The Infinite Game

by Simon Sinek

To ask, “What’s best for me” is finite thinking. To ask, “What’s best for us” is infinite thinking.

Because they are playing with an end point in mind, Carse tells us, finite-minded players do not like surprises and fear any kind of disruption. Things they cannot predict or cannot control could upset their plans and increase their chances of losing. The infinite-minded player, in contrast, expects surprises, even revels in them, and is prepared to be transformed by them. They embrace the freedom of play and are open to any possibility that keeps them in the game. Instead of looking for ways to react to what has already happened, they look for ways to do something new.

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

A Just Cause is something we stand for and believe in, not something we oppose. Leaders can rally people against something quite easily. They can whip them into a frenzy, even. For our emotions can run hot when we are angry or afraid. Being for something, in contrast, is about feeling inspired. 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.

Imagine if instead of fighting against poverty, for example, we fought for the right of every human to provide for their own family. The first creates a common enemy, something we are against. It sets up the Cause as if it is “winnable,” i.e., a finite game. It leads us to believe that we can defeat poverty once and for all. The second gives us a cause to advance.

Good leaders don’t automatically favor low performers of high trust nor do they immediately dump high performers of low trust. If someone’s performance is struggling or if they are acting in a way that is negatively impacting team dynamics, the primary question a leader needs to ask is, “Are they coachable?” Our goal, as leaders, is to ensure that our people have the skills—technical skills, human skills or leadership skills—so that they are equipped to work to their natural best and be a valuable asset to the team. This means we have to work with the low-trust players to help them learn the human skills to become more trusted and trusting, and work with the low performers to help them learn the technical skills to improve their performance. Only when a team member proves uncoachable—is resistant to feedback and takes no responsibility for how they show up at work—should we seriously consider removing them from the team. And at that point, should a leader still decide to keep them, the leader is now responsible for the consequences.

One of Cauley’s first acts as police chief was to hold listening sessions with every single member of the organization—every sworn officer and every staff member. During the sessions, multiple people told him that they had been asking for years for a fence to be built around the parking lot. The parking lot was an open and exposed area of asphalt that wrapped around the CRPD headquarters. Officers and staff complained that when they left work at night, when it was quiet and dark outside, they felt afraid walking to their cars. They had no idea if someone was hiding, waiting to pounce on them. For years, management told them to deal with it. They were told that there were more pressing things to spend money on than a fence, things more related to the job of policing—like new firearms or new cars. It became clear to Cauley that the people who worked at the department did not feel like their leaders had their back. The new chief had to build a “Circle of Safety” first. Without it, nothing else he needed to do would work. So, in short order, Cauley had a fence erected around the parking lot. This simple act put everyone on notice: things were going to change.

Slowly executives started to show yellow and red in their presentations too. Eventually, it got to the point where they would openly discuss all the issues they were facing. In the process, Mulally had learned some tricks to help build trust on the team. To help them feel safe from humiliation, for example, he depersonalized the problems his executives faced. “You have a problem,” he would tell them. “You are not the problem.”

Nothing and no one can perform at 100 percent forever. If we cannot be honest with one another and rely on one another for help during the challenging parts of the journey, we won’t get very far. But it’s not enough for leaders to simply create an environment that is safe for telling the truth. We must model the behavior we want to see, actively incentivize the kinds of behaviors that build trust and give people responsible freedom and the support they need to flourish in their jobs. It is the combination of what we value and how we act that sets the culture of the company.

When there was low pressure, 63 percent of the students stopped to help the injured man. With medium pressure, 45 percent stopped to lend assistance. And under high pressure, only 10 percent of the students stopped to help someone in apparent distress. Some even stepped right over him. The conclusion was stark. The students were good people who cared about service. They were all studying to be priests, for heaven’s sake. However, when pressure was placed upon them, in this case time pressure, their will to do the right thing gave way to demands placed upon them.