adopt-team-challenge-invitation ยท diff
git:20261011.dce569c to git:20261026.a2f0899
2 added, 2 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: adopt-team-challenge-invitation
- description: Drafts an invitation to question an AI plan before it is final, with what is still open, questions sent in advance, likely objections written as neutral questions and labelled as generated, three routes to respond and the leader's response commitment. Use for "run adopt-team-challenge-invitation", "invite the team to challenge the AI plan", "get honest objections to the AI rollout", "nobody pushes back on the AI plan", "stress test the AI rollout with the team", "consult the team before we decide on AI", "what might we be missing in the AI plan", part of the Claude Guide for AI Adoption Pack by Polar Bear.
+ description: Drafts an invitation to question an AI plan before it is final, with what is still open, questions sent in advance, likely objections written as neutral questions and labelled as generated, three routes to respond and the leader's response commitment. Use for "run adopt-team-challenge-invitation", "invite the team to challenge the AI plan", "get honest objections to the AI rollout", "nobody pushes back on the AI plan", "stress test the AI rollout with the team", "consult the team before we decide on AI", "what might we be missing in the AI plan", part of the Claude Guide for AI Adoption Pack by 90n.
---
# Team Challenge Invitation
## When To Use
The leader wants honest objections to the rollout, and the only people who speak are the ones who already agree. Use this before one decision about the AI plan, while something can still change. It answers: how do we ask so that people with doubts can say them, and what do we promise to do with what they say?
## When Not To Use
Do not use it when the outcome is fixed: asking for challenge on a settled decision teaches people that asking is theatre. For the programme-wide plan of who is involved and how, run Team Involvement Plan. To record what happened to each concern afterwards, run Concern Response Log.
## Inputs
- The AI plan or the decision on the table, and the case for it in the leader's words.
- Who decides, by when, which choices can still change, and the teams affected by role, including the people who will carry the plan out.
- How disagreement has been handled before, if you have seen it, as observed and not as guessed.
If you have none of this, I start from a short description of the plan and mark the output as a first draft.
## Approach
The method is plain and has no owner: people speak up when the leader asks, says what is open, and responds without penalty, and when views are gathered before the senior voice is heard. Objections I generate are a way to write better questions. They are never evidence of what the team thinks. The failure this prevents is the meeting where the sponsor presents the plan with enthusiasm, asks "any concerns?", gets silence, and records the silence as agreement.
## Workflow
1. Ask up to three questions: what is being decided and by whom, what can still change and by when, and who is affected. If nothing can change, the document is labelled as an explanation or a request for implementation input, and says so.
2. Keep the strongest case for the plan visible, in the leader's terms. Then list the most consequential plausible objections, each grounded in the context supplied (capacity, quality, responsibility, access, career expectations), with what evidence would support or weaken it. If the plan is well supported, I say so: there is no target number of objections.
3. Turn each objection into a neutral question for people with relevant experience. Label the set "generated possibilities, not employee feedback" and invite correction.
4. Write the invitation: the context, what is open and what is not, and the questions, sent in advance so people can think before they answer. Order the session so first views are gathered before the senior person states a preference: written first, or a round where the leader speaks last.
5. Set three routes: spoken, written, private. Taking part is optional. No route is described as anonymous when an ordinary form or a small team cannot keep that promise. If the leader is implicated, add a route outside that leader.
6. Draft the response commitment for the leader to confirm: ask for clarification, consider the evidence, explain the decision, name the next update and its date. Disagreement may remain; consensus is not required.
## Output Format
```markdown
# Team Challenge Invitation
Decision: [what is being decided] | Decision owner: [role] | Input closes: [date] | Decision due: [date]
The case for the plan, in the leader's terms: [three or four lines].
The questions below are generated possibilities, not employee feedback: correct them, add your own, or tell us they miss the point. Taking part is optional.
## What is open and what is not
| Open to change | Already decided | Not yet known |
|---|---|---|
| [choice] | [choice, and who decided] | [question] |
## Questions sent in advance (generated, not employee feedback)
| Question | The assumption it tests | Evidence that would support or weaken it | Who has relevant experience |
|---|---|---|---|
| [neutral question] | [assumption] | [evidence] | [role, never a named person] |
## How to respond
| Route | How it works | Who sees what you say | Closes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoken | [session, leader speaks last] | [who] | [date] |
| Written | [channel] | [who; what the tool records] | [date] |
| Private | [person or channel outside the decision owner if needed] | [who] | [date] |
## What the leader commits to
- [Role] will reply on [date], at [place], with what changed, what did not and why. Open disagreements will be named as open.
## Decision
[Decision owner] confirms what is open, the routes and the reply date by [date], and sends the invitation personally.
```
## Done When
- The open, decided and unknown columns are filled from what the decision owner supplied.
- Every generated objection is a neutral question and carries the "generated" label.
- There are three routes, one of them private, none described as anonymous without grounds, and the leader's reply has a date and a place.
## Quality Bar
- Questions ask about assumptions, consequences, missing information and alternatives, tied to real work.
- Nobody is asked to show vulnerability, to say who is afraid, or to share their prompts.
- No inference about what any person believes, no scoring of candour, and serious allegations go to the appropriate human process, not into a group session.
- Generated objections are labelled as generated; people choose whether and how to speak, and the leader owns the decision and the reply.
## Next
Run adopt-concern-response-log (Concern Response Log) to show what happened to every concern raised.
## About the makers
- This pack is made by Polar Bear, a consultancy built by ex-McKinsey founders with a dream to make AI work for People, not instead of them. We help our clients build people systems and AI-first ways of working, and we run our own company on Claude. If your team has outgrown the self-serve version, message Pauline (linkedin.com/in/paulinebertry).
+ This pack is made by 90n ([90n.ai](https://90n.ai)): AI-native ways of working and tools for Product, Marketing and HR teams, built by ex-McKinsey founders. We map where time and money leak, redesign the work around AI and stay until your people run it themselves, and we run our own company on Claude. If your team has outgrown the self-serve version, message Pauline (linkedin.com/in/paulinebertry).