Responsible Leadership for Infinite Success - Simon Sinek - Full Session - WGS 2019

in January of 1968 the North Vietnamese Army launched a surprise attack against the Americans this was the Tet Offensive Tet is the celebration of the Lunar New Year and there was a tradition in Vietnam that had gone on for decades that there was never any fighting on Tet and yet in 1968 the North Vietnamese generals decided to break with tradition with the hope that they could surprise the Americans overwhelm them with force and bring a swift end to the Vietnam War they attacked over a hundred and twenty-five targets across the country with over 85,000 troops now here's the amazing thing the United States actually repelled every single attack every single one and at the end of most of the major fighting which was after about a week the United States had lost fewer than a thousand troops the North Vietnamese lost thirty five thousand of the 85,000 troops and if we look at the Vietnam War as a whole we see that America lost 58 thousand men and North Vietnam lost over three million people and a close examination also reveals that Ameri America actually won nearly every major battle at fault so it raises a very interesting question how do you win all the battles decimate your enemy and lose the war it raises new questions about how we understand the concept of winning and losing James Carr C theologian from NYU wrote a little book called finite and infinite games in which he talks about games and how and we play them basically if you have at least what two competitors you have a game and there are two types of games there are finite games and there are infinite games finite games are defined as known players fixed rules and an agreed upon like football we all agree what the rules are we all agree whoever has more points at the end of the game as the winner the game concludes and we all go home then you have an infinite game an infinite game is defined as known and unknown players the rules are changeable and the objective is to perpetuate the game to keep the game and play when you put a finite player versus a finite player the system is stable football is stable when you pit an infinite player versus an infinite player the system is also stable the Cold War was stable because we cannot have a winner or a loser and so we both keep playing until one of the players runs out of the will or the resources to keep playing and then they drop out of the game problems arise however when you pit a finite player versus an infinite player because a finite player is playing to win and an infinite player is playing to keep playing and they make very different strategic choices and invariably what happens is the finite player find themselves in quagmire they find themselves frustrated and running through the will and resources required for them to stay in the game and this is what happened to American Vietnam America was fighting to win and the North Vietnamese were fighting for their lives a very different set of strategic choices were made and it's not so much that America lost its that they ran out of the will or the resources to continue to stay in the game and so they dropped out so this gets me thinking there's no such thing as winning global politics there's no such thing as winning governance and there is definitely no such thing as winning business but when we listen to the language of too many leaders they don't know the game we're in they talk about being number one or being the best or beating their competition based on what based on what metric based on what timeframe these are infinite games and when we play with a finite mindset in an infinite game there's a few very predictable things that happen trust declines cooperation declines innovation declines and eventually we run out of the will or the resources to play and in business we call this bankruptcy or merger and acquisition so I had a real life experience that helped me see the difference between a finite player and an infinite player I spoke at an education summit for Apple I also spoke at an education summit for Microsoft at the Microsoft summit I would say 70 to 80 percent of the executives spent the majority of their presentations talking about how to beat Apple at the Apple summit a hundred percent of the executives spent a hundred percent of their presentations talking about how to help teachers teach and how to help students learn one was obsessed with where they were going one was obsessed with a vision the other was obsessed with beating their competition guess which one was in quagmire guess which one was wasting will and resources 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 the Zune was Microsoft's response to the iPod and this little piece of technology was absolutely spectacular it was brilliant it was beautifully designed it was elegant it worked flawlessly the user interface was intuitive so at the end of my Apple talk I'm sharing a taxi with a senior Apple executive employee number 54 to be specific and I couldn't help myself I had to stir the pot and I turned him and I said you know Microsoft gave me their new Zune it is so much better than your iPod touch to which he responded I have no doubt and the conversation was over because the infinite player understands sometimes you have the better product and sometimes they have the better product and sometimes you're ahead and sometimes you're behind and the goal is not to win the goal is to outlast and the only true competitor in the infinite game is ourselves the goal is to make our systems better this year than they were last year to make our governance better this year than it was last year to make our culture stronger this year than it was last year to make the quality of our relationships on the level of trust better than it was last year that's the goal of the infinite player to outdo themselves so this all raises a very interesting question if too many leaders are leading with a finite mindset and the reality is so many of these games that were actually playing in our infinite games that means we have to learn how to change the way we lead to lead for the game or actually in so I boiled it down to five things of how to lead in the infinite game we need to have a just cause we need to have trusting teams we need to have a worthy rival we need to have a capacity for existential flexibility and we need to have the courage to lead just cause a just cause is a cause so just we would be willing to sacrifice our interests in order to advance that cause that could mean taking a job for less money because I believe in what we're doing here it happens very often that we're doing something we believe in and someone wants to bring us to their company and they think that simply by showering us with money we'll leave but when we believe desperately in what the work that we're doing we easily turn down the better salary that's a sacrifice in order to be a part of something we believe in maybe working late hours or frequent business trips being away from our families we don't like these things but for some reason it feels worth it it feels worth the sacrifice to be a part of something larger than ourselves and every leader with the capacity to lead for the infinite game offers their people a sense of just cause Steve Jobs famously believed that the individual should stand up to Big Brother it wasn't about computers per se it wasn't about design but he saw the computer as the perfect tool to empower individuals to stand up to the status quo he imagined a world in which one day one person with a computer could compete against a corporation well that's the world we live in today this is what his Just Cause was and all the people who believed in that kind of individual power were drawn to Apple they wanted to work there and they wanted to buy from Apple it's not an accident that creative people and young people were so drawn to the brand they liked the idea of standing up to Big Brother standing up to the status quo we must give our people a sense of just cause a cause so just they would be willing to sacrifice in order to advance that infinite ideal a vision of the world that does not yet exist number two we have to have trusting teams I was on a business trip in Las Vegas and they put me up at the Four Seasons beautiful hotel and one of the reasons it's a beautiful hotel is not simply because of the fancy bed any hotel can buy a fancy bed it's because of the people who work there that when they say hello to you you get the distinct sense that they wanted to say hello not that they were told to say hello we're highly attuned social animals we can tell the difference they happened to have a coffee bar in the lobby and so one afternoon I went to buy myself a cup of coffee and the barista working that day was a young man named Noah Noah was funny he was engaging I enjoyed buying a cup of coffee from him I stood there for far too long buying a cup of coffee just because I enjoyed talking to Noah so as is my nature I asked Noah do you like your job and without skipping a beat Noah says to me I love my job now in my line of business that's significant like is rational I like the people I like the challenge I get paid well I like my job love is emotional it demonstrates an emotional connection to whatever we're doing do you love your wife I like her a lot so it's a different standard right Noah said I love my job so immediately I'm interested so I follow up I said to Noah tell me specifically what the four seasons is doing that you would say to me you love your job and again without skipping a beat Noah said that throughout the day managers will walk past him and ask him how he's doing I asked them if there's anything that he needs to do his job better not just his manager any manager and then he said I also work for a different hotel and they're the managers walk past me and catch me if I'm doing something wrong there they're always overbearing and trying to make sure that I make my numbers he says there I just like to get through the day keep my head below the radar and just collect my paycheck he said only at the four seasons do I feel I can be myself this is the exact same human being and yet the level of performance will be completely different not because of him but because of the leadership environment in which he's working I get this question all the time Simon how do we get the most out of our people they're not a towel that we scream them to see how much we can get out of them the question is flawed the correct question is what environment do I have to create what do I have to do to help my people work at their natural best that's called leadership and when we can create a trusting team teams in which people feel trusted and trusting what will happen is it makes them feel safe enough to raise their hand and say I made a mistake or I'm having trouble at home and it's affecting my work or you've promoted me to a position that I don't know what I'm doing and I need more training or I need help or I'm scared if we do not have trusting teams what we have is a group of people who show up to em to work every single day lying hiding and faking they hide all of the mistakes for fear of getting in trouble they won't admit that they don't know what they're doing for fear that they'll be humiliated they're certainly not gonna say that they're scared or that they need help for fear that it will somehow reduce their value inside the organization and eventually things will compound and break we've seen what happens I know you've seen the news a few years ago when United Airlines dragged one of their customers off the plane with a broken nose broken teeth and a concussion I feel sorry for every person who works on that plane I feel sorry for the crew because every single one of them knew that that was the wrong thing to do and yet none of them intervened because they feared getting in trouble or breaking the rules more than doing the right thing this was not an anomaly this did not happen overnight it was not that crew it was the culture in which that crew works I had an experience many years before that started to show the evidence I was waiting to board a United Airlines plane on a business trip and I witnessed a scene play out in front of me where one of the passengers attempted to board the plane before their group number was called which as we all know is a serious crime and that's exactly how the gate agent treated him step aside sir I haven't called your group yet please step aside and wait till I call your group is how she talked to a paying customer so I spoke up I 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 sir if I don't follow the rules I could get in trouble or lose my job all she revealed to me is that she was more concerned about herself than she was about her customer is that sure leaders don't trust her to do the job for which she's been trained to do she has no agency or control over the job that she does and guess who suffers customer and company the reason we like flying Virgin Atlantic or Southwest Airlines or Emirates or any of these other airlines is not because they have some magical formula to hire the best people it's but the people who work there feel like they have agency that they have the power to do their job the way they've been trained to do it and make the right decisions and guess who benefits customer and company to keep playing in the infinite game we have to have an environment which people feel trusted and trusting we they feel that we trust them and they trust us back that is the responsibility of leaders leaders its leadership is not about being in charge it's about taking care of those in our charge and creating a place in which they can work at their natural best and they will offer us their best ideas they will take risks they will solve problems they will work together it's a magical thing number three you have to have a worthy rival there's somebody else who do who does what I do he writes books he gives talks his work is extremely well respected I am a big fan of his work I also happen to hate him there's nothing personal he never did anything bad to me it's just how I feel I hate him and I will check my book rankings on the internet and then I'll immediately check his book sales and if mine are ahead I feel smug and if his/her head I feel angry so one day we were invited to speak on the same stage together and I don't mean him in the morning and me in the afternoon I mean actually together we would be interviewed on the stage together and the interviewer thought it would be fun if we introduced each other so I went first and I looked at him and I said you make me very insecure all of your strengths are all of my weaknesses and when your name comes up it makes me uncomfortable and he turns to me and he said funny I feel the same about you the reason I hated him was nothing personal it's because he reminded me of my weaknesses and it was easier for me to take that energy and put it against him and be competitive than it was to take a hard look at myself and see where I can improve and that is the value of a worthy rival by the way we're best of friends now I stayed as house I think he's great it was a cathartic experience but that is the value of a rival our rivals are the people who are as good or better than us at our own work and their mere existence reveals to us our weaknesses and the goal is not to try and beat them the goal is to take a hard look at ourselves and see where we can improve competition is about winning but rivalry is about advancing if we have a competitive attitude then all we want to do is win the game which means it's like two runners and one will trip the other one in order to win yes they will win the race but there's still a slow runner it's better to lose the race today and become stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and wish them the best of luck and your rivalries can change depending on how well you do in the early days IBM was Microsoft's Worthy was Apple's worthy rival rather Apple were the Pirates and IBM represented the Navy and then IBM fell out of the game and then it was Microsoft that represented the Navy I'm a Mac I'm a PC and then Microsoft Microsoft fell out of the game and now it's Google and Facebook that represent the thing that they stand apart from that helps us understand our own identity who are you worthy rivals they can be individuals that can be organizations they can be nation-states people we admire and push us to be better versions of ourselves next you have to have the capacity for existential flexibility what does that mean so Apple had already come up the success of the Apple 1 and the Appl - it's already a huge company it's already very famous and successful and they're working on their next big project and then coincidentally at that time around 1981 Steve Jobs and some of his senior executives went on a tour of Xerox PARC and their Xerox showed them an innovation that they had come up with called the graphic user interface and it would allow us to use a mouse to control the cursor on the screen to click on folders and move them around to use the computer prior to that you had to use you had to know a computer language like DOS and remember Steve Jobs his vision remember his just'cause which is to empower the individual to stand up to the status quo and when he saw this amazing innovation called the graphic user interface he immediately saw that this was a way more powerful way to get more people to use a computer because it was so much simpler and easier to use so as they're leaving Xerox he says to his people we have to invest in this and as people say we can't one of the voices of reason said Steve we can't we've already invested countless man-hours and millions of dollars in an entirely different strategic direction if we in reinvest in the graphic user interface we will blow up our own company - which jobs actually said better we should blowed up than someone else that decision was the Macintosh a computer platform so profound that the entire software of Windows is designed to work like a Macintosh it literally changed the world and the reason we all have a computer at home and at work is because they're so easy to use that's existential flexibility it's the ability to make a profoundly different strategic shift because we find a better way to advance our cause and even if we have invested in one direction this is better and for the person who makes the existential flex to the outside world it'll look like you're crazy why would you abandon something that working but to the person who makes the existential flex because they're so driven by cause they perceive the risk as staying in the path that they're on that it is a much smaller risk it's the obvious thing that they have to do to adjust Kodak did the opposite George Eastman the founder of Kodak hadn't just cause about democratizing photography and everything the company did was about making photography simpler and simpler and simpler and in 1975 the company invented the digital camera and they suppressed the technology for fear than it would cannibalize film sales they knew that they had about 10 years before someone else would figure it out and over the course of those 10 years they did nothing and sure enough more companies started to introduce digital technology in fact Kodak made billions of dollars from the royalties they got from their patents for the digital technology and when those patents ran out they went bankrupt because if you're not willing to blow up your own company the market will blow it up for you existential flexibility is the capacity to make a significant strategic shift because you find a better way to advance your cause and only infinite players have that capacity which means everybody else runs out of time and money finally you have to have the courage to lead everything that I've told you today is unbelievably difficult to be caused driven in a world where all of the pressures on us are short-term is incredibly difficult for those of you who work in government you're not as used to being short-term oriented it's more long-term oriented and it is about serving the greater good but for business all the pressures from Wall Street all the incentive structures are all about near-term near-term near-term and I would contend that one of the reasons government and business sometimes struggle to actually work well together is because one is thinking extremely long-term and thinking about the greater good and the other is thinking extremely short-term and thinking what's good for me and the problem is as those are different attitudes of working together and in my experience government keeps looking to business to learn how to do things and I would challenge business is to start looking at government to learn how to do things that may be a long-term mindset and thinking about how we devote our lives to a life of service which can still be extremely profitable the most infinite organizations are some of the most profitable Apple Southwest Airlines Patagonia Virgin these are incredibly infinite thinkers and there's some of the most profitable companies in their industries because of their cause because of their teams because of their ability to innovate this takes tremendous courage to lead in a way in which the vast majority of people are leading in a different way it's about challenging conventional mindsets about leadership which all raises the final question what does it mean to live an infinite life clearly our lives are finite we're born we die but life is infinite we come we go and the game continues with us without us which means every single one of us has the choice of how we choose to live our lives how we choose to lead our organizations we can lead with a finite mindset try and make more money than our friends try and get ahead faster than everybody else try and achieve more power than anybody else and when we die we take none of it with us but the choice to live an infinite life means we choose to build an organization that will be better off because we work there we will leave it in better shape than we found it it means to be the kind of friend and leader to others that they will be better because we were in their lives it means we will literally live on beyond ourselves it's just a choice whether we choose to live with an infinite mindset or a finite mindset thank you very much thank you thank you for a incredibly insightful talk I'll start with an easy one you mentioned no.1 yes and that got me thinking as to our leaders born or made can we build leadership and and everyone leadership is a skill like any other some people seem to be born with it but the reality is it's the experiences they had when they were younger they were lucky that they got to have either good mentors or good experiences that help them learn leadership at a younger age but leaders are made it's a skill like any other it's a learning practice of a skill it's like going to the gym you commit yourself to that practice and you build the muscle I like to think of it like parenting that everybody has the capacity to be a parent but not everybody should be a parent and not everybody wants to be a parent leadership is the same we all have the capacity for leadership not everybody should be a leader and not everybody wants to be a leader and the reason is it comes at personal sacrifice you'd like a parent we have to put the people around us first we have to care that they rise and they do well in the world but yes it's a learn about this gets me thinking then how to over I guess the past century we've always to some extent confused management with leadership that I need to have certain titles in position for me to be a leader and vice versa for people to have that inside on us so leadership has nothing to do with rank I know many people who sit at the highest levels of organizations who are not leaders they have authority and we do is they tell us because they have authority over us but we would not choose to follow them and yet I know many people at lower levels that have little authority and yet they've made the choice to look after the person to the left of them and they've made the choice to look after the person to the right of them and we would trust them and follow them anywhere what what rank and authority give us is the ability to lead a greater scale but it but the rank itself is not what makes you a leader it just gives you a leadership position Jack Ma says that he is he collected the team that is much smarter than he is and his role as a leader of Alibaba was just to be able to manage people it sounds much easier than what it is in your opinion what what does that mean it is much more difficult leadership is hard like parenting is hard it's an imperfect science and art you're juggling your own egos the egos of others you're jug you're juggling human beings which are messy but the thing that I admire about what he said was and this is the sign of somebody with at least a sense of good leadership which is I'm not the smartest person in the room and I don't have to be in fact I shouldn't be and what I'm gonna provide is a sense of cause for my people to commit their lives to which gives their work meaning and I'm going to clear a path for them and help them where they need my help but otherwise my goal is to make sure that they have what they need and stay out of their way in the sense that there's that that humility there's a humility that absolutely that someone needs to swallow their pride and let others do their job but it is it is a milestone for many leaders for them to get to that point absolutely and and and it's not a good thing or bad thing it's it's the way we're raised sometimes and sometimes we we're we're raised in a fear-based hierarchy where to admit that we're not the smartest may open us up to humiliation or even the possibility of being laid off next year you you see this very often amongst older middle managers where they hoard information and don't share it with younger people they don't share their experiences they don't share their lessons they don't because they they think falsely that it's that that's what gives them job security and and it's such a shame because they could make the team around them so much stronger but it's it's it's a fear-based mentality then this this leads me to think about sort of you have civilizations in which for centuries they have not seen their leadership as a fear of losing honor face and on the other hand you have leaders in which they need to be present they need to come to conferences or speak like this tip for for their constituents or or or others to give them respect so we have two very opposing ideals and and what I want to ask is our leaders heard or viewed so money we is an is a redeemable resource we make money we spend money we lose money we make more money right but time and energy are non redeemable when you give someone time or you give someone energy there's no getting it back and so when a leader gives time or energy to us we know that that is unbelievably valuable because we know that they could be doing something else and we know that their time is valuable we do that all the time we when we send an email to somebody very senior to us we start the email with I know you're busy but the first thing we show is deference to their time so when you see the a general visit the frontlines they're very busy and yet they just go walk amongst the troops it says something to the to the rank-and-file when when leaders give an audience to hear what you're what you're up to or they come and visit a factory it does an amazing thing to give time and energy to something so I'm a great believer that that that leader should be seen and should be heard they should have busy public schedules as opposed to living in an ivory tower which may produce a sense of mystery and myth but but it's unstable so this leads me again to a question that that is very based on on today's time that the saying goes that technology leads or breeds impatience I don't want to say how can we guide this generation because I see a lot of of the older generation that are just as impatient so what how can we have people sort of be able to be more patient and in the sense that be able whenever we speak about leadership on regardless of scale or hierarchy that they're able to be patient and in the sense that can we be patient enough or to get to the or to play the infinite game - to - there's a there's an old Chinese saying which I love the little Chinese parable there's a young man who's born with the remarkable ability for horse riding and everybody in the village says you're so lucky and the monk says we'll say and then he falls off his horse and breaks his leg and his career is ruined and everyone in the village says you're so unlucky and the monk says we'll see and then war breaks out and all the young men are sent to battle but he can't go because of his broken leg and everyone in the village says you're so lucky and the monk says we'll see and I think this is what patience breathes I think this is what an infinite mindset produces which is we don't see any action or any result as final they're stepping stones and sometimes they help us and sometimes their step we fall back and all of us have had a very negative experiences in our lives that we will say I never want to do that again but I'm glad it happened because I learned so much every great leader has has had tremendous failure there's no such thing as as hockey sticks of success it just doesn't exist and so I think an infinite mindset allows us to just take things in stride and maintain positivity and not see any particular result is final which also yields humility so we don't believe bad results are the end but we also don't think that we're amazing because we had good results everything is a little more tempered but they're going back to your metaphor of the the monk especially in depending on on the sector you work at if it's based on public opinion that someone says all right we we have this long-term plan and we need to be patient or we need to take things easy as X Y & Z how would and in your opinion how can someone I know it's much easier said than done how can someone be able to to lead some sure lead a nation corporate so when I talk about having an infinite mindset that doesn't mean the absence of finite games there were always finite games within India net game but they exist within a context and metrics extremely important we need metrics as human beings we need we are very tangibly driven we need to see and measure progress to feel progress I can't just say you know I'll give you a bonus if you do more how much more tell them give me a give me a target you know give me something to reach for it's like running a marathon and there's no markers along the way you don't know how fast you're going you don't know how far you're going and so when public opinion matters and you have an infinite mindset it's extremely good to have milestones it's extremely good to give progress reports so that people can see the steps that are being taken towards the the vision will never get there because it's an infinite game but we'll die trying which is the point and all the milestones are proof that we're moving in the right direction and also being honest about some of the things that pushes back I want to talk about what made you write your book or what was the spark that made you write the book that he authored starting with the why start with why was born out of the loss of my own passion so I had a career it was a successful career and I fell out of love and I was very I didn't know what to do with that feeling because I was embarrassed because my life superficially it was good I'd made a decent living I had amazing clients we did good work but I didn't want to wake up do it again in the morning and so I pretended that I was happier more successful and more in control than I felt I was lying hiding and faking just because I was embarrassed and that's not a good way to live and there was a confluence of events and I discovered that every single one of us knows what we do everybody can tell you their job some of us can tell you how we do it the things that we think make us stand out from those who do what we do also do what we do but very very very few people can clearly articulate why we do it we do I don't mean to make money that's a result I mean what's the purpose what's the cause what's the belief why did we get out of bed this morning and why should anyone care and I realized that that's what was missing in my life I knew what I was doing I knew how to do it but I couldn't tell you why I was doing it and the reason I felt uncomfortable is I'd lost any sense of purpose or cause in my life and it was the rediscovery of my why that that not only restored my passion but pushed me in a direction that I never I find myself here would you mind wouldn't mind me asking why or when at what age were you when this all went down when I was 32 because because I've recently read that there is something called the quarter life crisis where someone that is in their twenty five twenty they left college they just started to work you know throughout their university years they reach a point where they've been told that you know if you study X Y & Z you'll be this incredible person and then once they reach the job market it's not the case reality hits them in the face so to speak and and the quarter life crisis happens so what what are your thoughts on that I mean I would argue that part of that is due to the fact that we we do a poor job of preparing people for when they graduate you know we think about it when we're young our parents and guidance counselors tell us get a job nobody says get a job you love you know we're told to weigh the pay package of one company and versus the pay package of an their company we're never told to weigh do you like the people you're gonna work for here do you like the people you're gonna work for there because you're gonna spend more time with those people than you will with your own family and friends so I think one of the reasons is we we poorly prepare people but that we make a decision on how to choose a job or choose a career and so by the time we get there I think it's it's it shakes the system I I think the quarter life crisis shouldn't have to happen yeah so you throw out your books your talks you've spoken a lot from corporate perspective it's fair to ask leadership in the private sector versus government hmm what differs are there some shared similar values leadership is leadership no matter where you go and the purpose of leadership is the same right and good leadership will be the same no matter what government an NGO tends to be a little better at cause but sometimes falls short on on structure accountability metrics metrics business tends to be really good at the structure and accountability metrics and sometimes falls pretty short on cause and something purposeful so it's not that it's I think government leadership and business leadership are not different I think they're worthy rivals I think they could learn from each other and each reveals the other's weaknesses so I meet people in business and to them the incentives are short-term and and about themselves how can I get a promotion and how can I get a bonus and the company sets up the incentive structures to get something out of you by rewarding you in government and a good government leadership it tends to be more look what we are doing and the reward tends to be more communal and it tends to be more shared and we view ourselves as a piece of machine rather than I'm the champion and I and I I think they can both learn a little bit from each other then because in this in this part of the world and elsewhere you see a lot of interchange in terms of people going from private government government to private and as a result of what you just mentioned in terms of that incentivized aspect that differs yeah and that takes you know you have to relearn how to ride the bike again yeah what would you say about that in the sense of are there some core aspects that can be just a plug-and-play I mean so when people go from private sector the government they complain about the pace of things things get slower and there's more bureaucracy when people go from government to private sector they complain about the loss of camaraderie the loss of brotherhood and sisterhood that everybody is out for themselves you know they miss the trust so there's there's always a sense of loss I think I think the universal truth which is missing in both is good leadership curriculum I think we can do much better in private sector and much better in government in teaching people how to lead we we expect that they're learning it somewhere else we hope that they're getting it from University or MBA is which they don't and then we put them in a leadership position it's like when someone's junior in their job we give them tons of training how to do that how to sell or how to use the computer system or how do you work the machine tons of training how to do their job and if they're good at that job will promote them and eventually they get promoted to a position we're now where they're now responsible for the people who do the job that they used to do but we don't teach them how to do that leadership is a skill and it's a completely different skill from doing your job you're no longer responsible for the results you're now responsible for the people who are responsible for the results similar to the United Airlines that is just I'm just doing my job I don't to some extent I wouldn't care what's right then how can and this can go from corporate government how can we ensure that the employees and people in that organization care about so they make it so that what is right it's good for their organization and their fellow colleagues so again we the skills of leadership we don't teach right so I'll tell you so I had the chance to visit Quantico Marine base in Quantico Virginia where the United States Marines select their officers and one of the things I witnessed is they do something called the LRC the leadership reaction course which is basically 20 mini obstacle courses with problems that problem-solving will you take for example three planks of wood of different sizes and you have to get across the little pool of water with all of your people and all of your material and when they evaluate how well they the leader did nowhere on the list does it say if they made it to the other side there's not even a checkbox yes or no because the Marines understand that sometimes good leaders suffer mission failure and sometimes bad leaders enjoy mission success and they understand that what determines a good leader is not if they were successful but if they have the qualities of good leadership and if you have the qualities of good leadership you're more likely to succeed more often over time and so what they look for is to incentivize and train and teach those qualities we don't incentivize trained or teach those qualities in business or in government things like listening skills things like empathy things like effective confrontation I mean whether no matter what kind of organization you work in it's people it's always human beings and we don't know how to give compliments we don't have grit give criticism we don't know how to coach people we don't know but these are all things that we can learn so I think we can all do a much better job of teaching the skills I don't like calling them soft skills hard skills and soft skills they're hard skills and there's human skills and I think we can do a much better job across the board of teaching human skills I wanted to ask about us essentially as species as humans do we have the same purpose to work on or be a part of something much greater but to say oh I worked on this even though my name is not in there or my name is on there and I worked on this so it's it's funny you bring that up there's a there's a in in in doing the research for my new book I stumbled across a pattern that I didn't expect to find that when especially nations but when we want to inspire large populations of people to sacrifice for something bigger than themselves there seems to be always three things that show up so the Declaration of Independence the document that Thomas Jefferson wrote that basically established the reason why America needed to exist talked about all men are created equal endowed with three unalienable rights life liberty and the pursuit of happiness so there was something to do with with safety there was something to do with an ideology which in this case was Liberty and there was something to do with economic game the establishing document that established the Soviet Union that Lenin wrote offered the people three things military safety the strong military an ideology that we would all be a part of in this case communism and an economic well-being general G up who was the general who oversaw the Tet Offensive wrote a document called the People's War in which he said the way that we will do well as as a nation is three things physical safety an ideology that we feel a part of and an economic stability so it seems that this pattern of three things and even when the the sign is the Declaration of Independence they said we will all pledge our front are fortunate Our Lives our Fortunes in our honor life money ideology right so it seems that if we want to inspire people to be a part of something bigger we have to offer them something to do with their physical safety this is why some politicians do well when they talk about fighting crime well that's only one thing and then that's why some do well when they talk about economic well-being well that's only one thing and the other thing is ideology to be a part of a cause or a vision that just cause bigger than ourselves but it seems we need all three they balance off of each other two questions regarding that one why three I have no idea mikoto about the law of threes and three is a very sort of comfortable number and you know I I don't and I even when I did why how what why not for things I I don't know the biology of it but it I suspect there is a balance and they can't all be there at the same time you know and and so they it's it's it's like a it's like a relationship it's like a friendship or a marriage we want the other person to make us feel physically safe we want we want to feel like we're doing something big together raising a family and then we won't have back economic well-being those things don't all happen necessarily at the same time and so I think the you know if two are good they can they allow for you know you can flow and because they're unpredictable so I think three is it's just you know you can balance on two when you're missing one and do you any leaders of the past that share that were able to hit the trifecta in your opinion well I think these examples that we've talked about and I think some of the leaders that we admire and who have stood out throughout history was Nelson Mandela or Winston Churchill or FDR or Mahatma Gandhi I think I think they you they talk in terms of ideology they talk in terms of safety and they talk in terms of the economic well-being and these leaders and all these three principles during their funding of regardless of which nation there was this going against the grain the status quo and especially in government doing that takes a lot of effort there are there are reasons why we have these bureaucracies reasons why we have these policies and processes but going against the status quo is what in order to create a diamond you need the pressure you need that change you need that evolution what is the I want to say the right way of doing it but what is sort of a set that needs to happen prior to successfully in some cases go against the status quo and succeed so you know I'm tired of people saying I'm tired of consultants telling us that people fear change people don't fear change people fear sudden change right sudden change is about revolution it's often violent it's often sudden and there's always a counter revolution but but subtle change is like evolution where you change a piece here you change a piece there and before you know it life is entirely different and there's no going back and so I believe that that there's a time and place for revolutionary change but but but when there's stability in the government that evolutionary change is a good thing but there still has to be purpose and cause and I think one of the ways in which we we bring people along for the ride and that they will embrace change is that they perceive vision that they understand why we are doing this and what good leaders do is they paint a picture of what the future will look like in terms so clearly that I can understand and then see myself standing in that world they don't just talk generically like it's gonna be better you know Martin Luther King in his famous speech said I have a dream that one day little black children will hold hands on the playground with little white children he was talking in visual terms it's why we call it vision because we have to be able to see it you know vision is not a is not a number vision is not something ethereal vision is like an visionaries visionary leaders they've actually done work on this when they speak they don't speak in the future tense they actually speak in the present tense in other words they think of the vision is so clear and it might as well be here now and it's inspiring and all the best leaders have always painted a picture of a future state that it's different than the one now that that we feel that we can commit ourselves to that to that noble cause but then how are you able to because everything or to all of us individually we have different motivations that don't usually translate sometimes from bottom to top to top to bottom and when we talk about governments that employ thousands upon thousands of people how is it so that leaders regardless of where they are in the hierarchy are able to match that individual motivation that we need to do this change because X or Y or Z because it matches or it matches you're your own personal drive and motivation we want leaders to have different opinions of course we want leaders to be offered different ideas and be critical of the path that we're on we don't just want yes men around us but we do need to have shared values there is a foundation where what there has to be consistency in shared values and shared cause nation states cities or companies have cultures and different you have different cultures so in the United States there's a culture called American and it and it has certain qualities you need to like those things you don't like those things and if you like them you go live there and if you don't like them you don't go live there but even within that culture there are sub cultures there's Los Angeles and there's New York I have to believe that the culture of Abu Dhabi and the culture of Dubai are different it's still one nation but you either feel that you belong here you feel that you belong there and so a nation is the same thing which is we should articulate our values our taking about our vision and those who feel that this is what I stand for this is what I wear I belong they are excited to be a part of the government they're excited to be a part of the cause and if not they won't and so if we just make it a job oh you can have stability because it's a government job it's not values-based and that's what you start to have tension because now people are coming in for self-interest but the clearer the values are the more easily you attract people who are drawn to those values and the more easily you can filter out people who don't share those values is there a I guess a recent example that you can share with us that that at least we can relate to that this has been done quite perhaps well I mean some of the things that I talked about you know Apple talked about challenging the status quo and and so it attracted people who liked that idea even to go work for the company you know it was a rallying cry safe was for other companies [Music] in my own organization we talked about the vision of creating a world in which the vast majority of people wake up in the morning inspired feel safe at work and return home fulfilled at the end of the day the people who want to work with us or work for us share that vision the people we want to work with share that vision and when somebody just wants to increase their bottom line we say no because it's about shared cause and shared values and we're very clear about our values i I think that incentive structures need to reward not just performance but also adherence to values so often in organizations we I hear it all the time there's a salesperson who's so good but everybody knows they're cancerous and toxic to the organization and when I asked why don't you get rid of them they say their numbers are so good right so you're sacrificing your values for a short-term financial gain which by the way is hurting everybody else so I think the ability to make difficult decisions with values in mind is what makes an organization or a government better able to build an infinite and that infrastructure and he mentioned that that some people may go into government for that short term stability and safety and when government is I get I guess revitalized or asked to change and this can even go on a corporate aspect where the employee or colleague reaches a point where they reach a slump and a plateau and in many government institutions that is fine plateau as long as you do your job and don't but you're not excelent you're not creating that impact and as we've seen recently it's not enough and there needs to be that matching of the values as well as making sure that they want to be a part of it how can we really know we start the battery so to speak when it comes to organizations that have such in my opinion in epidemic so I subscribe to something called the law of diffusion of innovations it's for me it's the thing that I've built my whole career on and basically what the law of diffusion of innovation says any population regardless of its size sifts across the standard deviation the bell curve if you have high performers you have low performers then you have an average right if you want to have the ability to create long term change or long term stability or spread an idea or a cultural change what we usually do is we aim at the middle we aim at the Bell aim at the average and we try and offer them kinds of things to come along with us usually financial but what the law of diffusion tells us is the first two percent of our population two-and-a-half percent of our population are our innovators these are the big thinkers then you have about twelve or thirteen percent which are your early adopters they're very comfortable with change they have a high risk tolerance they're very comfortable being a part of something that reflects their values then you have the majority which is more cynical more practical what's in it for me they care about price quality service and features and then you have the laggards which you know the only reason they bought a DVD players because they stopped selling VCRs you know what the law of diffusion tells us is that you if you want to effect a long term change you actually don't go to the middle you go to the innovators and the early adopters you speak in terms of vision you speak in terms of values you offer them the opportunity to be a part of something and and if you can get 15 to 18 percent of the population to to embrace it you hit a tipping point and it just it just goes and the reason is is because the early majority will not try something until somebody else has tried at first so instead of forcing them to do it we invite people to do it so whenever I do programs inside organizations big and small that we want to change people's behavior inside the organization so for example I did a millennial training program with a large company and they wanted to the management wanted to implement the Millennial training program and roll it out to the whole company you know tens and tens and tens of thousands of people across across the nation and my recommendation was let's do it very small in the two we make it a little bit difficult to come so it's not just online you know check check check check we made them write an essay as to why they wanted to be there and we read the essays we took it seriously because we didn't want to make it too easy because then there's no filter we only wanted people who really wanted to be there we made the timing difficult we made it in the middle of the week so they had to leave work you know we did that on purpose and we got a hundred really great applicants because we limited it to a hundred even though there's thousands of employees and we did one right two weeks later one of the leaders of the company walks into me furious at me because the phone was ringing off the hook for all of the leaders across the country saying why didn't I get this program where if we had rolled it out all of those same leaders would say we don't have time for this stop telling me what to do we create a demand because we I knew that if you get the early adopters eventually what that does is it creates demand from everybody else because those hundred people went back across the country they said I did the most amazing thing and they were my greatest advocates I didn't need to advertise I didn't need to market I relied on the earlier there is to help me spread the message so I'm a great believer that you you you do something as an invitation you put up some small barriers to make sure you get only the people who really want to be there you make sure that you're clear about why what the vision is what the values are you make no promises I told them in the room by being a part of this program it may not help your career you won't get any additional money you're gonna have to do a dish '''l work and you're gonna have to figure it out I'm not gonna help you in other words they really wanted it they believed in it and it took on a life of its own which is exactly what you want so I'm not a big believer in rollouts I'm a big believer in in phased ads yeah is there a leader that you that you currently and I'm gonna make it very hard one that that you you look up to you respect that that to some extent inspired the at least in there and in the ways that you run your organization for example the few people that I really turn to and think about for Leadership Council are people that are not famous there's one guy who I met in the research for my book leaders eat last who goes by the name Johnny Bravo just a remarkable human being honest and high integrity and an in it for others and willing to risk for others and just when I think like when I'm getting in quechua sort impulsive he's I look to him to for guidance even even if I don't talk to him just I know what he would do and the other one is Bob Chapman who I've also written about these people I met and just and just just so service-minded even though he's in for so one of them's in government and one of them's in private sector and yet they're both very similar they both put people before numbers they both believe in doing something bigger than themselves they both believe in leaving their organizations in better shape than they found them they both believe empowering people they both believe in stepping back and watching the joy of other people solve problems like the joy of seeing our children solve something for themselves those those two stand out for me you mentioned that one of what they both put people ahead of numbers yeah how would how would I'm swimming at this point Johnny Bravo yeah the private sector all right so the the then how would these people be able to convince their stakeholders shareholders yeah of putting people ahead of right so one of the things that the infinite mind to do is they don't do convincing they they first of all they're very good at attracting people and rejecting people so I had a question the other day I gave a talk in London and one of the is a young entrepreneur who raised his hand and says oh I have I'm stuck I believe in everything you're talking about I believe in building strong culture I believe in taking care of my people the problem is my investors are putting overwhelming pressure on me to focus on the short term and and and to make an exit so they can get their money what do I do and my question to him was are you the founder of the company he said yes I am I said well you took the money is that you only evaluated your investors based on how much money they were going to give you you didn't evaluate your investors based on if they believe in your cause and share your values why did you take their money because you know you look at Warren Buffett for example Warren Buffett doesn't sell the things he invests in you invest in people and he invests in ideas and then he just leaves them and I think it's I think it's the same I think which is we are partially responsible for the people inside our organizations we're partially responsible for the money we take we're partially responsible for the environments we create around us and so when those environments then put excessive pressure on us to do the wrong thing it's partially our fault and so that doesn't so the question is so what am I supposed to do I still find myself in the situation and so what what you is that those those people like Bob Chapman they'll make the they'll make the decision anyway and over the course of time there proved right because over the course of time those infinite leaders those those their results tend to be better over the course of time they tend to be more stable it tends not to be like this if you look at Jack Welch at GE in the 80s and 90s the performance of GE was like this it's up and down and up and down and if you were lucky to sell when it was high great but it could be down the next day we're more infinite organizations like Costco it's just a slow beautiful steady path and it's not as exciting but it's very stable and it doesn't look because if you look at it in the course of one year GE may look like this in one year where Costco looks like this in one year but if you look in over the course of 10 years GE looks like this and Costco looks like this it has more sustainability the year that it went public and you invested in GE when it went in the same year when Costco and public which is I think the early ideas you would have made I think like I have to go back and look but I think 600 percent on your money and GE and you would have made 12 hundred percent on your money in Costco she would have made 2x and Costco over General Electric I mean that's pretty impressive and and that that proves out I've looked at other other companies that the the infinite minded companies over time always outperform the finite minded in the short term not maybe maybe not but over the course of time a hundred percent 100% about organizations that realize that they they need to get in to the infinite mind mentality so it's it's it's a process it's like getting into shape it's like I've decided I want to be healthy and lose some weight well you're not gonna just go to the gym for nine hours and then be in shape that's you know don't you don't have one salad and you're like haha right as I wish it's it's a slow process that there are things we can do to make it a little quicker but we can't do it quickly so you have to start eating healthy which comes at personal sacrifice because I like fried chicken better you know and it's much easier right i we have to start going to the gym which hurts there is actually physical pain and yet we have to keep doing it and we don't see the results in the short-term you go to the gym you eat a salad you look in the mirror you will see nothing and you'll go to the gym the next day and you'll eat another salad and you look at the mirror and you will see nothing and so you think well there's no results I'm quitting it's the exact same thing when we're converting an organization from finite to infinite which is you go through the process should I start with my arms or did I start with my legs just just start just go and it's some of the things we talked about it's teaching leadership it's empathy it's vision it's just cause it's building trusting teams it's it's teaching effective confrontation and listening skills it's all these human skills that you have to do them all and one of them is not enough that's like just working out your arms it's you have to do it but it's not enough all of these things by themselves do nothing but in combination consistency is more important than intensity because companies are really good at intensity like we we have a problem we have a big off site we invite a bunch of famous speakers everybody is a leader now right and and governments like to solve things with intensity as well but its consistency same as a relationship it's you can't just remember her birthday and buy her flowers and Valentine's Day and she falls in love with you you know if only it's lots and lots and lots and lots of little things that that over the course of time so it's the same thing it's the commitment to a process it's the commitment to a lifestyle it's not an event and any single organization can become infinite and any organization can become visionary and any sudden every single culture can become trusting and inspiring some are quicker and some are slower but but it's a process that like exercise 100% of the time it works and as you mentioned it's a lifestyle it's a lifestyle so leadership is a lifestyle exactly yeah so you've been and we discussed this in there you've been in the UAE exactly about 24 hours about 26 hours 26 hours yes any insects any thoughts I am astonished by the desire of the people I've met to do something big they speak in visionary terms there's a an appreciation of youth and vitality and there's a risk profile there's this desire to to leave this nation in better shape than you found it and there's a friendly competitive spirit but you're not looking to beat anyone and and one of the things that I think I recognize about even the way you're growing your own leaders I've never seen that in a government I've seen youth leadership programs but not a focused attempt to build and grow our own leaders for the future you know in the 80s and 90s GE and Jack Welch were the leadership factory that if you had GE on your resume you could go work anywhere right and that has proved to be a false prophet you know GE and Jack Welch led with a finite mindset and it was good for his finite period of time and it's and I would argue that many of the things that Jack Welch and GE promoted in the 80s and 90s are the total opposite of what we need Cheryl do supremacy does not is not good for business or economies and annualized layoffs to balance the books does not help grow a strong culture inside a company it does the opposite but there is no heir apparent there is no organization that I have met that has replaced GE as the leadership factory for the 21st century on how we have to leave for the infinite game and from what I've seen and the people I've met I now firmly believe that the UAE has the potential to be the leadership factory for the 21st century that that what you're doing to build and grow your own leaders is exportable and I think the single greatest export you could probably offer the world is is how to build organizations and how to build government and I think we will turn to the UAE in the future you have the potential to be the leadership factory for the 21st century so no pressure on everyone well good I guess on that note we've ran out of time Thank You Simon thank you very very thank you everyone for coming and we hope to see you soon enjoy the rest of the summit [Applause]

Channel: World Government Summit

Views: 325,481

Rating: 4.8892841 out of 5

Keywords: #WorldGovSummit, #Dubai, #UAE, #MyDubai, #Space, #ClimateChange, #Technology, #Happiness, #Youth, #AI, #ArtificialIntelligence, #دبي, #الإمارات, #الحكومات, #الإمارات_العربية_المتحدة, #القمة_العالمية_للحكومات, Simon Sinek

Id: hgErG3NHBvw

Length: 72min 40sec (4360 seconds)

Published: Tue Feb 12 2019