top of page
Search

A Win/Lose Proposition

Writer's picture: Doug WeissDoug Weiss

Updated: May 31, 2020


I am deep in the midst of a fascinating book by Simon Sinek, author of Start With Why. I’ve written before about Sinek-whose insightful reflections on leadership, innovation, learning and related topics never fail to send me on a course of wide-ranging investigation. In The Infinite Game, Sinek explores how individuals, corporations and organizations engage in unsustainable contests based on a belief in a win or lose outcome.

Based in large part on game theory, Sinek lays out the case for two distinct types of ‘games’ and those who play them. Games in this context is about more than sports or similar competitions which Sinek describes as finite because they have a distinct beginning and end, clearly defined rules of play, and identified competitors. In contrast, infinite games have no end point; the outcome for an infinite game is sustainability rather than winning. Neither do they have rules that can be easily quantified—in fact, infinite gaming assumes the rules will change, often abruptly, and requires adaptability in the face of ever-changing circumstances. Finally, infinite gamers regard others who may be contending in the same arena as worthy opponents. They do not seek to win at the expense of others, their goal isn’t even focused on the contest itself, but a larger purpose. Sinek calls this purpose a noble cause—we might think of it in an altruistic sense as a vision.

If this sounds a bit naïve perhaps an example or two will serve to illustrate the point. The Kodak company, which was founded by George Eastman was, in its heyday, an industrial giant that was the dominant player in many fields; not just photography but all manner of imaging and chemical products. Eastman’s cause, was not to become an industrial giant, but rather to make low cost photography accessible to everyone. Arguably, every decision Eastman made was intended to perpetuate this objective, including his significant philanthropy which led to the creation of Universities and other organizations the sole purpose of which was clearly not profit driven. Eastman, in Sinek’s estimation was an infinite gamer.

In contrast, Sinek tells the cautionary tale of Microsoft’s successor CEO, Steven Ballmer, by many accounts a highly successful corporate leader for over a decade. A prototypical competitor, Ballmer sought to dominate –winning was his end game and he kept score by counting revenues and earnings. There is of course nothing inherently wrong in running a successful organization that is profitable, but as Sinek observes, under Ballmer, Microsoft became so obsessed with playing a dominant role that he lost sight of any other cause and eventually found Microsoft dealt out of entire industries. Perhaps the most notable of these was telephony—which Ballmer famously dismissed at the introduction of Apple’s iPhone—as a fringe activity.


Ballmer's goal was to ensure that Microsoft software was on any and every device. As a result, Apple became a huge player in an industry in which it had no prior experience, while Microsoft software is conspicuously absent. What was Apple’s noble cause? To create devices that helped people gain access to information, education, and entertainment and provide tools for personal productivity. Apple was so focused on this objective that it was willing to sacrifice a multi-billion-dollar business in which it was the acknowledged leader. iPhone sales outstripped those of the iPod within just a few years and went on to become the lynchpin of Apple’s success.

So, what does this mean to us—to our everyday lives? Sinek urges us to consider our noble cause, the future facing purpose we have for ourselves and the world in which we live. This isn’t, to be clear, our reason for being, or what Sinek calls our Why. That is about who we are—the origin story that defines our individual character. Perhaps a better way to put this might be to ask what we want as our legacy? There are those who dismiss noble causes as Quixote-ish tilting against windmills. They are focused on getting ahead, securing a stable and by most definitions, successful life. But as Sinek notes, stability is another word for a fixed unchanging destination and if life has taught us anything it is that change is constant. Especially now, that should be apparent to us as our lives and our so-called security are upended in ways that will be lasting.

I don’t want to suggest that I have the answers. My own noble cause is evolving—not so much reactive to the present as to the future. What will the world I leave to the next generation look like? How can I adapt to uncertainty and help others to see change as an opportunity and not a threat? What is my hope for humanity in the midst of our current challenge? These and similar thoughts occupy my days right now. They are not easy questions but I welcome them, understanding that the destination is the journey itself.


9 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Experience

It is often said that we humans learn best through experience. Certainly we seek those with experience to lead, whether it is in work,...

In the beginning was the word

As sometimes happens, an episode of LoveLife.digital , the podcast series Alvean Lyons and I created, began playing on the car audio the...

Self-reliance

Self-reliance is an enduring theme of the American zeitgeist. Our stories, the mythology that attends our history as a nation, and the...

Subscribe and we'll send you new posts every week

  • Facebook Social Icon

© 2023 by Life, Love & Internet Dating. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page