Transcript for #82 – Simon Sinek: Leadership, Hard Work, Optimism and the Infinite Game

Go for the start with the softball. Easy question first. So James Carson was the philosopher who originally articulated this concept of the finite infinite games. And when I learned about it, it really challenged my view of how the world works, right? Because I think we all think about winning and being the best in being number one. But if you think about it, Only in a finite game can that exist, a game that has fixed rules, agreed upon objectives, and known players, like football or baseball. There's always a beginning middle and end, and if there's a winner that has to be a loser. Infinite games, as Christ describes them, as you said, have known and unknown players, which means anyone can join. It has a changeable rules which means you can play wherever you want, and the objective is to perpetuate the game, to stay in the game as long as possible. In other words, there's no such thing as being number one or winning in a game that has no finish line. And what I learned is that when we try to win in a game that has no finish line, we try to be number, we try to be the best in a game that has no agreed upon objectives or agreed upon metrics or timeframes. There's a few consistent and predictable outcomes, the decline of trust, the decline of cooperation, the decline of innovation. And I find this fascinating, because so many of the ways that we run most organizations is with the finite mindset.

Well, if you think about our tombstones, right? They have the date we were born and the date we died. But really it's what we do with the gap in between. There's a poem called the dash. You know, it's the dash that matters. It's what we do between the time we're born and the time we die that gives our life meaning. And if we live our lives with a finite mindset, which means to accumulate more power of money than anybody else to outdo everyone else to be number one to be the best, we don't take any of us with us. We don't take any of it with us. We just die. The people who get remembered the way we want to be remembered is how what kind of people we were, right, devoted mother loving father, what kind of person we were to other people. Jack Welch just died recently, and the Washington Post, when it wrote the headline for his, for his obit, it wrote, he pleased Wall Street and distressed employees. And that's his legacy, a finite player who is obsessed with winning, who leaves behind a legacy of short-term gains for a few and distressed for many. That's his legacy, and every single one of us gets the choice of the kind of legacy we want to have. Do we want to be remembered for our contributions or our detractions? To live with a finite mindset, to live a career with a finite mindset, to be number one, be the best, be the most famous. like Jack Welch, you know, to live a life of service, to see those around us rise, to contribute to our communities, to our organizations, to leave them in better shape than we found them. That's the kind of legacy most of us would like to have.

So for me, it's about having a just cause. It's about a vision that's bigger than me that my work gets to contribute to something larger than myself. You know, that's what drives me every day. I wake up every morning with a vision of a world that does not exist, a world in which the vast majority of people wake up every single morning inspired feel safe at work and return home fulfilled at the end of the day. There's not the world we live in. And so that we still have work to do is the thing that drives me. I know what my underlying values are. I wake up to inspire people to do the things that inspire them. These are my go-tos, my touch points. that inspire me to keep working. You know, I think of a career like an iceberg. You know, if you have a vision for something, you're the only one who can see the iceberg underneath the ocean. But if you start working at it, a little bit shows up. And now a few other people can see what you're imagined be like, oh, right. Yeah, no, I want to help build that as well. And if you have a lot of success, then you have a lot of iceberg. And people can see this huge iceberg and they say you've accomplished so much. But what I see is all the work still yet to be done. You know, I still see the huge iceberg underneath the ocean.

Well, it necessarily is incremental. What drives me is that is the realization, is realizing the iceberg, bringing more of the iceberg from the unknown to the known, bringing more of the vision from the imagination to reality.

Yeah, so I mean for me optimism and being an optimist is just seeing the silver lining at every cloud. You know, even in tragedy, it brings people together. And the question is, can we see that? Can you see the beauty that is in everything? I don't think optimism is foolishness. I don't think optimism is blindness. though it probably involves some naivete, the belief that things will get better, the belief that we tend towards the good, even in times of struggle or bad. You can't sustain war, but you can sustain peace. I think things that are stable are more sustainable. Things that are optimistic are more sustainable than things that are chaotic.

I mean, you don't have to, you, I think war is costly, you know, it involves life and money. And peace does not involve those things. It requires work. I'm not saying it doesn't require work. But it, it doesn't drain resources. I think the same way that war does.

I mean, idealist. And I think idealism is good. I'm not a fool to believe that the ideals that I imagine can come true. Of course, they'll never be world peace. But shouldn't we die trying? I think that's the whole point. That's the whole point of vision. Vision should be idealistic, and it should be full practical purposes impossible. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. And it's the milestones that we reach that take us closer to that ideal that make us feel that our life and our work have meaning and we're contributing to something bigger than ourselves. You know, we just because it's impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't try. As I said, we're still moving the ball down the field. We're still making progress. Things are still getting better, even if we never get to that ideal state. So I think idealism is a good thing.

I think some people believe that it ends on the day you die and some people think it continues on.

I definitely haven't accomplished everything I want to contribute to. I would like more time on this Earth to keep working towards that vision.

Of course, I'm cognizant of it. I mean, aren't we all? I don't dwell on it. I'm aware of it. I know that my life is finite, and I know that I have a certain amount of time left on this planet, and I'd like to make that time be valuable.

But the fact that we know that it doesn't

Well, it's very nice of you. I mean, I would like my ideas to live on beyond me because I think that is a good test that those ideas have value in the lives of others. I think that's a good test that others would continue to talk about or share the ideas long after I'm gone. I think is perhaps the greatest complement one can get for one's own work. It's very, but I don't think it's my awareness of my mortality that drives me to do it. It's my desire to contribute that drives me to do it.

I mean, for years, I hated that my name was attached to it. You know, I had a rule for years that I wouldn't have my face on the front page of the website. You know, I had a fight with the publisher because I didn't want my name big on the book I wanted it tiny on the book because I kept telling them it's not about me it's about the ideas they wanted for my name on the top of my book I refused none of my books have my names on the top because I won't I won't let them they would like very much to put my name on the top of the book but the idea has to be bigger than me I'm not bigger than the idea as beautifully put do you think ego but I also am aware that I've become I'm become recognized as the messenger. And even though I still think the message is bigger than me, I recognize that I have a responsibility as the messenger. And whether I like it or not is irrelevant, I accept the responsibility. I'm happy to do it.

Probably. I think that's a short term strategy. I think if you sacrifice your health for the work, at some point it catches up with you and at some point it's like going going and you get sick. Your body will shut down for you if you refuse to take care of yourself. You get sick. It's what happens sometimes more severe illness than something that just slows you down. So I think taking Like getting sleep, I mean, they've been studies on this that, you know, executives, for example, who get a full-night sleep and stop at unreasonable hour actually accomplish more or more productive than people who work and burn the midnight oil because their brains are working better because they're well-rested. So, you know, working hard, yes, but one not work smart. I think that giving our minds and our bodies rest makes us more efficient. I think just driving driving driving driving is a short term strategy.

as long as it's not sustainable. It's not sustainable. Sure. If you're investing all that energy in something at the beginning to get it up and running, then at some point you're going to have to slow down or your body will slow you down for you. You can choose your body can choose. I mean, so, okay, so you don't think, from my perspective, it feels like people have gotten a little bit soft, but you're saying, no, I think that there seems evidence that working harder and later have taken a back seat in I think we have to be careful with broad generalizations. But I think if you go into the workplace, there are people who would complain that more people now than before, look at their watches and say, well, it's five o'clock, go by, right? Now, is that a problem with the people? You're saying it's that people giving themselves excuses and people don't work hard or is that the organizations aren't giving them something to believe in something to be passionate about. We can't manufacture a passion. You can't just tell someone be passionate. It's not how it works. Patients in output, not an input. If I believe in something and I want to contribute all that energy to do it, we call that passion. Working hard for something we love is passion. Working hard for something we don't care about is called stress. But we're working hard either way. So I think the organizations bear some accountability and our leaders bear some accountability, which is if they're not offering a sense of purpose, if they're not offering a sense of cause, if they're not telling us that our work is worth more than simply the money it makes, then yeah, I'm going to come up with a clock because I don't really care about making you money. Remember, we live in a world right now where a lot of people, rather a few people, are getting rich on the hard work of others. And so I think when people look up and say, well, why would I do that? I'll just, if you're not going to look after me, and then you're going to lay me off at the end of the year because you missed your arbitrary projections. You're going to lay me off because you missed your arbitrary projections. Then why would I offer my hard work and loyalty to you? So I think I don't think we can immediately blame people for going soft. I think we can blame leaders for their inability or failure to offer their people something bigger than making a product or making money.

Yeah, there's mutual responsibility. There's mutual accountability. I mean, we're responsible as individuals to find the organizations and find the leaders that inspire us and organizations are responsible for maintaining that flame and giving people who believe, but they believed, you know, a chance to contribute.

But it's not my favorite movie.

I mean short term. I mean look, being hard on someone is not the same as toxicity. If you go to the Marine Corps, a drill instructor will be very hard on their Marines. But still, even in the last day of boot camp, they'll take their head off and they'll become a human. But of all the drill instructors, the three or four main drill instructors assigned to a group of recruits, the one that they all want the respective is the one that's the hardest on them. That's true. And you hear, you know, there's plenty of stories of people who want to earn their respect of a, of a hard parent or a hard teacher. But fundamental that parent, that teacher, that drill instructor has to believe in that person, has to see potential. It's not, it's not a formula, which is if I'm hard on people, they'll do well, which is there has to still be love. It has to be done with absolute love, and it has to be done responsibly. I mean, some people can take a little more pressure than others, but it's not, I don't, I think it's irresponsible to think of it as a formula, that if I'm just toxic at people, they will do well. It depends on their personalities. First of all, it works for some but not all. And second of all, it can't be done willingly. It has to still be done with care and love. And sometimes you can get equal or better results without all of the toxicity.

And jobs was hard and Amazon is hard. But the thing that's important is none of them lie about it. People ask me about Amazon all the time, like Jeff Bezos never lied about it. You know, even the ones who like Amazon don't last more than a couple years before they burn out. But when we're honest about the culture, then it gives people the opportunity who like to work in that kind of culture, to choose to work in that kind of culture, has supposed to pretending and saying, oh, no, this is all, you know, it's all lovey, lovey here, and then you show up and it's the furthest thing from it. So, I mean, you know, I think the reputations are putting a lot of pressure on people to You know, Jobs was not an easy man to work for. He pushed people, but everyone who worked there was given the space to create and do things that they would not have been able to do anywhere else and work at a level that didn't work anywhere else. And Jobs didn't have all the answers. I mean, he pushed his people to come up with answers. He wasn't just looking for people to execute his ideas. And people did. People accomplished more than they thought they were capable of, which is wonderful.

Yeah. So I think there's a difference between someone who can get a lot about, get a lot out of people in the short term and building an organization that can sustain beyond any individual.

Like could Tesla continue to do what is doing without Elon Musk?

I don't know. You know, the argument you're making of this person who pushes everyone, arguably is not a repeatable model. Is Apple the same without Steve Jobs? Or is it slowly moving in a different direction? Or has he established something that could be resurrected with the right leader?

I think that's what a lot of leaders desire, which is to create something that was bigger than them. Most businesses, most entrepreneurial ventures, could not pass the school bus test, which is if the founder was hit by a school bus, would everyone continue the business without them or would they all just go find jobs? And the vast majority of companies would fail that test, especially in the entrepreneurial world, that if you take the inspired visionary leader away, the whole thing collapses. So is that a business or is that just a force of personality? And a lot of entrepreneurs face that reality, which is they have to be in every meeting, make every decision come up with every idea, because if they don't, who will? And the question is, well, what have you done to build your bench? It's not sometimes it's ego, the belief that only I can. Sometimes it's just things got, did so well for so long that just forgot. And sometimes it's a failure. to build the training programs or hire the right people that could replace you, who are maybe smarter and better. And brow-beating people is only one strategy. I don't think it's necessarily the only strategy nor is it always the best strategy. I think people get to choose the cultures they want to work in. So this is why I think companies should be honest about the kind of culture that they've created. You know, I heard a story about Apple, where somebody came in from a big company. You know, he accomplished a lot, and his ego was very large, and he was going on about how he did this, and he did that, and he did this, and he did that. And somebody from Apple said, we don't care what you've done. The question is, what are you gonna do? And that's, you know, for somebody who wants to be pushed, that's the place you go, because you choose to be pushed. Now, we all want to be pushed to some degree, you know, anybody who wants to, you know, accomplish anything in this world wants to be pushed to some degree, whether it's through self-pressure or external pressure or, you know, public pressure, whatever it is. But I think this whole idea of one size fits all is a false narrative of how leadership works, but what all leadership requires is creating an environment in which people can work at their natural best.

I mean, what Bill Gates built with Microsoft? may not have survived Steve Bulmer if the company weren't so rich, but such in our dollars putting it back on track again. It's become a visionary company again. It's attracting great talent again. It went through a period where they couldn't get the best talent and the best talent was leaving. Now people want to work for Microsoft again. Well, that's not because of pressure. Balmer put more pressure on people mainly to hit numbers than anything else. That didn't work. Yes, right? And so the question is, is what kind of pressure are we putting on people? We're putting on pressure people to hit numbers or hit arbitrary deadlines or putting on pressure on people because we believe that they can do better work. And the work that we're trying to do is to advance a vision that's bigger than all of us. And if you're going to put pressure on people, it better be for the right reasons. Like if you're going to put pressure on me, it better be for a worthwhile reason. If it's just a hit a goal, if it's just to hit some arbitrary data, some arbitrary number or make a stock price, hit some target, you can keep it. I'm out of here. But if you want to put pressure on me because we are brothers and sisters and arms. working to advance a cause bigger than ourselves that we believe whatever we're going to build will significantly contribute to the greater good of society then go ahead I'll take the pressure and if you look at the apples and if you look at the the the the the the the Elon Musk's you know the jobs in the Elon Musk they fundamentally believe that what they were doing would improve society and and it was for the good of humankind and so the pressure In other words, the, what they were doing was more important, more valuable than any individual in the team. And so the pressure they put on people served a greater good. And so we, we, we looked to the, we looked to the right to each other and said, we're in this together. We accept this. We want this. But if it's just pressure to hit a number or, you know, make the widget and move a little faster. Yeah. And that's so sucking. That's not passion. That's stress. And I think a lot of leaders confuse that making people work hard is not what makes them passionate. Giving them something to believe in. And work on is what drives passion.

Oh, just well. I would probably want to fill all of my senses with things that excite my senses. I'd want to look at beautiful art. I'd want to listen to beautiful music. I'd want to taste incredible food. I'd want to smell amazing tastes. I'd want to touch, you know. something that's beautiful to touch. I'd want all of my senses to just be consumed with things that I find beautiful.

What do we talk about? No, no. There's probably going to be a Beatles song in there. There'll definitely be some Beethoven in there. The classics.