methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of a Polarity Map with two poles and four quadrants
Systems Thinking
Polarity Mapping
Paper illustration for Accountability Ladder
Operations
Accountability Ladder
Paper illustration for Open Space Technology.
Facilitation
Open Space Technology
Paper illustration for Fishbowl Discussion.
Facilitation
Fishbowl Discussion
Purposedifferent
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.With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on.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.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumLowHighMedium
Timedifferent
1-2 h20-45 min0.5-2 Tage45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
3-121-820-500+8-80
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance ActionsOwnership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching NotesSession Marketplace, Proceedings, Action TopicsDiscussion Insights, Observed Tensions, Follow-up Questions
Tagsno overlap
Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership
ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam
FacilitationLarge groupAutonomy
FacilitationDialogueLarge group
Add more methods