View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Systems Thinking Polarity Mapping |  Systems Thinking Iceberg Model |  Facilitation Responsibility Poker |  Facilitation Delegation Poker |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | The Iceberg Model separates visible events from patterns, structures, and mental models. This turns a single observation into a deeper understanding of why a problem keeps recurring. | When it stays unclear who carries responsibility and who only contributes, Responsibility Poker makes the distribution of responsibility explicit. It sharpens the boundaries between weighing in, deciding, and bearing consequences. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h | 30-60 min | 45-90 min | 45-90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 2-10 | 3-10 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Iceberg Worksheet, Pattern Notes, Intervention Ideas | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Delegation Board, Decision Boundaries, Role Agreements |
Tagsno overlap | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | Systems thinkingRoot causePatterns | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | AutonomyRolesTeam |