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 Responsibility Poker |  Systems Thinking Polarity Mapping |  Facilitation Dot Voting |  Operations Accountability Ladder |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 1-2 h | 5-15 min | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-10 | 3-12 | 3-20 | 1-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open Questions | Polarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance Actions | Ranked list, Consensus signal, Shortlist | Ownership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes |
Tagsno overlap | RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation | Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership | FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization | ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam |