PART 2 — The Mastermind Experiment: Structuring Network Intelligence at Escape
Where Part 1 told the story, this post looks at the design.
The Mastermind Experiment set out to solve a familiar challenge for consultants:
Deliver quick wins early
Diagnose the situation deeply
Understand the organisation fast — structures, politics, projects, people
Doing all of that alone is possible, but not optimal.
So we asked:
Can we use the Escape network to systematically accelerate those first weeks?
That’s what the Mastermind format is built for.
Purpose of the Mastermind
The session had three clear aims:
1. Leverage network knowledge
Combine organisational insight and delivery experience from several consultants into one focused conversation.
2. Provide early strategic input
Help the consultant refine how to approach the assignment – not just what to do, but how to think about it.
3. Test a repeatable format
Explore whether this could become part of Escape’s playbook for new assignments rather than a one-off experiment.
How we designed the session
Timing
Held within the first few weeks of the assignment:
Late enough that some real dynamics had appeared
Early enough that strategy and expectations were still shapeable
Duration & flow
Approximately 90 minutes.
Lightweight, high-value structure:
Project situation
Key challenge(s)
Open input and ideas from participants
Consultant’s proposed approach
Short recap and next steps
Participant mix
4–5 participants chosen deliberately:
Some with direct or previous experience inside the organisation
Some with experience from similar organisational environments (scale, structure, culture)
Design goal: Combine context knowledge with strong pattern recognition.
What worked
From feedback and reflection, several advantages were clear:
Accelerated understanding
People with prior experience could shortcut weeks of “figuring things out.”
Better early decisions
The consultant could test assumptions, refine hypotheses, and sharpen strategy before committing.
Momentum and confidence
Starting an assignment with a high-quality peer conversation created both clarity and energy.
What we’ll refine
The experiment also revealed opportunities to sharpen the format:
Sharper challenge framing
The case in the first session was too broad.
More specificity → more targeted insight.
Two sessions instead of one
A better model may be:
Session 1 — Early organisational orientation (very close to start)
Session 2 — Case-specific deep dive (later, when the true challenge becomes visible)
Format & medium
Virtual tools worked—but complex challenges benefit from a physical room with flipcharts, post-its and real interaction.
Methodological backbone
Future sessions could be anchored more explicitly in Escape’s diagnostic tools:
Ovington’s Level 3 & Level 4 diagnosis (system + supranormal factors)
The SCARL template (Situation, Challenge, Action, Result, Learning)
These add structure and make the insights more reusable.
Where we go from here
The Mastermind Experiment demonstrated that:
The Escape network can act as a high-value advisory board in the first weeks of an assignment.
A small time investment can materially improve clarity, strategy and momentum.
With a bit more structure, this can become a repeatable cornerstone of how we start assignments at Escape.
Possible next steps
Define clear triggers for when to run a Mastermind
(e.g., high-stakes, politically complex or supranormal-heavy assignments)Create a one-page preparation template
(situation, challenge, hypotheses, questions)Test two-session sequences across multiple assignments and compare impact
The core insight
Escape’s real advantage is not just individual talent.
It’s how we connect and activate that talent for each other.
The Mastermind format is one way to do that — by design, not by accident.
