The Infinite Game

by Simon Sinek

If there are at least two players, a game exists. And there are two kinds of games: finite games and infinite games. Finite games are played by known players. They have fixed rules. And there is an agreed-upon objective that, when reached, ends the game.

Infinite games have infinite time horizons. And because there is no finish line, no practical end to the game, there is no such thing as “winning” an infinite game. In an infinite game, the primary objective is to keep playing, to perpetuate the game.

I started to see infinite games all around us, games with no finish lines and no winners.

When we lead with a finite mindset in an infinite game, it leads to all kinds of problems, the most common of which include the decline of trust, cooperation and innovation. Leading with an infinite mindset in an infinite game, in contrast, really does move us in a better direction. Groups that adopt an infinite mindset enjoy vastly higher

levels of trust, cooperation and innovation and all the subsequent benefits.

Despite the fact that companies are playing in a game that cannot be won, too many business leaders keep playing as if they can.

to succeed in the Infinite Game of business, we have to stop thinking about who wins or who’s the best and start thinking about how to build organizations that are strong enough and healthy enough to stay in the game for many generations to come.

The true value of an organization is measured by the desire others have to contribute to that organization’s ability to keep succeeding, not just during the time they are there, but well beyond their own tenure.

Where a finite-minded player makes products they think they can sell to people, the infinite-minded player makes products that people want to buy. The former is primarily focused on how the sale of those products benefits the company; the latter is primarily focused on how the products benefit those who buy them.

In good times, Victorinox built up reserves of cash, knowing that at some point there would be more difficult times. As CEO Carl Elsener says, “When you look at the history of world economics, it was always like this. Always! And in the future, it will always be like this. It will never go only up. It will never go only down. It will go up and down and up and down. . . . We do not think in quarters,” he says. “We think in generations.”

The choice to lead with an infinite mindset is less like preparing for a football game and more like the decision to get into shape. There is no one thing we can do in order to get into shape. We can’t simply go to the gym for nine hours and expect to be in shape. However, if we go to the gym every single day for twenty minutes, we will absolutely get into shape. Consistency becomes more important than intensity.

Any leader who wants to adopt an infinite mindset must follow five essential practices: Advance a Just Cause Build Trusting Teams Study your Worthy Rivals Prepare for Existential Flexibility Demonstrate the Courage to Lead

A Just Cause is a specific vision of a future state that does not yet exist; a future state so appealing that people are willing to make sacrifices in order to help advance toward that vision.

A Just Cause is not the same as our WHY. A WHY comes from the past. It is an origin story. It is a statement of who we are—the sum total of our values and beliefs. A Just Cause is about the future. It defines where we are going. It describes the world we hope to live in and will commit to help build.

It is the Just Cause that we are working to advance that gives our work and our lives meaning.

“To offer the highest quality products at the best possible value, etc., etc.” Statements like this are of little use for those who wish to lead us in the Infinite Game. Such statements are not inclusive. They are egocentric—about the company; they look inward and are not about the future state to which the products or services are contributing.

Again, a Just Cause is a specific vision of a future state that does not yet exist. And in order for a Just Cause to provide direction for our work, to inspire us to sacrifice, and to endure not just in the present but for lifetimes beyond our own, it must meet five standards. Those who are unsure whether their purpose, mission or vision statement is a Just Cause or those interested in leading with a Just Cause can use these standards as a simple test. A Just Cause must be: For something—affirmative and optimistic Inclusive—open to all those who would like to contribute Service oriented—for the primary benefit of others Resilient—able to endure political, technological and cultural change Idealistic—big, bold and ultimately unachievable For something—affirmative and optimistic

A Just Cause is something we stand for and believe in, not something we oppose. Leaders can rally people against something quite easily.

Being for ignites the human spirit and fills us with hope and optimism. Being against is about vilifying, demonizing or rejecting. Being for is about inviting all to join in common cause. Being against focuses our attention on the things we can see in order to elicit reactions. Being for focuses our attention on the unbuilt future in order to spark our imaginations.

Human beings want to feel a part of something. We crave the feeling of belonging.

A Just Cause serves as an invitation to join others in advancing a cause bigger than ourselves.

Contributors give something, e.g., their ideas, hard work or money, to help advance the Just Cause. And the receivers of those contributions benefit. For a Just Cause to pass the service-orientation test, the primary benefit of the organization’s contributions must always go to people other than the contributors themselves. If my boss offers me career advice, for example, that advice must be for the primary benefit of my career and not theirs.

The reason a service orientation is so important in the Infinite Game is because it builds a loyal base of employees and customers (and investors) who will stick with the organization through thick and thin. It is this strong base of loyalty that gives any organization a kind of strength and longevity that money alone cannot provide. The most loyal employees feel their leaders genuinely care about them . . . because their leaders genuinely do care about them. In return, they offer their best ideas, act freely and responsibly and work to solve problems for the benefit of the company. The most loyal customers feel the company genuinely cares about their wants, needs and desires . . . because the company really does. And in return, this is why loyal customers go out of their way or pay a premium to buy from that company over another and encourage their friends to do the same.

To keep us in the Infinite Game, our Cause must be durable, resilient and timeless.

The clearer the words of the Just Cause, the more likely they will attract and invite the innovators and early adopters, those willing to take the first risks to advance something that exists almost entirely in their imaginations.

For no matter how much success we may enjoy, the Just Cause for which we are working lies ahead and not behind.

When You Have Your Cause, Write It Down

A written cause works like a compass. And with a compass in hand, each succession of leaders, their gaze looking beyond the horizon, can more easily navigate the technologies, politics and cultural norms of the day without the founder present.

A true Just Cause is deeply personal to those who hear it, and it must be deeply personal to those who espouse

The more personal it is for people, the more likely our passions will be stoked to help advance it. If the words of a Just Cause are used simply to boost a brand image, attract passionate employees or help drive some near-term goal, like a purchase, a vote or support for the company, the impact will be short lived.

Indeed, leaping from goal to goal can be fun for a while, but if that’s all there is, over time the thrill of each achievement becomes less, well, thrilling.

The question that a Just Cause must answer is: What is the infinite and lasting vision that a moon shot will help advance? A Just Cause is the context for all our other goals, big and small, and all of our finite achievements must help to advance the Just Cause.

Being the Best Is Not a Just Cause

“We will be the global leader in every market we serve and our products will be sought after for their compelling design, superior quality, and best value.” This is a pretty typical-sounding corporate vision or mission statement. This one belongs to Garmin,

“Being the best” and statements like that are egocentric statements that place the company as the primary subject (and thus the primary beneficiary) of their vision. They don’t help make the company relevant to those who buy from the company.

Leaders with a finite mindset often confuse having a successful product with having a strong company.

What they failed to recognize is that they had a vision statement that directed them to focus on their product, and in so doing, they missed the opportunity that smartphones offered them. Had they been obsessing about how to provide the value to customers first, they may have seized the chance to develop the go-to navigation app for mobile phones when the opportunity still existed.

Growth as a cause often results in an unhealthy culture, one in which short-termism and selfishness reign supreme, while trust and cooperation suffer. Growth is a result, not a Cause.

Corporate Social Responsibility Is Not a Just Cause

The CSR program must be part of the broader strategy to advance the Just Cause. A strategy that includes everything the company does. The way a company makes its money and the way it gives it away must both contribute to advancing the Just Cause.

Even well-intended finite-minded leaders often have the perspective of “make money to do good.” An infinite perspective on service, however, looks somewhat different: “Do good making money” (the order of the information matters).

Today it is so generally accepted that the “owner” of a company sits at the top of the benefit food chain and that business exists solely to create wealth, that we often assume that this was always the way that the game of business was played and is the only way it can be played. Except it wasn’t . . . and it isn’t.

“If 80 percent of the CEO’s pay is based on what the share price is going to do next year, he or she is going to do their best to make sure that share price goes up, even if the consequences might be harmful to employees, to customers, to society, to the environment or even to the corporation itself in the long-term.”

tactics that might boost the stock price in the near term, but often do damage to an organization’s ability to survive and thrive in the Infinite Game.

It’s a big open secret among the vast majority of public-company executives that the theory of shareholder primacy and the pressure Wall Street exerts on them are actually bad for business.

Entrepreneurs are not immune from the pressure either. In their case, there is often intense pressure to demonstrate constant, high-speed growth. To achieve that goal, or when growth slows, they turn to venture capital or private equity firms to raise money.

Sometimes it is important to strategically slow the rate of growth to help ensure the security of the long-term or simply to make sure the organization is properly equipped to withstand the additional pressures that come with high-speed growth.

Whereas employees contribute time and energy, investors contribute capital (money). Both forms of contribution are valuable and necessary to help a company succeed, so both parties should be fairly rewarded for their contributions. Logically, for a company to get bigger, stronger or better at what they do, executives must ensure that the benefit provided by investors’ money or employees’ hard work should, as Adam Smith pointed out, go first to those who buy from the company. When that happens, it is easier for the company to sell more, charge more, build a more loyal customer base and make more money for the company and its investors

“Without a sense of purpose,” he explained, “no company, either public or private, can achieve its full potential. It will ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders. It will succumb to short-term pressures to distribute earnings, and, in the process, sacrifice investments in employee development, innovation, and capital expenditures that are necessary for long-term growth.”

People want to be treated fairly and share in the wealth they helped produce in payment for the cost they bear to grow their companies. I am not demanding it—they are!