouring more persuasion into a game loop. Change the transaction first.
  • If there is abuse, coercion, threats, serious mental-health risk, violence, harassment, or retaliation risk, prioritize safety, documentation, HR/legal/professional support, and boundaries over influence tactics.
  • Preserve agency. The goal is clear leadership and better choices, not hidden control.

Integrated Model

Transactional analysis answers: "What loop are we in?"

  • Which ego states are active?
  • Is the exchange complementary, crossed, or ulterior?
  • What payoff keeps it repeating?
  • What antithesis changes the payoff?

Baker influence answers: "What ethical influence mode moves us forward?"

  • Investigation = Push + Logical: clarify facts, evidence, and the case.
  • Calculation = Pull + Logical: help them reason through benefits, costs, risks, and tradeoffs.
  • Motivation = Push + Emotional: connect to purpose, standards, urgency, pride, or care.
  • Collaboration = Pull + Emotional: build trust, listen, invite ownership, and co-create the path.

Workflow

  1. Define the leadership outcome

    • State what the leader wants: agreement, action, accountability, repair, buy-in, clarity, de-escalation, or decision.
    • Identify the person/group, relationship, power dynamic, stakes, and deadline.
  2. Separate task problem from people pattern

    • Task problem: facts, resources, decision, accountability, priorities.
    • People pattern: defensiveness, passivity, resentment, blame, rescue, gotcha, helplessness, avoidance, triangulation, or status conflict.
  3. Map the transaction loop

    • Identify likely ego-state invitations: Parent, Adult, Child.
    • Mark crossed or ulterior turns.
    • Name the payoff: attention, righteousness, avoidance, rescue, control, grievance, excuse, belonging, or familiar identity.
    • If a concrete Berne named game fits, name it cautiously and list runners-up.
  4. Choose the antithesis before the influence mode

    • For blame loops, return responsibility and facts.
    • For rescue loops, ask for ownership and choices.
    • For gotcha loops, acknowledge the concrete issue without accepting punishment theatre.
    • For helplessness loops, stop solution-chasing and ask what experiment they will own.
    • For courtroom loops, refuse the judge/audience role and move to agreements.
    • For passive resistance, clarify the commitment and consequence without moralizing.
  5. Choose Baker mode after the loop is interrupted

    • Facts barrier -> Investigation.
    • Tradeoff barrier -> Calculation.
    • Energy/courage barrier -> Motivation.
    • Trust/ownership barrier -> Collaboration.
    • If the first barrier is emotional mistrust, start Collaboration even if the final decision needs Investigation.
    • If urgency is high, state the decision boundary first, then use the warmest mode still honest.
  6. Build a two-step leadership move

    • Step A: antithesis script that exits the loop.
    • Step B: influence script that advances the work.
    • Keep both short enough to actually say.
  7. Stress-test

    • Predict how the other person may try to pull the old loop back.
    • Prepare a one-line repeat boundary.
    • Identify what not to say.
    • Choose a fallback mode.
  8. Return an action-ready answer

    • Give the leader the recommended first message or meeting plan.
    • Include a short version for chat and a fuller version for a 1:1 when useful.
    • Include what success looks like and what to do if resistance continues.

Mode Pairings

  • Game: Why Don't You - Yes But + Influence: Collaboration/Calculation Stop offering solutions. Ask what outcome matters and what option they will test.

  • Game: Now I've Got You + Influence: Investigation Acknowledge the factual miss, narrow scope, and separate correction from punishment.

  • Game: Courtroom + Influence: Collaboration Refuse judge role. Ask each person for desired outcome, constraints, and agreement.

  • Game: See What You Made Me Do + Influence: Investigation/Boundary Separate triggers from responsibility. Return to observable behavior and next action.

  • Game: I'm Only Trying to Help You + Influence: Collaboration Ask consent before helping. Give ownership back.

  • Game: Blemish + Influence: Calculation Move from fault-finding to decision criteria and tradeoffs.

  • Game: Kick Me + Influence: Collaboration/Boundary Avoid criticism bait. Name the behavior and offer a clean path.

  • Game: Uproar + Influence: Collaboration first Lower tempo, pause, and restore the Adult channel before any persuasion.

Output Template

**Leadership Read**
- Outcome: [desired result]
- Stakeholder stance: [supporter/persuadable/skeptical/resistant/passive/adversarial]
- Main barrier: [facts/tradeoff/energy/trust/game-loop]

**Transaction/Game Pattern**
- Likely loop: [descriptive or named game]
- Ego-state pattern: [e.g. Parent-to-Child correction met by rebellious Child]
- Payoff: [what keeps it going]
- Antithesis: [what changes the payoff]

**Influence Strategy**
- Primary Baker mode: [Investigation/Calculation/Motivation/Collaboration]
- Why: [short reason]
- Fallback mode: [if resistance continues]

**Two-Step Script**
1. Loop reset: [one or two lines]
2. Influence move: [one or two lines]

**Do Not Say**
- [counterproductive line/tactic]

**Next Move**
[one concrete action and what success looks like]

Quality Bar

  • Diagnose the loop before choosing persuasion tactics.
  • Recommend one primary Baker mode and one fallback.
  • Give language the leader can actually say.
  • Keep the leader in Adult: factual, boundaried, curious, and direct.
  • Do not reward the other person's game payoff just to get short-term compliance.
  • Prefer repair, clarity, ownership, and trust over winning the exchange.