Founders who have decided they want a peer group usually reach this question second. The first was whether to sit with other owners at all. The second is who runs the meeting, and it matters most at the moment a useful question turns uncomfortable.
I chair CEO peer boards in Miami and select the members myself, so the chair side of this page is my own practice, and another chair may work differently. I have never been a member of a member-led forum. That side is described as the format is generally run, and every point on it is worth checking with the forum you are considering.
I am paid to chair, and 305Founders is our own community with its own tables, so I earn from a reader who applies and joins. I favor the facilitated format. This page also sets out the cases where a member-led forum is the better purchase, because for some founders it is.
What is a member-led forum?
A member-led forum is a standing group of owners who run their own meetings using a protocol the members agree to follow. The organization behind it usually vets who gets in. Once a founder is in, the meeting belongs to the members.
Usually one member acts as moderator, a role that rotates or goes to an elected member for a set term. Some organizations train their moderators, so ask what training the person running your meeting has had. The moderator keeps time and holds the group to its protocol. That includes deciding when an issue has had enough discussion, and stopping a member who keeps steering it back to their own company.
Members prepare their own issues before the meeting, and the protocol sets the order of the discussion. A typical protocol has the presenting member lay out the issue, and the group asks questions before anyone offers a view. Some forums ask members to speak from their own experience and leave the presenter to draw the conclusion, so ask which approach your forum uses.
In the end the group polices itself. A protocol shapes the meeting only while people use it. The moderator needs the group’s permission to interrupt a friend, and every member has to accept that interruption when their own conduct is the problem.
A forum may also sit inside a wider chapter or network, with events and relationships outside the meeting. Where it does, that wider community can be a large part of the reason to join. Judge the network and the monthly meeting separately, because the two can point to different choices.
What does a chair do that members cannot do for each other?
Capable members can do much of this for one another. What a chair adds is one person whose job is to do it every time, including on the days when nobody else in the group wants to be the one who speaks up. Here is that work as I do it.
Composing the group. I select the members and compose each group for comparable stage and for non-competition. In a forum the organization handles admission and placement into a particular group, so ask how that placement screens for competitors and for stage.
Getting the issue ready. Before a meeting I work with the member who is presenting, so the issue arrives ready for the group. That means a clear statement of the decision in front of them and of the assumption they want the group to test. A founder who arrives with a general account of everything happening in the business gives the group too many things to talk about, and the hour goes to the easiest one.
A fellow member can help with that. The difficulty is time and ownership. Their own company needs them, and they may have an issue of their own on the same agenda. With a chair, the presenting member knows who is responsible for helping them get ready.
Pressing the soft answer. During the meeting I return to the question a member has not answered. If a founder says the team needs to take more ownership, the next question is which decision the team is allowed to make today without asking. If the founder says a key hire is not working out, the next question is how long that has been true and what has stopped them acting on it.
Even in the groups I chair, members find it awkward to press each other. They will see each other next month, and the member pressing the question may need the group’s patience on their own issue an hour later. A member who moderates has the same problem, with their own business on their mind and sometimes their own issue on the agenda.
A chair has relationships to protect as well, and being paid does not remove the wish to be liked. What it does is make the second and third question part of the job. I owe the group that persistence when a member would prefer I accept the first answer.
Holding the commitment. When a member decides what they will do, I follow up before the next meeting. If it has not happened, the work is finding out what stopped it. Peers can agree to check on each other, and some groups do it well. It needs an owner who remembers. In my experience a friendly check-in is easier to give than the question of why an agreed action is still undone, especially for a member who has missed one of their own.
The private one-to-one. I meet each member on their own between sessions. A founder can work through an issue with me before deciding what, if anything, to bring to the group. Those conversations stay private, and a topic moves between the one-to-one and the group only with the member’s consent. A friendship inside a forum can give private support too, and it matters. The difference is a scheduled hour with someone whose job it is. If one-to-one work on your own leadership is the main thing you want, peer advisory group or executive coach sets out that choice.
Enforcing the rule. When someone breaks a rule of the group, I act on it, including when it is a member I like. Members need to know who has the authority to respond. In a member-led forum, ask how the group gives its moderator that authority and what support the moderator can call on. How confidentiality is protected inside a peer board, and what to ask about it, is covered in our guide to peer board confidentiality.
Member-led forum and chair-led peer board compared
The forum column describes the format as it is generally run, and any given forum may differ. The chair column is the work I take on as a chair, and it is a fair list to check against any chair you meet.
| Question | Member-led forum | Chair-led peer board (my practice) |
|---|---|---|
| Who runs the meeting | A member moderator, working a shared protocol | A paid chair responsible for facilitation |
| Who gets the issue ready | The presenting member, with help from peers as the protocol provides | The presenting member, with the chair’s help before the meeting |
| Who presses a soft answer | The moderator and the members, as the protocol expects | The chair, with members adding their own questions |
| Who follows up between meetings | Whoever the group assigns, so ask how it is assigned | The chair, on each commitment made |
| Private one-to-one time | Depends on the forum, so ask | A one-to-one with the chair, kept separate from the group |
| When someone breaks a rule | The moderator and members, using the group’s agreed process | The chair acts, and the stated consequence applies |
| Who decides who joins | The organization handles admission and placement; ask how it screens for competitors | The chair selects for stage and non-competition |
| Where it is strongest | Peers who want shared control of the meeting and will take their turn running it | Founders who want challenge and follow-through to be one person’s job |
What is the difference between a peer forum and a mastermind group?
A peer forum is run by its own members, owners of equal standing who take turns presenting and moderating under a shared protocol. Mastermind is a broader label. It often describes a group convened around a person or a program, where that person sets the agenda, and it is also used for informal groups run by peers. The labels overlap, so ask any group who controls the agenda and how members take part.
Our comparison of masterminds and peer advisory groups sets out the arrangements sold under the mastermind label.
When is a member-led forum the better choice?
You want shared control of the meeting. Some founders want to decide the discussion process with their peers and carry the responsibility for it together. That is a sound preference, and a member-led forum is built for it. Ask how much control the members have in practice.
You want the network as much as the meeting. If relationships beyond the meetings are a large part of what you want, a forum inside a wider community is the direct purchase. Judge that community on its own terms.
The members already hold each other to the standard. Some groups keep to their agreed standards without anyone being paid to enforce them. With peers like that a professional adds less, and you may be glad to share the responsibility.
You want practice at moderating. Running a discussion among people who do not report to you is a skill of its own, and taking a turn as moderator is a place a founder can practice it. For some members that is part of the value.
Cost belongs in the decision too. Someone pays for a chair’s time, and that cost reaches the members. If the member-led option you are weighing costs less, and you can give it the preparation and moderating time it asks of you, a forum you attend every month is worth more than a facilitated board you resent paying for.
When is the chair worth paying for?
I would point a founder to a chair in four situations.
You keep giving the same explanation. The answer you have grown comfortable with is the one that needs a second and third question, and a chair is paid to keep asking.
Follow-through is the recurring problem. A meeting that ends in a sensible decision does little if the action does not happen. Ask what follow-up a chair commits to between meetings before you rely on it.
You need to think privately first. Some decisions need an hour alone with someone before they go to a group, and the one-to-one is built for that.
You want to take part without running the meeting. You still owe the group preparation and honest questions. A chair takes responsibility for the discussion, so your attention stays on the issue in front of you.
Ask any chair how they respond when a member pushes back on a question, and what they do between sessions, then put the same two questions to a current member.
What should you ask a forum, or a chair, before joining?
Ask for a description of a typical meeting, with examples that protect members’ privacy. A good answer names who is responsible at each point. The same questions work with a current member.
- Who runs the meeting, and what training do they have for it?
- How does a member prepare an issue, and who helps when the question is unclear?
- What happens when someone gives a soft answer and wants the group to move on?
- When the moderator has their own issue to present, who runs that part of the meeting?
- Who follows up on commitments between meetings, and how is that agreed?
- What private one-to-one time is available, and who decides what reaches the group?
- Who acts when a member breaks a rule, especially when that member is a friend?
- How does the meeting run when the moderator or chair is absent?
- What would I be responsible for, beyond turning up?
Listen for a person or an agreed process in each answer. “We hold each other accountable” needs a second question: who checks when someone has not acted? For the wider choice among the groups available locally, see the guide to choosing a CEO peer group in Miami.
How do you decide between the two?
Decide whether you want to share responsibility for the meeting with your peers or hand it to a chair. Then check that the group you are considering works the way you were told. Before joining either, ask who handles an answer that deserves another question, and who checks a commitment that has not been kept.
305Founders convenes Miami owners at chair-led tables, run the way this page describes, which makes this our own offer and worth reading as such. The Leadership Scorecard is a structured read on what is under the most pressure in your company. If it points somewhere other than us, we will say so.