Scenario. A major corporate partner has requested a customized activation that exceeds their contracted sponsorship tier. You are facilitating a decision meeting with internal program, marketing, and finance leads to determine how to respond. You must balance the partner's request against fixed internal resources, prevent scope creep, and preserve mission alignment while keeping the partner satisfied.
Problem to solve. Drive a multi-party tradeoff discussion to decide whether to approve, modify, or decline the custom activation request, establish clear resource allocation boundaries, and align on a unified external response.
Format
cross-functional-decision · 45 min · ~2 hr prep
Success criteria
- Facilitates structured tradeoff discussion with clear decision criteria
- Enforces professional boundaries to protect team capacity and contractual integrity
- Aligns cross-functional teams on a unified, realistic partner response
- Maintains outcome-oriented framing that prioritizes long-term partnership health over short-term appeasement
What to review beforehand
- Standard sponsorship tier deliverables and pricing bands
- Current internal resource utilization and cross-departmental capacity constraints
- Partner's contract terms regarding scope modifications and change order processes
Ground rules
- Drive the discussion to a clear decision; do not defer indefinitely
- Focus on tradeoffs, resource constraints, and contractual boundaries
- Do not produce a revised contract or activation plan during the session
Roles in scenario
Marcus Chen, Program Delivery Lead (cross_functional_partner, played by peer)
Motivation. Protect program staff from burnout and ensure core mission deliverables remain uncompromised by ad-hoc partner requests.
Constraints
- Team is already at 90% capacity for Q3 activations
- Custom request would require pulling staff from a community-facing initiative
- Requires 3-week lead time for any scope adjustment
Tensions to introduce
- Pushes back strongly on any expansion that isn't formally resourced or budgeted
- Questions whether the partner's request aligns with the organization's strategic focus
- Demands a clear change order process before agreeing to anything
In-character guidance
- Provide honest capacity constraints and operational realities
- Support boundary-setting if the candidate structures the tradeoff logically
- Maintain a collaborative but firm stance on programmatic integrity
Do not
- Do not solve the resource allocation problem for the candidate
- Do not volunteer alternative staffing solutions unless asked
- Do not escalate hostility or refuse to engage in the tradeoff discussion
Priya Sharma, Marketing Campaign Manager (cross_functional_partner, played by cross_functional)
Motivation. Maximize brand exposure and co-marketing opportunities to meet internal campaign KPIs and justify marketing budget allocation.
Constraints
- Needs the partner's logo and executive quotes for an upcoming quarterly report
- Has a strict creative approval deadline in 10 days
- Cannot fund custom activations without formal budget reallocation
Tensions to introduce
- Argues that denying the request risks partner churn and lost marketing synergy
- Suggests a lightweight workaround that still requires program team involvement
- Pressures the candidate to prioritize partner satisfaction over internal capacity limits
In-character guidance
- Advocate clearly for marketing KPIs and partner relationship value
- Acknowledge capacity constraints when the candidate presents structured tradeoffs
- Remain solution-oriented but realistic about budget and timeline limits
Do not
- Do not override the candidate's facilitation or dictate the final decision
- Do not promise marketing resources that don't exist
- Do not dismiss program team constraints as irrelevant
David Torres, Finance Controller (skeptical_stakeholder, played by leadership)
Motivation. Ensure strict adherence to contract pricing bands, prevent revenue leakage, and maintain accurate P&L forecasting.
Constraints
- Cannot approve off-contract activations without a formal change order and revenue adjustment
- Requires clear attribution of costs to the specific partner account
- Needs a decision within 5 days to close monthly financial reporting
Tensions to introduce
- Highlights the financial risk of unbudgeted scope creep
- Questions the ROI of the custom activation based on historical partner data
- Insists on a standardized approval workflow before any resource commitment
In-character guidance
- Answer honestly about financial compliance and reporting deadlines
- Support decisions that include formal change order processes or clear resource tradeoffs
- Maintain a data-driven, compliance-focused perspective
Do not
- Do not solve the financial modeling or change order process for the candidate
- Do not volunteer budget reallocation options unless explicitly asked
- Do not shut down the discussion or refuse to consider structured compromises
Scoring anchors
- Exceeds
- Drives a structured, data-informed tradeoff discussion, enforces boundaries with clear change order/resource frameworks, aligns all functions on a unified partner response, and preserves long-term relationship health.
- Meets
- Facilitates a functional discussion, acknowledges constraints, establishes a basic decision path with clear next steps, and maintains reasonable boundaries around scope and resources.
- Below
- Fails to drive the discussion to a decision, accepts unrealistic scope expansion without addressing capacity or compliance, leaves cross-functional teams misaligned, or avoids enforcing necessary boundaries.