The evidence

Strict groups outlast loose ones

• Strictness "screens out members who lack commitment and stimulates participation among those who remain". Iannaccone, via Slate
• Long-lasting communes had clear boundaries and asked for sacrifice. Kanter
• Where entry was loosened for growth, quality slipped. CrossFit's weekend-certificate affiliate model "created inconsistency, unreliable coaching". Breaking Muscle

Closed, status-based groups failed too

• Toastmasters clubs with restricted membership dissolved at 51% against 24% for open clubs over 2009 to 2019. Raffety analysis
• The single best predictor of a Meetup group surviving was a steady inflow of new members, in a study of 10,942 groups. NYU

So: hard to get into, hard to stay in without showing up, always admitting new people who meet the bar.

The closest model has run since 1975

A pod is close to the EO and YPO Forum:

• 6 to 10 members, confidential, led by a trained member. EO
• Members speak only from their own experience, never "you should". This is our receiver-first rule. EO Gestalt protocol
• Two missed meetings means automatic removal unless the forum votes unanimously otherwise. Our rule is gentler: two misses in a quarter means a private conversation and a move to the waitlist. EO 2019 manual, unofficial copy

Leaders change, or groups end

Volunteer groups that rarely changed leaders dissolved at 2.7 times the rate, in a study of 91,712 charities. That is why pod leads are trained, certified and serve a one-year renewable term. Clifford 2024

What the evidence does not show

• There is no controlled study on how selective small peer pods should be. The selectivity evidence comes from churches, communes, clubs and online networks, so applying it here is inference.
• We make no promise about any one person's results, and we do not claim that Momentwright replaces one-to-one coaching.

Request an invitationMembers sign in