Change Management for Winners: The Infinite Game

A game is in progress when there are at least two players. And there are two types of games: finite and infinite.

The infinite game

In finite games, the players are known. They are based on established Regulate, and there is an agreed upon Objective. If it is reached, a finite game is over. Soccer is an example of such a finite game. The players all wear the same and are light recognizable. There are certain rules and judges who monitor compliance with these rules. The players have agreed to play by these rules and accept the penalties imposed for violations of the rules. Everyone agrees: that Teamwho has more points at the end of the specified period will be declared the winner. Then it's game over and everyone goes home. In finite games there is always a beginning, a middle part and an end.

Infinite games, on the other hand, are played by known and unknown players. There are no precise or agreed rules. There may be conventions or laws that regulate how players behave, but within these broad limits they can do what they want. And they can also violate such conventions. How a single player plays is entirely up to him. And every player can change his style of play at any time for any reason. Infinite games run with no time limit. And because there is no finish line, no clear end to the game, you can't "win" such an infinite game. The main goal of such a game is to stay in the game - forever.

Win and lose

What I know about these two types of games I learned from the master of the trade - from Professor James P. Carse, the 1986 Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility (German version: Finite and infinite games: The chances of life, 1999). Carse's book first made me think about gewinnen and losing - and also beyond draws and stalemates. The more precisely I look at the Welt viewed through Carse's lens of finite and infinite games, the more clearly I saw the many infinite games going on around us - games with no finish lines and no victors. For example, in marriage or in friendship, no one can be first. School days are definitely finite, but in the Education you can't win. In the Application we can beat competitors for a job or a promotion, but in Job no one will be crowned the victor. Countries around the world may compete with other countries for land, influence or economic advantage, but in world politics there is no winner. No matter how successfully whoever we are in our lives, when we die, none of us are declared the winners of life. All of these examples are developments, not events.

But if we hear what so many of our leading figures are saying today, the impression arises that they are not clear is what game they play. You talk about "winning" all the time. They are obsessed with "beating out the competition." They trumpet to the world that they are “the best”. Unfortunately, none of this is possible in games without a finish line. Whoever enters an infinite game with a finite attitude becomes quite different Problems cause – above all a loss of Trust, spirit of cooperation and Innovation. On the other hand, if you enter an endless game with the right mentality, you effectively correct our course. People With such a basic attitude, there is far more trust, willingness to cooperate and innovative dynamics - including all the advantages that result from this. As we all get caught up in never-ending games, it is in our best interest to notice what game we are playing and what makes a leader with the right mindset. However, it is equally important for us to recognize the signs of finite thinking so that we can take corrective action before greater damage is done.

The infinite game of economics

The Economy corresponds by definition to an infinite game. Not all players are always known and new ones can be added at any time. All players determine their own strategies and tactics. There are no set rules that everyone subscribes to - apart from the applicable law (and even that can differ from country to country). Unlike a finite game, there is no predetermined beginning, middle, or end to the economy. While many of us count on evaluating our own performance relative to other players over specific periods of time—fiscal years, for example—these are merely markers in the game and in no way mark the end of the actual game. There is no finish line in business.

Companys enter a game that cannot be won. Yet too many business leaders act as if this is possible. They keep claiming to be the "best" or "number one." Such claims have become so common that we hardly realize how ridiculous some of them are. Whenever a company claims to be number one or the best, I always look at the fine print and see what cherry-picked metrics it has to do so. For example, British Airways has boasted about its Advertisingto be the "most popular airline in the world".

Who is No. 1? A matter of definition

Richard Branson's competitor, Virgin Atlantic, has lodged a complaint with the British advertising regulator, saying it couldn't be true based on recent passenger surveys. However, the authority allowed British Airways to continue to claim this. The reason: It carries more international passengers than any other airline. The attribute "most popular" is used by British Airways to mean that you Shop growth list—not necessarily in the “preferred” sense. A company might see itself as number one because there are so many customers has. Another might look at this Turnover, share price development, number of employees or number of branches worldwide. Companies that make such bold claims can even decide for themselves what time frame they do their calculations for: quarterly, eight months, or one year. Or even for five years - or a dozen. But do all industry players actually agree with the period in question as a basis for comparison? In finite games, there is the one agreed-upon metric that separates winners and losers - goals scored, speed, or strength. There are many different metrics in infinite games, so we can never determine a clear winner.

A finite game is over when the allotted time is up. The player can then play again on another day (provided the game was not a duel). In an infinite game it is quite different. The game continues while the players' time runs out. Because you can't win an infinite game or verlieren can, the players simply fold if they don't have any Lust have more or when they run out of funds. In business, that means bankruptcy, or a merger or takeover. The following applies: If you want to be successful in the never-ending game of business, you can no longer think about who is winning or who is the best. Instead, he must focus on how to build organizations strong enough to stay in the game for generations to come. Irony of fate: The advantages that this brings often strengthen companies in the short term as well.

A story of two players

A few years ago, I was invited as a speaker from Microsoft to a top conference on education. A few months later, I performed the same role at Apple. At the Microsoft event, most of the speakers' presentations centered around how they wanted to overtake Apple. At the Apple event, 100 percent of speakers devoted 100 percent of their time to how Apple could teach teachers and help students learn. Some seemed obsessed with the idea of ​​knocking out a competitor, others were inspired by the matter.

After my Lecture at Microsoft I received a gift – the Zune (when it was still a device). It was Microsoft's answer to Apple's iPod – the dominant factor in the MP3 player market at the time. Not wanting to be left behind, Microsoft introduced the Zune to snatch market share from its arch-rival. It was 2006, and then-Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was confident that Microsoft could "beat" Apple sooner or later—although he knew it wasn't going to be easy.3 If product quality was all that mattered, it would have Ballmers Optimism been entirely justified. The version of Zune that was handed to me by Microsoft - the Zune HD - I have to admit was really excellent. The design was elegant, the user interface simple, intuitive and user-friendly. I really liked the Zune. (For the record, I gifted the device to a friend for the simple reason that, unlike my iPod, which was compatible with Microsoft Windows, it couldn't work with iTunes. As much as I would have loved to use the device, it was me simply not possible.)

After my appearance at the Apple conference, I shared a taxi ride back to the hotel with a top Apple executive—the one with personal number 54, to be exact. That meant he had been there from the start and was at home with the Apple culture and mentality. When we were sitting in the taxi together and I was looking at his awareness for sure I couldn't resist teasing a bit. So I said to him: »Background You… I spoke to Microsoft recently and got the new Zune, and I have to tell you, it's WAY BETTER than your iPod touch." The Apple man looked at me, smiled, and said, "You're probably right .' That was all. That was the end of the topic.

The advantages of the right attitude: The arrogance of the market leader

The fact that Microsoft had the better product left the AppleManager absolutely indifferent. Perhaps the arrogance of the market leader spoke from him. Maybe he played something for me (but then really well). Or maybe it was quite different. I wasn't aware of that at the time, but his answer was exactly that of a manager with the right mentality for infinity.

In the infinite game, true value is measured by one Organization not success on a set of arbitrary metrics for arbitrary periods of time. Rather, the true value of an organization is judged by how committed others are to contributing to the organization's ability to continue to thrive—not just during their tenure, but well beyond. A leader with a finite mentality works to get more out of employees, customers and shareholders to meet arbitrary targets. A forward-thinking manager, on the other hand, works vigorously to ensure that employees, customers and shareholders continue to be encouraged to, through their commitment, you Money and their investments themselves to make a contribution. Infinity gamblers want to leave their organizations in better shape than they found them. Lego invented toys that stand the test of time. But that wasn't a lucky coincidence. Rather, Lego's success stems from the fact that just about everyone who works at the company wants to help the company survive. The Lego people aren't driven by the idea of ​​doing better quarter-on-quarter, but want to "continue to innovate play experiences and reach more kids every year."

According to Carse, a corporate leader with a finite mindset plays to end the game - to win. But if one wants to win, another has to lose. Such players play for themselves and want to defeat other players. In all of their plans and actions, the thought of victory is paramount. They almost always believe they have to act like this, even though it is not at all. There is no rule that tells them to. They are driven by their mentality. On the other hand, Carses infinity-oriented players play in order to stay in the game. In business, that means building an organization that can outlive its rulers. Carse also assumes that such actors act for the benefit of the game. In business this is synonymous with a vision that goes beyond the operating result. While a finite player makes products that he thinks will do well merchandise, the longer-term oriented actor produces what people want to buy. One focuses primarily on how the company benefits from product sales, the other on what the buyers get from the products.

Standards or performance - what are we based on?

Finitely minded players tend to stick to standards that will help them achieve their personal goals, regardless of the repercussions that that may cause. The question »What is best for me?« bears witness to finite thinking. On the other hand, infinity is at stake when the question is asked: »What is best for us?«. A company designed for infinite play never thinks only of itself. It considers the impact of its decisions on its workforce Society, the economy, the country and the whole world. It acts for the good of the game. kodakFounders George Eastman lived for his vision of making photography easy and accessible to everyone. He also realized that the Implementation of this vision was closely linked to the well-being of its employees and the community in which they lived. In 1912, Kodak became the first company to pay its employees a dividend based on performance.

A few years later, Kodak issued what we now call stock options. In addition, the employees received generous fringe benefits, sick pay (a completely new one at the time Concept) and aid to Further Trainingif they wanted to takeCourses at local colleges. (All of this was later copied by many other companies. So you could say it was good not just for Kodak, but for the entire business game.) Kodak didn't create tens of thousands of jobs; Eastman built a hospital, founded a music school, and supported generous further education institutions such as the Mechanics Institute of Rochester (later renamed the Rochester Institute of Technology) and the University of Rochester.

Fear of surprise or the big vision in focus?

Finite players, according to Carse, dislike surprises and fear disruption because they are playing towards an endpoint. What they cannot predict or control could torpedo their plans and worsen their chances of winning. On the other hand, a player who cares about infinity expects surprises, even welcomes them, and is ready to be fundamentally changed by them. He enjoys the freedom of the game and is open to all possibilities to stay in the game. Instead of ways to seek to react to what has already happened, he is on the lookout for opportunities to try something completely new.

an infinite one Perspektive frees us from fixation on what other companies are doing, so we can focus on an overarching vision. Rather than reacting to how new technologies challenge our business model, forward-thinking executives are better at anticipating the potential uses of new technologies. From this point of view, it is understandable why the Apple manager with whom I was in the taxi at the time was not disturbed by the well-designed Microsoft product Zune. It was clear to him that in the never-ending game of the economy, Apple would rush forward with the better product and then a competitor.

How to outdo yourself

He wasn't trying to outdo Microsoft. Rather, Apple was looking for ways to surpass itself. The company was already thinking about what would come after the iPod. Because of Apple's infinity-oriented mentality, its employees could not only think across the board, but also out of the box. About a year after the market launch of the Zune, Apple introduced the first iPhone. In doing so, it redefined the entire category of smartphones. Zune and the iPod were practically obsolete. Although some believe so, Apple could not predict consumer preferences, nor could they Future see. In fact, it was the company's infinite perspective that enabled it to innovate like companies with a more finite focus Guide simply fails.

A company focused on finite goals can come up with "innovative" ways of increasing profits increase, but as a rule such decisions do not benefit the organization, the employees, the customers and the society - only the profit. And they don't necessarily make the organization better positioned for the future, for one very simple reason: because such decisions are primarily beneficial for those who made them and didn't think about infinity, but only about the near future . Executives far-sightedness doesn't urge her people to fixate on finite goals, but rather encourages them to foster, if possible, an endless vision of the future that benefits everyone involved. The finite goals then become merely milestones for the implementation of this vision.

Innovative strength beats stability

If everyone aligns themselves to this infinite vision, it not only leads to innovation, but also drives the numbers up. In fact, companies whose leadership teams have such a mentality can often come up with record profits. But that's not all. The inspiration, innovation, willingness to cooperate, brand loyalty and profit development, which result from a leadership geared towards infinity, not only serve companies well in stable phases, but also when the going gets tough. What helps a company survive and thrive in good times makes it strong and resilient in bad times. A company built for resilience is built to last. This is where it differs from a company focused on stability. By definition, stability is about keeping everything as it is. A stable organization can theoretically defy a storm and ultimately emerges unchanged from it. With regard to a company, the attribute »stable« is usually intended to emphasize that it differs from a risky and more efficient company. “It grows slowly, but it is solid,” is the common perception.

But a company built for stability hasn't understood what the infinite game is all about because it is ill-prepared for the unpredictable - new technology, new competitors, market changes or global events affecting its own Strategy be thrown off track from now on. A business leader aiming for infinity wants to build not only a company that can absorb change - but one that can be transformed by it. He wants to build a company that welcomes surprises and adapts. Resilient companies sometimes emerge completely transformed (and often grateful) from disruption.