a) Make it clear who the meeting is meant to serve and who is directing the meeting.
Every mastermind meeting should clearly have as its objective the meeting some specific goals; ideally the person to has the most at stake should be the responsible party for leading the mastermind meeting and decides what s/he wants to get out of it and how s/he will do so. Meetings without a clear responsible party run a high risk of being directionless and unproductive.
b) Make clear what type of communication you are going to have in light of the mastermind's objectives and priorities.
For example, if the goal of the meeting is to have people with different opinions work through their differences on how a campaign should be run (i.e., open-minded debate), you will run it differently than if the meeting is meant to educate about the mechanics of a specific traffic source.
Debating issues takes time. That time increases geometrically depending on the number of people participating in the discussion, so you have to carefully choose the right people in the right numbers in your mastermind. When picking people for your mastermind you should look for those whose experience and way of thinking you value most. But the worst way to pick people in a mastermind is based solely on whether their conclusions align with yours.
c) Lead the discussion by being assertive and open-minded.
Group-think and solo-think are both dangerous.
d) Remember: A small group (3 to 5) of smart, conceptual people seeking the right answers in an open-minded way will generally lead to the best answer.
The worst way to make decisions in any meeting (mastermind or otherwise) is via large groups without a smart, conceptual leader. Almost everyone thinks they’re smart and conceptual, but only a small percentage of any group really is.
Even when there is a large number of smart, conceptual leaders, more than five trying to make a decision is very inefficient and difficult. This is especially the case when people think they need to satisfy everyone.
e) Make 1+1=3.
Two people who collaborate well will be about three times as effective as the two of them operating independently because they will see what the other might miss, they can leverage each other, and they can hold each other to higher standards.
This symbiotic relationship of
adding people to a group will have incremental benefits (2+1=4.25) up to a point at which there are no incremental gains and beyond which adding people produces incremental losses in effectiveness.
That is because 1) the marginal benefits diminish as the group gets larger—e.g. two or three people might be able to cover most of the important perspectives so adding more people doesn't bring much more, and 2) larger group
interactions are less efficient than smaller group interactions.
Of course, what's best in practice is a function of
1) the quality of the people and the differences of the perspectives that they bring, and
2) how well the group is managed.
As noted before, each group should have someone who is responsible for managing the flow to get out of the meeting the most possible.
f) Navigate the levels of the conversation clearly.
When considering an issue or situation, there should be two levels of discussion: the case at hand and the relevant principles that help you decide how the process should work. Since any specific case at hand is a manifestation of one or more relevant principles, you need to clearly navigate between these levels in order to
1) handle the case well,
2) improve your processes so that future cases like this will be handled better in the future, and
3) test the effectiveness of your principles.
Topic slip is the random and inconclusive drifting from topic to topic without achieving completion. Avoid topic slip by diligently tracking the conversation on a shared Skype screen or whiteboard so everyone can see where you are.
h) Enforce the logic of conversations.
There is a tendency for people’s emotions to heat up when there is a disagreement, so focusing on the logic of your exchange will facilitate communication. If you are calm and analytical in listening to others’ points of view, it is more difficult for them to shut down a logical exchange than if you get emotional or allow them to get emotional.
i) Worry about substance more than style.
This is not to say that some styles aren’t more effective than others with different people and in different circumstances, but don’t let style or tone prevent you from getting in synch. I often see people complain about the delivery of a criticism in order to deflect from its substance. If you think someone’s style is an issue, box it as a separate issue to get in synch about.
j) Achieve completion in conversations.
The main purpose of discussion is to achieve completion and get in synch, which leads to decisions and or actions.
Unfortunately, conversations often fail to reach completion. This amounts to a waste of time because they don’t result in conclusions or productive actions.
When there is an exchange of ideas, especially if there is a disagreement, it is important to end it by stating the conclusions. If there is agreement, say it; if not, say that.
Where further action has been decided, get those tasks on a to-do list, assign people to do them, and specify due dates. Write down your conclusions, working theories, and to-do’s in places that will lead to their being used as foundations for continued progress.
k) Have someone assigned to maintain notes in meetings and make sure follow-through happens.
Generally speaking, to avoid distraction during the discussion itself, prioritizing follow-ups and assignments should be done afterwards.
l) Be careful not to lose personal responsibility via group decision-making.
Too often mastermind groups will make a decision to do something without assigning personal responsibilities so it is not clear who is supposed to do what. Be crystal clear in assigning specific and personal responsibilities, action items and next steps at the end of every mastermind meeting.