The Infinite Game (My 3 Takeaways)
According to Simon Sinek, author of “The Infinite Game,” one of the reasons that so many of us are disengaged, frustrated, and miserable in our workplaces is that too many of our leaders are playing an infinite game with a finite mindset.
The concept at the core of Sinek’s newest book comes from “Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility” by James P. Cause in 1986. Finite games are characterized by boundaries, players, rules, and time that are defined and known. Infinite games, on the other hand, have no such limitations.
When leaders bring finite mindsets to infinite games, it can have destructive effects for the organization over time.
“Because finite-minded leaders place unbalanced focus on near-term results, they often employ any strategy or tactic that will help them make the numbers… These decisions can, in turn, shake a company’s culture,” Sinek says.
“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… Regardless of whether they are in self-preservation or self-promotion mode, the sum of all of these behaviors contributes to a general decline in cooperation across the company, which also leads to stagnation of any truly new or innovative ideas,” (p. 20).
By focusing on the benefits for a few people who are in positions of power, finite-minded practices can have significant negative impacts on trust, collaboration, and creativity, as well as performance and productivity in the long term.
The choice to lead with an infinite mindset, however, demonstrates a commitment to taking care of the organization’s people and focusing on the organization’s vision for the future.
“As for us, those who choose to embrace an infinite mindset,” Sinek writes, “Our journey is one that will lead us to feel inspired every morning, safe when we are at work, and fulfilled at the end of each day,” (p. 27).
For a great visual synopsis, check out: https://www.visualsynopsis.com/full-collection/the-infinite-game-simon-sinek-visual-synopsis-by-dani-saveker
Here are my three biggest takeaways.
Takeaway #1: Leading with an Infinite Mindset
My most significant takeaway is the collection of five practices of leading with an infinite mindset.
The five practices are:
Advancing a Just Cause,
Building trusting teams,
Studying your worthy rivals,
Preparing for existential flexibility, and
Demonstrating the courage to lead.
These practices not only provide for the long term success of the organization, but also create an environment of collaboration, innovation, learning, and overall positive well being for those throughout the organization, with benefits also rippling out to customers, investors, and the larger community.
Of course, this is not to say that a leader cannot have their own personal and professional goals, but rather that the collective success of the organization beyond the leaders’s tenure and the success of the organization’s people must take precedence over the individual goals and needs of the leader.
Sinek says, “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 I am a leader, I must intend that the primary benefit of my time, efforts, and decisions goes to those I lead,” (p. 41-42).
The most important thing to remember about the five practices is that they are meant to be practiced, not perfected. A leader who wishes to be an infinite-minded leader also possess a growth mindset, rather than a fixed mindset. Learning is an ever-present part of the process.
“Maintaining an infinite mindset is hard. Very hard,” Sinek says. “We cannot expect that we or every leader will lead with a perfectly infinite mindset, or that any leader with an infinite mindset will be able to maintain that mindset at all times,” (p. 25-26).
Takeaway #2: “We” are Greater than “Me”
The first of the five practices is “advancing a Just Cause.”
Sinek defines a “Just Cause” as 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,” (p. 32-33).
The characteristics of a Just Cause include being:
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, and
Idealistic: Big, bold, and ultimately unachievable (p. 37).
For example, Sinek discusses the Declaration of Independence. Although the majority of the Declaration of Independence presents specific grievances against the English monarch, the articulation of the colonists’ Just Cause are what many of us most remember, including the phrases “all men are created equal,” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” ideals which resonate more than 200 years later.
The Declaration of Independence provides an example of the power of a Just Cause as a service-oriented vision that outlasts the leaders themselves and serves a purpose that is greater than themselves.
“The reason a service orientation is so important in the Infinite Game is because is builds a loyal base or employees and customers (and investors) who will stick with the organization through thick and thin. It is this strong base of loyalty that gives an 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 do genuinely care about them. In return, they offer their best ideas, work freely and responsibly, and work to solve problems for the benefit of the company,” (p. 44).
When leaders genuinely care about and for their people, they give their people the opportunity and the power to be their best selves and contribute their best efforts to the organization.
Takeaway #3: The Dangers of “Professionalism”
Grounded in the belief that the leaders and organization are committed to a purpose larger than themselves, the next practice is building trusting teams.
“There is a difference between a group of people who work together and a group of people who trust each other,” Sinek says. “For the feeling of trust to develop, we have to feel safe expressing ourselves first. We have to feel safe being vulnerable,” (p. 106).
Sinek also quotes Brené Brown, author of Dare to Lead, “Trust is the stacking and layering of small moments and reciprocal vulnerability over time,” says Brown. “Trust and vulnerability grow together, and to betray one is to destroy both.”
The absence of vulnerability causes people to hide mistakes and discourages them from asking for help. In short, growth mindsets and learning behaviors are avoided, while self-protecting and self-serving behaviors are embraced. The result is that it is impossible for people to give their best efforts, nor for the team to produce its best results.
What prevents organizations and teams from embracing vulnerability?
In business settings, leaders seem to believe there must be a separation between the “personal” and the “professional,” failing to realize 1) that there is no way for any person to turn off their feelings just because they are at work, and 2) that feelings, like trust, are prerequisites for high-performing teams.
Sinek points to the example of the Navy SEALs, who evaluate candidates on two axes: performance and trust. The question of trust was described by one SEAL team member who said, “I may trust you with my life but do I trust you with my money or my wife?” (p. 110). In other words, if they cannot be personally vulnerable, they may feel physically safe, but they will not feel psychologically safe.
“What the SEALs discovered,” Sinek writes, “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,” (p. 110).
For such a high-performing team as the Navy SEALs, it is preferable to have a medium performer of high trust, or even a low performer of high trust, than the high performer of low trust.
How can leaders build trusting teams?
“The process of building trust takes risk. We start by taking small risks, and if we feel safe, we take bigger risks… Trust must be continuously and actively cultivated,” (p. 118) Sinek writes.
He shares an example from the Marine Corps, which uses the Leadership Reaction Course (LRC) to evaluate potential leaders. That evaluation, surprisingly, does not even include whether or not the potential leaders complete the course. Instead, characteristics like honesty, integrity, courage, resiliency, perseverance, judgment, and decisiveness are more relevant measurements of a potential leader’s ability.
The standard of a good leader is the leader’s ability to call forth the best of their people.
“Leaders are not responsible for results,” Sinek says, “Leaders are responsible for the people who are responsible for the results. And the best way to drive performance in an organization is to create an environment in which information can flow freely, mistakes can be highlighted, and help can be offered and received. In short, an environment in which people feel safe among their own. That is the responsibility of a leader.”
