Coding

Leadership Influence Planner V2

Try it

Break loops and influence ethically

What it does

Combine transactional game analysis with Baker influence strategy for leadership conversations.

The skill document

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.

Related skills

Provides expert management for influencer, creator, KOL, UGC, and ambassador partnerships—from goal framing and evidence-led qualification through outreach, negotiation, fulfillment, measurement, and iteration. Use when the work needs business judgment, relationship progress, or autonomous execution

1 installs

Use when the user asks to "analyze influencer campaign performance", "compare influencers", or "find what content worked"; produces metric scorecards vs targ...

Use when the user asks to "draft an influencer contract", "review these agreement terms", or "build a partnership template"; produces a full influencer agree...