View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Delegation Poker |  Systems Thinking Polarity Mapping |  Facilitation Fishbowl Discussion |  Facilitation Open Space Technology |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When decisions get stuck between leadership and team, Delegation Poker clarifies the desired scope of autonomy. It shows how much decision-making latitude a role should actually get in practice. | Polarity Mapping makes tensions between two opposing poles tangible, such as standardization and adaptation or control and autonomy. The method guards against making apparent either-or decisions prematurely. | When a controversial topic needs depth and discipline at the same time, Fishbowl Discussion makes the structure of the conversation transparent. The format keeps the core small enough for real dialogue and open enough for controlled turnover. | When a complex topic does not yet have a fitting agenda, Open Space Technology hands topic ownership back to the participants. The format suits questions that only move forward when real interest determines the order. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 45-90 min | 0.5-2 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-12 | 8-80 | 20-500+ |
Formatsame | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Discussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions | Session Marketplace, Proceedings, Action Topics |
Tagsno overlap | AutonomyRolesTeam | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | FacilitationDialogueLarge group | FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy |