TetraMap is not a detailed individual psychometric assessment and does not predict that a person will always maintain the same Element preference(s).

Instead, it takes a step back and looks more at commonalities between people’s preferences and attempts to group them without pigeon-holing. In this article we attempt to explain the differences, and ask you to consider, then compare…  

All models have value  – none is right vs wrong, or better vs worse – but in choosing one it is most helpful to ask what is most useful for your organisation or application? 
Will the model you choose provide the outcome you want?

If your requirements are for a model that:

  • is simple, memorable and easily applied   
  • will be used daily and across different types of challenges 
  • uses safe, positive, and inclusive language
  • enables people to recognise themselves in all components of the model and not be pigeon-holed
  • is effective, affordable and engaging for all,  then consider – rather than compare, TetraMap. 

Co-founder Jon Brett explains further … 

TetraMap’s strength lies in its simplicity, use of metaphor, ability to engage, and applicability over time and across a range of scenarios or workplace situations. Thinking in metaphors is a naturally creative process, and the holistic nature of TetraMap ensures consideration of multiple perspectives instead of a polarising, strengths-and-weaknesses, black-and-white approach.

Unlike some models, TetraMap stresses that everyone has all four Elements which they are able to access and strengthen for improved communication skills and performance.

TetraMap’s instrument has 10 questions, each with 4 forced-choice answers ranked by preference and answered intuitively – no lengthy questionnaires, or individual reports for analysis.

The learning process is experiential, creative, and discovery-based. Integration of adult learning principles in all TetraMap workshops is a key differentiator.

Read more from TetraMap’s creators, Yoshimi and Jon Brett.