SPEAKER 1: Hello, everybody,
and welcome to Talks at Google.
Our guest today
describes himself
as an unshakeable
optimist who believes
in a bright future and our
ability to build it together.
A trained ethnographer
and author
of three bestselling
books, he has
discovered some
remarkable patterns
that help leaders
around the globe
make an impact on
their organizations.
Thank you for coming, and
please welcome Simon Sinek.
[APPLAUSE]
SIMON SINEK: Thanks.
So I thought I'd share with
you some new stuff that I'm
working on because it's
fun, and then we'll
spend most of the
time just doing Q&A
because that's also fun.
So I'm working on a new
book, and I've recently
become completely smitten
by game theory, specifically
finite and infinite games.
In game theory,
there are two types
of games-- finite
and infinite games.
A finite game is defined as
known players, fixed rules,
and an agreed upon
objective, like baseball.
We all agree to the rules.
We all agree that whoever has
more runs at the end of nine
innings is the winner, and the
game ends and we all go home.
Nobody ever says, if we can
just play three more innings
and then we can come
back from this deficit.
It doesn't happen that way.
An infinite game is defined
as known and unknown players.
The rules are changeable,
and the objective
is to keep the game in play
to perpetuate the game.
When you pit a finite player
versus a finite player,
the system is stable.
Baseball is stable.
When you hit an infinite player
versus an infinite player,
the system is also stable,
like the Cold War was stable
because there cannot be a winner
and there cannot be a loser.
So we just try and
keep the game in play.
And in infinite
games, because there
are no winners and
losers, what happens
is players drop out
of the game when
they run out of the will or the
resources to continue to play.
So technically, the United
States didn't win the Cold War.
The Soviets dropped out
because they ran out
of the resources or the
will to continue to play.
Problems arise,
however, when you
pit a finite player
versus an infinite player,
because one is playing
to win and the other one
is playing to keep playing.
So invariably, what happens is
the finite player will always
find themselves in a quagmire.
So this was the United
States and Vietnam.
The United States
was fighting to win,
and the North Vietnamese
were fighting to survive--
very different set of standards.
This was the Soviet
Union in Afghanistan.
The Soviets were fighting
to beet the Mujaheddin,
and the Mujaheddin would fight
for as long as is necessary.
And invariably, what
happens is the finite player
will find themselves
in a quagmire
until they drop out of the
game and leave the game,
because they run out of
the will or the resources
to stay in the game.
So this gets me thinking.
Let's look at business.
The game of business
is an infinite game.
It obeys all the rules.
There are known and
unknown players.
You don't know all the
competitors, necessarily,
in one industry to another.
The rules are changeable.
We haven't all agreed
what the rules are,
and there is no winning
the game of business.
The game just perpetuates.
In fact, the game
of business has
existed longer than every single
company on the planet today,
and it will outlast every single
company on the planet today.
If you look at the Dow Index,
the 30-something-odd companies
that make up the Dow Index,
something like 70% or 80%
of those companies are
35 years or younger.
So it gets me thinking, if
you listen to the language
that companies use, they don't
know what game they're in.
They talk about being
number one, talk
about beating their
competition, based
on what agreed upon
criteria, based
on what agreed upon time frame?
Is it market share?
Is it profits?
Is it revenues?
Square footage?
Number of employees?
Over what?
One month, five months, six
months, a year, five years,
10 years, the life
of the company?
I haven't agreed to those rules.
And so companies can
arbitrarily declare themselves
number one in anything they
want if they set the standards
and the time frames.
And the only reason we do these
things on annualized basis--
we tend to compare ourselves
to other organizations
annually-- is only because
we pay taxes annually.
If we pay taxes
every 18 months, that
would be sort of the standard.
But again, we still haven't
agreed what the metrics
are to be number one.
That means that companies that
are playing the infinite game
are playing against
most of the others who
are playing the finite game
means those finite companies
find themselves in a quagmire.
Almost every single
bankruptcy-- not almost every,
every single
bankruptcy-- is a company
that's run out of the will
or the resources to play.
They drop out of the game.
The game will persist.
Another company will
fill their space.
It's not like the business
stops or the industry ends.
And the companies that are
playing the infinite game
will frustrate those finite
players, which I absolutely
adore.
So I spoke at an education
summit for Microsoft.
I also spoke in an
education summit for Apple.
Now, I would say about 70%
to 80% of the executives
at Microsoft spent
about 70% to 80%
of their PowerPoints talking
about how to beat Apple.
At the Apple summit,
100% of the executives
spent 100% of their
presentations talking
about how to help teachers teach
and how to help students learn.
One was obsessed with their
journey, with their vision,
with their cause.
The other one was obsessed
with their competition.
Guess who's stuck in quagmire?
Guess who's frustrated
by their competition?
So at the end of my talk at
Microsoft, they gave me a gift.
They gave me the new
Zune, when it was a thing.
And I have to tell
you, this was one
of the most remarkable,
beautiful pieces of technology
I've ever used.
The UI was gorgeous.
The design of the actual
hardware was beautiful.
It was logical in the
way I could use it.
It was intuitive.
It was absolutely fantastic.
Now, it didn't work with iTunes,
which means I couldn't use it.
That's a different
problem altogether,
but this was a magical
piece of technology.
So at the end of
my talk at Apple,
I'm sharing a cab with one of
the senior Apple executives,
sort of an employee
number 12 kind of guy,
and I decide to stir the pot.
So I turned to him and I said,
you know, I spoke at Microsoft
and they gave me the new
Zune and it is so much
better than your iPod Touch.
And he turns to me and
he says, I have no doubt.
Conversation over.
Because the infinite
player understands
sometimes your product is
better and sometimes it's not.
Sometimes you're ahead and
sometimes you're behind.
The goal is not to
beat your competitor.
The goal is to outlast
your competitor.
What you find is that the
infinite players don't actually
compete against
their competition.
They compete against themselves.
The finite players
are the ones who
wake up every day trying
to beat somebody else.
The infinite
players the ones who
say, how can we be a better
version of ourselves,
how can we advance our
metrics, how can we
make our product more
refined, more beautiful
than they were last week.
It's totally fine to
study our competition.
Tactically, there's
nothing wrong
with knowing what our
competitors are doing.
But the number of companies
that study their competition
strategically blows my mind.
They look at what their
competition is doing,
and they make sudden,
sharp left and right turns
to change the course
of their company,
based on the movement
of their competition.
That's the point.
That's what wastes resources,
the constant changing
of your mind, the constant
going in this direction,
that direction, based on the
wind of your competition--
assuming that they know
what they're doing.
I find that fascinating.
And the number of
companies that play finite
is the vast, vast,
vast majority.
So it begs the
question, how does one
play the infinite game?
How does one build an
organization constructed
for the infinite game?
So up here, you have
the infinite game.
This is where the why exists.
I talk about the why-- the
purpose, cause, or belief--
about the organization.
This is where our values lie.
These are never-changing.
They are permanent.
They will outlast all of us,
and they should outlast--
they've been here from
the birth of the company,
and they should last the
length of the company.
The infinite stuff, the why
stuff and the value stuff,
is inherently intangible,
and it's inherently difficult
to measure.
Now, down here you
have the finite game,
and this is where
our interests lie.
This is where what I would
call your "whats" lie.
This is where our products
lie and things like that.
It is inherently tangible
and inherently very easy
to measure.
Now, the goal is to run all
decisions through our values,
through our purpose or
cause first, and then
through our interests.
So what is a
values-based decision?
What does that even look like?
So here's a
values-based decision.
When our military goes into
battle and we shoot a bad guy,
we will take their injured body.
We will send our medics
onto the battlefield
to rescue the injured
body of our enemy.
We will put them
on our helicopters,
fly them to our hospitals,
put them in our hospital beds.
Our doctors will
use our medicine
to nurse them back to health.
That is not in our interest.
However, that's
kind of who we are.
It's what defines us.
In other words, we're
wasting our resources
because our values are
more important than saving
those resources, doing something
purely in our interests.
It's like torture.
The reason torture
was done offshore
and the reason we tried
to keep it a secret
is because everybody kind of
knew it violated our values.
Because if we were
totally fine with it,
everybody would be like, just
do it here, it's totally fine.
Why not somewhere in Wyoming?
And that's the point.
So great organizations are
making values-based decisions
all the time, and then our
interests come into play.
But the problem is when
you're playing the finite,
these things get ignored,
and every time we
make a decision we decide
what we do in a vacuum.
So your competitor comes
out with a new product.
How do we react?
Quickly, come out with
something similar.
What's going on with
the marketplace,
and make some other reaction.
What's going on in this
particular country?
And every single decision
we make in a vacuum
seems perfectly good.
We're making rational decisions
based on our interests.
The problem is when
we pull back and look
at all of the decisions,
all the people we've
hired, this is what happens
when you only hire people based
on their resumes, for example.
Smart guy-- get that
person on board.
When you pull back,
your culture is a mess,
and nobody knows
what you stand for.
The whole idea of making
values-based decisions
is we can look at almost
all of the decisions.
Every now and then
one can go sideways.
But we look at all
the decisions--
the people you hire,
the things you do,
the things you believe in, the
things you stand for, anything
tangible--
and we can say of you
or your organization,
I know what you stand for.
I believe what you believe.
I would like to be a part
of your organization.
I'd like to buy from
your organization.
This is where loyalty lies.
But the only way we can judge
each other is down here.
It's like human beings.
We want our friends to act and
speak and do the things based
on who they are.
We want our friends to be-- you
know that word that's always
thrown about-- authentic,
which means saying and doing
the things we actually believe.
That's what we mean.
And the reason is because we
want to know who they are.
We want them to be predictable.
I can't see anybody.
Can we turn the lights back on?
Was that better for you?
Oh, sorry.
But now you can fall
asleep, because I can't see.
But that's the idea.
That's the idea.
So this is what I'm doing.
I've become fascinated by
this game theory stuff,
and I'm running it through
all kinds of scenarios.
I'm looking at relationships,
I'm looking at business,
I'm looking at politics, I'm
looking at war and nation
states and how this plays
out in the real world.
Because the game is the game.
We don't get to
change the rules.
Of course, there are
always finite games
within the infinite.
It's the difference between
a goal and a vision.
A goal is 26.2 miles.
Count the metrics,
count the mile
markers, and when you reach
the goal the game ends.
It's over.
The vision is having a crystal
clear sense of what the finish
line looks like far
from the distance,
but having no idea
how far away it is--
so far away that for
all practical purposes
we'll never get there.
Take the United States, the
Declaration of Independence.
Here is a nation who declared
why we needed our own country.
And it didn't start off
by complaining or griping
about the King
and Great Britain.
It started off with an ideal.
We believe that all men are
created equal, that all of us
are endowed with certain,
unalienable rights,
amongst which include
life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.
We'll never actually
get there, but the goal
is that we will die trying.
And within that
infinite contest,
there are many
finite games that we
hope to advance that
infinite contest or even
little infinite games within
that, like civil rights.
We've never actually
reached the point
where we have
perfect civil rights,
but we'll continue to get
better and better and better.
That's the point.
It's constant refinement.
It's kaizen.
It's no matter how good we
do, we can always do better.
But the goal is we
have a North Star.
We have a thing to point
us in the direction.
It's not random.
So in the United States,
we have civil rights
or women's suffrage or
gay rights or education
for everyone or health
care for everyone.
What form it takes,
it's our way of trying
to get closer and closer
and closer to the ideal
upon which the
nation was founded.
I wish all organizations-- they
don't have to be nation states.
I wish all organizations did
the same thing-- operated not
just in their
interests, but also
have a sense of code or
values and a sense of purpose
and vision.
It matters.
Because we want to
stand for something.
We want to work for something.
We want all of our hard work,
the products we produce,
everything, we want it to
count towards something,
not simply be against
something or make something
in the short term.
I see this so often
with senior executives,
with people who are making more
money than they've ever made.
They have more
power and influence
than they've ever had.
And yet later on
in their careers,
they don't feel as
successful as they
did when they were a junior.
When we're junior, the
first promotion we get,
the first raise we get,
the first bonus we get,
the first client we
win, whatever it is,
it's all very exciting.
We're living down here and
everything's very exciting.
But after you've had
a bunch of bonuses
and you've won a
bunch of clients
and you've had a bunch
of product releases
and a bunch of promotions,
it's exciting for a little bit.
Go out for a nice
dinner with your family.
That's about it, and
then it wears off.
And so what starts to
happen is our work no longer
feels like it has
any sense of purpose,
and so we default back
to when we were young.
We thought, well, when I won
the client, win more clients.
And when I reach
$1 million dollars,
get more millions of dollars.
That gave me the
feeling the first time.
You'll get with
the feeling again.
It doesn't.
That's like winning
one marathon,
thinking it's amazing.
You keep running marathons
for the rest of your life,
and at some point
you're like, why am
I running all these marathons?
They have to contribute
to something.
They have to contribute
to something.
So I'm fascinated by
the companies that
play the infinite game,
because inherently they
frustrate their competition.
For years, Apple frustrated
Microsoft, especially when
it was run by Steve Ballmer.
He was a guy who ran the
company based on interests alone
versus competing against
an organization that
was doing something bigger--
Costco versus Wal-Mart,
Southwest Airlines
versus everybody, organizations
that seem to not care about
what Wall Street thinks about
the quarter of the year.
And when you listen to
the language of people
like Jim Senegal, who's the
founder of Costco, he says,
I don't care about Wall Street.
Wall Street's worried about
how my company does in a month
or in a year.
I care about what my company
does for the next 50 years.
That's the company I'm building.
You listen to the language--
ones who are focused on
teaching kids how to learn
and helping teachers
how to teach,
versus how to beat
our competition.
It makes for a much
more fulfilling life,
and it makes for a much
more realistic existence.
When your competition
is slightly ahead,
you think that's OK.
I can't stay ahead forever
based on some arbitrary
metrics, anyway.
So that's what I'm working on.
I think it's fun.
I think it's interesting.
We made some changes
even in the way
we do business based on this.
We become more
infinitely organized,
which means we are much
more interested in trends
than we are in absolutes.
Because absolutes exist
down here, but ongoing
exists up here.
So for example,
let's say you will
get a bonus if you hit a certain
target by a certain date.
That target is arbitrary.
That date is arbitrary.
Somebody made it up.
That's how most of our
bonus structures are built--
on arbitrary numbers
on arbitrary dates.
And let's say that that
person is doing good work
and building good systems,
but they miss the target.
They miss the number.
But if you were to pull back and
look at how they've been doing,
and you see this
beautiful steady line,
we can see that they're
doing good work, that they're
building good systems.
There's huge stability there.
They just miss the arbitrary
number on the arbitrary date.
Give that person a
bonus, because we
want that person to continue
building those systems.
And the odds are
they're probably
at the number two or
three months later, which
is totally fine because then
it's going to grow, grow,
and grow, versus the person
who stabs people in the back,
plays politics.
Their performance
looks like this.
There's no stability.
It's all over the place.
They happen to meet the
number on an arbitrary date.
Give that person a bonus?
Why?
They're breaking the
company along the way.
The point is the finite
player only looks
at these discrete
moments in time,
and the infinite player
is much more preoccupied
with the trend of things.
So in our business,
we become absolutely
preoccupied with the trend.
There are some
projects that we've
wanted to implement
that I wish took a year
and they took years.
And it doesn't matter
how much I say,
I want it done at the end of--
we missed it.
But you know what?
We were building good
systems along the way.
We just missed a prediction.
And the result is we have much
better systems, much better
product, and much
more motivated by it
because nobody was penalized
for missing arbitrary numbers
on arbitrary dates.
So I'm learning how
to build and run
a business for the infinite.
When somebody asked me
recently in an interview
about my competition,
like how do I
compete against the people in
my space, the answer is, what--
competing against what?
What am I competing for?
Like, am I going to compare
how many views on TED
or how many book sales or how
much my personal income is
or how much my
corporate income is?
What's the arbitrary standard?
Because I can be ahead on some
metrics and behind on others.
I can drive myself crazy or it
can be really proud of myself.
Worse, I'm choosing who
my competitive set is.
But the competitor set is way
larger than I can imagine.
I love it when the
networks declare
that they're number one.
You do realize they're
only comparing themselves
to the few other
networks that they
want to compare themselves.
NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox compare
themselves to each other.
They ignore Netflix, Hulu, HBO,
YouTube, and the rest of them.
But that's the point.
If you can make your
own competitive set,
you will be number one.
Everybody will have
their day in the sun.
I get a kick out of that.
I get a kick out of that.
So especially for an
organization like YouTube,
the question is, who's
your competition?
The competition is yourself.
Wish everybody the best of luck.
Let them make their own metrics.
Let them declare
themselves number one.
Who cares?
They'll fall out of
the game before you.
That's the goal.
That's the goal.
Should we do some questions?
AUDIENCE: I think
everything you just
said is really
interesting, and it
hits on something
I've been wondering
about for a long time.
Here at Google, we have a
phenomenal set of benefits,
and I think it's no
argument that we're
looked to as a leader in
kind of creating the utopian
workplace for the
smart, creative,
or whatever terms you
want to apply to it.
And it seems congruent
in a lot of ways--
the original founders' message
with this infinite game
and everything
you're describing.
But I wonder, is
this a luxury that we
happen to have because
we're such a phenomenally
profitable company
that we can provide
all these luxurious benefits
and all these things?
And you look at some of these
other companies that maybe
don't have the luxury of those
of these thick profit margins,
and they can't afford to
play the infinite game.
And they're focused
on being tactical.
SIMON SINEK: No, no,
they can't afford
to play a strong finite game.
They can absolutely
play the infinite game.
So if it was based
on your logic,
every single company
that's under-resourced
would never make it, which
is just not the case.
And people aren't
loyal to free lunch.
I mean, some people are.
And you see this
in the tech space
so much, which is
people claim, oh, I
want to work for a place with
purpose and make a difference.
They claim they're
looking for this,
but the reality is they
really like free lunch.
And the other company
didn't have free lunch,
so I'm going to take this one
because they have free lunch.
In other words, they went
for the rich company,
which may last if the company's
also an infinite player.
But if they're just
a finite player,
it's going to run
out at some point.
Because when the company
starts to struggle,
guess what things
they'll start cutting?
And like you have, we have
friends in tech companies
who don't work here
who get free lunch--
and beautiful offices, flat
screen TVs in every hallway,
gorgeous.
And yet they were like--
you know?
AUDIENCE: I mean,
I think you're kind
of cherry-picking a few
different very simple
of those benefits.
I think a lot of the
things that people herald
are, for instance,
long maternity benefits
or anything associated with
childcare and things like that.
Maybe if you run a
construction company
and you have to have people
show up and lift a heavy thing,
and it's potentially dangerous
and you can't give people
flexible work arrangements
where they can work from home
and take their kids to daycare
because you have to have
the guy driving the crane--
I begin to wonder,
is it easy for us--
you, me, all of us in here
that sit here and say,
oh, we want to focus
on these ideals
because the industry
we happen to work in
makes it easy to provide
for those ideals?
SIMON SINEK: Let us
not confuse feeling
like we belong and cushy.
I'm not cherry-picking.
There are many people
who enjoy the benefits.
We all enjoy the benefits.
Why wouldn't we?
But does that mean that if
the benefits weren't there
we would immediately quit?
AUDIENCE: I don't know.
I mean, I just--
SIMON SINEK: And so take
a company like WD-40.
AUDIENCE: Sure.
SIMON SINEK: Much smaller
than Google, does very well.
Their offices are
kind of a dump.
The benefits they offer,
they're nice to their people,
and where they can, they
offer all kinds of stuff
in education, maternity
stuff, and all of that stuff.
But it's not as cushy as large,
huge tech companies that have
huge amounts of extra cash.
And the people who work
there love working there
and will come in
everyday full of gusto,
because it's the people we work
with, not the stuff we get.
The stuff we get, the very
point to the stuff we get, is it
runs out.
It's finite.
You have to keep injecting it.
The people we work with,
that's the relationships
and the infinite
component of the company.
So if you love working here, I
would say that if you're loyal
and you really love it--
not like it, but love it--
I would argue that you love
the people with whom you work.
And if some of the benefits were
taken away for whatever reason
that you would still come
to work loyally and still
love it because of the
people you work with.
And if there were only people
who chased benefits from
benefits to benefits--
and there are people;
that's like chasing salaries--
then there's never loyalty
and there's never love.
AUDIENCE: Well, I certainly
do agree with everything
you just said, but when
you're talking about,
for instance, these
trend lines and being
able to miss the
arbitrary number--
if you're a smaller,
scrappier company,
maybe you can't afford to miss
these numbers, whereas we have
the luxury of this
big war chest of money
that if the goal is missed
by a quarter or two quarters,
or in your case these projects
that took additional years,
I mean, isn't that
sort of you are
able to provide for that
kind of flexible timeline
because you have the
tail-end of success?
SIMON SINEK: There are
always finite games
within the infinite.
Of course.
Of course.
AUDIENCE: That's what
I was wondering about.
AUDIENCE: So my wife and
I are both military vets,
and we work here at Google.
SIMON SINEK: Which force?
AUDIENCE: Army.
Army officers.
And I wanted to talk to
you upon your example
about the military.
In one of your other
talks, you talk about Medal
of Honor recipients.
And basically, they do
these heroic things,
and they say, why did you do it?
You say in your talk, because
they would have done it for me.
So that mentality
is my question.
You also mentioned
in military we're
willing to sacrifice ourselves
for the gain of others,
but in business we're
willing to sacrifice
others for our own gain.
How do you build
that military mindset
in companies like here
or other companies?
SIMON SINEK: Leadership.
I mean, leadership
creates an environment.
And I mean, this
is what I learned.
The whole concept of
leaders in those lessons
that I learned from spending
time with folks in uniform--
it was born out of
my own experience.
I was going through
a point in my career,
as my career was growing--
all of a sudden you
have new friends
that I didn't have before.
And that's wonderful, and
then I learned the hard way
that they weren't my friends.
They were playing me.
They wanted access or
a deal or something.
And I learned it the hard way.
And so I retreated.
I was like, I want to be
friends with nobody else
but the people I knew way
back when, which is also
not a good way to live.
And yet simultaneously,
I'm spending time
with tons of folks
in the military.
In business, we have
colleagues and coworkers.
In the military, you have
brothers and sisters,
and that's a different
kind of relationship.
And as you know, I have
hugged more people in uniform
than I've ever hugged in suits.
I've cried with more
people in uniform
than I've ever
cried with in suits.
I've stood in the audience
and listened to officers
give talks, and I've sat
in the audience and cried.
I've never cried with any
CEO that gave a speech ever.
So there's a different
nature of relationship.
And my original conclusion
was they're better people,
that the reason you get
a disproportionate amount
of these kinds of behaviors is
because they're better people
and better people are
drawn to a life of service
in the military, which is why
we find a disproportionately
high number of them there.
And the more I started
to learn, the more
I realized I was
completely wrong.
It's the environment.
It's the environment.
And when the leader creates
an environment in which people
feel that someone
has my back, they
will do extraordinary things.
And what I learned is
that courage is not
this deep down
internal fortitude.
It comes externally.
It's like a trapeze
artist would never
try a brand new, death-defying
act unless they had a net.
The courage didn't come
from the trapeze artist;
the courage came from the net.
And it's the same in the
military, especially when
you're in life and
death situations,
when you're in theater.
People you don't like, you
still rely on to save your life,
and the reason it works
is because you don't have
to look behind your shoulder.
And that mentality--
and you know better
than anybody, which is
when you are deployed
into dangerous places,
nobody loves deployment
but people have warm
feelings towards deployment,
which is really strange.
And suicides rarely happen
in combat situations.
They usually happen back home.
And it's the intensity
of the relationships that
create that warmth and the sort
of weird enjoyment of really
bad, uncomfortable, and
dangerous circumstances.
It's because we're human
beings and human beings,
as social animals,
feel our safest
when we trust each other.
And good leaders are
capable of producing that.
So great businesses
look very much
like well-run military
organizations.
There's poorly run military
organizations as well.
But great businesses look
exactly the same, where
the leaders give the glory.
They distribute authority.
They push it down the ranks,
let people make decisions.
If they screw up, there's
no risk of getting fired.
If the company misses
its arbitrary projections
on its arbitrary date,
we do not use the people
to balance the books.
We figure out other
ways, or we even
invite the people to
help solve the problems.
These are the things that
produce that circle of safety
that produces the exact same
outcome, where people will
love each other,
cry for each other,
sacrifice for each other.
You see it in business
plenty, but it always
boils down to leadership.
I mean, I can't help
but talk about it.
Let's look at United Airlines,
what just happened, shortly.
It's going to come up.
Usually, when things
like that happen,
that is a red flag that they
have a leadership problem.
It's very rare that you
have something like that
just show up out of nowhere.
What that probably
is is an environment
in which people are operating
in a fear-based culture, where
if you don't follow the rules
exactly as we've told you
you're going to get in trouble.
And the rule book says,
offer them an incentive.
And then it says, if that
didn't work, it says,
randomly pick people.
And then it says, if that
doesn't work, call security.
I'm just following the rules.
There's no discretion, where
everybody knows that's stupid.
Like when the CEO announced
that we're no longer going
to forcibly remove--
like, why was that
ever a policy?
That's like food companies
saying, now with no chemicals.
It's like, wait, wait, wait,
why were there ever chemicals?
But that's the point, which
nobody has discretion.
So I was boarding a flight--
I've told this story.
I was boarding a
flight, and the scene
played out in front of me,
where one of the passengers
attempted to board the plane
before their group number was
called.
And the gate agent
literally berated him.
Sir, step aside.
I haven't called your group.
Please step aside and wait
until I call your group.
So I spoke up and
said, why do you
have to talk to us that way?
Why can't you talk to us
like we're human beings?
And she looked me
in the eye and said,
if I don't follow the rules,
I could get in trouble
or lose my job.
All she revealed to me is
that she doesn't feel safe
in her own company,
and her leaders
do not trust her to do
the job for which she
has been trained to do.
And guess who suffers?
Us and the company.
The reason we love
flying Southwest Airlines
is because the
company trusts them
to do the job they have
been trained to do,
and they use discretion.
We don't trust people
to follow the rules.
We trust people to know
when to break them.
And the problem is, in
a fear-based society,
people fear for their own
jobs more than common sense.
That was a perfect
scenario of what
happens when somebody
in the company
is too afraid to break the
rule, break the policy,
use discretion to
find another way--
so almost predictable that
something will happen,
something will
break at some point.
Thanks.
How you doing?
AUDIENCE: So for some
industries that we're in,
I feel like we're
doing a really good job
of playing the infinite game.
We have a set of
values that I feel
like we're very much
trying to follow
as we come up with new
products and new features.
My question is, after
that's played out
for five, 10 years in
some of these industries,
it's clear we're reaching
some sort of maximum,
where following
those values is only
going to get us so
much of the market.
And even though we might
not be reactively looking
to competitors to see
what they're up to,
we can't help but notice that
they have most of the pie--
and even though we've stuck
to our guns for as far
as we can get without
doing something different.
So it's of course very
tempting at that point
to change and start
emulating what
other people are doing to get
that bigger piece of the pie.
So how much
flexibility do you see
when you're playing the
infinity game to change course?
SIMON SINEK: Depends
on the reason
you want to increase
the slice of pie.
Just because, or because
you have a message
and you know that if you
can get more of the pie
that message will reach
and help more people?
Is it nobly pursued, or
is it selfishly pursued?
And who says the time
frame has to be now?
The women's suffrage movement--
pretty important.
Get the women the vote--
pretty good idea.
You know that almost all
the founders of the suffrage
movement died before the
first woman ever voted?
Because that's how long it took.
Took more than a lifetime
for them to get it.
But the point was the pursuit,
the pursuit, the pursuit.
Would they like to have had
it happen in their lifetime?
Of course, of course.
Were they more preoccupied
that it happened?
Absolutely.
And that's the point.
You build legacy, you build
people who take that torch
and carry it without you.
So the problem is
that I think vision--
here's a thing that's
always boggled my mind.
Why is it unbalance, unbalance--
not always, but unbalance?
Why is it that
small companies tend
to be more innovative
than big companies?
Small companies that
are under-resourced
can't necessarily get
the best and brightest.
They're going to go out
of business any day,
and yet they come up
with brilliant ideas.
And big companies
full of resources,
full of amazing people buy
the little companies that
come up with the good ideas.
That's usually how big
companies innovate.
They buy the smaller ones.
Why is that?
Why is it that the
most-resourced companies
tend not to?
And I think it's a
question of reality,
and what I mean by that
is small companies,
their vision is more
distant than their grasp.
They have delusions of grandeur.
We're going to change the world,
change industries, reinvent
this, reinvent that.
We have no money and
no people, but so what?
My point is the grasp is
shorter than the vision.
And I think what happens is, as
companies get bigger and bigger
and bigger, with more and more
resources, what they start
to do is one of two things.
Either their visions become
well within their grasp
and they don't
readjust the vision,
or they actually
bring the vision back
to put within their grasps.
Make things very achievable--
difficult, but achievable.
For a vision to
truly be a vision,
it should feel unachievable.
When a small business gets
together and says, here's
our vision, everybody
goes like this.
How are we going to do that?
In big business,
see, here's a vision.
Everybody goes, all
right, no, yeah, got it.
We'll do a back plan.
We got that.
And I firmly believe
that innovation
is born out of the struggle.
Innovation is born out
of the resourcefulness
that you are forced
to figure out
because, literally, the vision
is way beyond your grasp.
Regardless of how many
resources you have,
it should always feel
overwhelming and impossible.
Take a group of people
with tons of resources
to give the vision,
they're going to go, OK.
So I think that's part of it.
I think that's part of it.
So you've been at it for five
years, you've achieved a lot.
Congratulations.
So the question is, well, was
the vision not big enough,
or you want more
piece of the pie?
Or why not just
stay in the game?
We have an obsession in America
with growth, not stability--
size.
We want size and growth.
We have lists of fastest
growing companies.
We have Fortune lists
of biggest companies.
We don't have lists of
most stable companies--
Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Lehman
Brothers, big companies--
Arthur Andersen, Circuit City.
Remember that one?
Right Poof, not like whoo--
like pfft.
Big, not stable.
Fast growth-- we
love fast growth.
We put people's pictures
on covers of magazines
and say, look, it's Groupon.
Remember that one?
Does anyone really care
about Groupon anymore?
It was like copy Groupon.
They're the future-- for now.
And that's the point.
For some reason, we're
obsessed with growth.
And again, it goes back to this.
Growth to what end?
Here's how I understand growth.
So you see your neighbor
packing up his car
across the street from
me, and you say, hey,
where are you going?
And he says, vacation.
Cool, where are you going?
He says, vacation.
You go, awesome;
where are you going?
He says, vacation.
So you go, well, how
you going to get there?
He says, I'm going
to take Route 95,
and my goal is to drive
150 miles an hour.
That's the same as growth.
Why does your company exist?
Growth.
Awesome-- to what end?
Well, we're a business to grow.
Love it.
How are you going to do it?
Growth.
Good.
What route are
you going to take?
Our goal is to increase top
line revenues by 20% every year,
duh.
To what end?
And so you get on vacation.
Everybody is so
proud of themselves
and smacking each
other on the back
because we drove 150 miles.
We drove 180 miles.
We're above goal.
In what direction?
And we see opportunities
that actually aren't good.
Somebody offers you a
ride in their private jet.
You're like, ooh,
quicker than a car.
Yes, except they're flying
in that direction, as opposed
to somebody who
knows their vision.
I want to get to California.
How you going to get there?
Route 95.
What's your goal?
150 miles a day.
And what happens if you drive 30
miles a day towards California?
That's OK.
We're going to find out how
we can take better routes.
Well, what if the
highway is blocked?
So you're forced to
go slower, but it's OK
because you know the
direction you're going in,
as opposed to firing off
in all other directions.
And when somebody says,
hey, I, got a private jet,
you want to fly, you
go, where are you going?
Calgary.
Not interested,
thank you very much.
You get my point.
AUDIENCE: Yeah, thank you.
That's very helpful.
AUDIENCE: Hi.
I just wondered about Apple.
You talked about how Apple
beat Microsoft at the time.
What's your observation
of Apple now
they're under the leader
Tim Cook after Steve Jobs?
What value do you observe,
or do you still believe
that they have--
SIMON SINEK: I
figure that if I let
you keep talking I don't have
to answer, which is good.
So I tend not to
comment on companies--
wait for it-- where the founder
leaders are still there.
Because people ask me
about these companies,
and the answer is, we don't
really know the kind of culture
they've built until the
founder leaders have left.
Because the founder leaders
tend to be the personifications
of the cause, of the values.
And you can really
test the quality
of the culture of a company
and its stick-with-itness
and whether they truly have
imbued into the company
the values first after
the founder goes.
So Wal-Mart is a great example.
Wal-Mart used to be an
amazing company that
was all about this, and
then Sam Walton died.
And the first CEO took over.
Grew up with Sam, so
he kind of got it.
And then all of a sudden
it started to go sideways
because they became
preoccupied with this
and they completely
forgot about that.
You see their tagline?
Their tagline is save
money, better life.
That's actually in
the wrong order.
It should be better
life, save money.
That would be a
values-based decision--
one of the pieces.
So we see this all the time.
Bill Gates left, and so
Microsoft went a little bit
sideways.
Then to Ballmer, but Ballmer was
obsessed with this over this.
So this happens also very often
when CEOs leave and replace
themselves with
their CFO or COO,
because we have a flawed
hierarchy in business.
We think CFO or COO
is the number two job,
and many CFOs or
COOs see themselves
as in line for the big job.
The problem is, it's
not one and two;
it's one and A. They're
completely separate skill sets.
And it's the
combination-- the mom
and the dad, the visionary
and the operator,
the person who sees
far and the person who
knows how to get
there, the person who
sees the forest, who
lives above the trees,
and the person who's
down in the trenches
trying to figure out their
way through the trees-- it's
that magical combination
that makes the business grow.
But too often, we
take a visionary
and we replace them
with an operator.
It happens all the time.
Mike Dell left Dell.
Mike Dell had to come back.
Howard Schultz left Starbucks,
replaced himself by a COO.
Howard Schultz had to come back.
Bill Gates left.
And there was sort of talk of
Bill coming back after Ballmer.
Satya was a little
more like Bill.
So Tim Cook was the COO.
So the problem is we
judge COOs based on what
they've done in the past.
We judge CEOs, a good
visionary, based on how far they
can see in the future.
And if you look at the
titles that we give people--
CMO, CIO, CTO, CEO, CFO--
in their title it says what
their responsibility is.
Finance, operations, marketing.
What the hell is an executive?
Chief executive officer.
It's the only job that literally
doesn't have job specs,
and it doesn't get away.
It should be CVO, chief
visionary officer.
Because like I said, we
judge somebody like that
by how far in the
future they can see,
and we want them to
work with somebody who
knows how to get them there.
These things work
together, not separately.
So I have concerns
about Apple, because it
is run by an operator--
good guy, smart guy who
believes in the vision.
But the problem is
he sees problems
more than he sees future.
These people are
huge risk takers.
These people are
calculated risk takers.
And so I think we're
starting to see cracks.
Does it mean the end of Apple?
No.
But we're starting to
see some of the cracks.
They don't seem to be
leading markets anymore.
They don't seem to be defining
product categories anymore.
In fact, a few times
they've been the followers.
So I make this little joke,
like, your phone doesn't work.
You're like, eh, ever
since Steve died.
You know?
There's politics playing
out in the company.
It's weirdness.
Is the end of Apple?
I don't think so.
Of course not, but definitely
it makes me interested.
AUDIENCE: I'm a weird 21st
century case of somebody
for whom Google is my first
and only full-time employer.
And we often-- I
work in marketing--
sort of copy and paste the
company's value statements
into briefs that we
write in a way that
feels very mechanical
and not really like,
to your earlier
point, I came here
and I signed up to
work for this value.
Can you speak to, at
the value setting stage,
what are the kinds
of questions that you
ask when you're
sitting down to think
what do we really stand for?
How do I put a few words
to these larger ideas?
SIMON SINEK: I'll
wax philosophical.
There's no sort of answer.
So we're obsessed in our
business with the movement.
We obsess about the movement.
We never ask ourselves--
literally it never comes up--
is that good for the company?
It just doesn't come up.
It does secondarily,
but we want to know
if a decision we're
about to make,
a product we're about
to develop, something
we're about to sell--
whatever it is, we always say,
is it good for the movement?
So what it does is
it forces everybody
to put first the movement,
this vision that we all
share in our organization.
We believe, we imagine
a world in which
the vast majority
of people wake up
every single morning inspired
to go to work, feel safe
when they're there, and
return home fulfilled
at the end of the day.
Our goal is to get
closer to that,
stand as a beacon that
points towards that,
and offers the tools we can and
inspire others to help us build
tools to get to that world.
That's what we mean
by the movement,
and we're obsessed with it.
Even when we talk
about our P&L, we
don't actually have a line
on our P&L that says profit.
It says freedom.
Because none of us are
motivated by the abstract thing
called profit.
We absolutely are
motivated by freedom.
Because the more
money we make, it
allows us to stay in the game--
fuel for the drive.
It allows us to
get our message out
to a bigger, broader audience.
It allows us to
say yes to things
that don't pay and say
no to things that do pay,
but we don't like the people
who are calling us up.
It gives us discretion to give
money away to people we like,
and it gives us
opportunities that
give benefits to the question
before and give freedom.
So you're damn right I want to
have more freedom this month
than I had last month.
Right So I think it comes from
an obsession from leadership--
and not just me, at all levels.
And sometimes that
leadership comes
from bottom up, where
we catch each other
and we remind each other.
Because it is tempting
to put all this first,
because we can
demonstrate and measure
how we can improve or
draw on some metric?
And the question I
ask is, to what end?
And I don't mean rationalizing.
I mean, explain to me in hard
words how this advances that,
not some back-pedalling, which
is very often what happens--
and so clearly that
everybody else in the room
is going, mhm, not
whatever, if you say that.
That's the funny thing
about these things.
We all know what the
right thing to do is,
but we like to
rationalize sometimes.
So I think there has to be
an obsession with the cause
to advance the cause.
And it doesn't have
to be the top person.
It can be somebody
who signed up for it.
Guys, guys, guys, remember
why we all signed up for this?
It's like the military example.
Everybody has the same
flag on their shoulder.
And if you're in the Marines,
Army, Air Force, or Navy,
when you're in a
combat situation
the uniform disappears.
The only thing that matters
is this and each other.
We all signed up
for the same thing.
Do you believe in it, or
do you not believe in it?
Do you want to advance
this cause or not?
Do you care about changing
the way the world works
and making it into something
better, or do you not?
What can we do in our sphere of
influence-- marketing, product,
whatever?
What can we do in our
sphere of influence?
What little bit can we do?
What piece of the
jigsaw puzzle do we
have to put down to help build
the picture that's on the box?
But somebody has to be pointing
to the picture on the box,
and that's the job of the
leader, whether they have rank
or not.
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
AUDIENCE: So I
manage a team here.
I enjoyed your talk.
SIMON SINEK: Lead a team.
Nobody wants to be managed.
People want to be led.
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
Very helpful.
I've got a group
of finite players
from a personal situation and
definitely infinite players.
So they don't need more money.
They're here for the purpose.
It's wonderful.
How do I get a team
dynamic, and how do I
get the infinite players
aligned on the vision?
They view part of their role
here as to set that mission?
SIMON SINEK: So there is vision
at the Google or Alphabet
level.
And all of the companies
within Alphabet
should be working in cones
to advance the bigger vision.
And within that, there
should be nested-wise,
we would call it, that advance,
whatever-- it all goes up.
So ideally, your question is,
what did they sign up for?
Do they believe
in the big vision?
And can they help advance it?
And I love that
they're big thinkers,
and you want to combine big
thinkers with big doers--
good teams.
I love that.
What if, going, ooh,
I could do that--
somebody else goes,
I can do that.
But if they see
themselves as the one who
has to come up with the
vision, the question
is, but at what point
do we start building?
This happens very often
with entrepreneurs--
and entrepreneurs are in
big businesses and not;
it has nothing to do with
owning a small business--
where it's shiny
object syndrome.
Every shiny object is
something they want to pursue.
And at some point you're
going to have to pick one.
This is one of the
things I actually
admire in the Marine Corps.
If you go to OCS at the
Marine Corps in Quantico
where they select
their officers,
they have something called the--
I forgot the term they call it--
but it's basically a leadership
reaction course, the LRC.
Basically it's a mini,
little obstacle courses,
like 20 of them,
10 wet, 10 dry--
things like take these three
planks of different sizes
and lay them on the telephone
poles sticking out of the water
and get all of your
people and this ammunition
across the water.
Figure it out.
And they give them
a time constraint.
And they have to run it twice,
when they assign the leader
and when they don't.
So one of the things that I'm
fascinated by in the LRC, which
is they are looking
for the leader
to take input from
everybody and then make
a decision on the strategy of
how we're going to get across.
But they're also looking
to the followers,
because what they find
is the best followers
take advice and then
make a decision.
And the best followers
will give advice,
but once the
decision is made want
to see their
leaders successful--
and never, never work
to sabotage or stand
on the sidelines because
they didn't get their way
or enjoy the
failure because they
say I told you so,
but work tirelessly
to see whatever direction
was set is highly successful.
So I hope that's
happening here, too.
AUDIENCE: Thanks.
SIMON SINEK: You're welcome.
AUDIENCE: Hi.
SIMON SINEK: OK.
It's very egalitarian.
AUDIENCE: Hello, Simon.
Thanks for the talk.
My question is, so
what's the worst
thing happening in your life?
I'm very interested
in your life story.
SIMON SINEK: With regards
to what-- my career?
My family?
AUDIENCE: Your career
or your life in general.
SIMON SINEK: I mean,
I stubbed my toe.
That was pretty bad.
So my whole journey,
this whole why thing,
was born out of pain.
I owned a small
marketing business
and I had lost my
love for my work,
and people gave me stupid
advice, like, do what you love,
follow your passion.
What am I supposed
to do with that?
I'm doing the same thing.
I don't love it anymore.
And it was a very,
very dark place for me,
where I spent all of
my energy pretending
that I was happier, more
successful, and more in control
than I felt.
I was lying, hiding, and
faking every day of my life.
And it's debilitating,
quite frankly.
And it wasn't until a
friend came to me and said,
I'm worried about you, that gave
me this courage, the strength
to admit that I was
struggling and then
to look to find a solution.
And that journey pointed me
to the concept called "why."
I knew what I did and
I knew how I did it,
but I didn't know why.
And it's the biology of
human decision making,
and I realized there's
a major piece missing.
And so the pain of
that, which I never
want to go back to but
I'm glad it happened,
profoundly changed the
course of my life and career.
And it's why I'm here now,
is because of the pain
that I went through back then.
AUDIENCE: Quick question.
You opened up this framework
with very notable examples
from politics--
Cold War, Afghanistan, Vietnam.
And then we transition
to business.
And it makes sense
that you don't
have to focus on
the competition,
but politics, sometimes
you don't have that luxury,
especially if it's
a zero sum game
kind of geopolitical warfare.
So if you are facing
opposition that leads with why,
has an infinity outlook,
and is intrinsically
motivated on that process,
how do you combat them?
Is it as simple as you
last longer, more infinity,
if there is such a thing?
Or is it a certain point where
to engage or not to engage
is a more important question?
SIMON SINEK: It's
such a good question,
and the answer makes me
really uncomfortable.
Because I'm looking at
what the criteria are,
actually going through
the necessities of what
elements are required to
play an infinite game.
That's what I'm
working on right now.
And I'm uncomfortable
with the fact,
but I think the fact is you
have to have opposition.
And one of the reasons
is having opposition,
having an adversary actually
allows for a game to exist,
because you can't play
a game by yourself.
Even if you're playing
like Solitaire,
you're still playing
against the cards.
There's an opposition.
And so as uncomfortable as I
am, even in the old Apple days,
they still wanted
to take down IBM,
and then they want to
take down Microsoft.
But having an opposition
on the infinite level
makes it easier for us to know
what we stand for, because we
can see what we're against.
So even if, in
the United States,
we struggle to put
our vision into terms,
we could look at the Soviet
Union and say, not that.
But you still have
to have the "for."
It's still going to be
there, because when players
drop out and are replaced, you
still stand for the same thing.
Because if you're only against
whatever anybody else is,
then you're not going anywhere.
So you still have
to have the for.
So the Romans debated on
the floor of the Senate
for 50 years whether
they should just
flatten Carthage, which
was their not-that,
their Soviet Union.
And they finally
decided to do it,
and they flattened Carthage.
And then the Roman Empire
quickly went into decline.
That's interesting to me.
So I think you need opposition.
I think Apple needed Microsoft.
George Lucas talks about this.
He says, what do you
do when you become
the thing that you hate--
the hated?
And I think an
adversary at this level,
another infinite
adversary, is important.
Now, it's not like
more infinity.
You have to keep
the game in play,
because we never know
when it's going to end.
Nobody could predict
that the Cold
War would end when it ended.
In fact, it caught
most people by surprise
when the Berlin Wall came down.
It sort of happened
very quickly.
The point is you have to
maintain a good business so you
can maintain resources, so
that you can stay in the game.
You have to run
efficiently, but you
want to keep people
ideologically invested.
You want to find allies.
You want to be an
ideological export.
You want to preach your
cause, preach you cause,
preach your cause, preach your
vision, preach your vision,
so that others will go, me, too.
And you get allies, other
companies or partners,
or vendors, or employees who go,
I'm in, I believe, I'm loyal.
I'm never going to abandon you.
I'm in.
So the adversary makes
all that very easy.
The reason we
stand for something
is when one adversary drops out.
While we're waiting for a new
adversary, which will show up,
we have to know
what we stand for.
And if you really want
to get into geopolitics,
that was the single
biggest mistake
that the United States
made after the Cold War--
we're really going here--
which is we declared
ourselves the winner.
But that's not what happened.
The other guy dropped out.
And then we imposed our will on
the world for about 11 years.
Turns out the rest of
the world didn't like it,
and new adversaries
started to show up.
Soviet-style communism-- we were
both ideological exporters--
was replaced by
Islamic extremism.
The nuclear power
of the Soviet Union
was replaced by North
Korea, Pakistan, maybe Iran.
The economic tension
with the Soviets Union
is replaced by China.
The problem is now it's
diffuse, now it's separated,
but the Cold War
is alive and well--
Cold War 2.0.
And we're still battling life,
liberty, pursuit of happiness.
It's more complicated now,
but we foolishly gave up
what we stood for for a while.
So I think you need both.
And I'm uncomfortable
by the fact,
but I think you
need adversaries.
You need to have a not-that.
We're clear what we
stand for because we know
we don't ever want to be that.
Thanks very much for
your time, everyone.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
