Blog

Business is drunk on personality testing.

You take Myers-Briggs and find out you’re an INFP or some such nonsense. You take Enneagram and learn that you’re a Challenger.

And, thanks to this. Your behavior suddenly makes sense.

“No wonder I don’t always get along with people. My personality test says that I tend to be aggressive.”

“Big surprise that I get overlooked at work. I’m an introvert.”

Never mind that a supposedly aggressive person might be tame around their grandmother or that that introvert likes to get loud when playing poker with their buddies. We’ll just overlook that.

The reality is that numerous studies over decades have shown that personality tests predict <10% of behavior. The reason for this is fivefold:

One, context matters more than supposed personality traits at the level of individual situations. For example, maybe you argue hard in the board room or a court of law, but are easygoing around your kids. Why? The context requires different behavior from you.

Two, you cannot reduce many things in life down to a single variable and have much reliability. Can you judge your health based solely on your cholesterol level? Sure, it’s important, but what about your physical activity, blood pressure, diet, stress level, and so on? Or, how about IQ? Raw brain power is important of course, but is a high IQ all it takes to pick out a “smart” person, a hard worker, or something else?

Three, the trait has to be limited in scope and very specific to predict anything well. If you were seeking someone to model swimsuits, you would be better off asking someone with high body-esteem, because that is more specific, than someone with simply high self-esteem, which is simply too multi-faceted.

Four, a person has to be pretty extreme in a trait for it to predict well. If for example you are a 95% in extraversion, we are more likely to be able to predict how you will act in most situations than if you are a 75% in extraversion. The reason is that your trait is less likely to be dampened by any situational specifics.

Five, traits predict general patterns better than individual actions. It’s a little like the difference between weather and climate. Just because your climate has gotten warmer or dryer does not mean that you will not have colder or wetter days. The same is true of traits. Hire someone that tests high in flexibility, put them in a chaotic situation, and you might find that their reaction is to try to build some stability by implementing prescriptive or restrictive rules. But when they go home, they might very well revert to being flexible with their family.

I share all of this because you are not as simple as a single measurement or personality trait.

Your height does not describe you with any level of confidence that I could make real judgments about you.

Your hair or skin color does not describe you well enough that I can draw conclusions with high confidence.

The same is true of your cholesterol level, your waistline, or any number of other things.

And, it is most definitely true with personality tests.

Yet, employers seek to reduce the evaluation of job candidates–and even current employees–down to very few measurements so that they can simplify how they think about us, and we invite that because we’ve bought this line that our Myers-Briggs or DISC or whatever explain so much about us.

Slowly but surely, we can change this though by refusing to others and ourselves people down to simplistic and broad measurements. You are not just a number or a skin color or a personality type. You are more than that, and so is everyone else.

Human beings are hardwired for threat detection.

Some more so than others. And, some have whatever genetic level of anxiety or neuroticism they were born with amped up by the circumstances that brought them to today. So, some people might actually be predisposed to be, let’s say, risk takers, but for all intents and purposes, what you or I see is someone who is risk averse, skittish, pick-your-particular-flavor-of-threat-detection-behavior because maybe they grew up without a stable home, were in an abusive relationship, have been attacked, or something else.

Again, at the end of the day, we all have some level of predisposition for avoiding threats, but some have that level amped up by their experiences.

Imagine a young mother 5,000 years ago needing to decide if this stranger that just walked into her village might be a threat to her child. Or, imagine that child’s young father seeing that stranger and not knowing if he can leave for the hunt that day or if he needs to stay close for protection. Some people in those circumstances decided they were safe and left to do what they needed to (hunt, farm, barter, whatever), and their child (or whatever they were protecting) was harmed. Others stayed close to home, did not get done what they needed to, and suffered due to for example their family not having food or income.

They could not predict the future. They could only place a bet. Some of them made the wrong bet by leaving, so maybe they didn’t pass on their genes because their child was murdered. And, some of them made the wrong bet by not leaving, so maybe their child starved because food was not brought home for the day when it was really needed, and again, their genes were not passed on.

Ultimately though, if your child went hungry or your household had a little less income for a single day, you stood a chance of recovering, but if your child was–let’s say–killed by that stranger, there was no recovery from that. As a result of the ability to recover being different from one choice to the next, human beings are on average more averse to threats than we are attracted to opportunity because permanence of opportunity is unreliable. The permanence of death is quite reliable though.

This is just one small contributor to the extreme attention we now pay to levels of protection that would seem odd to someone from decades or centuries past. That is not to say that for example seatbelts are unnecessary or that there is any problem with making bottles BPA free, but every potential threat piled on top of the next–no matter how small–creates a slippery slope, where we increasingly come to think of these threat avoidance measures as being necessary, and we forego potential benefits in favor of staving off threats.

You or I might think for example that it’s harmless to just walk my daughter around the corner to play at the neighbor’s when she could have just walked by herself, but society leads me to believe it’s not acceptable to just let my daughter walk alone, so I go along with that expectation despite not feeling it is necessary. It’s safer and harmless right?

But, as Todd Rose says, “Today’s collective illusions (the thing that no one believes, but goes along with, because we think everyone else believes it) become tomorrow’s norms.” And those norms just get built upon with more collective illusions, which again become norms. It’s a positive feedback loop.

We’re working our way toward a society that values protection at all costs. No risk taking. No weighing of the costs and benefits. It’s like the extreme version of Dick Cheney’s 1% doctrine. If there is any chance of threat, that’s too much.

And sadly, the media through which we increasingly engage with and understand the world amplify the collective illusions because that natural, human threat detection tendency reacts more strongly to the negative stories we encounter than the positive stories. This is why Hans Rosling said, “Good news is not news.”

All of your information (let’s call them “news”) outlets are selling something. TV and websites need visitors so that they can sell ad space. Forum and social media users are selling a viewpoint. And, so on. If they weren’t selling something, they wouldn’t care about getting your attention.

And sadly, if you’re one of those people that actually does not follow the collective illusion, if you think there are some gambles worth taking, you are now put in a position of being seen as untrustworthy because obviously you’re just not concerned about the environment or animals or children or God-knows-what. You’re too cavalier, but they (someone else) care even though you don’t. Clearly.

In today’s environment, that “compassion”, that moral high ground wins in all arguments even if it’s over-protection and comes at the cost of other benefits that could be gained, such as for example teaching my daughter within a relatively safe setting how to navigate the world alone. No, protection today over long term protection or competence in the future, right?

Within our businesses, this manifests not as an environment in which people can say and do hard things and where they can be safe to make mistakes while working toward our collective goals. Instead, this manifests as workplaces where you cannot say certain things because they make others uncomfortable, where–instead of being encouraged to do–you are mandated to no do.

The downstream implications of this are workplaces in which most people do not feel comfortable being themselves because they have been told making the wrong joke, using the wrong phrase, looking at someone the wrong way is an unforgivable offense. So, people do not open themselves up and fully commit. Why commit when you cannot be yourself? And certainly, if I’m not committed and if I fear punishment for making mistakes, why work hard to try new things, to innovate?

At the societal level, I don’t expect this to change. This is human nature, and the machinery we have built around us support it. The structures and the collective illusions we have built within most businesses support it.

What you can do though if you question some of this security-at-all-costs is not stay silent.

If you’re silent, that makes the collective illusions even stronger and more likely to become norms for the next generation. If you at least say something though, you create the opportunity that other likeminded people can find you and that–maybe, just maybe–someone predisposed to avoid that threat starts to question the value of avoiding it over the value they could get from spending their time and energy elsewhere.

Within a business, that gives you the opportunity to build a culture in which people can be themselves, commit, find the mission and people they truly align with, and achieve something that every other organization foregoes in the interest of immediate “protection”.

I joined a mastermind network earlier this year and began guesting in meetings outside of my market in May. With 44 total guest appearances, that is an average of 5.5 90-minute meetings per month.

The format for these meetings varies from group to group, but one of the most consistent things is that it is a 90-minute meeting once each month rather than for example the half or full day that some groups put in.

After having guested in 44 of those groups, this is what I have learned about what it takes to both run and also be a solid contributor to a mastermind meeting.

Leading a Great Mastermind Meeting

Undoubtedly, it is more difficult to lead and build something than it is to take advantage of it after-the-fact. And, there are many more ways to do something poorly than there are to do it well. Fortunately, if you are motivated by opportunities for improvement, this is why the statement that the path to success runs through failure is so true. Hopefully, if you are a mastermind leader, you can use some of this information to make your investment return as much as possible.

Without further ado, what I believe it takes to lead a great mastermind meeting:

Respect the participants’ time.

It is difficult to start meetings or anything else on time. I get that. We’re all running from one thing to the next, and it is nice to be able to ease into things with some personal conversations, discussions about the weather, or whatever else, but most mastermind groups are made up of people that are executives and CEOs, whose time is expensive. And, they’re paying to be there, so start your meetings on time, set an agenda, and stick to it. If anything I already mentioned, like personal conversations, are valuable to your potential outcomes, make a deliberate and overt decision to have that be part of the agenda.

Prepare for the meeting.

Unlike most participants, the meeting leader has to prepare. If you’re meeting in person, you have to secure the space and likely food or beverages. If it’s virtual, you still need an agenda and featured topics, members, or guests. Sadly, no one is going to take care of these things except the meeting or group leader or someone they delegate to.

While not having food or beverages is not the worst thing in the world, not having a feature and having to ask, “Does anyone have anything they want to discuss?” is nearly always a meeting and value killer. It can occasionally result in valuable conversations, but that is far from guaranteed. And in my experience, that almost always results in a wasted meeting.

Do not go into the meeting without a planned and prepared feature member, speaker, or topic.

Establish continuity.

In addition to developing a consistent format that you stick to, one of the least common, but most valuable, things I have seen group leaders do is a checkin at the beginning and end of every meeting. Typically, this takes the form of going around the room, asking for a 1-10 score/status on your personal and business life (lives?), and then soliciting an answer to a general question like, “What is the biggest news at home or at work from the last month?”

The continuity piece comes in the ability to extend a conversation about one of these issues over multiple meetings. For example, I experienced one group speaking with a participant about what was going on in their business because their score had been low for months, but in this particular meeting, they finally raised it.

Rather than just having a topic-of-the-month and not much more than the individuals or the format that tie things together, this checkin allows for participants to extend consideration of and discussion about a topic over a longer time, which also helps with the next item.

Build community.

The best groups I have guested in had members that demonstrated that they were invested in the group, the time, and their fellow members. This exhibited itself in how open and vulnerable some of the featured members were and how frank, but clearly caring, the other participants were with their questions and recommendations.

The worst groups I have guested in had members that knew little to nothing about one another, featured members that had not prepared, and discussions that rarely got beyond the feedback that you could get from anyone on the street. Additionally, some of the worst groups typically had a majority of members that said that they wanted to be in person more, wanted greater depth of conversation, and so on. But as far as I could tell, they were not making an effort to drive to a meeting place, really focus on giving genuine help, or otherwise investing their time and effort. They might have wanted those things, but the individuals had either gotten tired of making the effort without it being reciprocated, or they simply talked the talk and never followed it up with action.

I believe that a large portion of the potential for community in a group of 10-20 people from different industries, who often have no pre-existing connections to one another, comes from the natural predispositions of the members to genuinely invest in one another and connect one on one rather than for example from some already existing community standards that the members opt into or adopt when they join. That being said, the behaviors and activities that I could see fostered a strong sense of community were:

1. The group leader investing in each new member. Getting to know them, helping them understand how to make the most of the group, and so on.
2. Members working to build relationships outside of the meetings. Setting up one on one coffees, working to understand how they could help each other, having social times such as parties or happy hours, etc.
3. Members investing their time and attention.
4. Members being open, honest, and vulnerable.

Set standards.

Years ago, my wife and I went to Thailand. At one of the temples, they would not let us in because we were both wearing shorts. The fact that we had to purchase and don pants in order to enter the temple felt like an unnecessary restriction, but by enforcing a certain dress code, officials at that temple were working to establish a specific environment that generated certain outcomes.

At any point in life, we can feel that some rules are silly or unnecessary, but in most cases, groups have rules and standards because those things facilitate achievement of the group’s goals. The same should be true of a mastermind group.

Some of the basics should be:

1. Stick to a schedule.
2. Prepare an agenda.
3. Ensure that your featured speaker or member is ready and equipped for their time.
4. Enforce a discussion format. Generally, asking questions before moving to recommendations is a good idea for example.
5. Encourage deep, genuine, and vulnerable conversation. I don’t mean vulnerable in the sense that people just talk about their weaknesses, but rather that the speakers are open and transparent in an effort to get to the best possible solutions.The encouragement part of this also involves members, or at least the leader, courageously calling out when for example someone veils a recommendation as a question during the question portion.
6. Make sure that everyone shows up on time, stays the whole time, and pays attention. Unexpected things happen, and there are times when for example someone has to leave early for something they cannot miss, but the number of times I’ve been in bad meetings due to people multi-tasking, showing up late, or showing up just to pitch their company and then leaving is astounding.

Being a Valuable Mastermind Participant

Let’s be honest. It’s not that difficult to just show up and follow some rules. It is more difficult to be completely open and honest about personal flaws, insecurities, or sensitive topics, but that is also manageable if trust can be established.

After guesting in 44 groups, this is what I believe it takes to be a good participant in a mastermind meeting:

Invest your time and attention.

It does not matter whether you’re a CEO, a hairdresser, or a stay-at-home parent. We’re all busy. We’re all short on time. Don’t disrespect your fellow participants by showing up late, not sticking around, or not paying attention. You and I have both paid to be here. Don’t waste my money and time because you don’t value yours.

I get it that–especially with a virtual meeting–you’ve got your email and Google and who-knows-what-else right there. And for in-person meetings, you have your phone and smartwatch or whatever else. But, we’re all paying to be here, and some of us are really investing a lot in you and ourselves. If you’re multi-tasking, you’re not invested. If you show up late or leave early, that detracts from the flow and the quality of conversation. And if you really aren’t invested in being helpful, I could just as easily have talked to anyone. Why pay to be a member of a group of leaders if I cannot get better advice than what I might otherwise find on the street?

Love the problem, not your solution.

I have a bad habit, a common one but still a bad one. When I think I have the answer, I so want to be right. And when I think I have the solution to your problem, I tend to forget that maybe there are important details I don’t know about. And, I probably stop asking questions that might help me better understand the issue. Unfortunately, the same is true of a lot of people.

Some of the best run mastermind meetings I have been in ask for the featured member to answer a standard set of questions in advance so that the other participants do not come in blind. They can have spent some time reviewing the topic or issue and letting it rattle around in their heads so that they come to the meeting prepared. Then at the meeting, the member is asked to give a synopsis of the issue and what they are seeking from the group. And finally, the group has two time blocks dedicated first to asking clarifying questions and second to making recommendations.

Two of the most valuable aspects of the time for clarifying questions are that this often helps break the featured member free from their existing way of thinking about the challenge, so that they might actually solve the problem themselves, and it aids in the other members getting a better understanding so that they can give advice that might actually be unique and useful.

Ask questions.

If you think you know better than someone else, if you think you have the answer, you stop asking questions and demonstrating curiosity. And most of the time if you just tell someone what to do rather than having them come up with the solution themselves, you make it much more difficult for them to take responsibility for their actions.

The reason is that, if what you recommend does not work, it’s your fault not theirs. It was your idea. And if what you recommend does work, you’ve encouraged that they seek creative solutions from others rather than believing that they can solve their own problems.

Let’s be honest. In a group that includes a CPA, a lawyer, a banker, a management consultant, a marketer, and so on, there are a lot of challenges that each person might encounter that are unique to that industry or vertical. And if you are outside of the issue, it is unlikely you will have a better solution than the person that brought the challenge to the group. That being said, you might have a new way of thinking about the situation, so rather than saying, “Try this,” or, “Do that,” consider asking, “Have you thought about…” and, “What do you mean when you say…”

Stick to the format and structure.

My goodness, people. It’s not that hard. Almost no groups that I have guested in have been able to successfully follow through on this though.

Group leader: “We spent a lot of time on introductions last meeting, so even though we have a few guests this time, let’s just do the shortest elevator pitch description of yourself you can do. Name, role, and industry. That’s it.”

Inevitably, one or two people follow the format at first, the third forgets and doesn’t follow the format, the fourth tries to get back on track, and from the fifth on it’s just abandoned altogether. So, what could have been 20 people introducing themselves in 10 minutes or less turns into a 30-minute segment in which a feel people at first said 10 words over a 30-second intro and some of them say hundreds over 5-minute soliloquy.

There is such as thing as positive constraints. These are generally defined as limitations that benefit the situation. Whether you are in a debate club, the NFL, or a court of law, an agreed upon set of rules that we all follow allows us to get more out of the engagement than we would without those constraints. The same is true in mastermind groups.

If your group–or your group leader–provide some guidance for the benefit of the group, just follow the damn rules.

Don’t sell. Help.

Whether in the meetings themselves or in one-on-one discussions, the number one reason participants ever gave me for feeling the meetings were not valuable was that other participants were too salesy. While I hesitate to judge too much because I honestly did not experience much of that, I can imagine what it would be like. And as it relates to some of these points more broadly, you as a member of a group–and your fellow members as well–simply are not going to get as much out of the time as you could if you are more focused on overt lead generation than on actually trying to help your fellow meeting participants deal with the challenges they face.

I hope this has been helpful–whether you are considering joining a mastermind, you’re a leader, or you are just a participant yourself. If I can help you with anything mastermind related, shoot me a line at eric@inboundandagile.com.