PERFORMANCE INSIGHTS FROM “THE INFINITE GAME” BY SIMON SINEK

The path to fulfillment versus the path to victory is the way Simon Sinek sets the scene for this book. The author who brought us the concept of a “why” now brings us the concept of “infinity” as it relates to leadership and progress. The temptation for us all is the route of near-term victory, instant gratification, or appeasement of shareholders now, rather than agreement to do the right thing for the longer term, and for generations to come.

Sinek introduces five essential practices for infinite thinking:

1. Advance a just cause.

2. Build trusting teams.

3. Study our worthy rivals.

4. Prepare for existential flexibility.

5. Demonstrate the courage to lead.

Advance a Just Cause

To play the infinite game means to inspire others. We should write down and post our “just cause”. Today we might call this our “Purpose” although at many organisations these purpose statements seldom go far enough. A true “just cause” will effectively be personal and perpetual for those who commit to it.

The founding fathers of the United States wrote the Declaration of Independence. This written cause was designed to work like a compass for a society and for each community. It needed to be durable, resilient, and timeless. A just cause also needs to be big, bold, and ultimately unachievable. The 1776 Declaration of Independence states that the authority to govern belongs to the people, rather than to kings, and that all people are created equal and have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Acts and amendments continue to be added as equality is addressed so it is the vision of justice for all that remains the key driver. Citizens are prepared to die trying to defend the just cause of liberty and justice.

Interestingly John F Kennedy’s moonshot is cited as a finite goal, which does put true infinity into perspective! Even though putting a man on the moon in 1969 was hugely impressive, once it was achieved and the race to the moon was won, the finality of finite was clear. What next? The infinite game continues. What is the infinite and lasting vision that a moonshot will help advance? Kennedy’s moonshot was in fact targeted in the context of an infinite vision; “Our progress is for the benefit of the many, we set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won, and they must be used for all people.”

Sinek notes that true health is true wealth and that therefore a healthy lifestyle ties into the infinite game. “Companies that eat to get fat will eventually suffer from health problems”. In the same way, people who eat irresponsibly can anticipate disease later in life. The infinite mindset is about an holistic and long-term view. It is effectively a growth mindset.

General Electric (GE) and Walmart are referenced as case studies. Jack Welch talked about being the best and about winning which is a finite view. Sinek makes the point that companies will not always be the best and they won’t always grow. An infinite view is to always strive to be better (than yesterday) rather than to be the best. Growth and “best” are outcomes not inputs. Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, proffered the priority of lowering the cost of living for working-class Americans. A noble and just cause. Unfortunately by the time Mike Duke took over as CEO in 2009, that had been replaced by a finite focus on maximising share-holder value. Serving the consumer was last on the stated list. It had become about Wall Street rather than Main Street.

For GE and Walmart, there has been a re-balancing of this language, with a focus back on “better” and on “customer first”. This is the difference between finite and infinite play in the game. Doug McMillon, the new CEO at Walmart, recently talked about the great privilege he had to serve Walmart. He reversed Duke’s language, promising to serve customers first and to restore the just cause of Walmart’s founder. His priorities in 2014 were announced in the exact opposite order to those of Mike Duke.

To ensure continued focus on the infinite game, and continued maintenance of a just cause, the author suggests there should perhaps be a Chief Vision Officer (CVO) whose focus is up and out (beyond the organisation). To think beyond the bottom line. This helps the CEO and CFO because they can then collectively maintain the balance between operations, financials, and the future. An interesting suggestion.

In Wealth of Nations, 1776, Adam Smith said that the interests of the consumer should be most important. But in 1970 Milton Friedman said that companies should use resources to increase profits for shareholders; a definition that is potentially bad for business. It has resulted in many business owners prioritising profits over everything else. When shareholder pay is tied to short term share price, a finite mindset becomes somewhat inevitable.

Sinek notes: “Where there is unbalance there is unrest”. Whether ancient Romans or the American colonists; people want to be treated fairly and to share in the wealth they have helped to generate. “Change is coming”; that is how the infinite game works. It is not if, but when, or “expect the unexpected” as we used to say in the Marines. The triple bottom line is now challenging Friedman’s ideas. We need a new definition of the responsibility of business. Money is a result and not a purpose. Emerging essentials for an organisation include 1. Advance a just cause or purpose and offer people a sense of belonging. 2. Protect the people and the environment in which the organisation operates 3. Generate profit and positive growth for all.

History provides a number of examples of infinite minded government. At different times, the USA, USSR, and North Vietnam all used a combination of will and resources to advance a cause greater than themselves, to protect people, and to promote economic prosperity. Infinite-minded leaders aspire to ensure that all who contribute will share in the benefit.

People are entitled to psychological safety at work, to be fairly compensated, and to contribute to something bigger than themselves. Will is generated by the company culture if there is a bias for will over resources. People rally together when times are hard. When people choose to do this, eventually everyone thrives. In 2020, this point feels particularly poignant.

In places of high performance, it is not the people doing the job, it is the people who lead the people doing the job who create an environment in which people can naturally thrive. Leaders need to prioritise people over results.

Walk the halls and ask people how they are doing.

The halls are now digital corridors but clearly just as important.

Resources are external, such as customers and investors. Will is internal and intentional, such as morale, motivation, inspiration, discretionary effort. Where possible, furlough should be used to keep people rather than to let go of people. This initiative has ironically become very real in 2020 as a global pandemic has brought economic activity to a virtual crawl.

The will of the people is the thing that drives discretionary effort. For example the Vietcong pushed the USA out of South Vietnam in 1975 despite the fact that the US had significant military resources.

The bias just needs to be slightly more “will” over resources. The incremental cost of Apple taking care of their people was zero because continuity, reduced turnover and higher productivity, offset and indeed outweighed any savings from letting people go. Apple and Costco enjoy lean recruiting teams, higher average sales, and they enjoy staff retention rates of 90% whereas other retail companies are around 30%.

Treating people as human beings tends to have an exponential ROI.

When people feel like they matter they come together. Shared-hardship pay freezes, and finding other ways to absorb cost burdens helps to save overhead and to survive tough times. An “in this together” mentality sometimes even sees vendors reducing costs to an organisation for the greater good. Money can’t buy true will, but a just cause and a sense of belonging, can have an extraordinary impact on morale.

Strong will cannot be built over night. How we treat people is how they treat us. Leaders have total control over the source of will; it is generated by company culture. The bias for will is more resilient than if the bias is for resources. It creates a sense of family. Money can buy mercenaries for a finite time. Will attracts zealots ad infinitum.

Build Trusting Teams

Sinek’s chapter on Trusting Teams should be required reading for literally every leader in every workplace in my view. He uses excellent examples to make exceptional points. I have seen some of them illustrated at his talks and replayed on YouTube.

He starts the chapter with an example from the oil field which resonated instantly. The Leader of the Shell Ursa platform in the Gulf of Mexico engaged with a transformation specialist to build trust through safe vulnerability. His roughneck crews eventually embraced the process and removed their proverbial masks to open up about their fears and failings. By doing this they learned to trust each other. They created a climate of psychological safety where it was OK to ask for help, to admit mistakes, and to question instructions. They evolved from a transactional workforce to a transformed team and their industry-leading results underscored the value of building true trust. The Ursa’s method spread throughout Shell International and drove an 84% decline in accidents company-wide while the Ursa itself also produced 43% more oil than average, as well as maintaining a 99% utilisation rate.

Brene Brown says this in Dare to Lead: “Trust and vulnerability grow together, and to betray one is to destroy both. Without trust and vulnerability, all the cracks in an organisation are hidden or ignored.” In high risk environments like upstream offshore, this ignorance can be fatal as seen during numerous high profile incidents over the last four decades.

Any industry that involves humans requires trust. There is often resistance to trust initiatives that promote sharing feelings and being vulnerable. Sinek references a Police Department where there was skepticism about vulnerability at first. But to deny the connection between feelings and performance is a finite approach.

The Navy Seals have a great measure to determine the kind of person who belongs in the Seals. Performance on the vertical axis, vs trust on the horizontal. Performance is about technical competence, trust is about character. One Seal apparently described it thus: “I may trust you with my life, but do I trust you with my money or my wife?” It is the distinction between battle-physical safety and overall-psychological safety. One of the highest performing organisations on the planet prefers individuals in the bottom right quartile than in the top left because the latter are typically narcissistic and toxic. The Seals select for character first. Trust helps build an elite team, whereas high performing individuals, only looking out for themselves, endanger a team.

When a new Police Chief took over at Castle Rock PD, he started with listening sessions. He figuratively built a circle of safety, but he also literally built a fence around the department as it was identified by many as a requirement for physical safety. This small initiative sent a profound message to the department; you are being heard, your leaders will act on your suggestions, and we are psychologically safe. He gave people a second chance because he recognised that it was the culture not the individuals that had been toxic. A leader must take the first risk and prioritise trust over performance. Coach, check in, be held accountable. The Castle Rock Police Department was completely transformed.

In 2006, the new CEO at Ford walked into climate of fear and mistrust. At weekly performance reviews, executives were presenting what they believed the leader wanted to hear (that everything was fine) because they were scared of being bullied or fired (based on previous experience at Ford).

We get the behaviour we reward.

These executives had been conditioned to hide problem areas to protect themselves from the CEO. Slowly the culture changed as the new CEO showed consistent appreciation for transparency; “you have a problem, you are not the problem”. He created a circle of (psychological) safety then helped build a true team. Sinek reminds us that leaders need to be honest and to model the right behaviour.

It is a combination of what we value and how we act that sets the culture for the company.

Culture equals values plus behaviour, these are the metrics for trust and performance. Sinek draws on his case studies; allow people on teams to do the best job they can do, take initiative to promote better public relations rather than higher arrest numbers (CRPD). One by one community policing to better community relations will drive positive “will” despite limited resources. How people feel affects how they do their work. Strong cultures have safety in relationships. High performing teams start with trust, but this needs to endure over time.

The US Marine Corps (USMC) Quantico officer selection process is instructive. They run practical leadership tasks but the amazing thing is that the ability to successfully complete the task is not even measured! It is only the inputs that are measured: behavioural qualities such as honesty, integrity, courage, resilience, perseverance, judgment, decisiveness. If officer candidates engender trust and cooperation, there is a higher probability that their troops will perform at higher levels over time. Leaders need to make new leaders. That is critical for succession planning. We need to care for people; help them feel safe, trust them. They will then follow their leaders anywhere and go the extra mile because they want to. In the USMC, as in the Seals, at Ford, and at Shell, trust is key. Psychological safety, and leadership vulnerability, encourages professional will.

Sinek discusses ethics with regards to social and environmental responsibilities. He talks about “ethical fading” which I compare to performance creep or mission creep. Patagonia did the right thing and put people and planet before profits – they are now one of the most successful in their category. Their ethical strength and infinite mindset built good will and trust in the marketplace, which ultimately quadrupled their revenue, and tripled their profit. Doing good work for the planet creates new markets and makes us more money. Resistance to ethical fading and responsibility for ethical behaviour while also pivoting during this transformational crisis is particularly relevant and topical in 2020.

Study Our Worthy Rivals

The chapter on rivalry was another paradigm shift; it resonated on a deep level for me. Many of us get caught up comparing and competing when in fact no one wins in the infinite game. Like Sinek we are aware of those who do the same kind of work as us. We compare our services, our books, we “share the same stage”, the same market space…

When Sinek studied Adam Grant to introduce him at an event, he realised that how he saw his rival had everything to do with his own insecurity. He realised that if rivals do similar or better, we can learn from them. In fact we can strategically choose our own worthy rivals! They will push us to improve and this is essential to staying in the game. He gives the example of Navratilova and Evert-Lloyd, the tennis superstars of the 70s/80s. They helped each other to get better.

The impact of this subtle shift can be profound. It can help us choose to do the right thing when the pressure is on. In fact, rivals can advance a just cause together. This is the value of an attitude of abundance versus scarcity thinking. Infinite minded leaders prefer the truth even when it is uncomfortable. Alan Mulally, the CEO at Ford in the 2000s, was a respectful student of Toyota. He openly benchmarked and learned from them. He chose to advance Henry Ford’s original just cause; producing affordable cars for the masses.

Apple and IBM were worthy rivals in advancing the personal computer. IBM used Apple as a foil to clarify their cause of stability vs Apple’s individuality. Apple is now a worthy rival of Google and Facebook to help keep them focused on their just cause. But cause blindness can also be a problem. It blunts humility and prevents learning. We should all guard against hubris.

The FBI acknowledge serial killers as good at what they do in order to get inside their heads and to solve murder cases. In the cold war, for a long time the USA and USSR brought out innovation and progress in each other. The Soviets provided a focus for the USA which prevented the republicans and democrats from trying to work against each other, and it encouraged collaboration. The Soviets were a single point for rivalry in the areas of nuclear, ideology, and economy during the cold war, but Sinek notes that once the cold war was over, America became arrogant and complacent. 09/11 exposed major disunity in the intelligence community as referenced by Matthew Syed in his book Rebel Ideas. Now North Korea, Religious extremists, and China are stepping in to rival the USA. We all need worthy rivals in order to unite and improve rather than in-fight and unravel!

The author reminds us of a few cautionary tales from the past when organisations felt theh had no worthy rivals: Blockbuster missed Netflix. Myspace didn’t see Facebook coming. Hubris exposes weaknesses. Worthy rivals keep teams and organisations hungry for better and they prevent complacency from creeping in.

Prepare for Existential Flexibility

Existential flexibility is all about being able to flex (pivot), potentially 180 degrees, in order to stay true to our just cause (purpose). Walt Disney and Steve Jobs are famous reference points. Disney was the first to make a cartoon with synchronised sound in Steamboat Willy and an animated film with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

As a boy on a farmstead in Missouri, Walt had discovered drawing and art. In a studio in California, Walt Disney productions went public. But studio utopia broke down due to shareholder interference. Walt decided to “flex”. He formed a new company to continue to advance his cause; he wanted to build “the happiest place on earth”; along came Disneyland. “A place where adults and kids could leave today and enter yesterday and tomorrow!” Disneyland would never be finished, it would be infinite.

Disney put everything on the line to start over. He realised there was a better way to advance his just cause. Infinite vision is required for an existential flex. It also needs to be proactive, not reactive. Inspiring rather then strategic. Existential flexibility recreates passion for something new when already successful; people followed Disney because they were excited by his vision and energy. Existential flexing to finite minded people seems like predicting the future, but it is actually about advancing a just cause. Infinite minded leaders see beyond the visible horizon to imagine what is possible beyond…

After visiting Xerox to view the Graphical User Interface, Jobs famously realised that Apple needed to “flex”. He famously said; “Better we blow up our company than someone else”. But his risky change of direction led to the introduction of the Mac which revolutionised the PC. It also pushed rivals Microsoft to introduce Windows 2.0.

Kodak had the original just cause of “simplifying photography for the masses to capture their memories”. In 1975 Kodak invented the first digital camera. An existential flex was needed but it was not taken due to protection of revenue and profits. Shareholders did not want to upset the status quo. They did not understand “short term pain for longer term gain”. Digital took away from film camera which was the Kodak cash cow so executives closed their eyes and hoped everything would be fine.

But Sinek reminds us that finite strategies don’t last. 10 years later Nikon added a digital processor, and Fuji introduced the first fully digital camera. There were digital cameras on phones by the 2000s, and Kodak film cameras went out of fashion. Kodak filed for bankruptcy in 2012. They had clung to outdated business models and abandoned their original cause. Market forces, not passion for their vision dictated their future, and all employees paid the price. They were disrupted by the very technology that they themselves invented!

Demonstrate the Courage to Lead

In 2014 CVS Caremark decided to stop selling cigarettes in their stores because of the contradiction with their value statement which is “Helping people on their path to better health”. They did the right thing but the finite minded Wallstreet pundits were initially skeptical about the decision’s impact on earnings per share. The decision would lose them $2 Billion per year in lost revenue. However, the decision actually led to the decline in cigarette sales nationwide. The number of nicotine patches sold, increased. Ironically the share price quickly recovered, and then surpassed all previous levels. CVS’s decision actually encouraged smokers to quit.

Adopting an infinite mindset can cost a leader his/her job which is why it takes courage to lead with an infinite mindset. It takes courage to have a standard of ethics higher than the law.

We need to start by finding a just cause that inspires us.

Find people who believe what we believe. Build trust, identify a worthy rival. Have faith, discipline, and a willingness to practice (deep, deliberate practice).

09/11 Doug Parker had just taken over America West Airlines. A flight attendant called Mary inspired him to figure out how to stay afloat to save people’s livelihood. For Parker it became about will not just resources. His purpose was to prioritise people before numbers. American Airlines (AA) had a poor reputation for collaboration and trust before but Parker worked on courageous leadership to ensure that people at AA were actually treated the best in the industry.

Trust is built by acting in a way consistent with our values.

A mid-contract raise was approved for staff in 2017. Wallstreet disapproved but it was the right thing to do for the people of the airline. It was about strengthening the company rather then ingratiating shareholders. Finite thinkers prioritise resources over will. Ironically Berkshire Hathaway (Buffet) is a significant investor in American Airlines. Buffet knows a thing or two about good bets, as Sinek notes.

The author makes the point that Walgreens and Rite Aid still stock cigarettes; they lacked courage when responding about their stand on cigarettes. Smoking related illness is the leading cause of death in the USA and kills half a million people every year. It costs tax payers $300 Billion every year. A cause can only advance if leaders do things that advance it. Acting with integrity builds trust. Leaders who respond to ethical questions by quoting the law, tend to lose respect.

If a company shows courage and integrity then good will and trust will come from employees and customers. True courage to lead involves incorruptibility; words and actions must align. True courage is about acting before the outcry, rather than doing damage control. When an organisation has strayed from the cause, it takes leadership to get it back on course. After arriving at the top, it is so tempting to stray to a finite mindset. Disney bought Miramax films which was a stray from their family-friendly brand. It took leadership to put the company back on the infinite path, and to sell Miramax in 2010.

Sinek notes that Facebook started with a noble cause; “to build a community”, but it is now embroiled in scandals (Cambridge Analytica) and ethical fading. It is all about advertising space and maximising profits.

The infinite game is a mindset. Ownership of being the common denominator in all failure. Empowering and inspiring to part of solution. Shared belief and desire to build great partnerships with those who believe what we believe, we have each other. Employees mirror their leaders.

The courage to lead begets the courage to lead.

There are so many exceptional performance insights in this book. Probably the key three takeaways for me were as follows: Character trumps talent, identify worthy rivals and learn from them, lead a just cause with courage and integrity. Humility, hunger, and heroism.

Excellent read, and highly recommended to all leaders out there.