 🎀 Highlights
Â
Over the course of human history, we have seen the benefits of infinite thinking so many times. The rise of great societies, advancements in science and medicine and the exploration of space all happened because large groups of people, united in common cause, chose to collaborate with no clear end in sight.
As human beings we are naturally inclined to seek out immediate solutions to uncomfortable problems and prioritize quick wins to advance our ambitions.
As human beings we are naturally inclined to seek out immediate solutions to uncomfortable problems and prioritize quick wins to advance our ambitions. We tend to see the world in terms of successes and failures, winners and losers.
As human beings we are naturally inclined to seek out immediate solutions to uncomfortable problems and prioritize quick wins to advance our ambitions. We tend to see the world in terms of successes and failures, winners and losers. This default win-lose mode can sometimes work for the short term; however, as a strategy for how companies and organizations operate, it can have grave consequences over the longer term. The results of this default mindset are all too familiar: annual rounds of mass layoffs to meet arbitrary projections, cutthroat work environments, subservience to the shareholder over the needs of employees and customers, dishonest and unethical business practices, rewarding high-performing toxic team members while turning a blind eye to the damage they are doing to the rest of the team and rewarding leaders who seem to care a lot more about themselves than those in their charge.
our entire understanding of commerce and capitalism seems to have fallen under the sway of short-term, finite-minded thinking.
Great leaders are the ones who think beyond “short term” versus “long term.” They are the ones who know that it is not about the next quarter or the next election; it is about the next generation. Great leaders set up their organizations to succeed beyond their own lifetimes, and when they do, the benefits—for us, for business and even for the shareholder—are extraordinary.
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.
In finite games, there is always a beginning, a middle and an end.
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.
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 no such thing as “winning” an infinite game. In an infinite game, the primary objective is to keep playing, to perpetuate the game.
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 these things are journeys, not events.
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 these things are journeys, not events. However, if we listen to the language of so many of our leaders today, it’s as if they don’t know the game in which they are playing. They talk constantly about “winning.” They obsess about “beating their competition.” They announce to the world that they are “the best.” They state that their vision is to “be number one.” Except that in games without finish lines, all of these things are impossible.
The game of business fits the very definition of an infinite game. We may not know all of the other players and new ones can join the game at any time.
The game of business fits the very definition of an infinite game. We may not know all of 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 (and even that can vary from country to country).
The game of business fits the very definition of an infinite game. We may not know all of 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 (and even that can vary from country to country). Unlike a finite game, there is no predetermined beginning, middle or end to business. Although many of us agree to certain 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 fits the very definition of an infinite game. We may not know all of 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 (and even that can vary from country to country). Unlike a finite game, there is no predetermined beginning, middle or end to business. Although many of us agree to certain 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.
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. Sometimes it’s a quarter. Or eight months. Sometimes a year. Or five years. Or a dozen. But did everyone else in their industry agree to those same time frames for comparison? In finite games, there’s a single, agreed-upon 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.
Because there is no such thing as winning or losing in an infinite game, the players simply drop out of the game when they run out of the will and resources to keep playing.
Because there is no such thing as winning or losing in an infinite game, the players simply drop out of the game when they run out of the will and resources to keep playing. In business we call this bankruptcy or sometimes merger or acquisition.
While a finite-minded leader works to get something from their employees, customers and shareholders in order to meet arbitrary metrics, the infinite-minded leader works to ensure that their employees, customers and shareholders remain inspired to continue contributing with their effort, their wallets and their investments.
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. While a finite-minded leader works to get something from their employees, customers and shareholders in order to meet arbitrary metrics, the infinite-minded leader works to ensure that their employees, customers and shareholders remain inspired to continue contributing with their effort, their wallets and their investments.
Lego invented a toy that has stood the test of time not because it was lucky, but because nearly everyone who works there wants to do things to ensure that the company will survive them. Their drive is not to beat the quarter, their drive is to “continue to create innovative play experiences and reach more children every year.”
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.
finite-minded players do not like surprises and fear any kind of disruption.
finite-minded players do not like surprises and fear any kind of disruption. Things they cannot predict or cannot control could upset their plans and increase their chances of losing. The infinite-minded player, in contrast, expects surprises, even revels in them, and is prepared to be transformed by them.
An infinite perspective frees us from fixating on what other companies are doing, which allows us to focus on a larger vision. Instead of reacting to how new technology will challenge our business model, for example, those with infinite mindsets are better able to foresee the applications of new technology.
infinite-minded leaders don’t ask their people to fixate on finite goals; they ask their people to help them figure out a way to advance toward a more infinite vision of the future that benefits everyone.
What’s more, the inspiration, innovation, cooperation, brand loyalty and profits that result from infinite-minded leadership serve companies not just in times of stability but also in times of instability.
The finite goals become the markers of progress toward that vision. And when everyone focuses on the infinite vision,
The finite goals become the markers of progress toward that vision.
Had America’s leaders paid closer attention, perhaps they would have recognized the true nature of the Vietnam War sooner. There were clues all around. For starters, there was no clear beginning, middle and end to America’s involvement in Vietnam. Nor was there a clear political objective that, when achieved, would allow them to declare victory and bring their troops home. And even if there had been, the North Vietnamese would not have agreed to it. The Americans also seem to have misunderstood who they were fighting against. They believed the conflict in Vietnam was a proxy war against China and the Soviet Union. But the North Vietnamese were ardent that they were no puppet of any other government.
Had America’s leaders paid closer attention, perhaps they would have recognized the true nature of the Vietnam War sooner. There were clues all around. For starters, there was no clear beginning, middle and end to America’s involvement in Vietnam. Nor was there a clear political objective that, when achieved, would allow them to declare victory and bring their troops home. And even if there had been, the North Vietnamese would not have agreed to it. The Americans also seem to have misunderstood who they were fighting against. They believed the conflict in Vietnam was a proxy war against China and the Soviet Union. But the North Vietnamese were ardent that they were no puppet of any other government. Vietnam had been fighting against imperialist influence for decades, against the Japanese during World War II, then against the French afterward. To the North Vietnamese, the war with the United States wasn’t an extension of the Cold War; it was a fight against yet another interventionist power. Even the manner in which the North Vietnamese fought—their propensity to disobey the conventions of traditional warfare and their will to keep fighting no matter how many people they lost—should have signaled to America’s leaders that they had misjudged the nature of the game they were in.
When we play with a finite mindset in an infinite game, the odds increase that we will find ourselves in a quagmire, racing through the will and resources we need to keep playing.
When we play with a finite mindset in an infinite game, the odds increase that we will find ourselves in a quagmire, racing through the will and resources we need to keep playing. And this is what happened to America in Vietnam. The United States operated as if the game were finite instead of fighting against a player that was playing with the right mindset for the Infinite Game they were actually in. While America was fighting to “win,” the North Vietnamese were fighting for their lives! And both made strategic choices according to their mindset. Despite their vastly superior military might, there was simply no way the United States could prevail. What brought America’s involvement in Vietnam to an end was not a military or political win or loss, but public pressure back home. The American people could no longer support a seemingly unwinnable and expensive war in a faraway land.
When we play with a finite mindset in an infinite game, the odds increase that we will find ourselves in a quagmire, racing through the will and resources we need to keep playing. And this is what happened to America in Vietnam. The United States operated as if the game were finite instead of fighting against a player that was playing with the right mindset for the Infinite Game they were actually in. While America was fighting to “win,” the North Vietnamese were fighting for their lives! And both made strategic choices according to their mindset. Despite their vastly superior military might, there was simply no way the United States could prevail. What brought America’s involvement in Vietnam to an end was not a military or political win or loss, but public pressure back home. The American people could no longer support a seemingly unwinnable and expensive war in a faraway land. It’s not that America “lost” the Vietnam War, rather it had exhausted the will and resources to keep playing . . . and so it was forced to drop out of the game.
When the iPhone came out in 2007, Ballmer’s reaction to it underscored his finite perspective. Questioned about the iPhone in an interview, he scoffed, “There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. . . . They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I’d prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get.” Constrained by a finite mindset, Ballmer was more focused on the relative numbers the iPhone could achieve instead of seeing how it might alter the entire market . . . or even completely redefine the role our phones play in our lives.
In 2013, at his final press conference as CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer summed up his career in a most finite-minded way. He defined success based on the metrics he selected within the time frame of his own tenure in the job. “In the last five years, probably Apple has made more money than we have,” he said. “But in the last thirteen years, I bet we’ve made more money than almost anybody on the planet.
In 2013, at his final press conference as CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer summed up his career in a most finite-minded way. He defined success based on the metrics he selected within the time frame of his own tenure in the job. “In the last five years, probably Apple has made more money than we have,” he said. “But in the last thirteen years, I bet we’ve made more money than almost anybody on the planet. And that, frankly, is a great source of pride to me.”
In 2013, at his final press conference as CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer summed up his career in a most finite-minded way. He defined success based on the metrics he selected within the time frame of his own tenure in the job. “In the last five years, probably Apple has made more money than we have,” he said. “But in the last thirteen years, I bet we’ve made more money than almost anybody on the planet. And that, frankly, is a great source of pride to me.” It seems Ballmer was trying to say that under the thirteen years of his leadership, his company had “won.”
In 2013, at his final press conference as CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer summed up his career in a most finite-minded way. He defined success based on the metrics he selected within the time frame of his own tenure in the job. “In the last five years, probably Apple has made more money than we have,” he said. “But in the last thirteen years, I bet we’ve made more money than almost anybody on the planet. And that, frankly, is a great source of pride to me.” It seems Ballmer was trying to say that under the thirteen years of his leadership, his company had “won.” Imagine how different that press conference could have been if, instead of looking back at a balance sheet, Ballmer shared all the things Microsoft had done and could still do to advance Bill Gates’s original infinite vision: “To empower every person and every organization
In 2013, at his final press conference as CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer summed up his career in a most finite-minded way. He defined success based on the metrics he selected within the time frame of his own tenure in the job. “In the last five years, probably Apple has made more money than we have,” he said. “But in the last thirteen years, I bet we’ve made more money than almost anybody on the planet. And that, frankly, is a great source of pride to me.” It seems Ballmer was trying to say that under the thirteen years of his leadership, his company had “won.” Imagine how different that press conference could have been if, instead of looking back at a balance sheet, Ballmer shared all the things Microsoft had done and could still do to advance Bill Gates’s original infinite vision: “To empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more.”
A finite-minded leader uses the company’s performance to demonstrate the value of their own career. An infinite-minded leader uses their career to enhance the long-term value of the company . . . and only part of that value is counted in money. The game didn’t end simply because Ballmer retired. The company continued to play without him. In the Infinite Game, how well he did financially is much less important than whether he left the company culture adequately prepared to survive and thrive for the next thirteen years. Or thirty-three years. Or three hundred years. And on that standard, Ballmer lost. In
A finite-minded leader uses the company’s performance to demonstrate the value of their own career. An infinite-minded leader uses their career to enhance the long-term value of the company . . . and only part of that value is counted in money. The game didn’t end simply because Ballmer retired. The company continued to play without him. In the Infinite Game, how well he did financially is much less important than whether he left the company culture adequately prepared to survive and thrive for the next thirteen years. Or thirty-three years. Or three hundred years. And on that standard, Ballmer lost.
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. Some favorite options include reducing investment in research and development, extreme cost cutting (e.g., regular rounds of layoffs, opting for cheaper, lower quality ingredients in products, cutting corners in manufacturing or quality control), growth through acquisition and stock buybacks. These decisions can, in turn, shake a company’s culture. 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.
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. Some favorite options include reducing investment in research and development, extreme cost cutting (e.g., regular rounds of layoffs, opting for cheaper, lower quality ingredients in products, cutting corners in manufacturing or quality control), growth through acquisition and stock buybacks. These decisions can, in turn, shake a company’s culture. 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.
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. Some favorite options include reducing investment in research and development, extreme cost cutting (e.g., regular rounds of layoffs, opting for cheaper, lower quality ingredients in products, cutting corners in manufacturing or quality control), growth through acquisition and stock buybacks. These decisions can, in turn, shake a company’s culture. 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. To protect themselves, they trust no one. Others double down on an only-the-fittest-survive mentality. Their tactics can become overly aggressive. Their egos become unchecked. They learn to manage up the hierarchy to garner favor with senior leadership while, in some cases, sabotaging their own colleagues.
Consumed by the finite game, Microsoft became obsessed with quarterly numbers. Many of the people who had been at the company from the early days lamented a loss of inspiration, imagination and innovation. Trust and cooperation suffered as internal product groups started to fight with each other instead of supporting each other.
Sadly, over the course of the past thirty to forty years, finite-minded leadership has become the modern standard in business. Finite-minded leadership is embraced by Wall Street and taught in business schools. At the same time, the life span of companies appears to be getting shorter and shorter.
When we play with a finite mindset in the Infinite Game, we will continue to make decisions that sabotage our own ambitions. It’s like eating too many desserts in the name of “enjoying life” only to make oneself diabetic in the process.
Consistency becomes more important than intensity.
we may have finite fitness goals we want to reach, if we want to be as healthy as possible, the lifestyle we adopt matters more than whether or not we hit our goal on the arbitrary dates we set.
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.
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.
To have fed themselves or even to have fed the masses of starving residents in the city would have been a finite solution to a finite problem. Though they may have helped prolong the lives of some who would likely still have died or even saved the lives of others, they were looking beyond the immediate horizon. They weren’t imagining the relatively few lives they could save in Leningrad; they imagined a future state in which their work might save entire civilizations. Their work was not devoted to getting to the end of the siege; they were playing to keep the human race going for as long as possible.
When we play in a finite game, we play the game to win. Even if we hope to simply play well and enjoy the game, we do not play to lose.
“Winning” provides a temporary thrill of victory; an intense, but fleeting, boost to our 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.
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. At best they are uninspiring and innocuous, at worst they point us in a direction to keep playing in the finite realm. 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, especially in a business-to-business space. Plus, it’s not much of a rallying cry. Another common generic vision sounds like, “To offer the highest quality products 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.
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. At best they are uninspiring and innocuous, at worst they point us in a direction to keep playing in the finite realm. 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, especially in a business-to-business space. Plus, it’s not much of a rallying cry. Another common generic vision sounds like, “To offer the highest quality products 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. Vizio, the California-based maker of televisions and speakers, says on their website, for example, that they exist to “deliver high performance, smarter products with the latest innovations at a significant savings that we can pass along to our consumers.” I take them at their word that they do all those things. But do those words really inspire people to want to offer their blood, sweat or tears? When you read those words are you inspired to rush to apply for a job there? Few if any of us get goose bumps or feel a visceral calling to be a part of something like that. Such statements offer us neither a cause to which we would commit ourselves nor a sense of what it’s all for, both of which are essential in the Infinite Game.
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.