The Infinite Game: Chapters 3-5 | Book Club with Simon

Hello, everyone. Welcome back to part two of Book Club of the Infinite Game.

It's a wonderful group coming from all over the world. We have Canada, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, India, Berlin, Pittsburgh, Melbourne, Australia. How are you? Good morning to you. And from the Strategic Stripping Away Book Club, I feel exactly the same. I also have not been excited for a book club in my life, especially from when I was a child. Good to see everybody. Dare I say this at the risk of. Well, I've really been enjoying reading this book. Maybe it's because I agree with everything that was written. It's been a good few chapters, I have to say. So this time we are live on YouTube, LinkedIn and Facebook, which is very cool for us, everybody on all those platforms. The three chapters we covered today, chapters three through five, Cause no Cause, Keeper of the cause and responsibility of business. Please feel free to put your live questions in the question box there. And let's go. So a little bit about these chapters. So Cause no Cause, which is chapter three. So the reason I wrote this chapter is because the good news is, is our movement is growing. And the good news is we are putting pressure on companies to be and consider a sense of purpose and cause when they build their companies to be purpose driven. We're now at the point where sort of everybody seems to have a purpose statement or vision statement or mission statement. But if you really get down to it, we know, we know that a lot of the companies that write these vision statements and mission statements don't actually follow it or believe it. So some of them are well intended leaders who just don't have the right words and some of them aren't. And so the question is, how can we tell the difference? So what I decided to do is, look, there's many, many, many, many, many fake causes, false causes. I decided to just take a look at some of the more common ones so that we know how to recognize the difference. For me, the big one was this idea of a moonshot. We so often confuse or even use the term moonshot as if describing what our cause is. Absolutely. Moonshots are inspiring. Absolutely. Moonshots are big and audacious, but they're achievable. They're still finite land. A man on the moon did that, did that in 1969, did that a long time ago. And so you can see when an organization is finite, driven, even if they have big, hairy, audacious goals like a moonshot, the question is they get stuck. It kind of happened to NASA a little bit, right? The moonshot was such a big thing for everybody that people actually started to get bored of them. We actually forgot. Many people have actually been to the moon. We've done it multiple times, but we really don't think about it. It became rote. Same with the space shuttle. It became rote. And. And so the opportunity is not to just think of new big things, but what is the bigger thing, the context within which that exists. But I thought it was important for us to be able to recognize the difference. Keeper of the cause.

We talk about being visionary, we talk about being purpose driven, but it raises the very valid question, who in the company is actually responsible for the purpose? If a company is to be purpose driven? Like if a company is financially driven, there's someone responsible for finances. If there's companies that's performance driven, there are people who are responsible for the performance. But if the company is going to be purpose driven, my question is, well, who's responsible for the purpose? Who's the ultimate single point of accountability? And that really should be this idea of a cvo. And I make this case of a CEO where we don't really know what they do. Some do this, some do that, some are vision oriented, some are not, some are more operationally oriented. And so if we really want our organizations to be purpose driven, there needs to be at some point a single person who takes personal accountability for keeping the company on track. And if we look at the leaders that we admire, the people that we consider visionary leaders, where it's your Steve Jobs, your Richard Bransons, folks like that, Kip Tindall, what you find is when they were leading their organizations, the company really was on a strict visionary path because somebody was keeping them on that path. So if we want to be infinite minded in the way we're building our businesses and the way we're building our economies, we need somebody who takes accountability. Now we get to my favorite chapter, Chapter five, the Responsibility of business. I've talked a lot about the damage that our embracing of Milton Friedman has done. It's not that Milton Friedman did the damage, it's that we've embraced the ideas that did the damage. And the problem is his business and life, all of these things are dynamic. And he attempts to articulate the responsibility of business in, quite frankly, something that is way too simple. And coming from somebody like me, that's saying something, you know, oversimplifier over here. The responsibility of business is to maximize profit within the bounds of the rules. Really, that can't be all of it. And if we think about it, the enduring ideas, ideas that are really infinite contribute. So Adam Smith's ideas of capitalism have lasted for over 200 years. That says something. The fact that we're starting to question Milton Friedman's ideas after 40 years should also tell us something. And so one of the things that was important was I didn't want to just bash Milton Friedman for the damage that he did. That was too easy.

I wanted to offer.

An alternative. Because, as you know, if you follow any of the work that I talk about, we don't want to be against something, we want to be for something. I don't want to be against Milton Friedman's definition of business. I want to be for a different definition of business. And the question is, is what is that definition? And so I attempted to write one. What I wrote, the responsibility of business is to use its will and resources to advance a cause greater than itself, protect the people and places in which it operates, and generate more resources so that it continue. Can it can continue doing all those things for as long as possible. And I added this part. An organization can do whatever it likes to build a business. So as long as it is responsible for the consequences of its actions.

Because I got tired of having debates with people who celebrate Milton Friedman's definition of business when I say, aren't those ethically questionable decisions you're making? And they'd always tell me, caveat emptor, buyer beware. It's up to the consumer to decide. Well, sometimes it's not that easy for us, especially when we're lied to, manipulated. When they change the name partially hydrogenated oil to something else so that we can't recognize it. I mean, companies are slick. I was in the aisle of the supermarket not too long ago, and I was looking at healthy cereals. And for some reason, we think because a company is making healthy products that they're better companies.

So I was looking at the same brand, at the chocolate and vanilla version of the same cereal. So the size of the cereal was the same. You'll understand why that's important in a second. And the chocolate one said, now with less fat, or now like only 2 grams of fat, whatever it said. Or sugar, meat with sugar, whatever it is. So I just decided to look on the side of the package.

At all of the nutritional information, and sure enough, there it was. The. The chocolate one had way less sugar than the plain one. And then I looked at the serving size. One was a cup, the other one was a third of a cup. Like, you gotta be kidding me. Who eats a third of a cup of cereal? Number one. And the reason it was the same size cereal, so it's not like there was like more little bits of cereal in it, was the same thing. They had manipulated the size of the serving so that they could make a claim on their packaging that this one had less sugar. That's called a lie. It's called manipulation. And they need to be held responsible. There are no standards, unfortunately for this stuff, which drives me absolutely crazy. And so I want to take your questions. We'll talk about the kind of capitalism we have now versus the kind of capitalism that the people on this call I'm sure all completely agree with, which is a different form of capitalism than we have now. I'm not anti capitalist. I'm very pro capitalist. I'm just in favor of a different form of the capitalism that we embrace today. Okay. Hello, Egypt and Bangkok and Minnesota and Texas and Pakistan. Wow. I just love how this message spreads far and wide. Do you know why? Because it's relevant to human beings. It's not about culture, it's about us. We all share these same ideals. Okay, questions, let's jump right in.

Kelly Krivier from our ever loyal Dakota Potato Peel Pie and literary Society. Good to see you again. Thanks for the shout out. Here's another one.

Here's the scene. Say you're interviewing for a job with a good company, but they don't have a clearly defined just cause. What words can we use to uncover their cause? If they're not familiar with my work?

So you can ask them, what is the world that you guys imagine? I sometimes ask this question when I've been in the room with some people. Same idea, which is, can you tell me that if everything were to go perfectly, this organization, can you tell me what the world would look like in 5 to 10 or 20 years? What is the world that you imagine that you're trying to build that may or may not have anything to do with the product that sometimes get them talking. And if they get stuck, they'll sometimes say, well, we want to be a big company. You can interrupt and say, no, no, no. I want you guys to have great success. But what contribution to the world will you be making? What is. What are you trying to do in the world besides enrich yourselves?

That sometimes helps. It doesn't have to. It's not necessarily aggressive or rude line of questioning, but that can really help. Here we have one from Iona Bakht from Brazil. How are you?

Obrigado for your question? After reading your book, I realized there are more examples of Male leaders than female leaders. Maybe because gender equality is not quite a rule in the sea levels. From another perspective, we heard that countries with female leaders dealt with the COVID 19 pandemic better. With that in mind, how do you see inclusion and diversity initiatives helping companies play with the infinite mindset? Oh, such a good question. So I've said this before. There are traditionally female characteristics like maternal instinct, caring, patience, things like that. There are traditionally male characteristics, things like aggression, decisiveness. And it's not that we need more female leaders. It's that we need more leaders that act like females and women just happen to be better at that. The leadership qualities that I talk about, patience, caring instinct, things like that.

Tend to be. Women tend to have a better time with that. And through my experience with my work over the years, quite frankly, especially with Start with why women understood that work much quicker than men, I would give a big speech in the early days of Start with Y and all the women would just be nodding yes. Yep, totally get it. And the men would raise their hand and say, what proof do you have?

And so when we have female leaders, you tend to. You tend to see those. Those things happen more. And in the case of COVID Taiwan, Germany, New Zealand, they took a much more maternal, patient approach. And they have, quite frankly, done a hell of a lot better job. There's a whole article about it in Forbes magazine than many of their male counterparts. Now I'll tell you a funny little color corollary. In the Marine Corps at ocs.

They run their. Their future leaders through little mini obstacle courses. They call it the LRC Leadership reaction course. And they've discovered that there's a difference between when the men run it and the women run it. It's. It's a timed event. It's a time. Time things. Here's what they discovered with. With the men. The men don't spend enough time planning. They make a decision too quickly, they end up choosing the wrong plan, and they end up failing. The women spend too much time planning, they come up with the right answer, but they don't need enough time to execute, so they end up failing. In other words, what makes great teams is a blend of those things and the frustration and the tension of those two things. So. Doorbell. I'll ignore it. Don't worry about it.

So, yeah, we need more female dynamics. Women just happen to be better at that than men. Okay, Noah Max from the Echo Ensemble Book Club, nice to see you. You share that. The CEO should really be called the cvo. How does a CVO find and prepare a successor during their own tenure to lead the organization in the future. How does one do this without aggravating the current CFO COO operators? Such a good question. Well, as I talked about in the book, we have this notion that it's a single line of hierarchy. It's really two parallel lines. And so we should get comfortable with the fact that there is a sort of a, that there's, they go together and they're a team. And some of the best organizations I've seen.

The COO or the CFO has a really strong ego to say, look, I'm really good at my job, I'm the best in my industry at my job. But.

That'S not my gift what that person does. But we make a great team. And unfortunately, because that CVO mentality is so far looking ahead all the time that they look at the operator minded person and they anoint them. It's happened all the time. Even the visionary leaders that we like anoint their operators because they say quite legitimately that person knows more than I do about the business. True. They understand how it works better than I do. True. They know how to get things done better than I do. True. Except for the fact that it's the wrong skill set. And so I think what we need to do is start. One of the things we need to do in our organizations to choose our successors is talk about the skill sets that we need in both those jobs and that CVO job is the ability to see forwards. You might see marketers come up into that cvo. Lou Gerstner, who transformed IBM, he came up through the marketing ranks. So you can see the difference between a finance person and an operator versus a marketer, for example. And so we want to make sure that those, those psychographics, there's different mentalities of the way we approach problems, the way we see the world. And by the way, I don't mean all marketers will make great CBO's and all operators. That's not the case. A CVO and CVO can make a great CFO could make a great CBO if they take the time and learn the skills to that their job is going to change. The problem is when you get to that level in an organization, you've worked so hard doing one thing that to tell somebody that you have to now completely change your skill set, even though this has worked very well for you up till now, that's just harder. It's not impossible, it's just more difficult. Hope that helps. Let's Take, oh, let's see what we got here.

Jason Quinley.

Jason Quinley, how are you?

Milton Freeman's contribution to infinite games was partially. If they mess you up once, then they mess you, mess them up forever. But the mathematics says forgiving people is better. How do you, how do we square that with corporate ethics?

How we, how do we square that with. So I think I understand the question. Milton Friedman. Say it again. Let me just, let me read it.

Yeah, the first.

This one's a tricky one. Okay. Milton Friedman's contribution to infinite games was partially. If they mess you up once, then they mess you up forever. But the mathematics say forgiving people is better. How do we square with that? With corporate ethics?

So I understand that all of us are.

Fallible. We're human beings and, and even highly ethical companies. The people in those companies will do unethical things. But the difference is it doesn't become acculturated. It doesn't become a culture of unethical behavior. There might be ethical lapses, in which case the organization swoops in and says, hey guys, we don't do that. Or they take immediate responsibility as soon as it's discovered. They don't wait for the scandal. They don't wait to be caught. They don't do the COVID up. They, they take responsibility. That's the big difference. The problem isn't ethical lapses. The problem is how we deal with those ethical lapses. And when we talk about being forgiving, in my definition of the responsibility of business, we say companies have to be responsible for the decisions they make. And if they take no responsibility and those decisions cost them the business, in other words, it's forced to drop out of the game because of such extreme unethical behavior. Isn't that, isn't that okay? And isn't that justified? And again, it's largely a leadership problem. You know, the people. The good news is, you know, when Circuit City went bankrupt, for example, you know, the people who left Circuit City went and got jobs at other, other places, Best Buy and things like that.

We will continue to play in the game. And sometimes these companies do deserve, if they're highly, highly unethical. Also, one of the things that I, I struggle with is in the law, we consider a corporation an individual, right? And yet so often when companies are caught doing unethical things, they negotiate these deals where they don't have to admit responsibility, they simply make a payout and don't have to admit responsibility. I find that troublesome. Can you imagine if one of Your friends did something highly unethical to you, they lied to you, they cheated on you, something, whatever it was, and they simply said, I'll buy you dinner, but I'm not going to admit responsibility. I'd rather they admit responsibility, not buy me dinner. Most malpractice cases are simply because the doctor refused to apologize. Isn't that crazy? True fact. And it's an extreme, an extremely high number. I can't remember the exact statistic, but it's something like 60, 70, 80% of malpractice suits. So I think forgiveness is fine. And I'm not. Remember, I don't want us to rail against Milton Friedman. I want us to be for something else. And it is an infinite game. It is a game of bumps and, and as we go along the way. Patricia Haloub. What is the best way to learn about and teach capitalism as it was originally intended? Are there any books you recommend?

Adam Smith's three volumes of the wealth of nations is, is impossible. It's not useful. There are really good summaries.

I used a really good summary when I was getting my information. That comes from the Adam Smith Society. They have academics who sort of explain it all. It's still 200 and something years old. It's written like that. I think you make a very good point, which is one of the problems is we don't teach this, we teach Milton Friedman form of capitalism in our schools, in our business schools. And I think we need to teach this more evergreen, this more infinite form of, of capitalism. I think, I think you hit the nail on the head. It's not that. Are there any books that I recommend, it's that the books need to be written, new books need to be written. Remember, we've been following this broken form of capitalism that we have now for 50 years. 40, 40 some odd years. So no. 50 years, yeah. So we need new books. Yes, yes. And I think a lot of the books that we're talking about, you know, at least in amongst my peers, we talk about, you know, Bob Chapman's book, Everybody Matters. Fantastic introduction to that book, by the way.

I think that's. Though it's not called that. I think these books that many of us who are on here embrace, I think that it touches upon indirectly the form of capitalism we want. But you're right, I think we need new textbooks.

As an aside, you're getting some questions about the.

Oh, getting questions about my banana T shirt. So in our organization. Okay, well, I'll give you a little. So have you ever had that experience where you're sitting in a meeting and someone makes their point, but they keep going and going and everybody understands, but they just keep going and going and nobody wants to interrupt or knows how to interrupt because they don't want to be rude as we just sit there uncomfortably as they keep talking. Or you're sitting in a meeting and somebody's talking about something that has nothing to do with anything that this meeting about is about. They just got, they've gone off subject and we don't, they don't even taking a breath. We don't know how to interrupt them and because we feel like we're being rude. So on our team we came up with this thing called banana, which is when somebody has made their point or if they've gone off topic, you can interrupt them anytime. You just say banana and it's just a more polite way of saying we get it or you've gone off topic, let's get back on. And we use it all the time. So if I'm going on too long in my answers, you can just type banana and I'll move on to the next. But that's what banana is. I think we still sell them on our website, don't we? Yes. So if you want a banana T shirt, you can visit our website under the swag tab. And there's a banana T shirt there. You can have exactly like this one because that's where I got mine.

Other questions.

Here's a good one from Torsa Kerwin. After reading your book, I became so frustrated with my leaders, not only in my office, but also in my country. How can I transmit this infinite mindset when almost everyone is playing a finite mindset?

What's. What's her name or his name? Tor Grossa. Hello, Tor. So Tor has said that in their country.

They became frustrated with their own leaders at work and even the own leaders of their country that they're also finite minded. How do we transmit the infinite minded idea? You're doing it, we have to talk about it. The great thing about Dr. Kars's work is that it is so easy to understand. We can explain what the infinite game and the finite game is in a couple sentences. And people understand it lickety split. And so I think we have to talk about it. We have to talk about it.

We also have to recognize that we have a lot of finite minded players who are in leadership positions because that's the system we're in. And we, as much as we're espousing our infinite ideals.

We have to accept in this infinite game that some of them will convert, some of them won't, and some of them, we just have to wait them out. And so I talk about this all the time. Be the leader you wish you had. If we operate with a finite minded, a finite mindset, with our team, for example, and we do all the things that we're supposed to do, including preaching the definition of an infinite game and that we're in one, eventually those people get promoted or move out to other parts of the company or move on to other companies. And we want them to take the lessons they've learned from our team and go, in other words, let's build a bench of leaders for the next 20 years. You know, hopefully we can change the minds of some of the people in power. Ready? Unlikely. But the better option is to build a strong bench of infinite minded leaders now that in the next 10, 15, 20 years, as they start getting promoted up and start taking over both our nations and our companies.

That they will be more infinite minded. So our movement is working. Our words are spreading. Keep preaching, keep preaching, keep preaching. That's why we do this. That's why even book club exists. It's to disseminate ideas.

Okay.

How. Here's one from Kang Do. How can. Well, whoops, it just ran away from me. Where'd it go? How can leaders leverage affirmative actions to create a diversive and inclusive workplace without or minimizing resentment or doubt from the team Org members? Whoa.

I think asking for help is the thing to do. I think that the more ironically inclusive we can make these changes, I think the better it goes. I think having discussions, I think bringing people in who are affected by it, bringing people who've been adversely affected by it, affirmatively affected by it, and not only having individual conversations, but bringing them in as a group and saying, this is what our goal is. Our intention is to create a diverse and inclusive workplace for all the obvious reasons and because we believe that different upbringings, different perspectives.

Contribute to better ideas and a better organization.

Diversity in all of its forms really, really matters. And that's the kind of organization we want. We recognize that we can do better than what we have been doing. And we're looking at all sorts of ideas to make sure that we are more inclusive and diverse. We're looking for ideas on how we can do this. And, and I think the leaders ultimately will have the, the, the, the final say. But this, but to take counsel, I think is imperative. This goes back to the story I think I've told before of Nelson Mandela Nelson Mandela is a very, very important leader in the world because different leaders from different nations are viewed differently depending on where you go in the world. But, but Nelson Mandela is universally regarded as a great leader. So he's a very, very important character case for us. And he was the son of a tribal chief.

And he was asked, how did you learn to be a great leader? And he told the story. He said, I remember when I was a boy, I would go to tribal meetings with my father of all the other tribal chiefs. And he says, I remember two things. One, they always sat in a circle. And two, my father was always the last to speak. And if you think about that, sitting in a circle communicates a quality of ideas, even if we know there are different ranks in the room. And number two, so often the person in charge, even well intentioned, will come in the room and say, hey guys, this is what I'm trying to do. This is what I want to do. This is what I think we should do. What are your opinions? I want to know. Well, by the time they've told you their ideas, it's too late. You've either muddied the waters or you've made people feel that they're different. Ideas are, don't, don't matter. And so what's way more effective is for a leader to say, this is the vision that I want to achieve. I'm interested in your ideas. And then saying nothing about what they think we should do and go around the room and let everybody speak. And the responsibility of the leaders to ask questions for understanding, but not to make anybody feel that their ideas are invalid. By the way, they can think they're invalid. Some ideas are crazy. But the point is two things happen. One is that leader gets the benefit of all these different perspectives which ultimately make them better informed. And two, it makes everyone feel like their ideas matter, which because they do so I would treat it the same way. Good question.

Pierre Crarup. Did I pronounce that probably badly. Sorry, Pierre Pear did say Pierre Pair in Denmark.

When it comes to humanity's biggest challenges, example, population growth, poverty, climate change, racial equality. Assuming we may not have time to wait for future, future generations for solutions, are there good ways to approach managers and politicians when we believe that we are going over the edge of a cliff, but it does not show up in our metrics yet? Or are we simply. Or we simply do our part as best we can and tell those who are willing to listen to hope for the best.

One of the biggest problems for a finite minded species I mean, let's be honest, we're all, we all like to count results. We all like to be see the impact of the things we're doing. And when we're told we have to do something that will benefit future generations, you know, 40 years from now, or this won't happen for 50 years, but we have to act now. You know, a lot of people going, they shrug their shoulders, you know, Aprais Moyle deluge. You know, it's not my problem, right after me comes the flood. I won't be here. I think the most important thing is two things. One is we have to change our own metrics. And our metrics should be about momentum rather than absolutes, especially with things like this, which are infinite in their own respect. There is no winning and losing in the climate game. And I keep saying this, which is we've got the messaging completely wrong. That's the second part, which is the messaging we've gone completely wrong. First of all, we called it global warming. Sounds appealing. It also creates confusion, especially when you have colder than average winters. But I thought it was warming because people confuse the climate and the weather. The weather and the climate are not the same thing. We should have called it like climate cancer or something, because people react to something like that. But the other thing is we keep talking about we have to save our planet, we have to save our planet. That is actually not true. The planet will be fine. The planet will survive no matter what. Life will continue with us or without us. What we have to do is save our species. We are affecting the climate to the point where we will make living conditions impossible for our species because we'll either kill our own food sources or make it impossible for us to live.

Because the secondary and tertiary effects of everything that we do is you, you overfish, it kills, coral kills, all of these things happen that make it impossible for us. It's not, it's not save the planet, it saved the human race. And that's what we don't talk about. We. Because unless you're environmentally minded, we talk about saving the planet doesn't appeal to everyone. Talking about saving the human race, ensuring that your family will survive, I think that's a much better messaging. So I think we got the messaging wrong, quite frankly.

So it's, it's, it's not about saving the planet. It's about saving the human race and creating a planet that can sustain human life as monks, as life, as everything, of everything else. That's, that helps us survive too. Flora and fauna included. So one is messaging. The other one is how we measure metrics. We want to measure metrics in terms of momentum. Are we moving in the right direction as opposed to absolutes? I think that's very helpful.

Here's from the Bridge House Book Club from Berlin and Hamburg, Germany. Goodnabin. Alex Krakow wants to know, when I introduce myself to a potential customer, do I introduce myself with my why or my just cause? My why is my origin story far more personal. A just cause is probably a bit more marketing visionary. What are your thoughts?

It can go either way. I do both. So. So depends on the mood I'm in. Depends on the audience. Usually, if it's a business relationship, I usually do the just cause, but not always. When people say, what do you do? I say, I teach leaders and organizations how to inspire people. Which is a nicer way, a more public way of saying my why, which is to inspire people to do the things that inspire them. So together, each of us can change our world for the better. Too cumbersome, you know? Why is not always pretty. The foundation of a house is not always pretty. So my why is to when people say, hey, Simon, what do you do? I say, I teach leaders and organizations how to inspire people. If they believe what I believe, if they believe what I believe, they say, that's amazing inspiration. That's incredible. How do you do that? They hear the word inspire. If they don't believe what I believe, they say, what kind of companies do you work for? So I immediately, it helps me know, are they believers or non believers in my why? But very often the way I start meetings, whether I'm the one who called the meeting or whether I'm the guest of the meeting, I always say, let me tell you why I'm here, or let me tell you why I called this meeting, or let me tell you why I decided to attend this meeting. It's because I have a vision of the world that does not yet exist. A world in which the vast majority of people wake up every single morning inspired, feel safe wherever they are, and end the day fulfilled by the work that they do. And I took this meeting because I believe that this relationship, this partnership, potentially doing business together, will, whatever it is, could help advance that cause. And very quickly I'll find out if people lean back and put their arms up, they're not into my cause versus they lean and go. Simon, this is very exciting. We took the meeting for the same reason, so I guess I've just answered my question. The just cause is probably more helpful in a business context.

Okay, what else?

Here's a good one from Shawib Jeanois.

Okay, Shoaib Janoir.

How come we as individuals, as young leaders, develop an infinite mindset when we keep battling the challenges of ideas, productivity and execution on day to day basis? It often seems quite discouraging to dream big when we are unable to achieve our short term day to day targets.

Such a good question. The question was, how can young leaders would be leaders maintain an infinite mindset and stay inspired when they're constantly being bombarded with finite mindedness and being beaten down? And it gets discouraging. That's why this matters. Which is none of us is strong enough. None of us has the mental toughness to get through this alone. This is why we need each other. Remember, the reason we formed a book club was not about reading the book. It was about doing something with others. It was more important that you formed a book club, even if it was one other person, than it was to simply read the book. Because it's about the shared ideas and the camaraderie and the team that matters most. Because you will get beaten down and you will get discouraged. And the question is, who are you going to pick up the phone and call? I have a group of people, some of them I've become friends with. I met them because I wrote about them. Bob Chapman, Johnny Bravo, Kip Tindall, some of these folks who I wanted to learn more about and I wrote about them, some of them have become my friends. And when I'm beaten down or not sure I can do it or become discouraged or whatever it is, I call one of them and say, can do it or become discouraged or whatever it is, I call one of them and say, I love that you and I are doing this together. Thank you for being there. And they talk. I mean, go listen, go. I did a podcast with Bob Chapman. Go listen to how Bob talks. Like, I don't have to say a word. I can just pick up the phone and say, hey, Bob. And he says all the stuff he said to me on the podcast. That's who he is. It just oozes out of the guy. And he re inspires me and he gives me the confidence and most important, the feeling that I am not alone. And so that's very essential here, which is this is an uphill journey. We are trying to completely change.

A system of economics and business practices that have been firmly entrenched for 40 years. And it took 40 years, it took 20 or 30 years for that system to become entrenched. It's Going to take us 20 or 30 years to entrench a different system. We're well on our way. I think we're 15 years away, maybe 10 if we're really optimistic, but 20 at the most. This is a long journey and so we have to have buddies, we have to have leadership buddies in this. And so that's what this is about. This is one of the benefits of book club is that read all the names in the live comments, every single one of those people there. We're on the same team. So never feel alone. Make sure you have someone you can reach out to when you feel beaten down. And remember, all of us have to contribute in a small way. It's not necessarily about doing big things. It's about doing small things on a daily basis. That matters even more than the big things. Consistency is often more important than intensity. Going to the dentist twice a year, intense, won't keep your teeth from falling out. If you only do that, all your teeth will fall out. Consistency, brushing your teeth for two minutes every single day, even more important, believe it or not, or at least as important, the consistency, the little things that seem innocuous are really, really important in this game. So that's what I would recommend. Okay, how we doing?

Oh, I like this one. Arun Suresh. Nice to meet you, Arun. Can the infinite mindset help in being more open minded and thereby learn more? Yes, yes, yes. Such a great question. And the answer is a hundred percent yes. Okay. And for a couple of different reasons. A finite mindset hates surprises. Hates, hates uncertainty. A finite mindset likes to control things because if I can control things, it means that things will go as predicted. In other words, finite. That's why finite mindset likes short timeframes. We like short termism in the finite mindset. And we like to tell people that our way is the best way because more predictable that way. Right? That's what finite mindedness is all about. An infinite mindset embraces uncertainty.

They find opportunity in surprises and uncertainty. Things that are different and are new are exciting. And there's a tacit understanding that I don't know everything and other people know more than I do. When I talked to Dr. Cars, who first articulated finite and infinite games.

He explained it beautifully to me. He said, with a finite mindset, all the thinking has already been done because you don't want any surprises. So, for example, in the military or in sports, athletes, Olympic athletes, this is why they train and train and train and train and train. They're constantly practicing, practicing, training and training, trying to make sure that they've thought about every eventuality because they don't want any surprises. And when they get into a situation, come back.