By Manuel “Bobby” Orig, Director, ApoAgua

WE CAN’T CHOOSE THE GAME.
WE CAN’T CHOOSE THE RULES.
WE CAN ONLY CHOOSE HOW WE PLAY.

Praise for the book:

Whether it’s new to the reader, or reinforces existing ideas, Sinek is a good story teller and weaves the lessons together in a manner that keeps the reader engaged and entertained.

The book’s most important lesson for leaders may be to check their biases when making leadership decisions. Executive pride themselves in their roles as strategic decision makers, but often reduce “strategic” to merely referring to a time frame. Strategic goals should not be relegated to a definition bounded by time frame. A truly strategic leader is a leader whose decisions are based on an organizational vision. Even more fundamentally, the organization’s leaders must develop and communicate an enduring (infinite) vision.

• PAUL JARA, Director of Staff, Arkansas Air National Guard

The author maintains that 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. Anyone who wants his or her organization to build products and offer services of enduring value will do well to live by this precept.

In finite games, the players are known, the rules are fixed and the end point is clear. The winners and losers are easily identified, like in a game of football or chess.

In infinite games, like business, politics or life itself, the players come and go, the rules are changeable, and there is no defined end point. There is no such thing as “winning business” or “winning life,” for example, there is only ahead and behind.

The more the author started to understand the difference between finite and infinite games, the more he began to see infinite games all around us. He started to see that many of the struggles that organizations face exist simply because their leaders were playing with a finite mindset in an infinite game. These organizations tend to lag behind in innovation, discretionary effort, morale and ultimately performance.

The leaders who embrace an infinite mindset, in stark contrast, build stronger, more innovative, more inspiring organizations. Their people trust one another and their leaders. They have the resilience to thrive in an ever-changing world, while their competitors fall by the wayside. Ultimately, they are the ones who lead the rest of us into the future.

In this book, the author offer a framework to help us better navigate the game in which we are all players. The Infinite Game.

About the author:

SIMON SINEK is an optimist and the bestselling author of Start with Why, Leaders Eat Last, Together is Better and Find Your Why. He is working to build a world in which the majority of us will wake up inspired, feel safe at work and return home fulfilled at the end of the day. His TED Talk, “How Great Leaders Inspire Action,” is one of the most widely viewed of all time.

Introduction
FINITE AND INFINITE GAMES

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. Football, for example, is a finite game. They players all wear uniforms and are easily identifiable. There is a set of rules, and referees are there to enforce those rules. All the players have agreed to play by those rules and they accept penalties when they break the rules. Everyone agrees that whichever team has scored more points by the end of the set time period will be declared the winner, the game will end and everyone will go home. In finite games, there is always a beginning, a middle and an end.

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.

Infinite games have infinite time horizons. And because there is no finish line, no practical end to the game, there is not such thing as “winning” an infinite game. In an infinite game, the primary objective is to keep playing, to perpetuate the game.

The author’s understanding of these two types of games comes from the master himself, Professor James P. Carse, who penned a treatise called Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility in 1986. It was Carse’s book that first got the author thinking beyond winning and losing, beyond ties and stalemates. The more he looked at our world through Carse’s lens of finite and infinite games, the more he started to see infinite games all around us, games with no finish lines and winners.

• There is no such thing as coming in first in marriage or friendship, for example.
  
• Though school may be finite, there is no such thing as winning education.
  
• We can beat other candidates for a job or promotion, but no one is ever crowned the winner of careers.
  
• Though nations may compete on a global scale with other nations for land, influence, or economic advantage, there is no such thing as winning global politics.
  
• No matter how successful we are in life, when we die, none of us will be declared the winner of life.
  
• And there is certainly no such thing as winning business.
  

All of these things are journeys, not events.

However, if we listen to the language of so many leaders today, it’s as if they do not know the game in which they are playing.

• They talk constantly about “winning.”
  
• They obsess about “beating their competition.”
  
• They state that their vision is to “be number one.”
  

Except that in games without finish lines, all of these things are impossible.

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.

If we are all, at various times, players in infinite games, then it is in our interest to learn how to recognize the game we are in and what it takes to lead with an infinite mindset. It is equally important for us to learn to recognize the clues when finite thinking exists so that we can make adjustments before real damage is done.

THE INFINITE GAME OF BUSINESS

The very game of business fits the very definition of an infinite game.

• We may not know all the other players and new ones can join the game at any time.
  
• All the players determine their own strategies and tactics and there is no set of fixed rules to which everyone has agreed, other than the law.
  
• Unlike a finite game, there is no predetermined beginning, middle or end to business. Although many of us agree to a set of time frames for evaluating our own performance relative to that of other players – the financial year, for example – those time frames represent markers within the course of the game; none marks the end of the game itself.
  
• The game of business has no finish line.

Despite the fact that companies are playing in a game that cannot be won, too many business leaders keep playing as if they can. They continue to make claims that they are the “best” or that they are “number one.” Such claims have become so commonplace that we rarely, if ever, stop to actually think about how ridiculous some of them are.

To one company, being number one may be based on the number of customers they serve. To another, it could be about revenues, stock performance, the number of employees or the number of offices they have around the globe.

The companies making the claims even get to decide the time frames in which they are making their calculations. But did everyone else in the industry agree to those same time frames for comparison?

In finite games, there is a single, agreed metric that separates the winner from the loser, things like goals scored, speed or strength. In infinite games, there are multiple metrics, which is why we can never declare a winner.

Which means, 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 benefits of which, ironically, often make companies stronger in the near term also.

A TALE OF TWO PLAYERS

Some years ago, the author spoke at an education summit for Microsoft. A few months later, he spoke at an education summit for Apple.

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 students learn.

One group seemed obsessed with beating their competition. The other group seemed obsessed with advancing a cause.

After my talk at the Apple event, I shared a taxi back to the hotel with a senior Apple executive, employee number 54, meaning he has been at the company since the early days and was completely immersed in Apple’s culture and belief set. Sitting there with him, a captive audience, I could not help myself. I had to stir the pot a little. So I turned to him and said, “You know … I spoke at Microsoft and they gave me their new Zune (Microsoft’s answer to Apple’s iPod) and I have to tell you, it is SO MUCH BETTER than your iPod touch.” The executive looked at the author, smiled and replied, “I have no doubt.” And that was it. The conversation was over.

The Apple executive was unfazed by the fact that Microsoft had a better product. Although the author did not know it at the time, he says that the executive’s response was consistent with that of a leader with an infinite mindset.

THE BENEFITS OF AN INFINITE MINDSET

In the Infinite Game, the true value of an organization cannot be measured by the success it has achieved based on a set of arbitrary metrics over arbitrary time frames.

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.

According to Carse, a finite-minded leader plays to end the game – to win. And if they want to be the winner, then there has to be a loser. They play for themselves and want to defeat the other players. They almost always believe they must act that way, even though, they don’t have to at all. There is no rule that says they have to act that way. It is their mindset that directs them.

Carse’s infinite player plays to keep playing. In business, that means building an organization that can survive its leaders.

Carse also expect the infinite player to play for good of the game. In business, that means seeing beyond the bottom line.

Where a finite-minded player makes products that 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.

A company built for the Infinite Game doesn’t think of itself alone. It considers the impact of its decisions on its people, its community, the economy, the country and the world.

George Eastman, the founder of Kodak, was devoted to his vision of making photography easy and accessible to everyone. He 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, stock options. They also provided employees with a generous benefits package, gave paid time off for sick leave and subsidized tuition for employees who took classes at local colleges. All these things have been adopted by many other companies. In other words, it was not only good for Kodak, it was good for the game of business.

Because they were playing with an endpoint in mind, finite-minded players do not like surprises and fear any kind of disruption. Things they cannot predict or they cannot control could upset their plans and increase their chances of losing.

The infinite-minded player, in contrast, expects surprises, even revels in 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.

It’s easy now to see why the Apple executive with whom the author shared a cab could be so nonchalant about Microsoft’s well-designed Zune. He understood that in the Infinite Game of business, sometimes Apple would have the better product, sometimes another company would have the better product. They were not trying to outdo Microsoft; Apple was trying to outdo itself. About a year after the Zune was first introduced, Apple released the first iPhone. The iPhone redefined the entire category of smartphones and rendered both the Zune and iPod virtually obsolete.

LEAD WITH AN INFINITE MINDSET

There are three factors we must always consider when deciding how we want to lead:

1. We don’t get to choose whether a particular game is finite or infinite.
   
2. We do get to choose whether or not we want to join the game.
   
3. Should we choose to join the game, we can choose whether we want to play with a finite or infinite mindset.
   

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

If we want to follow a health regime, we can choose to follow some of the practices but not all of them – we can exercise but never eat vegetables, for example. If we choose this approach, we may get some benefit. But we will only enjoy the full benefit if we do everything.

Likewise, there is a benefit to following some of the practices required for infinite thinking. However, to fully equip an organization for a long and healthy life in the Infinite Game, we must do it all.

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.

Just as it is easier to focus on a fixed, finite goal than an infinite vision of the future, it is easier to lead a company with a finite mindset, especially during times of struggle or downturn.

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.

They are entitled to know how we will play so that they may make smarter decisions about who they want to work for, buy from or invest in.

When they see that we have embraced the five practices of an infinite leader, they can be confident that we are focused on where we are going and committed to taking care of each other along the way. They can also be confident that we will strive to resist short-term temptations and act ethically as we build our organizations to survive and thrive for a very, very long time to come.

JUST CAUSE

WHAT A JUST CAUSE IS

The motivation to play in an Infinite Game is completely different – the goal is not to win, but to keep playing. It is to advance something bigger than ourselves or our organization. And any leader who wishes to lead in the Infinite Game must have a crystal clear Just Cause.

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 that vision. It can be the choice to turn down a better paying job in order to keep working for an organization that is working to advance a Just Cause in which we believe. It may mean working late hours or taking frequent business trips. Though we may not like the sacrifices we make, it is because of the Just Cause that they feel worth it.

“Winning” provides a temporary thrill of victory; an intense, but fleeting, boost of self-confidence. None of us is able to hold on to the incredible feeling of accomplishment for that target we hit, promotion we earned, or tournament we won a year ago. Those feelings have passed. To get that feeling again, we need to try to win again.

However, when there is a Just Cause, a reason to come to work that is bigger than any particular win, our days take on more meaning and feel more fulfilling. Feelings that carry on week after week, month after month, year after year.

In an organization that is only driven by the finite, we may like our job some days, but we will likely never love our jobs.

If we work for an organization with a Just Cause, we may like our jobs some days, but we will always love our jobs. As with our kids, we may like them some days and not others, but we love them every day.

When the Founding Fathers of the United States declared independence from Great Britain, for example, they knew that such a radical act would require a statement of Just Cause. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The vision they set forth was not simply one of a nation defined by borders but an ideal future state defined by the principles of liberty and equality for all.

And on July 4, 1776, the fifty six-men who signed on that vision agreed to “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” This was how much it mattered to them. They were willing to give up their own finite lives and interests to carry forward the infinite idea and ideals of a nation. Their sacrifice, in turn, inspired subsequent generations to embrace the same Cause and devote their own blood, sweat and tears to continue to advance it.

Many of the organizations we work for now already have some sort of purpose, vision or mission statement (or all of them) written on the walls that our leaders hope will inspire us. However, the vast majority of them would not qualify as a Just Cause.

Even some of the best-intentioned attempts are written in a way that is finite, generic, self-centered or too vague to be of any use in the Infinite Game. Common attempts include statements like, “We do the stuff you don’t want to do, so that you can focus on the things that you love to do.” It may be a true statement, it’s just a true statement for too many things. Plus it’s not much of a rallying cry.

Another common generic vision sounds like, “To offer the highest quality product 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 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. 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. The second gives us a cause to advance.

The impact of the two perspectives is more than semantics. It affects how we view the problem/vision that affects our ideas on how we can contribute. Where the first offers us a problem to solve, the second offers a vision of possibility, dignity and empowerment. 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.

INCLUSIVE – OPEN TO ALL THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE

Human beings want to be a part of something. We crave the feeling of belonging. We enjoy the feeling of being part of a group, like when we attend church, attend a parade or rally or wear the jersey of our favorite team when we attend a sports event. A Just Cause serves as an invitation to join others in advancing a cause bigger than ourselves. When the words of the Just Cause help us imagine a positive, specific, alternative vision of the future, it stirs something inside us that makes us want to raise our hand to join up and join in.

A well-crafted statement of Cause inspires us to offer our ideas, our time, our experience, our hands, anything that may help advance the new vision of the future it articulates. This is how movements came to be. Their idealized vision of a future attracts believers.

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. We call it a “vision” because it must be something we can “see.” For a Just Cause to serve as an effective invitation, the words must paint a specific and tangible picture of the kind of impact we will make or what exactly a better world would look like. Only when we can imagine in our mind’s eye the exact version of the world an organization or leader hopes to advance toward will we know to which organization or to which leader we want to commit our energies and ourselves. A clear Cause is what ignites our passions.

The quick-serve salad company Sweetgreen stands for something bigger than selling salads, for example, and they invite would be contributors to their Cause. Their stated mission is “to inspire healthier communities by connecting people to real food.” Real food, as Sweetgreen defines it, means ingredients from local sources that support local farms. Though most of us would buy their salads just because we like their salads, those who are devoted to locally sourced food want to support local farms will be drawn to work for and become the most loyal supporters of Sweetgreen. Supporting the company in some shape or form is one of the things they do to feel that they are advancing their own values and beliefs, their own vision of a better world. They feel included in the Cause.

SERVICE ORIENTED – FOR THE PRIMARY BENEFIT OF OTHERS

A Just Cause must involve at least two parties – the contributors and the beneficiaries. The givers and receivers. 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 other 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.

If I am an investor, I must intend that the primary benefit of my contribution goes to helping the company advance its Just Cause. If I am a leader, I must intend that the primary beneficiary of my time, effort and decisions goes to those I lead. If there is only one party, if we are the sole beneficiaries of our own work, that’s not Just Cause, that’s a vanity project.

The requirement that a Just Cause to be service oriented is consistent with how infinite games are supposed to be played. The infinite player wants to keep the game going for others. A leader who wishes to build an organization equipped for the Infinite Game must never make decisions solely to boost their own compensation. Their efforts should go toward equipping the organization for the game in which it is operating.  

Even an investor must not be the primary beneficiary of their investment. Rather it is the organization in which they believe and whose Just Cause they want to see advanced that must benefit from their financial contributions. An infinite-minded investor wants to contribute to advance something bigger than themselves – which, if successful, will be highly profitable. A finite-minded investor is more like a gambler who bets solely so they may reap the reward. Let us not confuse the two behaviors.

RESILIENT – ABLE TO ENDURE POLITICAL, TECHNOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL CHANGE

Leaders who wish to lead with an infinite mindset would do well to keep the example of the Declaration of Independence in mind. The founders’ stated commitment to equality and inalienable rights are evergreen. Over the course of more than 240 years, even as the nation’s leaders, landscape, people and culture have changed, the Just Cause has remained as relevant and inspiring as ever. It is a Just Cause for an Infinite Time frame.

In the Infinite Game of business, a Just Cause must be greater than the products we make and the services we offer. Our products and services are some of the things we use to advance our Cause. They are not themselves the Cause. If we articulate our Cause in terms of our products, then our organization’s entire existence is conditional on the relevance of those products. Any new technology could render our products, our Cause and indeed our entire company obsolete overnight.

The American railroads, for example, were some of the largest companies in the country. Until advancement in automotive technology and a network of highways offered people a quicker and sometimes cheaper alternative to the train. Had the railroads defined their need to exist in terms related to moving people and things instead of advancing the railroad, they might be the owners of major car companies or airlines today.

Publishers saw themselves in the book publishing business instead of spreading ideas business and thus missed the opportunity to capitalize on new technology to advance their cause. They could have invented Amazon or the digital e-reader.

Markets will rise and fall, people will come and go, technologies will evolve, products and services will adapt to consumer tastes and market demands. We need something with permanence for us to rally around. Something that can withstand change and crisis. To keep us in the Infinite Game, our Cause must be durable, resilient, and timeless.

IDEALISTIC – BIG, BOLD AND ULTIMATELY UNACHIEVABLE

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. Think of a Just Cause like an iceberg. All we ever see is the tip of that iceberg, the things we have already accomplished.

In an organization, it is often the founders and early contributors who have the clearest vision of the unknown future, of what, to everyone else, remains unseen. 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. With each success, a little more of the iceberg is revealed to others; the vision becomes more visible to others. And when others can see a vision become something real, skeptics become believers and even more people inspired by the possibility and willingly commit their time and energy, ideas, and talents to help advance the Cause further.

WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR CAUSE, WRITE IT DOWN

Without finding the words for the Just Cause and writing them down, it dramatically increases the risk that in time, the Cause will be diluted or disappear altogether. And without the Just Cause, an organization starts to function like a ship without a compass – it veers off course. Focus moves from beyond the horizon to the dials in front of them. Without a Just Cause to guide them, finite-mindedness starts to creep in.

A just cause that is preserved on paper can be handed down from generation to generation; a founder’s instinct cannot. Like the Declaration of Independence, a written statement of Cause dramatically increases the chances that the Cause will survive to guide and inspire future generations beyond the founders and those who knew the founders.

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.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BUSINESS

In a watershed article from 1970, Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, who is considered one of the great theorists of today’s form of capitalism, laid out the foundation for shareholder primacy that is at the heart of so much finite-minded business practice today.

Friedman insisted that “there is one and only one social responsibility for business, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.”

Friedman seemed to have a very one-dimensional view of business. And as anyone who has ever led, worked for or bought from a business knows, business is dynamic and complicated. Which means it is possible that for the past 40+ years, we have been building companies with a definition of business that is actually bad for business and undermines the very system of capitalism it proclaims to embrace.

The winds of change are blowing. It has become more socially acceptable to question some of the accepted tenets of Friedman's capitalism. And there continues to be a growing discomfort with such devotion to his definition of the responsibility of business.

Friedman proposed that a business has a single responsibility – profit; a very finite-minded view of business. We need to replace Friedman's definition with one that goes beyond profit and considers the dynamism and additional facets that make business work.

In order to increase the infinite value to our nation, our economy and all the companies that play in the game, the definition of the responsibility of business must:

1. Advance a purpose: Offer people a sense of belonging and a feeling that their lives and their work have value beyond the physical work.
   
2. Protect people: Operate our companies in a way that protects the people who work for us, the people who buy from us and the environments in which we live and work.
   
3. Generate profit: Money is fuel for a business to remain viable so that it may continue to advance the first two priorities.
   

Simply put:
The responsibility of business is to use its will and resources to advance a cause greater than itself, protect the people and places in which it operates and generate more resources so that it can continue doing all those things for as long as possible. An organization can do whatever it likes to build its business so long as it is responsible for the consequences of its actions.

The three pillars – to advance a purpose, protect people and generate a profit – are essential in the Infinite Game.

For nations, our sense of belonging and ideologies that we would sacrifice to advance often come in the form of -isms, like capitalism, socialism, and so on. In business, they come in the form of a Just Cause. In both the place we choose to live and the place we choose to make a living, we should feel like we are working to advance something bigger than ourselves.

Translated into business terms, it means that a company’s goals must also align with people’s goals, not simply the goals of shareholders. If we want our work to benefit ourselves, our

colleagues, our customers, our communities and the world, then it is right for us to work at companies whose values and goals align with our own. And if they don’t, we can demand that they do. Anyone who offers their blood, sweat and tears to advance a company’s goals is entitled to feel valued for their contributions and share in the fruits of their labor.

Where Friedman believed the results of our hard work should be for the primary benefit of an elite working class (the owner), the more infinite-minded leader would ensure that, as long as there are shared goals,  all who contribute will benefit across all three pillars. We are all entitled to feel psychologically protected at work, be fairly compensated for our effort  and contribute to something bigger than ourselves.

WILL BEFORE RESOURCES

In any game, there are always two currencies required to play – will and resources.

Resources are tangible and easily measured. When we talk about resources, we’re usually talking about money. Resources generally come from outside forces, like customers and investors, and represent the sum of all the financial metrics that contribute to the health of the organization.

Will, in contrast, is intangible and harder to measure. When we talk about will, we’re talking about the feelings people have when they come to work. Will encompasses morale, motivation, inspiration, commitment, desire to engage, desire to offer discretionary effort and so on. Will generally comes from inside sources like the quality of leadership and clarity and strength of the Just Cause. Will represents the sum of all the human elements that contribute to the health of the organization.

All leaders, whether operating with a finite or infinite mindset, know resources is essential. And both finite and infinite-minded leaders know that will is also essential. No CEO thinks their people are unimportant. The problem is, will and resources can never be equally prioritized. There are always circumstance in which one is pitted against the other, times in which a leader must choose which one they are willing to sacrifice. The question is, which one will they choose? Every leader has a bias.

Most of us have sat in a meeting and listened to a leader present their priorities … and it often look something like this: 1. Growth 2. Our Customers 3. Our People. Though that leader will insist that they do care about their people, the order in which they appear on the list matters. In this case, there are at least two things that are considered more important than the people, and one of them is resources.

The finite-minded leader tends to show a bias for the score. As a result, they often opt for choices that demonstrate results in a short time frame, even if doing so, “regrettably,” comes at the cost to the people.

Infinite-minded leaders, in contrast, work hard to look beyond the financial pressures of the current day and put people before profit as often as possible. In hard times, they are less likely to look at their people as just another expense to be cut and more willing to explore other ways to save money, even if the results make take longer to realize.

Thinking beyond the hard times, an infinite-minded leader is okay to wait the quarter or the year or more for the savings to accumulate if it means safeguarding the will of the people. They understand that the will of the people is the thing that drives discretionary effort, as well as problem solving, imagination, and teamwork – all things essential for surviving and thriving in the future. The value of strong will over resources simply cannot be underestimated.

WHEN WILL IS STRONG

One reason companies that operate with a bias will ultimately fare better in the Infinite Game has to do with what we control. Though we have control over how we spend or manage our money, we have a lot less control over how we make it. Politics, economic cycles, market fluctuations, the actions of other players, customer preferences, technological advancements, the weather and all other forces majeures can wreak havoc with our ability to amass resources. Leaders can exert only limited control over these things. However, leaders have near total control over the sources of will. Will is generated by the company culture.

Unlike resources, which ultimately are limited, we can generate an endless play of will. For this reason, organizations that choose to operate with a bias for will are ultimately more resilient than those who prioritize resources.

When hard times strike (and hard times always strike), in companies with a bias for will, people are much more likely to rally together to protect each other, the company, the resources and their leaders. Not because they are told to, but because they choose to. This is what happens when the will of the people is strong.

TRUSTING TEAMS

Human beings are hardwired to protect ourselves. We avoid danger and seek out a place in which we feel safe. The most anxiety-inducing place to be is alone – when we feel we have to protect ourselves from the people in our own team. Real or perceived, when there is danger, we act from a place of fear rather than confidence.

Fear is such a powerful motivator that it can force us to act in ways that are completely counter to our own or our organization’s best interest. And in the face of fear, we hide the truth.  In any circumstance, when an organization is doing badly, it’s even worse. That is exactly what Alan Mullaly walked into when he took over as the new CEO at Ford in 2006.

Ford was in serious trouble and Mulally was brought in with the hope that he could save the company. Mulally made it his first order of business at Ford to find out as much as he could about the current state of things from the people who worked there. The task, however, proved more difficult than he expected.

To keep a pulse on the health of the organization, Mulally introduced weekly business plan reviews (BPRs). All his senior executives were to attend these meetings and present the status of their work against the company’s strategic plan, using simple color coding – green, yellow and red. Mulally knew that the company was having serious problems, so he was surprised to see that week after week every executive presented  their projects as all green. Finally, he threw up his hands in frustration. “We are going to lose billions of dollars this year,” he said. “Is there anything that’s not going well here?” Nobody answered.

There was a good reason for their silence. The executives were scared. Prior to Mulally, the former CEO would regularly berate, humiliate, or fire people who told him things he didn’t want to hear. And, because we get the behavior we reward, executives were now conditioned to hide problem areas or missed financial targets to protect themselves from the CEO. But Mullaly persisted.

In every subsequent meeting he repeated the same question until, eventually, one person, Mark Fields, head of operations in the Americas, changed one slide in his  presentation to red. A decision he believed would cost him his job. but he didn’t lose his job. Nor was he publicly shamed. Instead, Mulally clapped at the sight and said, “Mark that is great visibility! Who can help Mark with this?” At the next meeting, Mark was still the only executive with a red slide in his presentation. Week after week, Mulally would repeat his question, “we are still losing tons of money, is anything not going well?” Slowly executives started to show yellow and red in their presentations too. Eventually, it got to the point where they would equally discuss all the issues they were facing. In the process, Mulally had learned some tricks to help build trust on his team. To help them feel safe from humiliation, for example, he depersonalized the problem his executives faced. “You have a problem,” he would tell them. “You are not the problem.”

Once the Circle of Safety has been established, a Trusting Team formed and the executives could now, in Mulally’s words, “work together as a team to turn the reds to yellow and the yellows to green.” And if they could do that, he knew they could save the company.

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.

WORTHY RIVAL

The  quoted narrative below (in italics) is from the author’s first person story:

Whenever I heard his name, it made me uncomfortable. If I heard someone sing his praises, a wave of envy washed over me. I know him to be a good person and a nice guy. I respect his work a great deal and he has always been nice to me when we’ve met in professional settings. We do the same kind of work – write books and give talks about our view of the world. Though there are many others who do work similar to his and mine, for some reason I was obsessed with him. I wanted to outdo him. I would regularly check the online rankings to see how my books were selling and compare them to his. Not anyone else’s. Just his. If his were ranked higher, I would scowl and feel annoyed. He was my main competitor and I wanted to win.

Then something happened.

We were invited to share a stage at the same event. Though we have spoken at the same events before, this was the first time we would actually be on the same stage at the same time. In the past I would speak on day one of a conference, for example, and he on day two. This time, however, we would be on the same stage at the same time, sitting side by side for a joint interview. The interviewer thought it would be “fun” if we introduced each other. I went first.

I looked at him, I looked at the audience and I said, “You make me unbelievably insecure because all of your strengths are all my weaknesses. You can do so well the things that I struggle to do.” The audience laughed. He looked at me and responded, “The insecurity is mutual.” He went on to identify some of my strengths as areas in which he wished he could improve.

In an instant I understood the reason why I felt so competitive with him. The way I saw him had nothing to do with him. It had to do with me. When his name came up, it reminded me of the areas in which I grappled. Instead of investing my energy on improving myself – overcoming my weaknesses  or building on my strengths – it was easier to focus on beating him. That’s how competition works. It’s a drive to win. The problem was, all the metrics of who was ahead and who was behind were arbitrary and I set the standards for comparison. Plus there was no finish line, so I was attempting to compete in an unwinnable race. I had made a classic finite-minded blunder. The truth is, even though we do similar things, he is not my competitor, he is my rival. My very Worthy Rival.

To anyone who has spent time watching or playing games and sports, the notion of a finite competition where one player on one side beats the other to earn a title or prize is familiar. Indeed, to most of us it is ingrained in the way we think that we automatically adopt an “us” against “them” attitude whenever there are other players in the field, regardless of the nature of the game. If we are a player in an infinite game, however, we have to stop thinking of other players as competition to be beaten and start thinking of them as Worthy Rivals who can help us become better players.

We get to choose our own Worthy Rivals and we would be wise to select them strategically. There is no value in picking other players whom we constantly outflank simply to make ourselves feel superior. That has little to no value to our own growth. We choose them to be our Worthy Rivals because there is something about them that reveals to us our weaknesses and pushes us to constantly improve … which is essential if we want to be strong enough to stay in the game.

From the 1970s into the 1980s, Chris Evert Lloyd and Martina Navratilova were two of the dominant players in women’s tennis. Though they were competitors when they met on the court, each driven to win, it was respect that they had for each other that helped both of them become better tennis players. “I appreciate what she did for me as a rival, to lift my game,” speaking fondly of Navratilova. “And I think she appreciated what I did for her.” It was because of Navratilova, for example, that Evert had to change the way she played. She could no longer rely on staying on the baseline. She had to learn to become a more aggressive player. This is what a Worthy Rival does for us. They push us in a way that few others can. And in the case of Evert and Navratilova, it elevated their own games and the game of tennis.

The impact of this subtle mind shift can be profound in how we make decisions and prioritize resources. Traditional competition forces us to take on attitude of winning. A Worthy Rival inspires us to take on an attitude of improvement. The former focuses our attention on the outcome,  the latter focuses our attention on the process. That simple shift in perspective immediately changes how we see our own businesses. It is the focus on process and constant improvement that helps reveal new skills and boosts resilience. An excessive focus on beating our competition not only gets exhausting over time, it can actually stifle innovation.

As for my Worthy Rival, when I thought of Adam Grant as a competitor, it didn’t help me. Rather, it fed my finite mindset. I was more concerned with comparing arbitrary ratings than I was with advancing my own Cause. I devoted too much time and energy to worrying about what he was doing rather than focusing that energy on how I could be better at what I do.

Since that day when I learned to shift my mindset, I no longer compare my book rankings to Adam’s (or anyone else’s). My mindset has shifted away from channeling my feelings of insecurity against him to partnering with him to advance our common cause. We have become dear friends and I feel genuine happiness when I hear his name or see that he is doing well.

In an infinite game, we can both succeed. An infinite mindset embraces abundance whereas a finite mindset operates with a scarcity mentality. In the Infinite Game we accept that “being the best” is a fool’s errand and that multiple players can do well at the same time.

WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO CHANGE WITH THE TIMES

In business, the emergence of new players necessarily changes the way the game must be played. Blockbuster – the sole superpower in the movie rental business – failed to appreciate that a small company like Netflix and an emerging technology like the internet required them to reexamine their entire business model.

Big publishers doubled down on old models when Amazon showed up instead of asking how they could update and upgrade their models in the face of a new digital age.

And instead of asking themselves, “What do we need to do to change with the times,” taxi companies chose to sue the ridesharing companies, Uber, Lyft, etc., to protect their business models instead of learning how to adapt and provide a better taxi service.

And believing itself without Rival, the behemoth that was Myspace didn’t even see Facebook coming.

What got us here won’t get us there, and knowing who our Worthy Rival are is the best way to help us improve and adapt before it’s too late.

Without a Worthy Rival we risk losing our humility and our agility. Failure to have a Worthy Rival increases the risk that a once mighty infinite player, with a strong sense of Cause, will gently slide into becoming just another finite player looking to rack up wins. Where once the organizations fought primarily for the good of others, without that Worthy Rival, they are more likely to fight primarily for the good of themselves. And when that happens, when the hubris sets in, the organization will quickly find its weaknesses exposed and too rigid for the kind of flexibility they need to stay in the game.

OUR LIVES ARE FINITE, BUT LIFE IS INFINITE

Our lives are finite, but life is infinite. We are the finite players in the infinite game of life. We come and go, we are born and we die, and life still continues with us or without us. There are

other players, some of them are our rivals, we enjoy wins and we suffer losses, but we can always keep playing tomorrow (until we run out of the ability to stay in the game). And no matter how much money we make, no matter how much power we accumulate, no matter how many promotions we are given, none of us will ever be declared a winner.

We want to play with a finite mindset or an infinite mindset.

If we choose to live our lives with a finite mindset, it means we make our primary purpose to get richer or promoted faster than others. To live our lives with an infinite mindset means that we are driven to advance a Cause bigger than ourselves. We see those who share our vision as partners in the Cause and we work to build trusting relationships with them so that we may advance the common good together. We are grateful for the success we enjoy. And as we advance we work to help those around us to rise. To live a life of infinite mindset is to live a life of service.

Remember in life, we are players in multiple infinite games. Our careers are just one. No one of us will ever be declared a winner of parenting, friendship, learning or creativity either.  However, we can choose the mindset with which we approach all these things.

To live a life with an infinite mindset means thinking about second and third order effects of our decisions. It means thinking about who we vote for with a different lens. It means taking responsibility for later impact of the decisions we make today.

And like all infinite games, in the game of life, the goal is not to win, it is to perpetuate the game. To live a life of service.

None of us wants on our tombstones the last balance in our bank accounts. We want to be remembered for what we did for others. Devoted Mother. Loving Father. Loyal Friend. To serve is good for the Game.

We only get one choice in the Infinite Game of life. What will you choose?

‌University of Experience is a special Aboitiz Eyes section that focuses on leadership insights from the unique experiences, perspectives, and wisdom of leaders who have stood at the helm of Aboitiz over the years.

If you enjoyed this article, would like to suggest a topic, or simply share your feedback, please CLICK HERE.