In The Infinite Game, Simon Sinek explores the differences between finite and infinite games: Games where the players either play to win (finite), or to survive, thrive, and keep playing (infinite). He argues that people who view business as an infinite game that is constantly evolving and never-ending are more successful, while those who aim to “win” don’t end up as well-off.
Sinek defines finite games as those with known players, fixed rules, and an agreed-upon objective. A poker game, for example, has identifiable players, strict rules, and a pre-set ending point where one player is judged to have won and the players stop playing.
In contrast, infinite games have both known and unknown players, changeable rules, and no clear ending point at which one person is declared the winner and everyone goes home.
When players leave a finite game, the game ends. When players leave an infinite game, the game continues on without them.
Sinek started thinking about these concepts after reading James Carse’s Finite and Infinite Games, a philosophical treatise published in 1986, which first contrasted the idea of a finite game (played to win) with an infinite game (played to keep playing). Carse applies these theories to many aspects of life, both personal and professional. Sinek’s twist was to apply the concepts specifically to business.
In arguing that business is an infinite game, Sinek points out some characteristics that make it so:
Infinite Games Lay the Foundation for More Games
Sinek wasn’t the first to examine how Carse’s theories of infinite games might play out in the real world. In 2011, Kevin Kelly, founding executive editor of Wired Magazine and bestselling author, explored finite and infinite games as part of his book What Technology Wants.
Kelly notes that finite games are dramatic (think military battles or football games) while infinite games can be boring—no one wants to read about a company that’s doing its job well or two countries at peace. However, the boring stories are the ones that lead to future stories. When people cooperate, they can create opportunities for others, whether that be new settlements where people can live and work, or new artistic collaborations that enhance the quality of peoples’ lives.
In other words, although people pay more attention to finite games and their dramatic storylines, it’s infinite (boring) games that end up having greater consequences, spawning more games both infinite and finite.
Sinek contends that someone who sees their business as part of an infinite game will make decisions based on long-term strategies that develop long-term strength, while a leader who plays a finite game will aim for short-term wins that might weaken her organization in the long run. To develop a mindset that sees the larger game at play, Sinek recommends you adopt several attitudes:
Objections to Sinek’s Binary Thinking
Some critics of Sinek have argued that he ignores the fact that, in the real world, businesses operate with both finite and infinite mindsets, depending on the particular challenge they’re working on—sometimes they need to use finite tactics in order to keep immediately afloat, and other times, they have the luxury of thinking infinitely.
Sinek outlines these five guidelines to help you develop an infinite mindset and build a strong, resilient company:
We’ll explore each of these guidelines in depth in the following sections.
According to Sinek, an infinite mindset begins with a Just Cause. A Just Cause is a big-picture vision that provides a framework for your corporate strategies. A Just Cause provides a context for all the decisions you’ll make. It inspires people to work hard and make sacrifices because they believe in the cause.
Sinek defines a Just Cause as a specific vision of an ideal state of the future that inspires people. Your Just Cause must paint a clear picture that others can see: A promise to “improve the world” doesn’t provide enough substance or specificity to inspire people. A Just Cause has five elements:
Panasonic’s Infinite-Minded Just Cause
Electronics company Panasonic is an example of a company with a corporate strategy that embodies each of the five elements of a Just Cause. In 1932, the company’s head, Kōnosuke Matsushita, laid out a 250-year vision based on the notion that the primary purpose of a business should be to increase human happiness. His strategy was to “overcome poverty by producing an abundant supply of goods,” which would “banish poverty, bring happiness to people's lives and make this world into a paradise.”
This vision stood for something, was inclusive, was service-oriented, was resilient, and was idealistic. Today, the company’s vision has expanded and includes goals for helping the environment, helping communities, and being responsible. Its Just Cause has powered it for decades and positioned it strongly to face the future.
However, there is one aspect of Panasonic’s mission statement that doesn’t align with Sinek’s definition—it’s not specific, in that it doesn’t paint a particular picture of the future, but instead holds up a vague but lofty goal of “overcoming poverty.” Further, since Panasonic focuses on producing electronic goods, their mission statement of “producing an abundant supply of goods” doesn’t exactly articulate their vision. A person reading the mission statement without knowing it was Panasonic’s would be unlikely to associate it with the company.
This analysis shows how, in the real world, a company might find success even if they don’t follow Sinek’s exact prescription. Regardless, the takeaway is that the company thought about the long term and considered the wider world beyond their particular company when crafting their vision. Sinek would likely argue that the infinite aspect of that thinking is what’s kept them successful.
Sinek’s second guideline for developing an infinite mindset is to build trusting teams. A trusting team is a team made up of people who feel safe around each other—safe expressing their feelings, asking for help, talking about problems, and admitting to mistakes. Without trust, employees are reluctant to bring attention to problems when they occur, which can lead problems to become much harder to address when they finally are dealt with.
To build a team where members value and trust each other, Sinek advises that leaders:
Trusting Teams Start With Trusting Leadership
Sinek’s emphasis on establishing trust is echoed in other management books. In their landmark book The Leadership Challenge, authors Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner note that trust is the most important element of relationships. Without trust, people won’t work together effectively. With trust, people make decisions efficiently and swiftly, innovate more, and produce more profits.
Like Sinek, Kouzes and Posner advise that trust has to start from the top. As a leader, you must show that you trust your team members’ abilities by sharing knowledge freely, training them properly, and then stepping back and letting them do their jobs. They argue that one of the most important things a leader can do to foster trust is to allow team members to make mistakes. If you can’t trust your team to perform properly, you become a micromanager, not a leader. Allowing your team to make mistakes, learn from them, and try again will build you a team of leaders, each of whom can effectively manage their own areas.
Sinek’s third method of developing your infinite-minded leadership is to study your worthy rivals. A worthy rival is a competitor who is better than you at certain things, and who can therefore reveal to you ways you can improve, enabling you to better survive in the infinite game. A worthy rival may make a better product, provide a better service, or command stronger customer loyalty than you do: anything from which you can draw lessons.
Sinek posits that viewing a competitor as a worthy rival rather than simply a rival can inspire you to improve rather than just to win, focusing your attention on process rather than outcome. When you respect your rivals and acknowledge what they do well, you are able to better see how their strengths can guide your own shortcomings.
Conversely, if you view your rivals with disdain or see them solely as competitors to beat, you’re far more likely to dismiss their strengths and ignore your own weaknesses, because your mind will be focused on figuring out how you’re superior to them.
Worthy Rivals Turn Competition Into Cooperation
Timothy Gallwey also discusses how competition can improve performance in his book The Inner Game of Tennis. He contends that to achieve whatever goal you’re aiming for, you must overcome small obstacles along the way, and because a competitor presents you with these obstacles, they are a necessary element in achieving that higher goal.
The benefits of competition are mutual between both players. Each player benefits from the other’s attempts to block them with obstacles, and consequently, competition ends up functioning as cooperation, allowing both parties to improve.
The rivalry between tennis players Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal exemplify both Sinek’s concept of Worthy Rivals and Gallwey’s theory of competition as cooperation. Both Federer and Nadal have achieved great success in part because their mutual respect for each other has helped them each become better athletes. Over the years, each player has publicly acknowledged the other’s strengths and the friendship they share. In 2020, when Nadal won his 20th Grand Slam title and tied Federer’s record, Federer responded by congratulating Nadal and calling him his “greatest rival over many years,” noting that their rivalry has “pushed each other to become better players.”
Sinek notes that having a worthy rival can change your perspective on competition itself, so that you see competition as less of a win-lose dynamic and more of a cooperative effort. When you’re not exclusively focused on beating your competition, you’ll better see how your competitors add value to the economic ecosystem.
Tesla’s Infinite Mindset
This fits into the commonly known framework of zero-sum thinking versus positive-sum thinking. In a zero-sum game, there have to be losers if there are to be winners. In a positive-sum game, the success of some players contributes to the success of all players. People who see their interactions as positive-sum are generally more successful (and happier).
A more recent example of a company seeing the bigger picture and putting the good of its industry over its own personal good is Tesla, which, in 2014, made its patents freely available to any competitors who wanted to use them “in good faith” to develop electric vehicles (EV). CEO Elon Musk did this to “accelerate the advent of sustainable transport” (his Just Cause). He acknowledged that patents that limited other companies’ ability to innovate worked against that vision, and that all EV car companies, including Tesla, will benefit from accessible technology. In doing so, he positioned his EV competitors not as rivals but as partners.
The fourth guideline for an infinite mindset is being prepared to pivot on a fundamental, existential level. An existential pivot is a purposeful, dramatic change that a person willingly makes in order to stay true to her Just Cause.
Sinek emphasizes that an existential pivot is not a reactive move—a move that someone makes in order to stay alive in the face of difficult challenges. Instead, it’s a move made in anticipation of a future changing climate because you know that at some point, your organization will need to be positioned differently to survive.
An existential pivot allows a leader to seek out the potential benefits of disruptive change, rather than just avoiding the potential threats. Infinite-minded leaders must be willing to make existential pivots and destroy their own company when faced with potential changes, because if they don’t, someone else will.
Sinek notes that when a company has found success through a certain business model, its leaders are often reluctant to abandon that model, sometimes mistaking the model itself for their Just Cause (as if their Just Cause is to sell a particular product). This can lead them to cling to an outdated business model that has stopped serving their Just Cause, which gives competitors a chance to step in and steal business away from them.
Types of Pivots
Entrepreneur and start-up advisor Eric Ries writes about how a company can use a pivot to redirect its efforts to more profitable avenues in his book The Lean Startup. He notes that pivoting is especially important for start-up companies, as they usually have limited time and funds to find their footing. He also notes that even if your company isn’t outright failing but is instead just getting by, you may want to pivot in order to get on a track where you’re making more progress.
He outlines several different ways in which a company can pivot in order to better take advantage of opportunities:
Zoom in or out: Narrow or expand your product’s focus.
Target new customers or customer needs: Redirect to a different consumer segment or address a different specific problem they have.
Change your sales channel: If you sell through stores, consider selling directly to consumers, or vice versa.
Incorporate new technology: Your entire business model might change with innovative technology, like when Netflix started offering streaming services instead of mail-in DVD rentals.
The fifth and final guideline to follow in developing your infinite mindset is to lead courageously. Leading courageously means working toward a better future and supporting your Just Cause, even if doing so puts your own career in jeopardy.
Sinek argues that leading courageously can become more difficult after a company has achieved a certain level of success, because it can get distracted by the trappings of success. This can happen if a leader starts believing her own hype, thinking she’s solely responsible for the organization’s success, and pursuing fame or wealth while ignoring (or sometimes even opposing) the organization’s Just Cause. Then, when problems arise, that leader will often respond to them with a finite mindset, blaming other people, instituting rigid structures and rules, and setting the company on a finite-minded path.
Success Can Lead to Ego; Ego Leads to Finite Thinking
Ryan Holiday discusses this phenomenon in more detail in his book Ego Is the Enemy. He notes that successful leaders become successful because of positive characteristics: They are constantly learning, are open to feedback and criticism, and aim to do something important rather than be someone important. However, once in power, surrounded by people constantly telling them how amazing they are, they often abandon these qualities and instead resist learning new things (convinced of their own wisdom), close themselves off to feedback or criticism (insistent that they can do no wrong), and become more concerned with being someone important rather than doing something important.
Holiday doesn’t use the same framework of an infinite mindset as Sinek does, but the recommendations of the two authors align: Essentially, they both advise that a leader put her cause before her own ego.
Sinek notes that people are starting to question long-held assumptions about business existing only to serve an elite class of owners, and are starting to recognize that there are other important reasons that companies exist.
We can see a more infinite-minded view of corporate strategy growing in popularity as people rethink the role of shareholders in a company. For example, B Corporations that require companies to adhere to social and environmental priorities are becoming more common, and in 2019, a coalition of around 200 executives of leading American firms signed on to a statement saying the purpose of business is no longer primarily to serve shareholders, but instead to serve all Americans, including customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, and the wider community.
In The Infinite Game, motivational speaker and bestselling author Simon Sinek explores the differences between finite games (games with clear winners, losers, and end points) and infinite games (games that transcend the players themselves and have a higher purpose). He argues that people who see business as an infinite game will succeed at it, while those who focus on short-term concerns like beating the competition won’t. He explores how to develop an infinite mindset that will put you and your organization on a path for long-term success.
Simon Sinek burst into the public’s consciousness in 2009 with a viral Ted Talk called How Great Leaders Inspire Action, which has now been viewed over 54 million times on the Ted website and another 14 million times on YouTube. He followed up his talk with five books on leadership and inspiration, two of which, Start With Why and Leaders Eat Last, hit the New York Times Bestseller list.
He made a second Ted Talk in 2014 and a video with How to: Academy, both of which focus on leadership techniques and strategies. He is considered a leading voice in what constitutes good leadership in a corporate setting.
Some people love Sinek, while others feel his success is due more to self-promotion than original ideas. And some people feel a mix of the two; one 2018 article suggested that Sinek’s fame is due to his ability to spin hot air, but that in itself is a reason to admire him.
He does publicize his books widely, appearing in multiple interviews in Forbes (in 2019 and 2020) as well as in Inc., Morning Brew, Business Insider, Success Magazine, and NPR, and many other publications.
The Infinite Game, published in 2018 by Portfolio, an imprint of Penguin Random House, is Sinek’s fifth book. It follows up and continues exploring many of the concepts in the aforementioned Leaders Eat Last and Start With Why. Throughout these three books, he explores different takes on the idea that what makes a leader or an organization exceptional is a commitment to a higher purpose.
The book was inspired by and based on the concepts from James P. Carse’s 1986 book Finite and Infinite Games, which laid out the foundational idea that Sinek builds on—namely, that every interaction we have with others is either part of a finite game, aimed at winning, or an infinite game, aimed at continuing the play. Carse was a theologian and philosopher, and saw infinite and finite games as part of every aspect of life, from religion to romance to geopolitical alliances.
Sinek’s twist applies these concepts to business strategy specifically. While Sinek was not the first to reflect on Carse’s philosophies, they remained somewhat on the fringe of cultural consciousness until Sinek linked them specifically to the world of business and launched them into the public eye again.
Sinek’s work fits neatly into a contemporary view of leadership and business strategy that encourages people to think of larger issues more than their own immediate needs, and to focus on long-term rather than short-term concerns in order to find lasting success. Other books that touch on similar concepts include Ego Is the Enemy, The Leadership Challenge, and Built to Last.
Sinek also emphasizes the importance of focusing your efforts on one major, overriding purpose that gives your organization meaning. Other management books that advocate for this include the ones mentioned above as well as Greg McKeown’s Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less.
Sinek contrasts his theories with those of Milton Friedman, who was an early advocate of modern capitalism and the idea that self-interested incentives are the backbone of a healthy economy. Sinek argues that you can be successful by rejecting Friedman’s philosophies, and, in fact, that rejecting self-interest can lead to even more success than chasing it.
The book sold well, hitting the number two spot on the New York Times bestseller list in November of 2019. It was his second book to make the list, after Leaders Eat Last.
The book frequently makes lists of recommended business books to read, and was even included on the 2021 U.S. Navy’s Professional Reading Program book list, a list of books that every ship is equipped with and that sailors are encouraged to read (the program’s motto is “Read Well to Lead Well”). (Sinek’s other book, Leaders Eat Last, is also included.)
The Infinite Game launched Sinek to a new level of popularity, paving the way for him to start his own publishing imprint, Optimism Press, in partnership with his longtime publisher Portfolio and under the umbrella of Penguin Random House.
Online reviewers who appreciate the book feel its concepts are a new way of thinking about business and success, and they enjoy the way Sinek constructs a clear plan and concrete techniques for developing an infinite mind. Many reviewers say the book is for leaders who aim to be more than just business leaders, but also leaders of humanity. Some note that the concepts outlined in the book apply to peacekeeping missions and society in general, and they argue that if leaders followed its prescripts, the world would be better off.
Online reviewers who find fault with Sinek’s book often argue that the book’s insights aren’t very original, but instead might be found in any self-help business book. Many also say that Sinek cherry-picks examples to support his arguments, and that his concepts don’t work as well in real life as they do in theory. Additionally, some argue that it’s unrealistic to expect business leaders, who are concerned with keeping their organizations viable, to put their own needs aside and focus on the needs of the wider world. Finally, some reviewers find fault with how Sinek has interpreted Carse’s philosophies in the original Finite and Infinite Games that inspired Sinek’s book—for example, critics argue that Sinek’s reliance on the Cold War as an example of an infinite game might not properly represent Carse’s ideas, since wartime activity is inherently a finite game.
The book does repackage ideas that can be found in many other management books, but Sinek never claims to be completely original—in fact, he credits Carse’s book as inspiration in the introduction. While his theories mirror those in many other books in the management genre (essentially repackaging effective leadership as different expressions of selflessness), his pairing of management techniques with the idea of an “infinite game” is original.
A more substantial critique is that his examples are occasionally only narrow illustrations of his theories. In practice, alternative examples that might demonstrate his ideas often come with caveats—companies that lived up to his ideas but haven’t succeeded as well as he might have predicted (like TOMS), or companies that succeeded very well and seem to fit with his theories but also benefited from other advantages that can also explain their success (like Apple, which benefited greatly from some luck along the way and whose founder Steve Jobs engaged in some finite, self-centered thinking, especially when Apple was young).
The overall flow of Sinek’s book follows this path:
While our guide generally follows the book’s structure, we’ve grouped our discussion by Sinek’s five guidelines instead of by chapter. To do so, we’ve combined some of his chapters (for example, he discusses a Just Cause in chapters 2 through 4, but we’ve organized that information under one heading.
As noted above, Sinek breaks up the flow of the discussion of his guidelines after his Just Cause chapters with two chapters that examine peripheral concepts: the history of finite thinking in business, and employee morale. In our guide, we’ve opted to distribute the information contained in those two chapters to other areas in the guide where they fit better, so that we can keep our discussion of the five guidelines uninterrupted.
For example, we’ve included Sinek’s discussion of the history of business (chapter 5) in our introduction, as it gives the reader a better overall sense of the background to his concepts there, and we’ve tacked on a final section at the end of the guide discussing where corporate America is headed. We also included much of his discussion on employee morale (chapter 6) in our discussion of leading with courage, as he also touches on employee concerns in that section.
We opted to discuss his five guidelines in the order he introduced them, as they lead in progression to each other: The discussion of Just Cause lays the basis for all subsequent discussions, so it should be explored first, and building trusting teams is the second-highest priority so should be discussed second. The other concepts then follow logically off those two.
When exploring Sinek’s ideas, we’ve sought to connect them to ideas in other works that either add to them and give them even more depth, or contradict them in some way. We’ve also explored examples that not only demonstrate Sinek’s concepts but add texture and additional insight.
We’ve kept some of his phrasing (for example, “Just Cause”) where it is central to his book and has no better phrase, but we’ve replaced phrases that might be better understood with different wording (for example, instead of discussing an “Existential Flex,” we talk about a “Pivot”).
Our guide’s organization corresponds to the book’s as follows:
| Our guide | The Infinite Game |
| Introduction | Chapter 1, parts of Chapter 5 |
| Guideline 1: Advance a Just Cause | Chapters 2, 3, and 4 |
| Guideline 2: Build Trusting Teams | Chapters 7 and 8 |
| Guideline 3: Study Your Worthy Rivals | Chapter 9 |
| Guideline 4: Be Ready to Pivot | Chapter 10 |
| Guideline 5: Lead Courageously | Chapter 11, Chapter 6 |
| Conclusion | Parts of Chapter 5 |
In The Infinite Game, Simon Sinek explores the differences between finite and infinite games: games where the players either play to win (finite), or to survive, thrive, and keep playing (infinite).
Sinek argues that people who view business as an infinite game are more successful. Those who aim to arrive at an ending “win” point do not end up as well-off as those who see their challenges as part of a larger game that is constantly evolving and never-ending.
Sinek defines finite games as those with known players, fixed rules, and an agreed-upon objective. A poker game, for example, has identifiable players, strict rules, and a pre-set ending point where one player is judged to have won and the players stop playing.
In contrast, infinite games have both known and unknown players, changeable rules, and no clear ending point at which one person is declared the winner and everyone goes home.
The biggest difference between finite and infinite games is this: When players leave a finite game, the game ends. When players leave an infinite game, the game continues on without them.
Examples of finite games include:
Examples of infinite games include:
The Inspiration for the Book
Sinek started thinking about these concepts after reading James Carse’s Finite and Infinite Games, a philosophical treatise published in 1986, which contrasted the idea of a finite game (played to win) with an infinite game (played to keep playing). Carse applies these theories to many aspects of life, including parenthood, politics, sports, religion, and cultural interactions. He argued that while finite games promise wealth, status, and power, infinite games promise longevity.
When it was published, Carse’s book received mediocre reviews, with some reviewers calling it unoriginal and uninspired. The book fell into obscurity until Sinek connected it to his theories on business management, bringing it back into the public consciousness.
Sinek’s key insight on which he bases his book is that business is an infinite game:
Infinite Games Lay the Foundation for More Games
Although Sinek brought renewed popularity to Carse’s ideas, he wasn’t the first to re-examine them. For example, in 2011, Kevin Kelly, founding executive editor of Wired Magazine and bestselling author, explored finite and infinite games as part of his book What Technology Wants.
Kelly notes that finite games are dramatic (think military battles or football games) while infinite games can be boring—no one wants to read about a company that’s doing its job well or two countries at peace. However, the boring stories are the ones that lead to future stories. When people cooperate, they can create opportunities for others, whether that be new settlements where people can live and work, or new artistic collaborations that enhance the quality of peoples’ lives.
In other words, people pay more attention to finite games and their dramatic storylines because they are fun and exciting. Therefore, people sometimes believe that these stories are the important ones—the stories (or games) that matter to the world. However, it’s infinite (boring) games that end up having greater consequences, spawning more games both infinite and finite. Kelly argues that technology is an infinite game because it can be the basis upon which other games are played: It can provide options and increase choices available to people as to how they will live their lives.
Sinek contends that someone who sees their business as part of an infinite game will make decisions based on long-term strategies that develop long-term strength, while someone who plays a finite game will aim for short-term wins that might weaken their organization in the long run. Consistently, businesses that succeed over many years are run by leaders with infinite mindsets, while businesses that fail are run by leaders with finite mindsets.
Sinek discusses several key differences in the attitudes and beliefs of finite and infinite mindsets:
Objections to Sinek’s Binary Thinking
Some critics have argued that Sinek ignores and dismisses the fact that, in the real world, business leaders have to engage in finite games as they play their infinite game. Businesses operate with both finite and infinite mindsets, depending on the particular challenge they’re working on—sometimes they need to use finite tactics in order to keep immediately afloat, and other times, they have the luxury of thinking infinitely.
For example, many people hold up Paul Polman, who helmed Unilever from 2009 to 2018, as an exemplar of infinite thinking. When he stepped into the role of CEO, he committed to increasing the company’s profits while improving its environmental and social record. He formed programs devoted to helping communities live more sustainably, invested heavily in renewable energy for the company’s factories, and stopped issuing quarterly share guidance reports in order to break free from short-term thinking. Under his tenure, Unilever’s annual sales rose from $38 billion to $60 billion.
Still, under Polman’s lead, the company made some finite-minded decisions—decisions that seem primarily to benefit itself. It closed some underperforming factories, and in 2018, toward the end of Polman’s tenure, it tried to close its London headquarters and consolidate in Rotterdam, in a move that many observers suspected was designed to protect it from hostile corporate takeovers. (The company abandoned plans to do so after significant shareholder pushback.) Also in 2018, Unilever lobbied against a Dutch dividend tax that cost the Dutch government $2 billion in annual revenues, against the wishes of 80% of Dutch citizens.
In sum, Polman’s infinite-minded vision enabled Unilever to reach new heights of success and to contribute to the positive development of the communities it serves, but along the way, the company had to make finite-minded decisions that negatively affected some people as well. Critics of Sinek’s book point out that this is a more realistic take on real-world business practices, and that Sinek leaves little room in his book to acknowledge the necessity of any kind of finite thinking.
To illustrate his point about the advantages of infinite thinking, Sinek discusses the difference between how Microsoft and Apple view the world. He quotes this Microsoft versus Apple example often and it has become widely associated with his theories.
Sinek relates how he attended the corporate conferences of both Microsoft and Apple. At the Microsoft conference, the majority of the speakers talked about how they could beat Apple, their primary competitor. By contrast, at Apple’s conference, all the speakers talked about how they could continually improve their customers' experiences through innovation.
Because of its focus on Apple instead of on its own vision, Microsoft based its decisions reactively on Apple’s decisions, and it was always a step behind Apple. When Apple released the iPod, Microsoft responded with the Zune, which wasn’t able to capture the public’s attention, and later, when Apple released the iPhone, then-CEO Steve Ballmer (who replaced the more infinite-minded Bill Gates in 2000) dismissed it as not worth the effort to replicate, deciding that the cell phone market was already spoken for. His laser focus on market share and immediate sales potential blinded him to the seismic shift that was about to happen to the cell phone market.
Sinek notes that the original strategy and vision of Microsoft, under Gates, had an infinite focus: “To empower every person and every organization to achieve more.” He suggests that this was largely responsible for the company’s success, and had Ballmer adhered to this vision when he took over as CEO, he might have been more effectively forward-thinking, rather than reactionary.
The Return of Microsoft’s Infinite Mindset
Although Sinek doesn’t mention this part of the two companies’ histories, both Gates and Apple CEO Steve Jobs demonstrated an infinite mindset in 1997 when Gates invested $150 million in Apple as Jobs returned to Apple as CEO. The deal represented a partnership of sorts between existential rivals that shocked the industry, but as Jobs explained to his employees, “We have to get rid of the idea that in order for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. Destructive rivals don’t help anybody.” The deal helped both companies succeed, and it illustrates Sinek’s theory that thinking infinitely helps make companies stronger.
Since the publication of The Infinite Game, Sinek has commented publicly on Microsoft’s new CEO, Satya Nadella, who took over for Ballmer in 2014, and how he’s redirected the company back onto an infinite-minded path by refocusing on the company’s vision and by fostering a culture of trust (we discuss Just Causes and Trusting Teams in later chapters).
To better understand why finite-mindedness is so prevalent in business today, we must look back at its history, and how it came to dominate our current business world.
Today, many people understand the purpose of business as serving and enriching a company’s owners, but this was not always how business was viewed. When modern capitalism was established some 200 years ago, it played a more holistic role in society; business owners once saw themselves as responsible contributors to a healthy society, rather than merely as beneficiaries of society’s wealth.
Eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher Adam Smith wrote in his seminal book The Wealth of Nations that the purpose of business was to serve the needs of the consumer. In other words, the company’s interests should be secondary to the customer’s interests. He acknowledged that businesses acted in their own self-interest but saw this as a force (he called it the “invisible hand”) working to ultimately serve the needs of the customer.
This attitude prevailed throughout the mid-twentieth century, when public corporations acted as equalizers, allowing average Americans to invest in and share in the wealth they created. Executives saw their role as one of stewardship, serving shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers, and the wider community.
Then, in 1970, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman published an article stating that a company's sole responsibilities were “to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.” Importantly, Friedman said that a company’s efforts should always be in direct service to its owners—its shareholders. Businesses started to value immediate profit gains over any other purpose. Sinek points to this influence as the cause of the rise of finite, short-term thinking that’s prevalent in business today.
The rise in finite-minded thinking has been accompanied by a decrease in the average lifespan of a company. In the 1950s, a company lasted 60 years on average. Today, the average company lasts less than 20 years.
Sinek explains this by arguing that when companies focus exclusively on short-term profits, temporary stock prices, and immediate shareholder concerns, they engage in behavior that weakens them in the long run. For example, tying executive pay to short-term share-price increases leads executives to close factories, suppress wages, cut corners in production quality, and lay off workers. It might also pressure executives into showing constant high-speed growth, when it may be wiser to grow at a slower pace to strengthen the growth that the company has achieved. These actions may temporarily boost a stock price but often damage the company’s long-term strength.
Finite Thinking Leads to Principal-Agent Problems
These types of distorted incentives are sometimes caused by the “Principal-Agent Problem,” which is the fact that the incentives of an employee (an agent) often differ from those of their employer (the principal). Essentially, an employee is incentivized to get as much as possible out of a company as quickly as possible, which can lead to behavior that works against the long-term interest of the employer.
Thus, as alluded to above, a finite-minded CEO might chase a large bonus or a high stock price by announcing, for example, a large company initiative that would get Wall Street excited but would enter the company into a field they have no expertise in—like an electronics company deciding to sell clothing as well—and that might ultimately not be sustainable.
In contrast, an infinite-minded CEO would be more aligned with the long-term goals of the company (in other words, both principal and agent would be aligned). Instead of boosting the short-term stock price for their own gain, they would invest in areas that would more slowly pay off in the long run—such as the research and development of an innovative product that extends the company’s existing line even if it temporarily decreases the company’s reported profit in the short-term.
For a more thorough exploration of agency issues, read our guide to Basic Economics.
Sinek draws a connection between the finite thinking of individual companies and societal problems, which can create a difficult environment for all companies to survive in. A “winners versus losers” mentality creates imbalances, such as the widening gulf between CEO pay and the median worker.
Large societal imbalances are unsustainable and lead to corrections. Disillusioned citizens support politicians with populist messages, many of whom promise “tear-it-all-down” solutions to rising inequality. Ultimately, this weakens the system as a whole and all companies operating within it, as companies can’t operate efficiently in an unstable society.
The Debate on the Societal Implications of Finite Thinking
To illustrate societal imbalances, Sinek notes that between 1978 and 2016, CEO pay increased by almost 950% while the pay of average workers increased by just 11%. Since the book’s publication, these statistics have grown even more dramatic: The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reports that CEO pay increased by 1,167% from 1978 to 2019, during which time worker pay increased by less than 14%.).
(The EPI further notes that CEOs aren’t getting paid more because of increased productivity or skills—they’re paid more because they’re able to set their own salaries. The Institute gives several recommendations to counter this phenomenon, including increasing taxes and allowing other stakeholders in a firm to vote on executive compensation. Sinek doesn’t comment on specific policy tools that might rein in inequality through legal means. Instead, he recommends that leaders develop a fairer (more infinite) mindset that will lead to better governance and equality in the first place.)
Critics of Sinek argue that he misunderstands the larger, societal role of finite thinking. Followers of Friedman-inspired market policies argue that capitalist societies are designed so that the short-term goals of individuals support a long-term healthy society: Individual, self-centered incentives raise everyone’s standard of living.
For example, when a firm sells, say, pencils, they’re interested in their own individual profit. But the profit they make for themselves fuels a better economy for others as well: Not only do they provide a writing tool for students, artists, businesspeople, and so on, but they also provide jobs for the people involved in bringing that product to market: the manufacturers, salespeople, marketers, business development analysts, human resources workers, and others. The salaries these people make allow them to purchase products like cars and blenders that enable yet other people to earn salaries, raising the standard of living for the wider society as a whole.
Further, Friedman himself argues that capitalist economies lead to less inequality than do underdeveloped economies or those based on legal hierarchies (castes, or class systems that are cemented into a society).
Others, though, agree with Sinek that finite thinking in capitalist economies is inherently destabilizing. For example, Naomi Klein suggests in her book The Shock Doctrine that Friedman-style economic policies are so antithetical to a healthily functioning society that they can only be imposed on a country through political upheaval and violence. She argues that throughout history, when companies are allowed to prioritize their own benefit over anyone else’s, they create enormous wealth imbalances. These imbalances eventually lead to protests, which lead to government crackdowns, which lead to an erosion of citizens’ rights.
For a deeper exploration of these subjects, read our guides to Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom and Charles J. Wheelan’s Naked Economics.
Sinek outlines these five guidelines to help you develop an infinite mindset and build a strong, resilient company:
Sinek notes it’s important to adopt all five of these guidelines in order to achieve the full potential of the fully infinite mind. We’ll explore each of these guidelines in depth in the following sections.
According to Sinek, an infinite mindset begins with a Just Cause. A Just Cause is a big-picture vision that provides a framework for your corporate strategies. It provides a context for all the decisions you’ll make. It inspires people to work hard and make sacrifices because they believe in the cause.
Southwest’s Just Cause Led Its Success
Prior to the publication of The Infinite Game, in a speech Sinek named Southwest Airlines as an example of a company with a Just Cause, because its mission went beyond just being an airline—it aimed to allow average people to afford to fly instead of driving or taking a bus somewhere.
Other management thinkers have also discussed how Southwest’s core purpose allowed it to succeed in oftentimes challenging circumstances, through industry upheavals and economic downturns. Greg McKeown explains in his book Essentialism, that to stay true to its cause, Southwest made trade-offs so as not to get distracted by alternative ways it could serve its customers. Instead, Southwest stayed focused on what made it unique. For example, the company decided not to offer meals or upgraded seating, and to serve only a limited selection of airports. In this way it stayed true to its Just Cause and was able to make effective business decisions.
Sinek defines a Just Cause as a specific vision of an ideal state of the future that inspires people. Your Just Cause must paint a clear picture that others can see: A promise to “improve the world” doesn’t provide enough substance or specificity to inspire people. A Just Cause has five elements:
Panasonic’s Infinite-Minded Just Cause
Panasonic is an example of a company with a corporate strategy that embodies each of the five elements of a Just Cause. In 1932, the company’s head, Kōnosuke Matsushita, laid out a 250-year vision based on the notion that the primary purpose of a business should be to increase human happiness. His strategy was to “overcome poverty by producing an abundant supply of goods,” which would “banish poverty, bring happiness to people's lives and make this world into a paradise.”
This vision stood for something, was inclusive, was service-oriented, was resilient, and was idealistic. Today, the company’s vision has expanded and includes goals for helping the environment, helping communities, and being responsible. Its Just Cause has powered it for decades and positioned it strongly to face the future.
There is one aspect of Panasonic’s mission statement that doesn’t align with Sinek’s definition, though—it doesn’t paint a clear, specific picture of the future, but instead holds up a somewhat vague but lofty goal of “overcoming poverty.” Further, since Panasonic focuses on producing electronic goods, their mission statement of “producing an abundant supply of goods” doesn’t exactly articulate their vision. A person reading the mission statement without knowing it was Panasonic’s would be unlikely to associate it with the company.
This analysis shows the limits of Sinek’s theories, and how in the real world, a company might find success even if they don’t follow Sinek’s exact prescription. Regardless, the important thing to note in examining Panasonic’s strategy is that the company thought about the long term and considered the wider world beyond their particular company when crafting their vision. Sinek would likely argue that the infinite aspect of that thinking is what’s kept them successful.
A Just Cause does not name something we want to work against, but rather, something we want to work for. When people work against something, they are often filled with some combination of fear and anger. In contrast, when people work for something, they are filled with hope and optimism.
Working against something leads to finite thinking because we focus on specific, known solutions to defined problems. Working for something focuses us on the future and opens our eyes to alternative solutions that might bring us to our ideal state in any number of ways.
For example, if you encourage your team to beat your competitors by coming up with a better mousetrap, you frame their efforts as a struggle to a specified endpoint. If, however, you encourage your team to think about how homeowners can control disease vectors in their houses, the struggle isn’t framed as “winnable,” but rather, as something to continually work toward.
A Just Cause must be a big and bold enough idea to inspire people with a vision of the world that they want to work towards. Sinek cites the Declaration of Independence as a great example of idealism. Though the interpretation of the Declaration has changed over the years, the words continue to inspire people to reach for an ideal state. Its statement of universal rights was originally intended to protect the rights of white, landowning, Protestant men, but was soon applied to other groups—even George Washington discouraged discrimination against Catholics and later, the Constitution was updated to protect the rights of many others, including African Americans and women.
The ever-changing nature of how America is reflected by its founding values illustrates a key characteristic of a Just Cause: Its mission is never fully accomplished. Victories along the way should be celebrated as a glimpse into the future vision of the ideal state the Just Cause espouses, and the Cause should continue to inspire people to work towards it in ever-changing ways.
A Just Cause makes others feel included in its mission. People like to feel included in a group, such as a church or a team. A Just Cause that inspires people to imagine a positive alternative future can start movements by attracting people to join in with other like-minded believers.
How to Attract Followers With a Feeling of Inclusiveness
Sinek is not the only management expert to recommend attracting followers by emphasizing a strong and inclusive team culture. For example, in his book Zero to One, entrepreneur and venture capitalist Peter Thiel (founder of PayPal) advises you to highlight your unique mission over superficial perks. He points out that perks like game rooms and yoga lunches get a lot of press, but to recruit talent to your company over a competitor’s, you must offer something more meaningful: a sense of purpose and belonging.
Talk about why your mission is unique and compelling.
Make them feel they’d fit in and enjoy working with their teammates.
Emphasize a common identity, even if that means issuing t-shirts with the company logo.
In the extreme, your organization can benefit by feeling slightly cult-like, where the employees are intensely dedicated to serving a greater truth in order to improve the world.
A Just Cause can endure changes in the business, political, and technological landscapes. If your company revolves around a specific product, then your organization’s existence depends on those products staying relevant. But if your organization revolves around a Just Cause, you can stay infinitely relevant no matter how the environment changes; you will be able to see how and when your products need to be adjusted in order to continue to serve that Cause.
For example, had the railroad companies in the early 1900s seen themselves as transportation providers, dedicated to moving people around efficiently, rather than as companies that sold train tickets, they might have evolved into car companies during the advent of the automotive industry. Likewise, if music producers had seen themselves as distributors of music rather than sellers of CDs, they might have adapted better to the competitive challenges of digital streaming.
Using Vision Statements to Increase Resilience
Management expert and bestselling authors Jim Collins and Jerry Porras discuss the higher causes driving companies in their book Built to Last, which has the same goal as The Infinite Game: helping leaders develop and maintain companies that will stay relevant and overcome years of challenges.
Quite a few of their theories overlap with Sinek’s. In particular, their discussion of vision statements offers additional insight into Sinek’s thoughts on resilience.
Collins and Porras point out that lasting companies have two sides to their vision statements:
A core principle that gives them an overall mission
A more practical principle that directs their actions on a more specific level but can be changeable
For example, a company might set out to “help students learn,” which would be their overriding, larger mission (their “Just Cause,” in Sinek’s terms). On a more practical level, they might have a mission of “offering tutoring services.” As their business evolves, they may change that more practical mission to “offering online video tutorials” or even “making documentaries,” and as long as the new direction fits with their core principle, they’re being true to their vision. The stability of the core principle combined with the flexibility of the practical principle increases the company’s resilience.
Every company or effort involves both givers and receivers—people who contribute their money, effort, or time (company leaders, investors, and employees), and people who benefit from it (customers, other citizens, and the wider world).
When a Just Cause is service-oriented, the primary benefits of an organization’s efforts go to people other than the contributors themselves—this might be the company’s customers or it might be a worthwhile cause, such as saving the environment or alleviating poverty.
The customers of a service-oriented company feel genuinely cared about or genuinely care about the cause, and as a result, are often willing to pay a premium for that company’s products or services. Thus, in the long run, a company benefits from serving others.
It’s important to note that service orientation is not the same as charity.
TOMS Inspires Debate About the Power of a Just Cause
The trajectory of the shoe and apparel maker TOMS allows for debate about how applicable Sinek’s theories are to the real world. In short, TOMS found great success—at first—because of its admirable Just Cause, but it was unable to capitalize on it over the long run.
The company was founded in 2006 under the vision statement, “For every pair of TOMS shoes purchased online or at retail, the company will provide a pair to a child in need. One for One,” with the goal of reducing the poverty-inducing effects of going shoeless (children who don’t have access to or can’t afford shoes are vulnerable to a host of health problems like parasites or infections that prevent them from attending school or working).
TOMS’s Just Cause inspired a fiercely loyal customer base and propelled the company to huge popularity, much media buzz, and endorsements from Hollywood celebrities. By 2014, the company was valued at $650 million. However, by 2019, it was unable to honor its debts and was taken over by a group of creditors.
Why Did TOMS’s Just Cause Fail?
Critics of Sinek might say this is proof that his theories don’t work in practical terms. They might point out that the company ran into typical business problems that a Just Cause couldn’t protect against, no matter how strongly it was conceived: Their shoe design was easy to copy, as was their mission statement, and both were adopted by other firms. For example, Skechers released a look-alike product under the name BOBS and donated two pairs of shoes to children for every pair sold.
However, defenders of Sinek’s theories might argue that the Just Cause of TOMS didn’t adequately satisfy each of the elements of Sinek’s theory, and therefore is a poor example to judge his theories by. Their Just Cause did meet four of the requirements: It stood for something, it was idealistic, it was inclusive, and it was service-oriented. But it didn’t prove resilient.
Did it lack resilience because it was too specific and limited? Some observers note that TOMS became inextricably linked to its initial product—a simple canvas shoe—and was unable to successfully branch out into new products, despite its efforts (it launched many different styles of shoe, a line of sunglasses, and a line of coffee). This reflects an over-emphasis on their initial shoe-based mission that limited their ability to pivot.
TOMS Lacked a Core Mission
Looking at the company’s story through the lens of Collins and Porras’s Built to Last, it seems that TOMS had a solid practical mission but was missing a core, overall mission that would have allowed their practical mission to evolve more easily. They ran into trouble because their original mission was too specific (donating shoe for shoe), rather than more general (helping children escape poverty).
Today, TOMS has an amended mission. Instead of donating shoes, it donates one-third of its profits to charities, which allows it more flexibility in how its efforts are directed. It’s possible that this pivot will make their cause more resilient and allow the company to continue playing the “game” indefinitely.
Regardless, the company has left its mark on the industry. It was the first for-profit firm to pioneer the “sell one, give one” business model, and it has inspired many socially-minded companies to follow. It therefore might be argued that it fulfilled its Just Cause by inspiring others to take it up.
Sinek points out that there are times when a leader intends to adopt a Just Cause but does so improperly. In these cases, a vision or strategy resembles a Just Cause but is actually a finite-minded goal.
There are a number of reasons a leader might think a finite goal is a Just Cause. False Just Causes include:
While each of these points is something a leader can and should incorporate into her overall strategy, none of them is a true Just Cause. None will prepare a company for long-term success in an infinite game.
We’ll cover each of these elements further in the sections below.
Sinek emphasizes that you shouldn’t confuse a Just Cause with a lofty goal. A lofty goal is a finite goal—a specific objective with a defined time frame and end. A Just Cause is infinite. As you’re working towards your Just Cause, you might incorporate a lofty goal, but you must recognize it as only a step towards your larger purpose, instead of as the cause itself.
Another word for a lofty goal is a “moon shot,” named after John F. Kennedy’s goal of putting a man on the moon in the 1960s. Moon shots often have many of the elements of a Just Cause—for example, Kennedy’s goal of a moon landing:
However, Sinek points out that Kennedy’s goal was a finite one within a larger, infinite game. Kennedy alluded to this larger vision when he explained the reason behind his lofty goal: “There is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people.”
(Shortform note: Critics have pointed out that Sinek’s categorization of the Cold War as an infinite game is flawed, as war or violence of any kind is inherently finite-minded. Further, the Cold War was clearly fought to a finite end—the breakup of the Soviet Union. Sinek argues that the Cold War was infinite because neither side truly envisioned the total destruction of the other, and therefore neither side expected the fall of the Berlin Wall. However, it might be said that both sides were fighting for the total destruction of the other’s political and economic system, and that the Cold War was a finite game within a larger infinite game of the continued relations between the countries.)
An Opposing View on Moon Shots
Built to Last’s Collins and Porras have a different view on lofty, “moon shot” goals. They call them “Big Hairy Audacious Goals,” or “BHAGS.” Unlike Sinek, they argue that BHAGs can and should be central to a company’s strategy. They contend that a finite goal like crushing the competition or securing the top spot in an industry is a perfectly good company purpose that can lead to lasting success. What matters, they suggest, is that your company has an audacious goal that can motivate your workforce.
They point to the example of Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric from 1981 to 2001, to illustrate their theory. Welch’s mission was “To become #1 or #2 in every market” and “to have the speed and agility of a small enterprise.” Collins and Porras laud these goals as inspiring BHAGs that successfully motivated the workforce.
In contrast, Sinek argues that lofty goals are not enough to stand in for a company’s larger purpose. To illustrate his argument, Sinek also discusses Jack Welch, but he has a different takeaway. During Welch’s tenure, when some employees voiced concern that GE was overly focused on short-term priorities, Welch replied that “Long term is just a series of short terms.” Sinek argues that this attitude confuses a Just Cause with a series of moon shots, but that a string of moon shots is not, in and of itself, a Just Cause.
Further, although Sinek doesn’t specifically mention it, Welch’s BHAGs that Collins and Porras admire violate several elements of the definition of a Just Cause—they’re against something (the competition) rather than for something, they don’t paint a clear picture (what exactly does the speed and agility of a small enterprise look like?), and they focus on the company’s success rather than benefits for the customer (they don't create a vision of an improved future for other people).
Of course, when judging Welch’s statements, Sinek had the advantage of hindsight. Collins and Porras published their book in 1994, at the height of GE’s success. After Welch stepped down from his role as CEO in 2001, the company started to run into trouble, and in 2018, it was delisted from the DOW Jones Industrial Average. It seems clear now that GE’s success in the 1990s was largely due to the specific, finite thinking of Welch himself, which didn’t set the company up for long-term success that would outlast Welch’s personal leadership.
Sinek also cautions that many leaders mistake becoming “the best” or offering “the best products” in their industry as a Just Cause. Unfortunately, this type of goal is too broad and too vague to offer useful guidance.
Further, it violates the first element of a Just Cause: to stand for something, not against something (it positions the company or their products as against the competition). It also violates the third element (being service-oriented), as it encourages an organization to focus on itself instead of on its customers, who should be its primary beneficiaries.
Additionally, a company aiming to be “the best” will often focus exclusively on the strength of its existing product line, and will defend that product line as if the products themselves are their Just Cause. Unfortunately, without a higher purpose, your company becomes dependent on your product staying relevant, which leaves you unable to effectively adapt when changes come along (which they inevitably will).
Success Can Be a Trap
Focusing on being “the best” can lead a company to fall into the “success trap,” where they grow complacent if they spend a lot of time as the industry leader. Polaroid is an example of a company that succumbed to its own success. For many years, it dominated the instant-film category, with little need to innovate. It didn’t anticipate how disruptive digital cameras would be for its business, and the company declared bankruptcy in 2001.
Many leaders aim to grow their organizations, as if growth itself is a reason for existence. They fill their corporate “strategies” with benchmarks and milestones to measure that growth—hitting certain sales targets or profit margins—and mistakenly believe they’ve put together a worthy cause. But this is like deciding to build a huge building and establishing milestones for how many bricks you’ll lay per day without thinking about what the building will be used for.
Too much growth too quickly can weaken a company if it spreads its resources too thinly in order to meet arbitrary growth targets. For example, if you open 150 new locations but don’t have the resources to adequately train your new staff in each one, those locations are less likely to thrive.
Further, investors’ expectations of growth can be particularly unrealistic for mature companies. Young companies naturally experience higher growth rates as their products and services are adopted, but as a company matures and its products or services saturate a market, its growth naturally slows.
In the face of slower, more mature growth, executives often try to spur growth again through mergers and acquisitions. Unfortunately, more often than not, this growth strategy doesn’t lead to success.
Growth Should Be About Giving as Well as Taking
To prove his point, Sinek quotes a report from Harvard Business Review that finds that 70 to 90 percent of all company mergers fail. The report attributes this to a simple insight: When companies focus on what they’ll get from an acquisition, they‘re less likely to succeed than if they focus on what they’ll give to it.
For example, when Microsoft bought Nokia’s handset business for $7.9 billion in 2014, only to write off 96% of the company the next year, it was hoping to profit off of the smartphone hardware business but had no expertise of its own to offer. It was looking for what it could get, not what it could give.
Companies that merge successfully with another work because the acquiring company has something of value to offer the acquired company—it’s more give than get. For example, when Google took over Android in 2005, it gave Android development expertise the smaller company didn’t have access to otherwise. Berkshire Hathaway is another example; it has a track record of improving the companies it acquires by enhancing its management systems.
These concepts are discussed in depth in Adam Grant’s book, Give and Take, which argues that in both business and personal life, people who aim to give to a relationship ironically end up benefiting more from it. This idea dovetails with Sinek’s view that business relationships thrive when the parties involved are looking out for more than their own immediate interests.
Sinek argues that investors and executives would be better off viewing growth as a result of a healthy organization, not a cause of such health. Additionally, they should recognize that growth must have a purpose—your goal shouldn’t be just “to get bigger” for the sake of getting bigger. Growth must serve a larger vision—some ideal that you need size to accomplish.
Sometimes, leaders will have corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs that do things like fund food banks, support walkathons, and allow paid time off so employees can volunteer. They may believe that because CSR programs serve a higher purpose, they are themselves Just Causes. Sinek maintains that all of these initiatives are worthwhile and should be part of any company’s operations, but a true Just Cause centers the company’s existence around a higher purpose—the higher purpose is not a secondary, tacked-on element, as CSR programs often are. Unless the Just Cause is central to a company’s reason for existing and focuses the direction of the CSR program, the company may have CSR programs but at the same time emphasize finite goals and selfish purposes in their main businesses.
Sinek points out that some leaders say they want to “make money to do good,” in other words, they want to be financially successful and then they’ll give back to the community. However, Sinek argues they should in fact try to “do good while making money”—in other words, reorder the thought to put the “good” first, so that you focus on doing good by treating people well and only secondarily, focus on building a financially strong company.
The Difficulty of Identifying Sincere CSR Programs
One limitation of CSR programs that Sinek indirectly addresses is the fact that many such programs are little more than virtue signaling, aimed at customers and potential employees who increasingly value corporate responsibility and sustainability. It can be difficult to know, when companies are loudly advertising their CSR programs, which ones are central to a company’s mission and which are merely public relations.
The problem is compounded by the fact that companies are finding it increasingly beneficial to advertise their CSR. While older studies showed little to no correlation between CSR and profits, more recent studies show significant links between a company’s advertised CSR programs and its performance—for example, when a company advertises itself as a socially responsible firm, it attracts more productive, effective workers at lower wages. Recognizing this, more and more firms are declaring themselves do-gooders, and observers are cautioning that it can be difficult to tell which firms are sincere.
Choosing who leads your organization can be the difference between long-term survival or failure. If your Chief Executive Officer (CEO) does not have an infinite mindset, she is not going to lead your company through its infinite game properly. Unfortunately, finding the right leader can be very difficult.
A report from Harvard Business Review highlights the difficulty of finding the right leader. Research reveals that up to one-half of new CEOs fail within 18 months of taking on the job. This holds true whether or not the CEO was recruited from outside or from within the organization.
Sinek recommends looking for a “CVO” (Chief Vision Officer) rather than a CEO. Other executives—Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, and so on—have the luxury of being finite-minded, since they are tasked with dealing with specific issues within their departments. But the CEO must focus on the company’s Just Cause and vision above all else.
The different visionary requirements of a CEO as compared to other executives can lead to problems when a CEO steps down and one of those other executives takes her place. Sometimes, a person who functioned excellently in a more finite role has difficulty adjusting to the infinite mindset needed for the top position, and they lose sight of their Just Cause.
A COO Who Couldn’t Transfer Skills to CEO
The trajectory of Jill Barad, CEO of Mattel from 1997 to 2000, illustrates how difficult it is for finite-minded executives to become infinite-minded CEOs, even if those executives had been successful in their previous roles. Barad was promoted to CEO from the roles of President and Chief Operating Officer, and she had previously overseen the Barbie line to great success.
However, as CEO, she was unable to see the bigger picture. She remained intensely involved in minute details of the Barbie division (even overseeing designs of the dolls), and she proved overly attached to outdated strategies: When Mattel acquired The Learning Company (TLC), she insisted on using promotional techniques that had worked well for Barbie, ignoring the fact that educational software is distributed, marketed, and sold in very different ways than are dolls. The purchase of TLC cost Mattel millions of dollars in a single year. In 2000 she stepped down.
While Barad’s lack of vision certainly played a role in her failure as CEO, there may also have been other contributing factors. Many observers have reported that she was unwilling to tolerate dissenting opinions and many senior executives left because of the difficult atmosphere she fostered. Further, the birth of the internet posed an unexpected and industry-disrupting challenge to the success of TLC, which sold computer games on disk through big-box stores. This points to the limits of Sinek’s theories: There is often more than one factor contributing to failure—or to success, for that matter.
A Just Cause is a big-picture vision that provides a framework for your corporate strategies. A Just Cause outlines the reason you are in business beyond the provision of any one specific product or service; it is the vision your product or service exists to support.
Write down your company’s Just Cause. Think beyond your product or service—ask yourself what larger need your product or service answers (remember the example of the railroad companies, who should have seen themselves as transportation providers rather than sellers of train tickets).
How do your company’s current operations support this Just Cause? How might these operations be adjusted to better support it?
Sinek’s second guideline for developing an infinite mindset is to build trusting teams. A trusting team is a team made up of people who feel safe around each other—safe expressing their feelings, asking for help, talking about problems, and admitting to mistakes.
On a trusting team, workers know that their bosses and colleagues will support them through errors and will offer help in a non-judgmental way when asked. Thus, they feel safe being honest. Conversely, on a non-trusting team, people do not feel comfortable showing vulnerabilities and often feel compelled to lie, hide mistakes, and fake expertise rather than ask for help. In such an environment, problems in an organization are ignored or hidden instead of fixed. After some time, these problems can build up and can be much harder to address.
The Importance of Trust
The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) published a report in 2017, prior to Sinek’s book, that advances many of the same philosophies on trusting teams. They define trust as “the bridge between the business need for results and the human need for connection.” Like Sinek, the report notes that trust is a key element in a properly functioning organization—when workers trust each other they unite towards a common goal, take risks with their thinking, and communicate openly. In the absence of trust, workers compete, hoard information, and don’t advance new ideas. Without trust, a corporate culture defaults to the lowest common denominator of behavior and is unable to achieve anything truly meaningful.
The CCL notes that when they first published research on trust in 1999, it was considered a “soft” subject and not taken seriously. However, more recently, people have grown aware of the importance of trust and of the fact that teams without it don’t perform well.
They recommend that leaders turn to trust-building programs if they sense certain problems in their team, such as a lack of enthusiasm, a reluctance to speak up, intra-team competition, or an attachment to the status quo. Each of these things may indicate a feeling of insecurity or a lack of connection between team members.
Sinek notes that infinite-minded leaders recognize that sometimes the best person for a job is not necessarily the highest-performing candidate. High performance is a reflection of competence, but trustworthiness is a reflection of character, and character can be a better indicator of a quality employee—one who contributes to the organization, elevates her colleagues, and helps to make everyone do their jobs better. A team full of high-skill but low-trust members may become a group of self-serving individuals who never pull together in a meaningful collaborative way but instead hoard information, take credit for others’ efforts, and avoid accountability.
Sinek points to the recruiting practices of the U.S. Navy SEALS to underscore these principles. Sinek explains that the SEALS measure candidates against both performance and trust. They will not accept a candidate with high performance markers but low trust markers, as these people tend to be narcissistic, self-serving, and negative towards the other members, which ultimately hurts the cohesion and performance of the team. They will sooner select people with medium, or even low, performance markers if they have high trust markers, rather than the reverse of high performance markers but low trust.
How to Balance Competence With Character
Ray Dalio, billionaire founder of hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, discusses how to balance character and performance in his book Principles and comes to a slightly different conclusion than Sinek. He advises that great people have both excellent character and excellent skills, and if one of those elements is missing, your organization can suffer. A person with great skills but poor character won’t align with your company’s mission and will work to benefit their own goals, while a person with great character but low skills won’t advance the mission of the company effectively, even if they’re wonderful people to be around.
Dalio allows for less flexibility than Sinek does when it comes to balancing these qualities. He advises only hiring people with high markers of both character and skill. Sinek’s theories here might align more realistically with the needs of managers faced with hiring decisions in the absence of perfect candidates. Importantly, Sinek doesn't advise hiring people with low capabilities—he’s advocating for considering people with medium skills over people with high skills, if the lesser-skilled person has significantly more character.
Sinek maintains that trust comes from the top down. Leaders must show their team members that they value and trust them and must work to establish a culture in which team members trust each other.
Another View on How to Build Trusting Teams
Many management experts agree with Sinek’s emphasis on the importance of trusting teams. For example, Kim Scott, CEO coach and New York Times bestselling author, discusses building trusting teams in her book Radical Candor, which explores how to improve relationships with people you manage. Her recommendations include:
Granting your team members autonomy, allowing them to feel empowered to make decisions
Sharing details of your personal life with them, while being aware of what boundaries you shouldn’t cross
Being open to new perspectives by respecting differing opinions and values
While Sinek addresses each of these aspects of building trusting teams, Scott adds another element: self-care. She says that to build a trusting team, you must start by making sure you’re bringing your best self to the situation, because if you’re caught up in stress, either at home or at work, you won’t deal with challenges as efficiently as you would if you have a calm, clear mind.
To prevent stress from building up because of friction between your personal and professional lives, Scott advocates that you think of your personal and professional spheres not as two separate existences, but as integrated pieces of your life. This way, if you need to, for example, meditate at home, you’ll see that it contributes to your work life as well as your private life. Similarly, if you’re excited about a work project, you can share that enthusiasm with your family and it will enrich your home life.
She also advises that you schedule time for self-care so that it doesn’t get lost in the shuffle of your day—if you tend to skip your morning workout because you’re too busy, put it on your calendar as if it’s a meeting.
Sinek argues that ultimately, a leader’s job is not about achieving specific results; it’s about leading a group of people so that they can achieve results. A good leader enables her team members to do the jobs they’ve been trained to by establishing an environment in which mistakes are embraced and solved together, information flows freely, and help can be asked for and offered without repercussions.
To illustrate this infinite-minded approach to leadership, Sinek discusses the way the U.S. Marine Corps selects its leaders. It puts candidates through a ten-week training program during which it evaluates their ability to deal with adversity, figure out problems, and delegate tasks while completing various challenges like crossing a body of water using only three planks of wood. Importantly, candidates are measured on their leadership abilities but not on whether or not they successfully complete the challenges.
In prioritizing behavior over outcomes in this way, the Marines recognize that a good leader is not defined by some arbitrary achievement—sometimes good leaders fail in a task and sometimes bad leaders succeed in one. Interior qualities of leadership like integrity, perseverance, cooperation, and decisiveness have proven to be much more reliable indicators of a leader who will go on to develop strong teams.
(Shortform note: In his memoir Hillbilly Elegy, JD Vance talks about his experience in the Marine Corps, where, he says, he first encountered leadership methods other than screaming and issuing threats—methods he’d grown up with. Instead, he says he learned that being a leader means earning the respect of those you lead. This is an important contrast to the leadership of finite-minded people: Leaders who lead through fear and threats don’t earn respect, and won’t have the lasting loyalty of their followers.)
Developing High-Trust Leadership
Sinek’s emphasis on the importance of establishing leadership trust is echoed in other management books. In their landmark book The Leadership Challenge, authors Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner note that trust is the most important element of relationships. Without trust, people won’t work together effectively. With trust, people make decisions efficiently and swiftly, innovate more, and produce more profits.
Like Sinek, Kouzes and Posner advise that trust has to start from the top. As a leader, you must show that you trust your team members’ abilities by sharing knowledge freely, training them properly, and then stepping back and letting them do their jobs. They argue that one of the most important things a leader can do to foster trust is to allow team members to make mistakes. If you can’t trust your team to perform properly, you become a micromanager, not a leader. Allowing your team to make mistakes, learn from them, and try again will build you a team of leaders, each of whom can effectively manage their own areas.
Sinek points out that the trust that strong relationships are based on develops when a group of people consistently behaves ethically. Unfortunately, if a trust-based environment is not properly established in an organization, the people within that organization can start to suffer a gradual decline in their ethics, which can build on itself and eventually create a toxic work environment. This is called ethical fading.
Ethical fading is when people engage in increasingly unethical behavior while convincing themselves that they are acting fairly and properly. Ethical fading happens little by little at a company. It starts with minor transgressions—cutting a few corners or taking credit for someone else’s idea. If employees committing those minor transgressions are rewarded with things like bonuses or promotions, other employees start committing small transgressions, which can increase and accumulate into larger transgressions.
A company that suffers from ethical fading often runs into legal trouble or is not prepared for competitive challenges in the marketplace because their employees have been trained to look inward, at their own minor goals, rather than outward, at the company’s larger place in the world.
Sinek points to several factors that frequently encourage unethical behavior:
Ethical Fading Is a Drift to Low Performance
Donella Meadows addresses a concept similar to ethical fading in her book Thinking in Systems. She discusses how people can gradually decrease their standards and drift into mediocre or unethical behavior if they set the bar for their performance at their previous performance—for example, if they are five minutes late to work one day, being six minutes late the next day doesn’t seem so bad, because it’s only one minute later than the day before. After a few months, an employee who continued down this path might end up coming in to work an hour late.
Similarly, if a company is filled with employees who are making small unethical decisions, they have set the bar low for their next decisions, which may then be even more unethical. The key here is the gradual decline in standards, which is how ethical fading develops. Employees are unlikely to suddenly make a decision that is largely out of line with their general behavior, but if they gradually decrease their standards, they might eventually make that large unethical decision and not feel it’s all that wrong.
Sinek discusses how in an organization run with a finite mindset, employees can feel pressure to hit their targets by cutting corners, bending rules, and making unethical decisions. When employees who do this are then rewarded with bonuses and promotions, other employees get the message that the organization prioritizes winning at all costs. Employees start to feel compelled to keep up with colleagues who are acting unethically in order to keep their jobs or stay competitive for promotions and raises. This can result in organizations filled with unethical actors and can lead to big problems.
Ethical Fading As Peer Pressure
Poorly designed incentives that pressure employees to keep up with their coworkers can lead to a workplace in which everyone seems to be breaking the rules, and therefore breaking the rules doesn’t feel like such a big deal. This effect is similar to the well-known “broken windows theory,” which holds that small signs of criminality (like broken windows in a building or graffiti) encourage more criminality because they allow people to rationalize that a little more crime won’t be noticed. In a company falling to ethical fading, small, frequent acts of poor behavior encourage larger acts.
Malcolm Gladwell discusses this theory in his book The Tipping Point and explains how people act differently in different circumstances and social settings—a theory that dovetails with Sinek’s ideas about the effect of an organization’s culture on the employees in that organization.
These influences are illustrated by the downfall of News International, the conglomerate owned by Rupert Murdoch that ran News of the World, among other British newspapers, where employees were pressured to meet arbitrary work goals and felt peer pressure to keep up with coworkers who were cutting corners to achieve those goals.
By 2009, News International had been involved in lawsuits for several years after their journalists were caught hacking the phones of the royal family and other celebrities to illegally gather information. Despite numerous convictions and repeated assurances from the company that it had ceased those practices, in a series of articles from 2009 through 2010, other news outlets revealed that their journalists hadn’t stopped hacking phones, and in fact, were regularly hacking the phones of ordinary citizens and government officials as well as celebrities. They were also found guilty of frequent bribery, often of police officers.
In 2011, after 168 years in operation, News of the World folded. Subsequent investigations revealed a culture that treated illegal hacking and bribery as industry standards and that pressured journalists to obtain information by any means. Even after Murdoch had publicly apologized and had settled with hundreds of victims, he was recorded excusing the scandal as “next to nothing,” justifying the company’s actions as “part of the culture of Fleet Street” (journalism headquarters), and expressing regret at having cooperated with the investigations.
The finite-minded attitude of company executives had infected the entire organization and brought it down by prioritizing short-term winning over long-term values.
Sinek poses that unethical behavior is not merely caused by flawed incentive structures that reward unethical employees and punish ethical ones, but also by self-deception, created when people rationalize their unethical choices.
He outlines a few different ways we rationalize our own unethical behavior:
#1: Using euphemisms to disguise the true nature of our actions: When we use less-charged words to speak of unpleasant things, we distance ourselves from our actions and make them feel less wrong. For example, we don’t “fire” people, we “restructure,” and if something goes wrong, it’s “collateral damage.”
#2: Blaming the system: A leader who’s confronted with the consequences of her decisions often blames the “system,” arguing that the system is designed to encourage, and even necessitate, these sorts of unethical decisions.
#3: Blaming the customer for enabling our behavior: The legal defense of “caveat emptor” (“buyer beware”) is frequently used by companies to disassociate themselves from their unethical decisions; the argument is that the customer should have known what they were getting into, and if they didn’t want the consequences, they have only themselves to blame. Sinek cites the example of tobacco companies, which argue that negative health consequences are the fault of their customers, who knew the risks but willingly purchased cigarettes anyway. While buyer choice certainly plays a role in any exchange of goods, it does not insulate the company providing those goods from any responsibility regarding their effects.
Morally Disengaging Through Rationalization
Professors Sean Martin and Jim Detert of the University of Virginia expand on Sinek’s discussion of how we rationalize unethical behavior. They outline eight common ways in which people morally disengage from their actions. The first three mirror Sinek’s points:
Using euphemisms to create emotional distance from bad behavior: “I’m only ‘borrowing’ this stapler. She won’t miss it.”
Shifting blame: “I’m just doing what my manager told me to do.”
Blaming the customer: “They should have known better.”
Telling yourself you’re helping the other person: “They don’t actually need these things; they wouldn’t know what to do with them.”
Pointing out a worse case: “At least I’m not doing what X is doing.”
Minimizing the impact: “Victimless crime.”
Dehumanizing the victims: “They’re animals.”
Diffusing responsibility: “We made this decision together, so I’m not responsible for the outcome.”
Martin and Detert note that when companies make their employees aware of how unethical behavior negatively affects customers and others, those employees are far less likely to engage in it. They advise companies to regularly remind their employees of the link between their actions and other peoples’ lives. They also, like Sinek, advise that organizations set realistic goals and fair incentives for their employees in order to dissuade unethical behavior.
Sinek notes that, at times, a leader will try to fix behavioral problems by implementing new rules and regulations instead of addressing the underlying reason behind the issues. For example, if a company starts getting an increased number of customer complaints, company executives may start requiring their customer service reps to watch a series of online training programs to improve their service skills. However, if the executives investigated why their customers are increasingly unhappy, they might discover that their reps feel pressured to service more customers than they have proper time for, and consequently are making each customer feel rushed. If this was the case, adding additional training requirements would actually worsen the problem by taking more time out of the reps’ day.
Such fixes focus on the symptoms of a problem rather than the root cause, and more often than not, create new incentives for ethical slipping. In the example above, reps may not see the benefit of or need for new training programs. When employees feel they’re being asked to do unnecessary things that divert their time away from more important tasks, they are more likely to cut corners. In this case, they might pretend to watch training sessions but actually just leave the program running in the background on mute on their computer while they do other tasks.
This is how ethical fading begins. Employees justify their behavior as “white lies”: small, unimportant dishonesties that don’t hurt anyone and simply help them get through the bureaucratic process, which they see as overly restrictive.
Sinek says that to counter ethical fading, you must view it as a people problem, not a process problem, and you must use infinite-minded solutions instead of finite-minded ones that focus on administrative fixes. This means reminding employees of their Just Cause, encouraging a Trusting Team, and giving people the opportunity to use their own inner morality to meet the goals of the organization.
The Ford Pinto: Unethical Leaders May Indicate Widespread Ethical Fading
The development and demise of the Ford Pinto in the 1970s is an often-cited example of ethics losing out to amoral incentives. Today, the episode is generally remembered as a case where a few executives were aware that the car’s gas tank had a tendency to explode in low-impact collisions, but they decided it would cost more to recall the cars and fix them than it would to settle lawsuits with victims’ families, and so they buried their information and released the car for sale. After several explosive collisions followed by investigations, their prior knowledge came to light.
However, more recent studies of the situation reveal more nuance, indicating the problem wasn’t caused by just a few executives, but instead, the entire company suffered from ethical fading that led to the issue. Viewing this situation through the lens of Sinek’s theories, the Pinto’s problems were caused by:
Poorly designed incentives that pressured employees to achieve unrealistic goals
Rigid structures that encouraged employees to ignore problems
Rationalization that justified silence in the face of known problems because everyone else was doing the same
The company’s engineers and designers were under intense pressure from upper management (mostly from CEO Lee Iacocca) to produce a car quickly in order to compete with foreign models that were coming out. Consequently, the development of the car from conception to delivery was completed in record time for that era: 25 months, as opposed to the industry standard of 43 months.
Because of the accelerated schedule, different departments worked in tandem rather than one after the other—for example, the manufacturing tools were created at the same time that the design was finalized. This meant that no changes could be made to the design if any problems arose, and that employees who might have noticed problems were strongly incentivized to keep quiet, lest they knock the entire operation off track.
Communication between departments was intentionally limited to allow the engineers to proceed unencumbered and quickly—this meant that departments that were in contact with regulatory agencies shielded the engineers from potential objections.
Each individual department was working within the legal bounds of the day, and thus was able to blame the system (the then-current regulations) for their lack of standards.
This combination of factors caused workers at all levels of Ford to look the other way where standards were low. When the gas tank proved flammable in testing, employees hid behind the rigid structures of existing law to approve the design (the design didn’t technically violate existing legal standards of the day), and the cost-benefit analysis they used was industry standard at the time. Raising an issue would have meant going against a corporate culture that rewarded speed over quality. Thus, all employees were pressured to ignore the problematic issues, leading to company-wide ethical fading that resulted in deaths on the road.
This analysis raises the possibility that whenever a company makes headlines for the misdeeds of its executives, it’s unlikely that the executives are isolated cases of unethical behavior in the company. Given that corporate culture typically originates from its leadership, unethical leaders probably indicate an unethical culture in the whole company.
The Flip Side of Ethical Fading
While unethical behavior can result from a negative culture that gets incrementally worse over time, fortunately, ethical behavior can increase incrementally, too: Research has shown that people who are susceptible to negative messages from their peers or managers are also open to positive messages. In their book Nudge, economists Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein discuss how small suggestions can prompt people to behave in better ways—managing their money more responsibly, eating better, and treating the environment better.
Sinek doesn’t explicitly address this idea, but his theories do overlap with it. When he encourages creating a culture of trust, he’s essentially advising that leaders create signs and nudges within their corporate culture that indicate to their team members that they can be honest and open with each other. The safe spaces he advocates for would function as a counter to a culture that promotes ethical fading.
In an organization run with a finite mindset where employees are judged exclusively on their performance with no consideration given to how they achieved that performance, employees can feel pressure to hit their targets by cutting corners, bending rules, and making unethical decisions.
Think back to a work situation in which you felt compelled to cut corners or otherwise behave unethically in order to keep up with the performance of colleagues. What actions did you feel compelled to engage in? What outcome were you expecting by engaging in them?
What were the specific pressures that pushed you to behave unethically? How could those pressures have been better managed? (For instance, how might management have structured your incentives better to discourage unethical behavior?)
Sinek’s third method of developing your infinite-minded leadership is to study your worthy rivals. A worthy rival is a competitor who is better than you at certain things, and who can therefore reveal to you ways you can improve, enabling you to better survive in the infinite game. A worthy rival may make a better product, provide a better service, or command stronger customer loyalty than you do: anything from which you can draw lessons.
Sinek discusses ways in which a worthy rival can inspire you to get better at what you do and can help you more clearly define yourself.
Sinek maintains that viewing a competitor as a worthy rival rather than simply a rival can inspire you to improve rather than just to win, focusing your attention on process rather than outcome. When you respect your rivals and acknowledge what they do well, you are able to better see how their strengths can guide your own shortcomings.
Conversely, if you view your rivals with disdain or see them solely as competitors to beat, you’re far more likely to dismiss their strengths and ignore your own weaknesses, because your mind will be focused on figuring out how you’re superior to them.
Worthy Rivals Turn Competition into Cooperation
Timothy Gallwey also discusses how competition can improve performance in his book The Inner Game of Tennis. He contends that to achieve whatever goal you’re aiming for, you must overcome small obstacles along the way, and because a competitor presents you with these obstacles, they are a necessary element in achieving that higher goal.
The benefits of competition are mutual between both players. Each player benefits from the other’s attempts to block them with obstacles, and consequently, competition ends up functioning as cooperation, allowing both parties to improve.
The rivalry between tennis players Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal exemplify both Sinek’s concept of Worthy Rivals and Gallwey’s theory of competition as cooperation. Both Federer and Nadal have achieved great success in part because their mutual respect for each other has helped them each become better athletes. Over the years, each player has publicly acknowledged the other’s strengths and the friendship they share. In 2020, when Nadal won his 20th Grand Slam title and tied Federer’s record, Federer responded by congratulating Nadal and calling him his “greatest rival over many years,” noting that their rivalry has “pushed each other to become better players.”
Sinek notes that when you have a worthy rival, that person or organization can help you define yourself in opposition to it. If your rival stands for certain principles and you stand for different principles, the comparison between the two of you can keep you focused on what you stand for and can also help make your principles clear to your customers.
For example, imagine you own an air-conditioner repair company and you want to expand into a new region where an existing company is already established. By studying the existing company, you might discover that their competitive edge comes from low prices and high volume. Your company, on the other hand, emphasizes responsive customer service and charges higher prices for it. By highlighting the different values your company stands by, you can attract customers who will be able to clearly see what you stand for because it is so different from your rival.
Defining Yourself as Different From Your Rivals
Sinek’s idea of using another company’s well-known business model to distinctly define your own business model is discussed in famed management book Blue Ocean Strategy by W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, which suggests that you create brand-new products and markets by adjusting a few elements of existing business models. Kim and Mauborgne discuss the success of Cirque du Soleil as an example of how a company can build off an existing, known company model to define itself in a new way.
The company started as a group of street performers in the late 1970s in Quebec called Les Echassiers (the Stiltwalkers). They were moderately successful but were only able to stay financially viable through grants from the Canadian government.
In 1984, they redefined themselves as a novel, contemporary type of circus by renaming themselves Cirque du Soleil. They differentiated themselves from better-known companies like Ringling Brothers by eliminating elements like animals and star performers and instead focusing on innovative venues and artistry, which customers valued more. By appealing to what people already knew about existing circuses, they were able to effectively position themselves as distinctive and unique, and their business took off.
Sinek argues that viewing your competitors as worthy rivals rather than rivals to beat can change your perspective on competition itself, so that you see competition as less of a win-lose dynamic and more of a cooperative effort. When you’re not exclusively focused on beating your competition, you’ll better see how your competitors add value to the economic ecosystem.
He cites the example of Alan Mulally, who took over as CEO of Ford in 2006. Ford weathered the 2008 stock market crash and subsequent recession better than its rivals did. Mulally was summoned to testify before Congress as they debated whether or not to issue a bailout to GM and Chrysler, both of which were close to bankruptcy. Mulally could have argued against the bailout and vanquished his rivals for good, but he saw that destroying them would destroy the suppliers and vendors who serviced the manufacturers, which would end up hurting Ford as well. His ultimate goal was not to vanquish its rivals but to survive among them. Thus, he encouraged Congress to issue the bailout.
Tesla’s Infinite Mindset
Sinek’s ideas here fit into the commonly known framework of zero-sum thinking versus positive-sum thinking. In a zero-sum game, there have to be losers if there are to be winners. In a positive-sum game, the success of some players contributes to the success of all players. People who see their interactions as positive-sum are generally more successful (and happier).
A more recent example of a company putting the good of its industry over its own personal good is Tesla, which, in 2014, made its patents freely available to any competitors who wanted to use them “in good faith” to develop electric vehicles (EV).
In his announcement, CEO Elon Musk referenced his larger vision (in Sinek’s phrasing, his “Just Cause”) to “accelerate the advent of sustainable transport.” He acknowledged that patents that limited other companies’ ability to innovate worked against that vision. He also noted that the company’s “true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day,” and that all EV car companies, including Tesla, will benefit from accessible technology. In doing so, he positioned his EV competitors not as rivals but as partners.
Tesla’s infinite-minded move aligns with Sinek’s concept of viewing competitors as worthy rivals, but with a caveat: While Musk sees other EV brands as worthy rivals, he views combustion-engine brands as rivals to beat. His sharing of patents is clearly aimed at putting EV engines in a stronger competitive position to combustion engines in a win-or-lose game. In this way, he seems to play both an infinite and a finite game at the same time.
Sinek doesn’t speak to the possibility that a leader might play both an infinite and a finite game at the same time, but some critics of the book have noted that in real life, business decisions are often not as clear-cut as Sinek presents. For example, Mulally’s choice discussed above lacks some nuance that most companies face—he was faced with a fairly straightforward decision that would either obliterate his entire industry or allow all players to survive.
However, Sinek might note that Musk sees traditional carmakers as worthy rivals in a different way, in that he defines Tesla’s Just Cause in opposition to their principles and business practices. In this way, Tesla demonstrates that there are many facets to playing an infinite game. By the nature of the game, you will have many different rivals representing many different threats, and your response to each may vary. The important thing is that you approach each rival with a different aspect of an infinite mind.
Sinek observes that sometimes a worthy rival runs out of resources to continue playing the infinite game—for example, a competitor goes bankrupt. When this happens, a company still left in the game might think that they have now “won” the game. However, in an infinite game, no one ultimately wins; the game continues and new players enter.
It might take years before a new rival enters the game. This delay can lead the company still playing to believe that their competition-free game will last forever (this is the “success trap” we referenced earlier). However, eventually, a new player always enters the infinite game.
Sinek discusses how a company that gets lost in the excitement of “winning” when a rival is defeated might lose sight of its long-term Just Cause and might start behaving as if it is immune to future competitive pressures. This can even if the company has, up until that point, operated with an infinite mindset. When this happens, such a company can lose its direction, ultimately leaving it vulnerable to defeat when later, as inevitably happens, another player enters operating under a focused Just Cause of its own.
The Infinite Game Is Always More Than Your Immediate Rival
Though Sinek doesn’t address this specifically, another danger of fixating on your immediate competition is that you may be blinded to seismic changes in your industry’s landscape—often brought on by a third, unexpected rival entering the game.
For example, Coke focused for so long on defeating its rival Pepsi that it failed to see and respond to a new competitor: Red Bull. By 2019, Red Bull had established itself as the market leader in energy drinks, a category in which Coke didn’t even offer a product. Coke finally introduced “Coke Energy” in the U.S. in 2020, to middling reviews in which the company found itself in the novel position of being compared to a market leader rather than setting the standards itself.
When you have a worthy rival, that person or organization can keep you focused on what you stand for. When a worthy rival shows you both what to imitate and what to avoid doing, they can help you define your own Just Cause.
Name a competitor whom you admire in some way—someone (or some organization) who does at least one thing better than you do.
What can that competitor teach you? How can you apply the lessons you might learn from them to your own organization or career?
How might that competitor help you define your own Just Cause, by making the Cause slightly different from theirs?
Sinek’s fourth guideline that prepares you to lead with an infinite mindset is being prepared to pivot on a fundamental, existential level. An existential pivot is a purposeful, dramatic change that a person willingly makes in order to stay true to her Just Cause. It’s a move that pushes her out of her comfort zone and carries a risk of failure but is necessary in order for her to continue to play an infinite game.
Sinek emphasizes that an existential pivot is not a reactive move—a move that someone makes in order to stay alive in the face of difficult challenges. Instead, it’s a move made in anticipation of a future changing climate because you know that at some point, your organization will need to be positioned differently to survive.
Because of the forward-thinking nature of an existential pivot, it’s a move that a person makes when things are going well, when she sees that down the road, she’ll need to be on a different path in order to live up to her Just Cause.
Nintendo’s Proactive Pivot
Nintendo is an example of a company that was doing well in its established business but saw that by pivoting to a different business, it could be more successful over a longer period.
The company was founded in 1889 as a playing card company and was one of Japan’s leading companies throughout the first half of the twentieth century. However, in the 1950s, then-president Hiroshi Yamauchi realized that playing cards had limited potential in the long run, and in the 1960s, the company pivoted to making toys. In 1970, it pioneered a few electronic toys (which became blockbuster sellers) and in the late 1970s started developing and distributing video games, which Yamauchi recognized as a market with enormous potential. The pivot paid off, and Nintendo has since sold some of the most iconic products in the industry, including Donkey Kong, Pokémon, and Game Boy.
Sinek doesn’t address the role that luck may have played in Nintendo’s successful pivot. True, the company was aware of the desires of their market and responded appropriately, but it’s only in hindsight that an observer can say whether or not a company’s gamble on a new strategy was a good one. Many companies respond to changes in the market but don’t end up successful because they run into unexpected obstacles.
Nicholas Taleb discusses the role that luck plays in success in his book Fooled by Randomness. He argues that while thousands of companies and people have similar talents and intelligence, only a few of them will have the luck that allows their talents to flourish—for example, only a few will end up in the right place at the right time to get that first contract that leads to more contracts. He says that people tend to attribute wild success to skill only because they don’t see the multitude of equally skilled people who didn’t end up successful simply because they didn’t have the same fortune.
Taleb might argue that for every successful company like Nintendo, there are countless others that tried to adopt a new business strategy but failed. For example, when Google launched Google Glass, people debated whether they were forward-thinking pioneers or misguided hawkers of a flash-in-the-pan novelty item. The product turned out to be a mistake, but it might be argued that their move was a fundamental pivot that Sinek would have approved of (although he doesn’t mention it in his book).
Regardless, Sinek’s point is that you must be willing to pivot in order to stay relevant over the long run—pivoting is not a guarantee of longevity, but being unwilling to pivot is a guarantee of transience.
Sinek argues that an existential pivot allows a leader to seek out the potential benefits of disruptive change, rather than just to avoid potential threats.
To illustrate, Sinek points to the decision of Steve Jobs, in the early 1980s, to develop a graphical user interface (GUI) for Apple even though the company had already invested millions of dollars in different technology. When Jobs was shown what computers could do with GUI, he recognized it as a technology that would advance his Just Cause: empowering regular people to use computers without needing to know complex, high-level computer language. Consequently, he re-set the direction of his company even though it meant abandoning his current business model and losing money in the process. Four years later, Apple introduced the Macintosh, a computer featuring a GUI, setting the standard for personal computing ever since.
Types of Pivots
Entrepreneur and start-up advisor Eric Ries writes about how a company can use a pivot to redirect its efforts to more profitable avenues in his book The Lean Startup. He notes that pivoting is especially important for start-up companies, as they usually have limited time and funds to find their footing. He also notes that even if your company isn’t outright failing but is instead just getting by, you may want to pivot in order to get on a track where you’re making more progress.
He outlines several different ways in which a company can pivot in order to better take advantage of opportunities:
Zoom in or out: Narrow or expand your product’s focus.
Target new customers or customer needs: Redirect to a different consumer segment or address a different specific problem they have.
Change your sales channel: If you sell through stores, consider selling directly to consumers, or vice versa.
Incorporate new technology: Your entire business model might change with innovative technology, like when Netflix started offering streaming services instead of mail-in DVD rentals.
Jobs’s willingness to abandon all the progress he’d already made in order to adopt a better long-term strategy is a hallmark of an infinite-minded leader, who recognizes that in the face of changing technology or business conditions, if you’re not willing to blow up your own company, someone else inevitably will.
Sinek notes that sometimes, when a company has found success through a certain business model, its leaders are reluctant to abandon that model, mistaking the model itself for their Just Cause (as if their Just Cause is to sell a particular product or service). This can lead them to cling to an outdated business model that has stopped serving their Just Cause, which gives competitors a chance to step in and steal business away from them.
Blockbuster’s Inability to Pivot Led to Its Downfall
In his book The Innovator’s Dilemma, Clayton Christensen discusses how difficult it is for established, well-run companies to pivot because they continue to rely on the same business practices that brought them success up to that point. These practices usually include upgrading their existing offerings to satisfy their existing customers and investing in projects that promise the highest immediate returns. However, in the face of change, these practices often aren’t effective anymore, because a company needs to instead look to serve new customers with new needs.
The rise and fall of video-rental superstore Blockbuster illustrates how relying on tried-and-true operating practices in this way falls into the trap of finite thinking. Blockbuster was founded in 1985 and for the next decade expanded quickly throughout the U.S., opening franchise stores and buying up competitors. In the early 1990s, co-founder Wayne Huizenga recognized the threat that emerging technology like video streaming posed to the company, but didn’t know how to counter it and so sold the company to Viacom. The next CEO, John Antioco, had an opportunity to partner with Netflix in 2000 but turned it down. A few years later, when Antioco finally realized the threat that Netflix posed to his business model, he tried to compete by eliminating late fees and building an online presence.
The online store might have led to a meaningful pivot. In fact, Netflix approached them a second time for a partnership. However, the Blockbuster board couldn’t break from their finite thinking. They were unhappy with the loss of late-fee revenue and the large monetary investment into Blockbuster Online. In 2007, they fired Antioco and replaced him with Jim Keyes, who raised the prices of their online rentals in an effort to claw back some profitability. As a result, Blockbuster Online, which had been quickly catching on with customers, suddenly stopped growing as customers balked at the higher prices, and in 2010, the company went bankrupt.
Because of its finite mindset and its inability to see the customers of the future, Blockbuster proved unable to pivot, let go of obsolete business practices, or see valuable opportunities when they presented themselves.
An existential pivot is a purposeful, dramatic change that a person willingly makes in order to stay true to her Just Cause. It’s a move that pushes her out of her comfort zone and carries a risk of failure but is necessary in order for her to continue to play an infinite game.
Describe a fundamental change that you anticipate coming to your industry. It might be technological, political, or market-based. (Have fun with this, if needed: If there’s nothing you’re currently anticipating, imagine something that might possibly happen, if something changes in the wider world.)
What might you do to prepare your company for this change? How might you adapt in order to stay true to your Just Cause and continue to provide a solution for the greater need you’ve identified, over and above your specific product or service?
Sinek’s fifth and final guideline to follow in developing your infinite mindset is to lead courageously. Leading courageously means working toward a better future, even if doing so puts your own career in jeopardy.
Sinek notes that when you lead courageously, you might take risks that investors warn against—not just any risks (as finite-minded leaders take risks, too), but specifically, risks that help you follow your Just Cause.
He cautions that it can be difficult to take such risks because they can lower a company’s profitability in the short term, which won’t please investors who want to see immediate shareholder returns or employees who are concerned with their job security. But sometimes risks that decrease immediate profits are the best way to ensure a company’s health in the long run.
Sinek points to an oft-cited example of the convenience store and pharmacy CVS Health, which demonstrated courageous leadership in 2014 when it decided to stop selling cigarettes in an effort to better serve its customers through its Just Cause. CVS’s Just Cause is “Helping people on their path to better health,” and its executives decided that selling cigarettes went against this mission. Wall Street analysts and industry watchers predicted that CVS would lose not only cigarette sales but also ancillary purchase sales made by people buying cigarettes, and that the company would consequently lose market share and profits. CVS’s stock price dropped 7% the day they announced the plan.
However, the dire predictions didn’t pan out. Remarkably, people didn’t switch to buying cigarettes from competitors—instead, they simply stopped buying as many cigarettes. In states where CVS had a large presence, cigarette sales dropped by one percent across all retailers. Further, sales of nicotine patches increased, indicating that CVS’s decision indeed encouraged smokers to quit and therefore promoted the company’s Just Cause of helping people get healthy. Nor did the company experience the financial difficulties that many analysts predicted. Customers and employees supported the move and rewarded the company with good press and loyalty. A year and a half after the plan was announced, CVS’s stock price had doubled.
In 2019, five years after CVS stopped selling cigarettes, CEO Larry Merlo reflected on how the decision had impacted their business and their strategy. He remarked that the company’s clear and consistent message on improving health gave them a competitive advantage over rival firms, and it paved the way for CVS’s acquisition of health insurer Aetna in 2018. That acquisition will allow them to continue to work toward their ultimate goal of helping people get healthy. Merlo noted that the company’s actions “show that the private sector can have a real impact in addressing the country’s greatest social challenges, without having to sacrifice the pursuit of success.”
On an additional note, CVS’s acquisition of Aetna was, in and of itself, demonstrative of the company’s infinite mindset as it was a fundamental pivot that set them on a new path. It evolved from being simply a retail pharmacy to being a central part of its customers’ health. Its Just Cause allowed it to make strong, consistent business decisions even as it changed its practical operations.
Sinek points out that it’s not uncommon for a person or company to veer from their infinite path and start thinking and acting finitely. When that happens, it takes great courage to correct your course and redirect to an infinite path again.
Sometimes a company will lose its infinite mindset when a new CEO takes over and puts the company on a more profit-oriented, short-term-driven path (such as when Jim Keyes took over Blockbuster, as we discussed earlier).
But sometimes a company can lose its way when it gets distracted by its own success. This can happen when a leader starts believing her own hype and thinks she’s solely responsible for the organization’s success. This attitude often leads a leader to pursue fame or wealth while ignoring (or sometimes even opposing) the organization’s Just Cause. Then, that leader will often blame resulting problems that come from this finite-minded attitude on other people and may institute more rigid structures and rules to try to fix things, setting the company on a finite-minded path that’s difficult to correct.
Success Can Lead to Ego; Ego Leads to Finite Thinking
Ryan Holiday discusses this phenomenon in more detail in his book Ego Is the Enemy. He notes that successful leaders become successful because of positive characteristics: They are constantly learning, are open to feedback and criticism, and aim to do something important rather than be someone important. However, once in power, surrounded by people constantly telling them how amazing they are, they often abandon these qualities and instead resist learning new things (convinced of their own wisdom), close off to feedback or criticism (insistent that they can do no wrong), and become more concerned with being someone important rather than doing something important.
Holiday doesn’t use the same framework of an infinite mindset as Sinek does, but the recommendations of the two authors align: Essentially, they both advise that a leader put her cause before her own ego.
Sinek argues that an infinite-minded leader prioritizes the health, safety, and happiness of her customers and employees over the immediate profits of the company, and consequently, the company gets stronger in the long run. This is because when customers feel valued and prioritized, they tend to feel loyal to your company, and when employees feel valued, they are more motivated.
Further, when a company prioritizes the needs of its employees, it’s less likely to run into expensive labor disputes which can not only decrease its profits but can also cost the company public goodwill, translating into lost sales. An infinite-minded leader knows that fostering a culture of collaboration, cooperation, and trust is the best way to build a resilient company.
Sinek describes the practice of prioritizing people as “will before resources.” He defines will as the intangible emotions that employees have regarding your company, like morale, commitment, and engagement. He defines resources as money in all its forms, including profits, cash flow, stock price, and so on.
He argues that all truly successful companies are those who put elements like morale and commitment before elements like profit and revenue, because they end up with a more devoted workforce that more freely gives their time and efforts to the Just Cause of the company.
Importantly, Sinek points out that this does not mean ignoring profits and thinking only of people. The bias toward prioritizing emotions need only be slight—he uses the example of restaurateur Danny Meyer, who famously coined the “51 percent rule,” which meant that when evaluating potential hires, managers weighed 51 percent of their decision on an applicant’s emotional intelligence and 49 percent on their skills.
Trader Joe’s Found Success Putting People First
Other management books have also noted the importance of valuing people over profits. In The Hard Thing About Hard Things, Ben Horowitz advises companies to prioritize in this order: people, products, profits. By “people,” Horowitz specifically means “employees,” but Sinek expands that definition to mean employees, customers, and the wider world—anyone who interacts with the company (like suppliers) as well as the surrounding community.
Grocery store Trader Joe’s has made a name for itself by putting people first, and it’s known for valuing both its customers and its employees. The company puts its customers front and center in its mission statement: “We are committed to providing our customers outstanding value in the form of the best quality products at the best everyday prices.” They aim to have their customers think, “Wow! That was enjoyable, and I got a great deal. I look forward to coming back!” As a result of their customer-friendly focus, they have a fiercely loyal customer base and are frequently ranked among stores with the highest customer satisfaction.
They are also known for treating their workers well and are consistently ranked among the best places to work by employees. To show they value their employees, they pay them well, allow flexible hours, and offer health care. Because they make employee satisfaction a central part of their strategy, rather than a peripheral part with tacked-on benefits like yoga classes or extra-fun break rooms, they align with Sinek’s theories on the inclusive nature of a Just Cause—they aim to build a trusting team of excited workers dedicated to a mission.
Good employee relations coupled with an enthusiastic customer base has allowed the company to do well, consistently opening new stores and leading the industry in sales per square foot.
Sinek emphasizes that to truly lead with an infinite mindset, your Just Cause must be more than merely words; you must act on it. Otherwise, it’s nothing but a marketing slogan. Unfortunately, there are plenty of companies who do this—they adopt a lofty statement of values but do nothing to live up to that statement. For example, both Walgreens and Rite Aid loudly publicize their commitments to health on their websites, but neither has followed CVS’s lead and stopped selling cigarettes.
Sometimes, when a company publicizes a Just Cause but does not live up to it, it defends its actions by pointing to laws that allow its unethical behavior. Sinek uses Rite Aid as an example, relating that when the company was asked if they were planning to stop selling cigarettes, it responded by saying it sells a wide variety of products in accordance with existing law. This attitude essentially hands the responsibility for its own Just Cause to “the system.” Sinek maintains that courageous leaders don’t do this. They hold their companies to higher standards than the minimum requirements of the law.
It Comes Down to Credibility
If your actions match your words, you have credibility. Sinek is not alone in noting the importance of credibility: In the previously mentioned book The Leadership Challenge, Kouzes and Posner maintain that credibility is the foundation of effective leadership and is at the center of trust between an organization and the public.
The authors contend that credibility is born of three elements: honesty, competence, and inspiration. If people feel you or your organization tells the truth, is able to live up to that truth, and is working towards a better vision of the future, they are far more likely to trust you, work with you, and give you their business.
To truly lead with an infinite mindset, your Just Cause must be more than merely words; you must act on it. Otherwise, it’s nothing but a marketing slogan.
Think of a company—either one you’ve worked for or one you’re familiar with—that does things that don’t align with their stated mission. (For example, you might think of a national company that advertises excellent worker relations but is often in the press with labor problems, or a local restaurant that proclaims their commitment to customer service but employs surly waiters.)
How has this company experienced negative consequences of the misalignment of its actions with its stated beliefs? (Does it get bad reviews? Does it have high employee turnover?)
How would you advise that company to change if you were in charge? What steps would you take to align the organization’s actions with its Just Cause?
Sinek notes that people are starting to question Friedman’s philosophies about business existing only to serve an elite class of owners, and are starting to recognize that there are other important reasons that companies exist.
Part of what’s driving this change is a rethink of the role of shareholders in a corporation. While economists and investors talk about shareholders as if they are owners of a company (because technically, they are), a more accurate analogy would be to think of shareholders as renters, rather than owners. Watch any show advising people on stocks and it’s clear that the analysts are giving people advice on how to buy and flip a stock, rather than how to find a stock for long-term ownership.
To build resilient companies equipped for the infinite game, leaders need to stop thinking of shareholders as owners to whom the company owes everything, and instead start thinking of them as just one contributor among other contributors. Investors contribute funds, employees contribute time and energy, customers contribute sales that keep the company afloat, and suppliers and the larger economy contribute the infrastructure the company uses to operate. Companies need to make decisions with all of these various contributors in mind, not only shareholders, in order to create long-lasting, resilient organizations.
Changing Times
The publication of Sinek’s book coincided with changing cultural attitudes towards capitalism and the purpose of corporations. In his book, Sinek points to the rise of organizations devoted to helping guide companies to more infinite-minded visions, like Conscious Capitalism and The B Team as proof of such a cultural shift. He says to successfully become more infinite-minded, corporations must replace Friedman’s narrow-minded focus on profits with a more inclusive three-pronged focus:
Purpose (a Just Cause)
People (employees, customers, and people living around us)
Profits (which are necessary to make possible the first two elements)
We can see this more infinite-minded view of corporate strategy growing in popularity. B Corporations that require companies to adhere to social and environmental priorities are becoming more common, and in 2019, a coalition of around 200 executives of leading American firms signed on to a statement saying the purpose of business is no longer primarily to serve shareholders, but instead to serve all Americans, including customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, and the wider community.
Many of the participating leaders released statements noting how important it has become to consider the long-term and wider implications of business decisions. As we move deeper into the 21st century, Sinek’s theories continue to both reflect and influence a growing movement towards infinite thinking.