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 for Responsibility Poker.
Facilitation
Responsibility Poker
Paper illustration of a Polarity Map with two poles and four quadrants
Systems Thinking
Polarity Mapping
Paper illustration for Expectation Mapping.
Facilitation
Expectation Mapping
Paper illustration for Accountability Ladder
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 roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge.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
LowMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
45-90 min1-2 h45-90 min20-45 min
Participantsdifferent
3-103-123-121-8
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Responsibility Map, Role Agreements, Open QuestionsPolarity Map, Warning Signs, Balance ActionsExpectation Map, Alignment Notes, AgreementsOwnership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching Notes
Tagsno overlap
RolesResponsibilityTeamFacilitation
Systems thinkingTradeoffsLeadership
AlignmentStakeholdersTeam
ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam
Add more methods