ArticlePDF Available


The academic career path is seldom straightforward. Many health professionals and researchers face stress and uncertain employment opportunities. Joining a collegial support group, a so-called “mastermind” group, is one way to help navigate these challenges. We investigated postdoctoral researchers’ (N=16) experiences with participating in a mastermind group using an online survey. Four themes emerged from their responses: (I) A place that offers conversation in confidence; (II) An opportunity for personal and professional development; (III) A quality break and time for reflection, and (IV) Challenges experienced by mastermind group participants. This study establishes that taking part in a mastermind group can effectively help shift focus from the negative aspects of a challenge faced by its group members to the positive aspects of a potential solution.
Case Report
Health Education and Care
Health Edu Care, 2019 doi: 10.15761/HEC.1000155
ISSN: 2398-8517
Volume 4: 1-3
Benets of participating in mastermind groups
Pernilla Garmy1,2*, Ulrika Olsson Möller2, Cecilia Winberg1,3, Lina Magnusson1,4 and Nelli Kalnak5
1Department of Health Sciences, Medical Faculty, Lund University, Sweden
2Faculty of Health Sciences, Kristianstad University, Sweden
3Ystad hospital, Region Skåne, Sweden
4Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Section of Social Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sweden
5Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Medical Faculty, Lund University, Sweden
e academic career path is seldom straightforward. Many health professionals and researchers face stress and uncertain employment opportunities. Joining a
collegial support group, a so-called “mastermind” group, is one way to help navigate these challenges. We investigated postdoctoral researchers’ (N=16) experiences
with participating in a mastermind group using an online survey. Four themes emerged from their responses: (I) A place that oers conversation in condence; (II)
An opportunity for personal and professional development; (III) A quality break and time for reection, and (IV) Challenges experienced by mastermind group
participants. is study establishes that taking part in a mastermind group can eectively help shift focus from the negative aspects of a challenge faced by its group
members to the positive aspects of a potential solution.
*Correspondence to: Pernilla Garmy, Department of Health Sciences, Medical
Faculty, Lund University, Sweden, E-mail:
Key words: collegial support, mastermind group, peer-mentoring network, higher
education, postdoctoral fellow
Received: March 26, 2019; Accepted: April 03, 2019; Published: April 05, 2019
e academic career path is seldom straightforward. Many health
professionals and researchers face stress and uncertain employment
opportunities. is experience motivates many to abandon health care
and/ or academia [1]. Participating in a collegial or peer-mentoring
network (e.g., a mastermind group) represents one way of managing
the challenges associated with working in health care and academia.
Expectations and challenges can be demanding for early career
health professionals and researchers. Faculty support is not always
available and oen fails to meet specic individual needs [2]. Mentoring
is traditionally based on one-to-one hierarchical relationships, e.g., new
faculty members being mentored by senior ones. However, more recent
models of mentorship in academia suggest forming peer-mentoring
networks composed of non-hierarchical partners [3]. e value of
peer-mentoring networks for early career academics lies in extending
beyond their own institution/departments walls, as emphasized in Pegg
et al. [4]. A network based on reciprocal partnerships with university
colleagues who are not involved in the same institution/department
can provide a positive and non-dependent context for mentorship. Pegg
and colleagues highlight the importance of formalizing informal peer-
mentoring networks and they recommend meeting regularly, setting
goals, dening how to meet (in person or online), and consciously
determining the size and composition of the group.
A “mastermind” group is a peer-mentoring network usually
composed of three to six participants with a maximum of eight to
ten participants. e main purpose of a mastermind group is to help
its members navigate the challenges and solve problems using their
collective knowledge and experiences. ese groups are self-directed.
e original purpose of the mastermind group concept was to enable a
group-based approach to problem-solving [5]. Each mastermind group
agrees on the agenda, goals, approaches, timelines, frequency, and
format of its meetings. Meetings are regular and can be face-to-face,
virtual (e.g., via teleconference or Skype), or a mixture of both based on
the group members' needs and preferences. e agenda of the meetings
address a specic common interest of the participants, e.g., research or
teaching [6]. e members support each other by contributing dierent
skills, perspectives, and experiences. Mentoring programs with
colleagues at a medical faculty can lead to participants experiencing
an appreciative culture, clarifying their own career goals and priorities,
and feeling enhanced enthusiasm for collaboration [7]. e success of
peer-mentoring programs in a university setting has been reported to
rely on the relationships within the group and on the use of feedback as
a coaching tool [7].
is study was conducted using an empirical qualitative approach.
Qualitative research methodologies aim to describe and understand
subjective experiences [8]. e selection of this research design was
dependent on the nature of the issue being addressed. A survey with
open-ended questions was used to provide answers to questions
concerning early career researchers experiences with participating in
a mastermind group. Next, we performed a qualitative content analysis
because this method describes variations among experiences and
distinguishes between their dierences and similarities [9].
Sample and data collection
In December 2018, an online survey with information about the
study and its voluntary nature was sent to 100 early career researchers
Garmy P (2019) Benets of participating in mastermind groups
Volume 4: 2-3
Health Edu Care, 2019 doi: 10.15761/HEC.1000155
who had participated in the university post-doctoral career program at
a Swedish university, from which the opportunity to join a mastermind
group was oered. e participation was anonymous.
e following background information was collected: age, sex,
faculty of the participant, the duration of their participation in
the mastermind group, how oen the meetings took place, if the
mastermind meetings were in person and/or online, and the number of
participants in the group. e survey also included the following open-
ended questions:
Please describe your experiences of participating in a mastermind
Please give examples of topics discussed in the mastermind group
Please describe challenges as well as positive experiences of participating
in a mastermind group.
Conventional qualitative content analysis was used, specically
an inductive approach [10]. e text material was analyzed using
qualitative content analysis focused on both the manifest content and
the latent content because the purpose of the study was to describe and
understand the early career researchers’ experiences. is approach is
appropriate when describing dierences and similarities in a textual
format [9]. is analysis was executed by all of the authors by reading
the responses to the open-ended questions several times to achieve
comprehension. e meaning units that responded to the purpose were
condensed by the rst and last authors, which involved summarizing
the content without losing its core meaning. is codication method
enables understanding context through its relationship to the text.
All of the authors met to compare their codications and discuss the
similarities and dierences. Similar codes were highlighted and formed
four themes [9,10].
Ethical considerations
Before participants were recruited, a research ethics application
was approved by Kristianstad University, Sweden (2018-232-624). All
procedures were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of
e survey was completed by 16 early career researchers aged
29-47 years; 13 women and three men. e faculty of medicine was
represented by nine participants and the faculty of natural sciences
by seven. e duration of their participation in a mastermind group
varied from four months to two years and the frequency of the
meetings ranged from once per month to every third month. Only
one participant reported that the mastermind meetings were mainly
conducted online (Skype) and all of the others reported that the
meetings were in person. e number of members per group ranged
from three to six.
Topics discussed in the mastermind meetings
e topics discussed by the dierent groups all focused on how to
navigate in academia as an early career researcher (Table 1).
Four themes describing experiences were identied through
content analysis of the answers to the open-ended questions: (I) A place
that oers conversations in condence; (II) Personal and professional
development; (III) A quality break and time for reection, and (IV)
Challenges experienced by mastermind group participants. e themes
are exemplied with quotations, presented below.
eme (I): A place that oers conversation in condence
e participants described the importance of having a safe place to
engage in conversations in condence. ey valued having a context
in which both personal success and failures were discussed in a warm,
non-judgmental, and friendly way.
“To me, this network is a safe and friendly place that is stimulating
and creative. An opportunity to reect my reality in others.
“It has been valuable with a small forum with the opportunity to speak
freely, i.e., in condence, about what is relevant, both disappointments
and success.
“e meetings have been a ‘safe spot’ where I have been given the
opportunity to express thoughts that I otherwise did not have a clear
forum for.
eme (II): Opportunity for personal and professional
The second theme highlights that the mastermind group
meetings contributed to both the personal and professional
development of its members. The participants reported that they
felt inspired and motivated to visualize their future career more
explicitly and that they gained new insight about themselves during
the mastermind meetings:
“I have been able to think a bit higher, dare to dream a bit bigger, and
have space to share both dicult and fun experiences safely.
“It gave me the opportunity to dedicate time to thinking about my
career, something I would have considered a luxury otherwise.
eme (III): “A quality break and time for reection”
e participants expressed that the mastermind meetings provided
quality time for reection as well as opportunities to learn from others’
“I really like this breathing hole that provides me with new energy.
“Creating a sense of community and lightning the feelings of insecurity
by sharing them and hearing them echoed in others.
…getting opinions from outside my narrow eld is excellent
considering I want a career in science management. eir advice has been
The scientic writing process and publication strategies
Teaching strategies
Authorship on publications
Work-life balance
Grant and fellowship applications
Job applications, interviews, and tests
Leadership skills
Short- and long-term career goals
Navigating and networking in the research community
Productivity and time management
Table 1. List of topics discussed in the mastermind meetings
Garmy P (2019) Benets of participating in mastermind groups
Volume 4: 3-3
Health Edu Care, 2019 doi: 10.15761/HEC.1000155
increased satisfaction with academic skills (e.g. scientic writing) and a
sustainable eect on academic productivity [11].
Pegg et al. [4] suggest that peer-mentoring networks can help to
identify key aspects required to move the academic career forward
and the people and resources best-suited to support an individual’s
professional needs; the data in the present paper support both of these.
Furthermore, the importance of condentiality was highlighted by both the
positive and negative experiences of the participants in the present study.
e current study is limited to a small sample of participants from
only one university. However, previous studies describing Mastermind
groups in a medical academic context are lacking. Future studies in this
area may elucidate which kind of coaching tools peer mentoring groups
use, and explore their eectiveness in moving the career forward.
1. Garforth L, Kerr A (2009) Constructing Careers, Creating Communities: ndings of the
UK KNOWING research on knowledge, institutions and gender. University of Leeds.
2. Bottoms S, Pegg J, Adams A, Wu K, Smith Risser H, et al. (2013) Mentoring from the
outside: The role of a peer mentoring community in the development of early career
education faculty. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 21: 195-218.
3. Sorcinelli MD, Yun J (2007) From mentor to mentoring networks: Mentoring in the
new academy. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 39: 58-61.
4. Pegg JM, Adams AE, Risser HS, Bottoms SI, Kern AL, et al. (2014) Finding FRiENDs:
Creating a community of support for early career academics. Brock Education Journal
p: 24.
5. Hill N (2011) Think and grow rich: Hachette UK.
6. Fritsches K (2018) Postdoc Career Success.
7. Pololi LH, Evans AT (2015) Group Peer Mentoring: An Answer to the Faculty
Mentoring Problem? A Successful Program at a Large Academic Department of
Medicine. J Contin Educ Health Prof 35: 192-200. [Crossref]
8. Polit DF, Beck CT (2016) Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for
nursing practice. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer.
9. Schreier M (2012) Qualitative content analysis in practice: Sage Publications.
10. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual
Health Res 15: 1277-1288. [Crossref]
11. Mayer AP, Blair JE, Ko MG, Patel SI, Files JA (2014) Long-term follow-up of a
facilitated peer mentoring program. Med Teach 36: 260-266. [Crossref]
eme (IV) Challenges experienced by mastermind group
e most common challenge reported by the participants was
scheduling the meetings. It was oen dicult to identify a time when
all of the members would be able to attend. Other challenges concerned
trust issues, i.e., the fear of a lack of condentiality and the worry of
personal information being spread outside of the group. Other negative
experiences related to the composition of the group, which included:
feeling excluded by subgroup formation based on, e.g., having the
same profession or being at the same career level; unbalanced gender
composition, e.g., being the only man in the group; and, lastly, a
dominant group member obstructing the aim of the meetings.
“It was sometimes dicult to agree on an appointment because of our
busy schedules.
“Originally, we thought that we would plan in advance the topics to
discuss at the upcoming meetings but this didn't happen. Oentimes, we
would decide on the same day. It did work out and it worked for us, but
going forward, it might be worth trying to plan ahead.
“e other three participants come from somewhat more similar
and very technical elds than me, and we did not have an equal gender
balance with three male and one female group member.
Discussion and conclusion
A mastermind group is a peer-mentoring network that contributes
to a deeper understanding of each member’s current work situation,
experiences, and skills. e members collectively tackle current
challenges and opportunities, mentor one another, and hold each other
accountable for actions collectively agreed upon at group meetings.
ese groups can be eective toward shiing focus from the negative
aspects of a challenge faced by a group member to the positive aspects
of a potential solution. Involvement in a mastermind group facilitates
early career researchers’ pursuit of a career within or outside academia.
e mastermind group provides a level of support beyond that oered
by the department/institution. In the long-term (median four years),
involvement in peer mentoring activities has been associated with
Copyright: ©2019 Garmy P. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
... 3 Seligman links flourishing with the wellbeing theory which has five measurable elements (PERMA) that contribute to wellbeing: positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning/purpose and accomplishment. 4 To achieve a successful career, there is a need for helpful relationships such as mentorship and peer-mentoring, 5,6 but also for a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding of how successful scientific leaders in nursing think in order to guide junior researchers through their early careers. Furthermore, we might contribute a grounded theory foundation for career development within nursing research including clinical development and career path to add to Benner's framework. ...
... Mastermind groups have been found to be helpful and supportive for postdoctoral fellows. 6 Mentorship should also be mandatory, especially for women who wish to pursue an academic career within nursing, as the Swedish statistics 14 show that although 48% of PhD students in Sweden are women, only 29% of full professors are female. Somewhere along the way, women seem to decide not to aim for the highest step on the academic career ladder. ...
Full-text available
Background: No studies explore the career core of successful scientific leaders in nursing, a context where role models and career support would be desirable. To achieve a successful academic career, there is a need for an in-depth understanding of how successful scientific leaders in healthcare think in order to guide junior researchers through their early careers. Aim: To explore the main concern of successful scientific leaders in nursing and their mind-set, motivators and strategies for dealing with it. Methods: A strategic group of 24 scientific leaders in nursing (professors and associate professors) in the United States (US) (n=12) and Sweden (n=12) was interviewed. The transcribed text was analysed using grounded theory. Results: The core category, fulfilment, summarizes a process where the generated grounded theory is presented through four main categories: create, struggle, interact and maintain, illustrating how the informants dealt with fulfilment, which was their main concern. The theoretical link between the strategies is professional dedication through reflection, characterized by a will to go beyond themselves to be clinically useful and implement their research. Conclusion: Successful scientific leaders in nursing construct a foundation for professional fulfilment by doing good for patients and improving the healthcare system maintaining being creative and interacting with others, all of which involve a great deal of struggle.
... I wish for all school nurses today and in the future to find good meeting places for reflection with colleagues, sometimes in pairs and sometimes in groups. A constructive way of meeting and discussing professional philosophical matters are in so-called mastermind groups (Garmy, Olsson M€ oller, Winberg, Magnusson, & Kalnak, 2019). A mastermind group is a peer-mentoring network composed of three to six participants. ...
Full-text available
As a school nurse, it can be challenging to make values and philosophy useful in the context of a busy and stressful workday. However, values and philosophy can help guide school nurses in their profession. This article proposes strategies for how school nurses can make their school nurse’s values and philosophy visible. The first step in formulating a school nurse philosophy is to identify overall values, such as how one views society and people’s equal values. A peer-mentoring group, such as a mastermind group, could offer a place to have philosophical discussions with colleagues.
Full-text available
Starting on an academic journey can be a stressful and isolating experience. Although some universities have formal mentoring structures to facilitate this transition for new faculty, these structures do not always provide the variety of supports that may be needed to navigate the complexities of transitioning to the world of academia. As we (the authors of this paper) began our academic journeys, we found ourselves searching for support that was not available within our institutions. By drawing on previous connections and building new connections to peers at other universities, we created an informal peer mentoring structure that has continued to support us through the early years of our careers in academia. In this paper we share our stories of the challenges we faced as early career academics, discuss the ways this informal peer mentoring community provided support for us at the beginnings of our academic journeys, and offer advice for other early career academics seeking non-traditional forms of support along the academic career path.
Full-text available
Developing an identity as a researcher and negotiating the expectations and responsibilities of academic life are challenges that many beginning education faculty face. Mentoring can provide support for this transition; however, traditional forms of mentoring may be unavailable, limited, or lack the specific components that individual mentees desire or need. In this paper, we draw on a community of practice perspective to examine and understand the complex and emerging nature of an informal peer mentoring community composed of beginning education faculty members from different institutions. Our engagement in this peer mentoring community is examined through reflections on our experiences and our collective narratives. The formation of our group began with our mutual desires for support in advancing scholarship and navigating the transition to academia and has grown into a community that supports us both personally and professionally as we develop our identities as educational researchers.
Full-text available
Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
IntroductionTo address a dearth of mentoring and to avoid the pitfalls of dyadic mentoring, the authors implemented and evaluated a novel collaborative group peer mentoring program in a large academic department of medicine.Methods The mentoring program aimed to facilitate faculty in their career planning, and targeted either early-career or midcareer faculty in 5 cohorts over 4 years, from 2010 to 2014. Each cohort of 9–12 faculty participated in a yearlong program with foundations in adult learning, relationship formation, mindfulness, and culture change. Participants convened for an entire day, once a month. Sessions incorporated facilitated stepwise and values-based career planning, skill development, and reflective practice. Early-career faculty participated in an integrated writing program and midcareer faculty in leadership development.ResultsOverall attendance of the 51 participants was 96%, and only 3 of 51 faculty who completed the program left the medical school during the 4 years. All faculty completed a written detailed structured academic development plan. Participants experienced an enhanced, inclusive, and appreciative culture; clarified their own career goals, values, strengths and priorities; enhanced their enthusiasm for collaboration; and developed skills.DiscussionThe program results highlight the need for faculty to personally experience the power of forming deep relationships with their peers for fostering successful career development and vitality. The outcomes of faculty humanity, vitality, professionalism, relationships, appreciation of diversity, and creativity are essential to the multiple missions of academic medicine.
Background: Mentoring plays an important role in career success of academic medical faculty. New mentoring models such as peer mentoring have emerged. Aim: To evaluate the long-term impact of a facilitated peer mentoring program on academic achievements. Method: Women faculty at the instructor or assistant professor rank were recruited to voluntarily participate in a facilitated peer mentoring program. Recruitment occurred over 3.8 years between 2005 and 2009. A 26-item questionnaire to assess academic skill, career satisfaction, and self-efficacy was administered before program participation and again with seven additional questions in 2011. Curriculum vitae were reviewed retrospectively to tally peer-reviewed publications, other academic activities, and promotions. Results: Participants had long-term improvement in their perceived mastery of academic skills. Peer-reviewed publications, book chapters, abstracts, posters, and other academic activities increased when activities before the program were compared to those in the five years after program enrollment. At follow-up, participants reported positive perceptions of the program and 44% continued to work with their original peer mentor groups. Conclusions: Involvement in the facilitated peer mentoring program was associated with increased skills and academic activities for most participants. Future studies are needed to assess its applicability and success among various demographic groups in academic medicine.
Think and grow rich: Hachette UK
  • N Hill
Hill N (2011) Think and grow rich: Hachette UK.
Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice
  • D F Polit
  • C T Beck
Polit DF, Beck CT (2016) Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer.