Simon Sinek contrasts finite-minded and infinite-minded leadership: finite leaders seek control, avoid uncertainty, and prefer rule-based safety, while infinite-minded leaders embrace uncertainty and rely on relationships. He argues having a clear "just cause" enables organizations to see long-term opportunities and adapt (example: Blockbuster clung to late-fee revenue and missed Netflix's subscription/streaming shift). The segment ends as Sinek takes another question.
Questions this video answers
Simon Sinek.
12%.
Chapters
The reality about somebody who learns to adopt an infinite mindset. And like any mindset, it's a practice, right? Like mindfulness, it's a practice. Somebody who learns to adopt an infinite mindset. Infinite minded folks, they view. Let me do it the other way around first. Finite minded folks. Finite minded leaders are afraid or threatened by uncertainty. They don't like surprises and they like to exert a lot of control over a situation, which is why we tend to see them operate in very short time frames, quarters and years. Because we have a lot of control over how numbers will work out over a quarter, over year, right? 5 years, 10 years, much more difficult. And so in order to exert control and avoid surprises, we try and maintain all control over the plan. Infinite minded view opportunity and surprises. They love uncertainty. They think uncertainty opens up the door to them. Where finite minded leaders think uncertainty is a horrible thing, a thing to avoid, the thing that. Where finite minded leaders find the feeling of safety in the rules, infinite minded leaders find safety in relationships. So when you, you can tell when your organization is too finite minded, when you have too much bureaucracy, because bureaucrats like to enforce the rules the way they're written, right? Because that's where they find safety. As long as I follow the rules, my job is safe. I followed the rules, right? As opposed to spending the time to build trust. So number one.
The question is if you have a very clear sense of just cause, it actually becomes obvious, right? It's not actually a big decision. In fact, we call it existential because to the person who makes the flex, it's a death sentence that they don't change. But to the outside world, they think you're crazy. Why would you trade the certainty of this business for the uncertainty of that business? You've got a good thing going. One of the funny examples is Blockbuster. Blockbuster used to be the 800 pound gorilla. They were the only significant national player for video and DVD rentals back in the day. And this little company showed up called Netflix, right? And they had a different business model. It was subscription. And you remember that they would send us the DVDs, right? And streaming technology wasn't good enough yet, but we could see it was coming eventually. And the CEO of Blockbuster went to the board because he could see, see where the technology was going, right? And he said to Blockbuster, you know, we should probably look at the subscription model. And the board would not allow him to embrace subscription models because the company made 12% of its revenues from late fees. Blockbuster does not exist anymore. And Netflix has completely reinvented television. Right. The point is they had no cause, so they couldn't see anything. They could only see a few feet in front of them. So can see you. So if you can only see a few feet in front of you, and those are the discussions you're having at the table about what we're giving up and why would we give up the certainty of this? The odds are you're looking down and you're not looking up. So you have to have that just cause. What are we working to advance that's bigger than ourselves? And yes, of course, there are always finite games within the infinite, but there's a context now. Why is it that Apple, a computer company, invented itunes and not the music industry? Why is it that Amazon invented itself and the E. Reader, the Kindle and not the publishing industry? Why is it that Netflix pioneered their business model and not the television and movie industry? It's because those industries, all of those players, were so busy competing against each other and protecting the business model that they knew so well, now they're playing defense. Now they're forced to change, which is not existential flexibility. They that's defense. That's gripping for your life. Right? As opposed to new companies that aren't even in your industry. Remember, in the infinite game, you don't know all the players. And sometimes the players will be completely outside your industry that will eat you lunch and put you out of business. You have to have that just cause it becomes obvious.
