47 pages • 1 hour read
Simon SinekThe Infinite Game
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2018A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Part 2Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Part 2, Chapter 2 Summary: “Just Cause”
Sinek begins Chapter 2 by recounting Russian families taking extreme survival measures during the Nazi occupation of Leningrad. He also describes how Nikolai Vavilov, a Russian botanist, worked all his career to ensure “hundreds of thousands of seeds and tons of potatoes, rice, nuts and cereal” remained in storage in Leningrad (29). However, Vavilov was a victim of Stalin’s purges and died at 55. After his death, Vavilov’s team of scientists continued his work. They even refused to eat from the bounty of food in the face of starvation. Sinek believes the “scientists who carried on Vavilov’s work during the siege felt like they were a part of something bigger than themselves” (32), that this “just cause” was an infinite game, not the finite game of enduring a single siege.
The infinite game is not played to win, but to keep playing. Leaders who wish to keep playing the infinite game must have a clear just cause: “A Just Cause is a specific vision of a future state that does not yet exist; a future state so appealing that people are willing to make sacrifices in order to help advance toward that vision” (32-33). A just cause makes the tiresome, sometimes sacrificial activities of a job or career fulfilling. A just cause generates a love of such work.
Sinek differentiates the just cause from the “why”: A just cause is a vision for the future, and a why is about the past, the sum of values that make up who we are. Whereas a why is fixed and singular for a person or organization, a just cause can be mutable and multiple. A just cause requires constant improvements and pivots in order to realize one’s vision. Sinek compares a why to the foundation of a house and a just cause to the “ideal vision of the house we hope to build” (34). For example, the founding fathers of the United States made their just cause into the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” (35). Both Vavilov and the founding fathers worked to carry out their visions of the world past their own lifetimes.
Sinek notes most organizations have mission statements or visions that they use to inspire their employees and supporters. However, he doesn’t qualify these as just causes. He reinforces this point through Vizio, a Californian manufacturer of televisions and speakers: On their website, they write “that they exist to ‘deliver high performance, smarter products with the latest innovations at a significant savings that we can pass along to our consumers’” (36-37). Sinek finds this statement true but uninspiring as it offers no cause or sense of vision.
Sinek provides five criteria for a just cause:
- For something—affirmative and optimistic
- Inclusive—open to all those who would like to contribute
- Service oriented—for the primary benefit of others
- Resilient—able to endure political, technological, and cultural change
- Idealistic—big, bold, and ultimately unachievable (37).
Being for something means feeling inspired and filling people with a similar optimism. Inclusivity pertains to a feeling of belonging and community. Leaders with an infinite mindset search for followers who share their passion for a just cause; followers include employees, customers, and investors willing to sacrifice for a vision. To be service oriented, an organization must contribute to their beneficiaries more than their contributors: Leaders should contribute more to their employees, employees should contribute more to customers, and investors should contribute more to the organization. To be resilient involves supporting a just cause that is greater than the products or services offered by one’s organization. For example, the American railroad industry could’ve anticipated automobiles and airlines if they focused on their vision—to transport people across the country—instead of their product—trains. To be idealistic means imagining a vision that exceeds plausibility in the present. For example, the Declaration of Independence, which originally referred to “white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant men” (46), comprises language that allows for the expansion of civil liberties and human rights beyond the founding fathers’ vision. A just cause must imagine an idealized version of the future that future generations can pursue. Sinek recommends readers to write their just cause, as doing so increases the likelihood of their vision coming to fruition: “A Just Cause that is preserved on paper can be handed down from generation to generation; a founder’s instinct cannot” (49).
Part 2, Chapter 3 Summary: “Cause. No Cause”
Sinek begins Chapter 3 by explaining the pitfalls that leaders face when they adopt a false cause, as opposed to a just cause. A false cause may use the language and meet some of the criteria of a just cause, but unless leaders meet all five criteria for a just cause, they won’t have a real just cause for people to rally behind. Sometimes, organizations mistake their corporate social responsibility for a just cause. Other times, leaders develop “imposter causes” that vaguely suggest a desire for excellence by mistaking growth for purpose (51). A just cause depends on intentional, meaningful language that conveys the passions and beliefs of organizations.
Sinek uses a moon shot to describe false causes: The moon shot is a finite, albeit lofty, goal that strives to do what appears impossible. The name derives from President John F. Kennedy’s initiative to put an American man on the moon. Although the goal was “affirmative and specific […] inclusive, service oriented, and definitely worth the sacrifice,” the moon mission was an “achievable, finite goal” (52). This means that once it was achieved, leaders and followers would have nothing tangible to reflect their efforts or necessarily inspire new efforts. Sinek adopts a term devised by Jim Collins, author of Good to Great and Built to Last, to describe the moon-shot cause: BHAG, a big, hairy, audacious goal. In contrast, General Electric (GE) under Jack Welch promoted small, clean-cut goals. Welch believed short-term goals provided employees with incentive to work, the thrill of winning consistently. However, employees complained about GE’s lack of long-term vision because they felt as though their work didn’t have a lasting impact.
Sinek believes Kennedy’s moon-shot cause was part of the larger infinite game established by the founding fathers of the United States. Notions of human rights, progress, and exploration were not necessarily developed within Kennedy’s finite mindset, but rather centuries ago with the founding of America. Sinek declares, “Moon shots are bold, inspiring finite goals within the Infinite Game, not instead of the Infinite Game” (54).
Sinek then discusses the egocentrism he often sees when he helps companies. For example, Garmin’s mission statement is “We will be the global leader in every market we serve and our products will be sought after for their compelling design, superior quality, and best value” (54). Sinek finds statements like these generic and vague without any mention of the company’s infinite mindset. They prioritize product over purpose: In this case, once a competitor or innovation surpasses the quality of a product, the company’s purpose disappears, along with their profit. To Sinek, this is what happened to Garmin after smartphones started offering GPS apps and services.
Mission statements that only focus on products harm company culture. When companies place too much emphasis on their technology or engineering, the employees outside of these departments end up feeling like “second-class citizens in their own companies” (56). Infinite-minded leaders strive to improve all areas of their organizations. With that said, many finite-minded leaders use vague language about “growth” when they should be providing context and purpose for this growth. For example, money is a means to a just cause, not the end itself. Finite-minded companies base success on growth through investment, acquisition, mergers, or release of new products. Growth for its own sake leads to a finite, unhealthy corporate culture that thrives on egocentrism. Moreover, Sinek explains why corporate social responsibility is not a just cause: Corporate social responsibility is “business-speak for charity” and, though commendable, does not provide a company with an infinite-minded vision to declare a just cause (59).
Part 2, Chapter 4 Summary: “Keeper of the Cause”
Sinek begins Chapter 4 by telling the story of Walmart and its initial vision for business. Sam Walton, who founded Walmart in 1962, initially wanted to serve the average, working-class American and lower the cost of living for everyone. This was the just cause that propelled him from a child of poverty during the Great Depression to one of the richest men in America by the end of his life. Then, Walmart’s vision changed: The company became obsessed with “profit, growth, and dominance at the expense of the very Cause that drove their success in the first place” (62). Walton’s successor, Mike Duke, an efficient manager with proven success in business, took over in 2009. Yet Duke prioritized “growing market shares and returns” over employees and customers (63). In 2012, Walmart faced the largest employment discrimination class action suit ever filed against a company. Workers walked out and protested their non-living wages and poor working conditions. Moreover, Walmart faced a congressional investigation regarding potential bribery of foreign officials. Sinek compares Duke’s tenure at Walmart to Steve Ballmer’s at Microsoft, John Sculley’s at Apple, Robert Nardelli’s at Home Depot, and Kevin Rollins’s at Dell. Despite their expertise, these men failed to adopt an infinite mindset. They instead focused on finite goals—numbers—to measure success, all the while forgetting the employees and customers who determine an organization’s culture and longevity.
The title of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) provides little understanding of what is required of the role. Leaders often believe “executive” means “winning” a finite game, so Sinek proposes an alternative title called the Chief Vision Officer (CVO):
They are the holder, communicator, and protector for the vision. Their job is to ensure that all clearly understand the Just Cause and that all other C-level executives direct their efforts to advancing the Cause inside the organization (66).
Sinek differentiates the role of CVO from the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or Chief Operations Officer (COO). While CFOs and COOs may see the administration of an organization clearly, they often fail to reinforce the organizational vision. Sinek recommends that organizations be run in tandem, with CVOs and CFOs or COOs working together. This way, CFOs and COOs can cultivate an infinite just cause that thrives beyond their tenures. They are crucial to the success of the CVO, as they are experts in finance and operations. They also have the potential to succeed as CVOs if they can adapt the finite mindset of finances and operations to the infinite mindset of vision.
Part 2 Analysis
Sinek begins Chapter 2 with a historical example in Nikolai Vavilov, a Russian scientist and botanist, and his team, who preserved “hundreds of thousands of seeds, tons of potatoes, rice, nuts, cereals, and other crops that they refused to eat” during the Siege of Leningrad of World War II (31). This example argues that playing the infinite game involves making sacrifices. To Sinek, Vavilov and his team played to survive, to continue their work beyond their own lives. The story exemplifies the importance of a leader’s just cause. Sinek advocates for leadership practices imbued with purpose at every step of decision-making. Vavilov’s team prioritized their purpose over their lives and the lives of Leningrad’s then citizens to realize a specific vision of the future. Sinek depicts this historical event as a moment of restraint in the face of death. However, he fails to mention whether or not Vavilov had an opportunity to relieve the systematic starvation that caused the deaths of millions within the city’s defensive perimeter. This raises the question as to whether or not this just cause caused more harm than good. Based on wording alone, Sinek considers feeding starving residents “a finite solution to a finite problem,” often the opposite of a just cause (32). Here, the distinction between finite and infinite games lacks clarity.
Moreover, Sinek’s connections between historical events and modern business require clarity. Following his citation of the Siege of Leningrad, he tells stories of a child’s Little League team and the Declaration of Independence. He also cites the American moon landings under President John F. Kennedy’s leadership as an example of finite thinking. Sinek leaps between historical examples and interpretations with little regard for their nuances. This weakens the just cause as a concept. However, Sinek finds solid ground when he interprets the corporate world through the lens of The Games of Business: Finite and Infinite. He criticizes companies that preach corporate social responsibility as an excuse for finite thinking and unethical behavior. In his critique of Walmart, he shows how short-term wins can facilitate unethical actions outside of a business. Sinek recommends ethical decision-making with an infinite mindset, not only to uphold moral values but also to produce long-term success. When employees trust their corporations, they are more likely to contribute to the health and longevity of these corporations. The same logic applies to customers: Customers who believe their corporations of choice uphold moral values generally remain loyal to their products. Sinek cites Apple as an example of a corporation that practices an infinite mindset by following a just cause—disrupting the status quo and empowering customers. In turn, Apple has dominated their markets for almost half a century. Whereas Apple plays an infinite game, a company like Facebook plays a finite game. Sinek challenges the moral code of Facebook when he cites their relatively recent scandals over users’ data privacy and the proliferation of misinformation. To him, Facebook embodies the unethical behavior that emerges when finite thinking dominates decisions.
Related Titles
By Simon Sinek
