---
id: "framework-managerial-clarity-triad"
type: "framework"
source_timestamps: ["¶110 (Daisy Auger-Domínguez)"]
tags: ["management", "conflict-resolution", "communication"]
related: ["claim-middle-managers-highest-friction", "entity-daisy-auger-dominguez"]
speakers: ["Daisy Auger-Domínguez"]
steps: ["\\\"What do we have? (Assess current tools", "resources", "and certainties).\\\"", "\\\"What do we need? (Identify the gaps in clarity", "honesty", "and roadmap).\\\"", "\\\"What's at risk? (Acknowledge the threats to trust", "connection", "and job security).\\\""]
sources: ["reskilling"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-reskilling"
originDay: 10
articleStem: "hbr-edu-43-leading-human-ai-organization"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/05/leading-the-human-ai-organization"
sourceTitle: "Leading the Human-AI Organization"
---
# Daisy's Managerial Clarity Triad

A three-question framework used by [[entity-daisy-auger-dom-nguez|Daisy Auger-Domínguez]] to help teams — particularly the middle managers described in [[claim-middle-managers-highest-friction]] — navigate the existential threats and friction associated with AI adoption. It strips away corporate jargon to focus on practical realities and psychological safety.

**The three questions:**

1. **What do we have?** — Assess current tools, resources, and certainties.
2. **What do we need?** — Identify the gaps in clarity, honesty, and roadmap.
3. **What's at risk?** — Acknowledge the threats to trust, connection, and job security.

The triad is deliberately blunt: naming what is at risk (including job security) is the mechanism for the **radical honesty** the middle-manager problem demands.

**Enrichment note:** A practical, heuristic tool derived from general coaching principles — managerial clarity frameworks commonly use a current-state / desired-state / risks triad. It aligns well with best practices for navigating uncertainty and building psychological safety, but should be viewed as a **practitioner framework** rather than a validated scientific instrument.