Short version (IMHO) is that Masterminds are excellent when you get good people (seniority, experience, entrepreneurial spirit etc) and they are far less good with less relevant people.
-
Take a bunch of very early stage peers. They often have more limited and similar knowledge and networks. On the other hand, take a bunch of essentially lonely and talented entrepreneurs and stick them in a room, magic will happen!
I reckon it’s some combination of neglectedness/isolatedness and relative value.
I’m a member of a Mastermind group (from a Leadership Program I was on many years ago) which includes a couple of very senior civil servants. It’s just fascinating to watch how these leaders, unable to access advice and unguarded council from their own subordinates, can help each other—by virtue of their positions, experience and relevance. At the very least they respect each other and understand each other’s struggles in a way that few others can.
So I suspect that a huge amount of the value of Mastermind groups comes down to the matchmaking.
WANBAM (now Magnify Mentoring) seems to have had an outsized impact by connecting mentors with mentees across the community. I suspect an equivalent service of matching EAs into Circle/Masterminds could be very valuable. WANBAM’s success (from where I sit at least) seems to have been largely due to the skill of the matchmaker(s). Getting the fit “just right”. Likewise—getting the Circles “just right” could be amazingly powerful.
We suspect that a huge number of EAs don’t apply who would be excellent candidates, thinking themselves not good enough.
This is a shame. Historically, about half of those who have made it all the way through the program and achieved funding didn’t even think they’d be accepted.
Doctors think they lack the commercial skills, business students think they lack the research skills and researchers think they lack the interpersonal skills. The truth is that nobody comes onto the program ready. That’s what the program is for. Moreover, year one of running the charity is where you pilot, test, learn and become an expert; skillful and capable. Almost nobody actually hits the ground running. We know this too. We are looking for people who have the potential to BECOME great founders, in time.
Furthermore, very few people have a good sense of what it actually takes. That’s because they’ve never done anything like this before. So they underrate themselves not knowing what it takes. We, on the other hand, having started a bunch of charities, do have a good sense of what it takes. So you’re probably best off applying and trusting our vetting process.
Specifically, we notice that people who are a bit newer to the community (two years) are often hesitant to apply, despite being potentially a very good fit… especially if they have been running an EA chapter, doing community-building activities, reading the EA forum regularly, and engaging with our content.
Another hurdle we find is that many people think that they should first get more experience before they apply. Yes, some experience can be applicable, but almost nobody has started a charity before. Domain expertise can also be useful, but again, almost nobody has domain expertise in lead elimination, bait fish advocacy work, or how to run educational radio ads in Africa.
We also note that a founder that starts now and runs a charity for three years will outperform (at running a charity) someone who does two years work experience in a consultancy and then starts running a charity for a year. In short, start early and learn the most applicable things. Every year you delay is a year’s worth of impact removed from the world.
So we think that applying early should be a default option. Some of our most successful charities were started by graduates straight from university (e.g., Family Empowerment Media, Fish Welfare Initiative, Fortify Health ). We provide very intensive training and sometimes a part of it is unlearning ineffective work habits people have previously picked up in less impact-focused roles.
It’s also worth noting that we don’t vet on the basis of age, (we’ve had 19yr olds and 60+ yr olds), gender, introversion vs extroversion, or location. We build charities in historically marginalized and underserved regions and we favor local applicants. 33% of our program participants are from low or middle income countries (and increasing). Our own team is also diverse: 66% are female, nonbinary or from sexual orientation minorities.
It’s also just worth applying. Round one involves 60 questions and uploading your CV. But you’ll get feedback on your answers, so at the very least it’ll be worth your while, even if you don’t progress this time.
Lastly, if you applied previously, we strongly encourage you to do so again. We’ve had numerous participants who didn’t get in on their first application. One tried four times before being successful!