Surface trade-offs with forced-choice

When This Fires

• When new requests arrive that compete with existing commitments
• When workload exceeds capacity and the default response is to absorb the overflow
• When you feel unable to say "no" directly — the forced choice is a structural alternative
• When multiple stakeholders make independent requests without seeing each other's demands

Common Failure Mode

Silent absorption: "Sure, I'll handle both." You work evenings and weekends to accommodate the impossible, the requestor never learns about the trade-off, and next week they make the same impossible request because it "worked" last time. The forced choice prevents this by making capacity constraints visible at the moment of the request.

The Protocol

(1) When a new request arrives that doesn't align with your top priorities, don't accept or reject immediately. (2) Apply the forced-choice formula: "I can do [new request] or [existing commitment] this week — which matters more to you?" (3) Let the requestor decide. Their prioritization is more informed than your assumption about their priorities. (4) If they say "both" → escalate the trade-off: "Here's what would need to give for both to happen: [timeline extension / quality reduction / other commitment dropped]. Which of these is acceptable?" (5) Never silently absorb conflicting demands. Every trade-off that remains invisible to the requestor will be repeated, because from their perspective, no trade-off exists.