The Infinite Game

by Simon Sinek

Infinite games, in contrast, are played by known and unknown players. There are no exact or agreed-upon rules. Though there may be conventions or laws that govern how the players conduct themselves, within those broad boundaries, the players can operate however they want. And if they choose to break with convention, they can. The manner in which each player chooses to play is entirely up to them. And they can change how they play the game at any time, for any reason.

In an infinite game, the primary objective is to keep playing, to perpetuate the game.

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.

At the Microsoft event, the majority of the presenters devoted a good portion of their presentations to talking about how they were going to beat Apple. At the Apple event, 100 percent of the presenters spent 100 percent of their time talking about how Apple was trying to help teachers teach and help students learn. One group seemed obsessed with beating their competition. The other group seemed obsessed with advancing a cause.

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.

Players with an infinite mindset want to leave their organizations in better shape than they found them.

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.

George Eastman, the founder of Kodak, was devoted to his vision of making photography easy and accessible to everyone. He also recognized that advancing his vision was intimately tied to the well-being of his people and the community in which they lived. In 1912, Kodak was the first company to pay employees a dividend based on company performance and several years later issued what we now know as stock options.

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.

Though Steve Ballmer sometimes spoke of “vision” or the “long term,” like other finite-minded leaders who use this kind of infinite language, he almost always did so in the finite context of rank, stock performance, market share and money.

People start to realize that nothing and no one is safe. In response, some instinctually behave as if they were switched to self-preservation mode. They may hoard information, hide mistakes and operate in a more cautious, risk-averse way.

It can take a long time for very large companies with a finite-minded leader at the helm to exhaust the will and resources accumulated by the infinite leader that preceded them.

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

finite games are seductive; they can be fun and exciting and sometimes even addictive. Just like gambling, every win, every goal hit releases a shot of dopamine in our bodies, encouraging us to play the same way again. To try to win again.

Regardless of how we choose to play, it is essential that we be honest with ourselves and others about our choice—for our choice makes ripples. Only when those around us—our colleagues, customers and investors—know how we have chosen to play can they adjust their expectations and behaviors accordingly.

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.

Again, a Just Cause is a specific vision of a future state that does not yet exist.

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

We are not inspired to “reduce” poverty, we are inspired to “grow” the number of people who are able to provide for themselves and their families. Being for or being against is a subtle but profound difference that the writers of the Declaration of Independence intuitively understood.

Organizations that simply promise to “change the world” or “make an impact” tell us very little about what specifically they want to accomplish. The sentiments are good, but they are too generic to serve as a meaningful filter for us. Again, 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.

The reality is, EVERYONE is passionate about something, but we aren’t all passionate about the same thing. Infinite-minded leaders actively seek out employees, customers and investors who share a passion for the Just Cause.

The operative word in all this is “primary.” Service orientation does not mean charity.

The most loyal employees feel their leaders genuinely care about them … because their leaders genuinely do care about them.

This is what the idealized journey of a Just Cause feels like—no matter how much we have achieved, we always feel we have further to go.

I am often surprised how many visionary leaders don’t think they need to find the words for or write down their Cause.

It’s the difference between a verbal contract and a written contract. Both are legal and enforceable, but when a contract is written it prevents any confusion or disagreement about the terms of the deal … especially for people who weren’t there when the deal was made.

In the case of Kennedy’s actual moon shot, it is affirmative and specific. It is inclusive, service oriented and definitely worthy of sacrifice. However, it is not infinite. No matter how hard the challenge, no matter how impossible it seemed, the moon shot was an achievable, finite goal.

It’s easy to mistake a BHAG for a Just Cause because they can indeed be incredibly inspiring and can often take many years to achieve.

Moon shots are bold, inspiring finite goals within the Infinite Game, not instead of the Infinite Game.

Though saying “we are the best” may be great fodder for a rah-rah speech to rally a team, it makes for a weak foundation upon which to build an entire company.

Money is the fuel to advance a Cause, it is not a Cause itself.

And though having a CSR program is indeed great and commendable, unless you’re a charity, it’s only a piece of what a company does.

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.

“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.”

Mercenaries are not likely to sacrifice out of love and devotion. In contrast, zealots love being a part of the organization.

Another crew member recalled being prompted to ask the group, “If there was one thing you could change about me, what would it be?” “[You] don’t listen,” they told him, “you talk too much.” To which he could only reply, “Tell me more.”

Asking for help is an example of an act that reveals vulnerability. However, when on a Trusting Team, we do so with the confidence that our boss or our colleagues will be there to support us.

“Part of safety,” said Professor Robin Ely, coauthor of the Harvard Business Review article about the URSA, “is being able to admit mistakes and being open to learning—to say, ‘I need help, I can’t lift this thing by myself, I’m not sure how to read this meter.’”

Sometimes all we need to do is translate the concepts to fit the cultures in which we work. I asked the chief, “Can you go back to your officers and tell them, ‘I give a shit about you guys. I want you to come to work and feel like I give a shit about you and I want to build a culture in which every officer feels like someone gives a shit about them’?” The chief smiled. He could do that.

What the SEALs discovered is that the person in the top left of the graph—the high performer of low trust—is a toxic team member. These team members exhibit traits of narcissism, are quick to blame others, put themselves first, “talk shit about others” and can have a negative influence on their teammates,

the SEALs, who are some of the highest-performing teams in the world, prioritize trust before performance, then why do we still think performance matters first in business?

Jack Welch, CEO of GE during much of the high-flying 1980s and ’90s, offers an extreme example of what this looks like. Welch was so concerned with winning and being number one (he even titled one of his books Winning) that he focused almost exclusively on performance to the detriment of trust.

Time is always the great revealer of truth.

Indeed, in business, we have all sorts of metrics to measure someone’s performance, but we have few if any effective metrics to measure someone’s trustworthiness.

When confronted with the information about how others feel about them, high performers of low trust rarely agree or even want to listen.

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?”

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.

As it turns out, it’s very hard to sell drugs from a house in which there is a regular police presence outside. And so the tenants simply left. No doors bashed down. No lives put at risk.

Police can never “beat” crime. Instead, the police can make it more difficult for the criminals to be criminals.