第 82 期·中文精讀

西蒙·斯涅克:領導力、勤奮、樂觀與無限遊戲

Simon Sinek: Leadership, Hard Work, Optimism and the Infinite Game

管理學作者談領導者如何建立信任、為何樂觀是一種紀律,以及有限與無限遊戲的差別。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

西蒙·斯涅克(Simon Sinek)那場講“黃金圈”的 TED 演講,被翻譯成幾十種語言,貼在無數公司的會議室牆上,也被無數人當作雞湯轉發過。那句核心的話是:人們不買你做的是什麼,人們買的是你為什麼做。所以在播客裡,Lex Fridman 一上來就問了個很難的問題:你說的無限遊戲,目標函式到底是什麼?說得直白點,人生的意義是什麼?

斯涅克的回答從一位哲學家開始。

只有有限遊戲裡,才存在“第一”這回事

提出有限遊戲和無限遊戲這套框架的,是哲學家 James Carse。斯涅克說,他第一次讀到這個概念的時候,整個世界觀都被撼動了。因為我們大多數人從小到大接受的預設設定是:要贏,要成為最好的,要當第一名。

但只要稍微想一下就會發現,“第一”這個概念只在有限遊戲裡成立。

有限遊戲有固定的規則、事先約定好的目標、已知的參與者,比如足球,比如棒球,有開始,有中場,有結束。而且只要有一個贏家,就必然有一個輸家。零和,是它的底層結構。

無限遊戲完全不一樣。參與者是已知加未知,意思是任何人都可以隨時加入。規則是可變的,意思是你可以按自己的方式玩。而它的目標只有一個:讓遊戲繼續下去,儘可能久地留在場上。

換句話說,在一個沒有終點線的遊戲裡,根本不存在“贏”這件事。你沒法在一場沒有終點的比賽裡衝過終點線。

那如果硬要把有限遊戲的心態搬到一個沒有終點線的場景裡,會發生什麼?斯涅克說結果非常穩定,也非常可預測:信任下降,合作下降,創新下降。

這段話值得多停一會兒。因為絕大多陣列織,恰恰就是用有限遊戲的心態在運轉的。它們試圖把商業、把政治、把生活裡那些複雜而美麗的東西,壓縮成幾個可以量化的窄指標。而在這個還原的過程中,有些讓整個系統長期運轉的根本性東西,被丟掉了。

墓碑上真正重要的,是兩個日期中間那一道橫槓

Lex 不肯放過他,繼續追問:那目標函式到底是什麼?

斯涅克的回答繞到了墓碑上。墓碑上刻著兩個日期,出生的那天和死去的那天。真正構成一生的,是中間那道橫槓。有一首詩就叫《The Dash》,講的正是這件事:那道橫槓裡裝著的東西,才賦予生命以意義。

然後他把話說得很直。如果一個人用有限遊戲的心態過完一生,拼命積累比任何人都多的權力和金錢,把所有人比下去,當第一名,做最好的那個,那麼到最後,這些東西一樣都帶不走。人就是死了。

那些被我們記住、並且以我們希望的方式被記住的人,被記住的從來都是他是個什麼樣的人:一個盡心盡力的母親,一個充滿愛的父親,一個對別人來說意味著什麼的人。

他舉了個剛去世不久的例子。Jack Welch,GE 的傳奇 CEO。他去世之後,《華盛頓郵報》給訃告寫的標題是:“他取悅了華爾街,卻讓員工痛苦。”斯涅克說,這就是他的遺產。一個痴迷於贏的有限遊戲玩家,留下的東西是少數人的短期收益,和多數人的痛苦。

這段話鋒利的地方在於,它沒有否定 Welch 的商業成就。Welch 在 GE 的二十年,市值漲了幾十倍,被無數商學院當作案例研究。但斯涅克指出了一件更冷的事:一個人可以同時做到極其成功,和留下糟糕的遺產,這兩件事並不矛盾。

然後他把選擇權交回給每個人。我們每一個人都有權選擇自己想要什麼樣的遺產。是想因為貢獻被記住,還是因為傷害被記住?是想像 Welch 那樣活,還是想過一種服務他人的生活,看著身邊的人成長起來,為自己所在的社群和組織做出貢獻,讓它們比自己接手時更好一點?

他說,後面那種遺產,才是大多數人真正想要的。

你看到的冰山,和你自己盯著的,是兩座

Lex 追問得更細:那具體到每一天,無限遊戲的心態長什麼樣?是什麼讓人早上願意起床,晚上興奮得睡不著?

斯涅克的答案是“正義事業”(just cause,也可以理解為一種值得投入的、超越個人的事業)。是一幅比他自己更大的圖景,他的工作能對這個更大的東西有所貢獻。

他描述了自己每天早上的那個畫面:一個還不存在的世界。在那個世界裡,絕大多數人每天早上醒來時被激勵,在工作中有安全感,晚上回到家時是充實的。我們還沒活在那樣的世界裡,所以還有活要幹。這件事本身就在驅動他。

接著他講了一個冰山的比喻,這個比喻值得單獨拎出來。

他說,職業生涯就像一座冰山。當你對某件事有了一個願景,只有你自己能看到海面之下那整座冰山。你開始動手做一點,冰山露出一點,於是有幾個人能看到你想象的東西了,他們說,哦,我明白了,我也想幫忙建這個。如果你取得了很大的成功,海面上會露出巨大的冰體,人們看著它說,你成就了這麼多。

但在他自己眼裡,他看到的永遠是海面之下那一整座還沒做完的冰山。

這個比喻在講一種很常見的錯位。外界衡量你,用的是露出水面的部分;你自己衡量自己,用的是沒露出的部分。這兩者之間的差距,會隨著成功越來越大,不會越來越小。所以那種“做成了這麼多,還是覺得遠遠不夠”的感覺,屬於結構本身,跟矯情無關。

Lex 順著這個說,所以你追求的其實是把冰山從想象搬到現實、從未知搬到已知的那個過程。斯涅克同意,並且強調了一件事:這個過程必然漸進。它沒法快進。

樂觀的人看得見烏雲,也看得見金邊

Lex 在這裡插入了一段自我剖白。他說自己有點像陀思妥耶夫斯基《白痴》裡的主角梅什金公爵,被周圍人當成傻子,因為他樂觀。

他問斯涅克,這種樂觀從哪來?以及,你設想的那個“人受到激勵”的未來,具體是什麼樣子?

斯涅克的回答很剋制。他說,樂觀就是看到每朵烏雲邊上的那道金邊。哪怕在悲劇裡,悲劇也會把人聚到一起。問題是,你能不能看見?你能不能看見萬事萬物裡都有的那點美?

然後他給樂觀劃了幾條邊界,這幾條邊界很重要。樂觀不等於愚蠢,也不等於失明。它可能確實包含一點天真,包含一種“事情會變好”的信念,包含一種“哪怕在艱難和糟糕的時期,我們也傾向於往好的方向走”的信念。

接下來他給了一個很有意思的論證,用的是可持續性。

他說,戰爭是不可持續的,和平是可持續的。戰爭要消耗生命和金錢,和平不消耗這些。他特意補了一句:他並不是說和平不需要付出努力,它當然需要,但它不像戰爭那樣持續抽乾資源。

所以在他看來,穩定的東西、樂觀的東西,本身就比混亂的東西更可持續。善良不只在道德上更正確,它在長期看也更省成本。

Lex 又提了一個反例:有人會說,衝突和對權力的渴望本身就是人性的核心,所以戰爭永遠不會停。斯涅克沒有否認這一點,但他把自己歸到了理想主義者那一類。他說,理想主義是好事,因為他並不天真地相信理想能實現。世界和平當然永遠不會到來,但那不意味著我們不該為此而死。

他說,這正是願景的意義所在:願景應該是理想化的,應該從所有實際層面看都不可能。但這不妨礙我們去試。而且正是那些把我們推向理想的里程碑,給了生命和工作以意義,讓人覺得自己的付出流向了一個比自己更大的東西。

這段話裡有一句他自己重複了一遍的說法:就算到不了,我們仍然在把球往前推,仍然在取得進展,事情仍然在變好。

貝克爾的那個挑戰:你是不是在逃避死亡

接下來 Lex 把話題往下拽了一層,拽到了最暗的地方。

人類生命的一個既美麗又殘酷的特徵,是它會結束。Lex 說,他最近在讀 Ernest Becker,這位文化人類學家在《拒斥死亡》(The Denial of Death)裡提出了一個相當尖銳的觀點:人類大部分的認知活動和文化建構,本質上都在製造幻覺,用來自我掩蓋“我們終將一死”這件事。

Lex 把這個論點用在了斯涅克身上:你做的那場 TED 演講,被幾千萬人看過,你的那些想法,會不會只是你在拼命對抗自己生物性必死這件事的產物?你的創造力,是不是來自你想造出一些能在你死後繼續存在的東西?

斯涅克的回應分兩層。

第一層,他承認他希望自己的想法能活得比他久。他把它當成一個好的檢驗標準:如果那些想法在別人生活裡真有價值,那麼在他離開之後,人們還會繼續談論它、分享它。他說,這大概是一個人能得到的最高讚美。

第二層,他否認了因果方向。驅使他做這些事的,是貢獻的慾望,是從激勵他人中獲得的愉悅和充實感。他說,就這麼純粹。

Lex 追問,那裡面有沒有自我(ego)的成分?你的名字現在非常有名,如果這些想法不掛在你名下,你會不會做得不一樣?

斯涅克的回答透露了一些具體的東西。他說,有很多年,他很討厭自己的名字被掛上去。他給自己定過一條規矩:書的封面不放自己的臉,網站首頁也不放。他跟出版社吵過架,因為他不想讓自己的名字在書上印得很大,他想印得很小。他反覆告訴出版社,這件事關乎那些想法,跟他本人無關。出版社想把他的名字放到書的頂部,他拒絕了,他所有的書都沒把自己的名字放在最上面,因為他不允許。

想法必須比我更大。我並不比想法更大。(西蒙·斯涅克)

但他也補了一句很清醒的話。他說,他清楚自己已經成了那個“信使”。儘管他仍然認為資訊比信使大,但他承認,作為信使,他有一份責任。他喜不喜歡這件事,無關緊要。他接受這份責任,而且樂意承擔。

這一段是整場對話裡最微妙的部分。一個人同時說“我不重要”和“我接受作為信使的責任”,這兩句話聽起來矛盾,實際上不矛盾。前者在說,別把注意力放在我身上;後者在說,既然注意力已經在我身上了,那我就得對它負責。

熱情是被餵養出來的,沒法被要求

對話在這裡拐了個彎,拐到了 Lex 自己身上。

Lex 說,當下有一種文化氣氛,反覆強調健康、睡眠、飲食、放鬆、冥想、休假的重要性。這些東西當然重要,沒人能反駁。但他自己的立場是:在對所做的事情有熱情和熱愛的前提下,硬工作,尤其在工程領域,優先順序高於睡眠。他知道這話會招來反彈,他還自嘲說是“瘋狂的俄羅斯工程師”在硬推硬工作。

斯涅克的回應很乾脆:那是短期策略。

他說,如果你拿健康去換工作,遲早有一天它會找上你。一直往前衝,一直衝,然後你病了。如果你拒絕照顧自己,你的身體會替你按下暫停鍵。有時候不只是讓你慢下來,而是更嚴重的病。

他還引了研究:那些晚上睡夠、在合理時間收工的高管,實際產出比熬夜幹活的人更高,因為大腦運轉得更好,因為他們休息夠了。所以工作努力沒問題,但為什麼不聰明地工作?

Lex 接下來講了一段很有意思的自我觀察,這段值得完整保留。他說,你百分之百對,但問題恰恰在於你百分之百對。你心智裡那個軟弱的部位,會拿這個正確的事實來說服你。他的腦子會製造各種各樣的藉口,來說服他不該做正在做的事,來給自己找理由。

斯涅克接受了這個說法,但加了一個限定:可以拼,但要知道它不可持續。早期投入大量精力把事情做起來是可以的,但到了某個點,你要麼主動慢下來,要麼身體替你慢下來。你選,或者身體替你選。

然後對話進入了一個更結構性的話題。Lex 說,從他的角度看,人們好像變得有點軟了。斯涅克說,我們得小心寬泛的歸納,但如果去職場裡看,確實有人會抱怨,現在比過去更多的人一到五點就抬手腕看錶,說聲再見就走了。

那問題出在人身上,還是出在組織身上?是人不肯努力,還是組織沒給他們一個值得相信的東西?

斯涅克的回答是後者,而且這段話是整場訪談裡最有力的一段:

熱情不能被製造。你不能走過去跟一個人說“你要有熱情”,事情不是這麼運作的。熱情是被餵養出來的產物,你沒法把它當成原料直接投進去。

為我們熱愛的事情努力,叫熱情;為我們不在乎的事情努力,叫壓力。但無論哪種,我們都在努力。(西蒙·斯涅克)

這句話把“996”和“奮鬥”這兩個詞之間那層模糊的東西一刀切開了。同樣的加班時長,同樣的大腦消耗,同樣的疲憊,內在的體驗可以完全相反。區別在努力指向的東西。

所以他說,組織和領導者要負一部分責任。如果他們不提供意義感,不提供值得投入的事業,不告訴員工他們的工作價值超過它帶來的錢,那麼,對,我就是五點走人,因為我並不真的在乎幫你賺錢。

他還補了一個現實觀察:我們生活的這個世界裡,少數人在靠多數人的辛苦工作變富。所以當人們抬起頭問“我為什麼要那麼幹”的時候,這個疑問站得住腳。你如果不會照顧我,還會因為沒達到你那些隨意定下的目標,在年底把我裁掉,那我憑什麼把努力和忠誠給你?

所以他的結論是:我們不必急著責怪人們變軟了,該責怪的是領導者,他們沒有能力或者沒有意願,給員工提供比“做出一個產品”或“賺到一筆錢”更大的東西。

斯涅克不喜歡《爆裂鼓手》

Lex 提到了電影《爆裂鼓手》(Whiplash)。片子裡那個魔鬼教練用近乎虐待的方式,把鼓手逼到極限,逼出他最好的狀態。Lex 承認自己可能在浪漫化痛苦,然後承認自己是俄羅斯人。斯涅克接了一句,俄羅斯人熱愛痛苦。

Lex 說,他自己經歷過這種關係。他見過,尤其在奧運運動員身上,在競技體育裡,極端的表現者似乎能創造奇蹟。他自己最好的幾段師徒關係,從外人看都是有毒的。

斯涅克說,那不是他最喜歡的電影。

然後他給出了一個很重要的區分:對人嚴厲,和對人有害,是兩件不同的事。

他舉了海軍陸戰隊的例子。新兵訓練營的教官會非常嚴厲,但到了最後一天,他們會摘下帽子,變回一個普通人。而且在一組新兵配屬的三四個主教官裡,所有人最想贏得其尊重的,是那個對他們最狠的。這是真的。

但那個最狠的教官,必須真的相信那些人,必須真的看見他們的潛力。這件事當不了一個公式,沒法說“只要我對人夠狠,他們就會表現出色”。那裡面必須有愛,必須以絕對的愛去做,必須負責任地去做。有些人能承受更多壓力,有些不能。把它當成公式是不負責任的。

他說,有些人能承受更多,但這不是全部。而且有時候,不用那麼多毒性,也能得到同等甚至更好的結果。

Lex 接著把話題引到了現實裡的名字。他說,我用“毒性”這個詞可能不準確。但看 Elon Musk,他確實把人逼到極限,用一種讓人從來沒被這樣挑戰過的方式,逼他們做不可能的事。這種壓力也會把人弄垮。喬布斯也是如此,亞馬遜也是如此。

斯涅克沒有為這些公司辯護,也沒有抨擊它們。他指出了另一件事:這些人沒有對此撒謊。

他說,人們總問他亞馬遜。Jeff Bezos 從來沒否認過這件事。哪怕喜歡亞馬遜的人,也很少能待超過幾年,然後就會燃盡。但當一個組織對自己的文化誠實時,它給了那些喜歡在這種文化裡工作的人一個選擇的機會。相反的做法是假裝,說我們這裡充滿了愛,等你進去了發現完全不是那麼回事。

關於喬布斯,他的評價是:喬布斯不是一個好相處的人,他會逼人。但在他手下工作的人,獲得了在別處得不到的創造空間,做到了在別處做不到的水平。喬布斯也不是什麼都懂,他逼手下的人去找答案,他要的是別人拿出想法,光執行他的主意遠遠不夠。結果是人做出了超出自己想象的事。斯涅克說,這很了不起。

校車測試:你的公司能不能離開你

Lex 在這裡發現了一個他認為的張力:你講無限遊戲,講不要短視,但世上最聰明的一批人,被 Elon Musk 逼著做出了最不可思議的東西,做出了職業生涯裡最好的作品,然後離開。這怎麼平衡?

斯涅克給了一個區分:一個人能在短期內從別人身上榨出很多東西,和建立一個能超越任何個人的組織,是兩件不同的事。

他舉了一個檢驗方法,叫“校車測試”(school bus test):如果創始人被校車撞了,整個公司還能不能繼續運轉?還是一群人立刻散了各自去找工作?絕大多數公司通不過這個測試,尤其在創業圈裡。把那個有遠見的靈魂人物拿掉,整個東西就塌了。

那它到底算公司,還是算一種人格的延伸?

很多創業者面對的現實是:他們必須在每一個會議上,做每一個決定,想出每一個點子,因為如果不是他們,還有誰?難處在於,你為了培養接班人做了什麼?斯涅克說,這裡面有時候是自我,是“只有我能行”的信念;有時候只是過去一直太順了,就忘了;有時候是真的失敗,是沒建起培訓體系,沒招到能替代你的人,那些可能比你更聰明、更好的人。

他說,用高壓碾壓別人只是眾多策略中的一種,不一定是最好的一種。人們有權選擇自己想在哪一種文化裡工作,所以公司應該對自己創造的文化誠實。

他講了個關於蘋果的故事。某個人從一家大公司來,履歷很漂亮,成就很多,自我非常大。他一直在講他怎麼做了這個,怎麼做了那個。一個蘋果的人對他說:我們不在乎你做過什麼,問題是,你打算做什麼?

我們不在乎你做過什麼,問題是,你打算做什麼。(蘋果員工,轉述自西蒙·斯涅克)

斯涅克說,對一個想被推著走的人來說,這裡就是該來的地方,因為那是你自己選的要被推。每個人多少都想被推一把,任何想在這世上做出點事的人都是。區別在壓力來自自己、來自外部,還是來自公眾。

他真正反對的,是把一種模式當成普適答案。“一刀切”的領導力敘事是假的。所有領導力真正需要的只有一件事:創造一個環境,讓人能以自己最好的狀態工作。

壓力也分兩種:為了數字,還是為了事業

Lex 提了 Jack Dorsey 的例子。當時 Dorsey 正面臨壓力,有人想把他從 Twitter CEO 的位置上趕下來,因為他同時還在管另一家很成功的公司,而且他計劃去非洲住幾個月,想接觸矽谷之外的世界。於是就有了一個疑問:Twitter 能不能離開 Jack 活下去?

斯涅克的回答是:當然可以。他舉了微軟。

Bill Gates 建起來的東西,在 Steve Ballmer 手裡如果沒有那麼雄厚的家底,可能就撐不住了。但 Satya Nadella 把它重新拉回了正軌,它重新成為一家有願景的公司,重新吸引到頂尖人才。微軟中間經歷過一段拿不到最好的人、最好的人在往外走的時期,現在人們又想為微軟工作了。

斯涅克說,這跟壓力無關。Ballmer 給員工施加的壓力主要就是完成數字,那個沒用。

於是他把壓力拆成了兩種:

一種是逼人完成數字、完成隨意定下的截止日期;另一種是逼人,因為相信他們能做出更好的工作,因為我們要推的是一個比所有人都大的願景。

他說,如果你要給我壓力,最好給我一個值得的理由。如果只是為了達成某個目標、某個隨意的日期、某個隨意的數字,或者為了讓股價摸到某個點位,那你可以留著,我走人。但如果我們是為了推進一個比我們所有人都大的事業,我們相信我們要建的東西會給社會帶來真實的貢獻,那來吧,我接受這個壓力。

他回頭看了喬布斯和馬斯克。這些人從根本上相信,他們在做的事會改善社會,是為了人類的福祉。所以他們施加的壓力,服務的是一個更大的善。於是團隊成員左右看看彼此,說,我們在一起,我們接受這個,我們想要這個。

但如果壓力只是為了完成一個數字,為了讓那個零件轉得再快一點,那是榨乾靈魂的。

那不是熱情,那是壓力。很多領導者把這兩件事搞混了。讓人努力工作,並不會讓人產生熱情。給他們一個值得相信的東西去做,才會。當你有了這個東西,再往上加壓力,會把人聚到一起。

這裡有個細節值得留意。斯涅克把“壓力”這個詞拆開之後,它就不再是純粹負面的東西了。同一個加班到深夜的場景,可以是剝削,也可以是自願。外人從工時上看不出區別,只有當事人自己知道自己在為哪一種東西付時間。這也解釋了為什麼同樣是高強度工作,有的人幾年後還留在原地,有的人被榨乾之後徹底失去動力。前者的消耗換來的是能力增長,後者的消耗換來的只有數字。

如果明天是最後一天

訪談快結束時,Lex 給了斯涅克一個假設:如果明天是你人生的最後一天,從日出到日落,這一天會怎麼過?他特意加了個條件:不能和家人一起過。

斯涅克的回答很感官。他說,他會用美的東西填滿所有的感官。看美的藝術,聽美的音樂,嘗不可思議的食物,聞迷人的氣味,觸控美好的東西。他想要所有感官都被他認為是美的東西佔滿。

Lex 順著這個提到了一個現象:我們如今很少做這件事了,就是單純地聽音樂。關掉所有裝置,真正地去聽。

然後他問,那最後一天你會放什麼歌?Led Zeppelin?

斯涅克說,大概會有 Beatles 的歌,肯定會有一些貝多芬。經典的東西。

這個回答和前面那四十多分鐘的硬度形成了一個反差。一個反覆講“比自我更大的事業”的人,在被問到生命的最後一天時,給出的答案裡沒有任何事業,沒有任何使命,只有藝術、音樂、食物和觸感。這可能是整場對話裡最誠實的一段:支撐一個人去追一個永遠追不到的目標的,往往是那些具體的、感官的、當下就能握住的美,目標本身反倒退到了後面。

節目最後,Lex 引了斯涅克的一句話作為收尾:影響人類行為只有兩種方式,你可以操縱它,也可以激勵它。

把這一期用起來

整場對話資訊密度很高,但真正能落到行動上的東西其實不多。下面這幾條,是這一期裡最經得起執行的部分。

  • 給自己正在做的事做一次有限/無限的分類。凡是存在終點線、存在排名、存在“贏”這個狀態的,都是有限遊戲。升職、融資、考試、比賽都是。把有限遊戲的勝負當成人生總賬看,信任和合作會在不知不覺中流失。分清哪些是階段性的比賽,哪些是要一直玩下去的遊戲。
  • 用校車測試檢查你手上的專案。如果你明天消失,這件事還能不能繼續?如果答案是“立刻塌”,那你現在建的跟組織無關,是人格的延伸。接下來該做的是補培訓、補文件、補接班的人,繼續親自做每一個決定解決不了這個問題。
  • 判斷自己承受的壓力屬於哪一種。為了一個隨意的數字、一個隨意的日期、一個股價點位而受的壓力,是消耗;為了一個自己也相信的、比自己更大的事業而受的壓力,是投入。如果長期是前者,那個“五點抬手腕看錶”的衝動屬於身體在說真話,跟懶沒有關係。
  • 區分嚴厲和有害。嚴厲本身不是問題,海軍陸戰隊的教官最後一天會摘下帽子。判斷標準是:那個對你狠的人,是不是真的相信你、真的看見你的潛力。如果沒有這一層,那算不上磨練,只是被消耗。
  • 如果你在帶人,別試圖製造熱情。熱情是被餵養出來的產物,沒法直接要求。你能做的只有一件事:給出一個值得相信的東西,創造一個讓人能以最好狀態工作的環境。
  • 在日程裡留出真正聽音樂的時間。關掉裝置,完整聽一張專輯。斯涅克被問到人生最後一天要做什麼時,答案裡沒有任何事業,只有美。這件事不必等到最後一天。
文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
[00:00:00] The following is a conversation with Simon Sinek, author of several books, including Start With Why Leaders Eat Last and his latest, The Infinite Game. He's one of the best communicators of what it takes to be a good leader, to inspire to build businesses that solve big, difficult challenges. This is the artificial intelligence podcast, if you enjoy it, subscribe, I need to review it with five stars, an Apple podcast, support on page one or simply connect with me on Twitter. [00:00:31] And Lex Friedman spelled F.R. ID man as usual. I'll do one or two minutes of ads now and never any ads in the middle that can break the flow of the conversation. I hope that works for you and doesn't hurt the listening experience. Quick summary of the ads to sponsors Kashyap and Master Class, please consider supporting the podcast by downloading Cache app and using Code Leks podcast and signing up to master class at master class dotcom slash leks. This show is presented by Kashyap, the number one finance app in the App Store, when you get it, use Code Lux podcast cash app lets you send money to friends, buy Bitcoin and invest in the stock market with as little as one dollar. [00:01:20] Since Kashyap allows you to buy Bitcoin, let me mention that cryptocurrency in the context of the history of money is fascinating. I recommend Ascent of Money as a great book on this history. Debits and credits and ledgers started around 30000 years ago, the US dollar created over 200 years ago, and Bitcoin, the first decentralized cryptocurrency released just over 10 years ago. So given that history, cryptocurrency still very much in its early days of development, but is still aiming to and just might redefine the nature of money. [00:01:58] So, again, if you get cash out from the App Store or Google Play and use the Code Lux podcast, you get ten dollars in cash. Apple also donate ten dollars. The first, an organization that is helping to advance robotics and stem education for young people around the world. The show is sponsored by Master Class Sign up at master class dot com slash leks to get a discount to support this podcast. When I first heard about Master Class, I honestly thought it was too good to be true. [00:02:28] For one hundred eighty dollars a year, you get an all access pass to watch courses from experts at the top of their field to list some of my favorites. Chris Hadfield and Space Exploration. Neil deGrasse Tyson on scientific thinking and communication will write the creator of SIM City and Sims on game design. I love that game. Jane Goodall and Conservation. Carlos Santana, one of my favorite guitarists on guitar. Garry Kasparov on chess. Obviously I'm Russian. I love Gary Dannehy on the ground on poker. [00:03:04] One of my favorite poker players. Also Phil Ivey is gives a course as well and many, many more. [00:03:11] Chris Hadfield explaining how rockets work and the experience of being launched into space alone is worth the money. By way of advice. For me, the key is not to be overwhelmed by the abundance of choice. Pick three courses you want to complete. Watch each all the way through from start to finish. It's not that long, but it's an experience that will stick with you for a long time. I promise. It's easily worth the money you can watch. [00:03:36] And basically any device once again sign up and masterclass that complex to get a discount and to support this podcast. Now here's my conversation with Simon Sinek. In The Infinite Game, your most recent book, you describe the finite game in the infinite game. So from my perspective of artificial intelligence and game theory in general, I'm a huge fan of finite games from the broad philosophical sense is something that in the robotics artificial intelligence space we know how to deal with. [00:04:26] And then you describe the infinite game, which has no exact static rules. There's no well-defined static objective has the players are known unknowns. They change the dynamic element. So this is something that applies to business, politics, life itself. [00:04:44] So can you try to articulate the objective function here of the infinite game or in the in the cliche, broad philosophical sense, what is the meaning of life? [00:05:00] Go for the start with a softball question first. [00:05:05] So James Carr was the philosopher who originally articulated this concept of finite and infinite games. And when I learned about it, it really challenged my view of how the world works, because I think we all think about winning and being the best in being number one. [00:05:21] But if you think about it, only in a finite game can that exist. A game that has fixed rules, agreed upon objectives and known players like football or baseball. There's always a beginning, middle and end. And if there's a winner, there has to be a loser. Infinite games, as Casta describes them, as you said, have known and unknown players, which means anyone can join. It has a changeable rules, which means you can play however you want. [00:05:44] And the objective is to perpetuate the game, to stay in the game as long as possible. In other words, there's no such thing as being number one or winning in a game that has no finish line. And what I learned is that when we try to win in a game that has no finish line, we try and be number. We try to be the best in the game that has no agreed upon objectives or agreed upon metrics or timeframes. [00:06:06] There's a few consistent and predictable outcomes. The decline of trust, the decline, the decline of cooperation, the decline of innovation. [00:06:14] And I find this fascinating because so many of the ways that we run most organizations is with a finite mindset to trying to reduce the beautiful, complex thing that is life or what politics or business into something very narrow. And in that process, the reductionist process, you lose something fundamental that makes the whole thing work in the long term. So we're turning not going to let you off the hook easy. What is the meaning of life? [00:06:44] So what is the objective function that is worthwhile to pursue? [00:06:48] Well, if you think about our Tombstone's right, they have the date we were born in the date we died. But really, it's what we do with the gap in between. There's a poem called The Dash. You know, it's the dash that matters is what we do between the time we're born, in the time we die. [00:07:03] That gives our life meaning. And if we live our lives with a finite mindset, which means to accumulate more power or money than anybody else, to outdo everyone else, to be number one, to be the best, we don't take any of us with us. We don't take any of it with us. We just die. [00:07:17] The people who get remembered the way we want to be remembered is how what kind of people we were. Right, devoted mother, loving father, what kind of person we were to other people. Jack Welch just died recently. And The Washington Post, when it when it wrote the headline for his for his obit, it wrote, He pleased Wall Street and distressed employees. [00:07:40] And that's his legacy. A finite player who was obsessed with winning. Yes. Who leaves behind a legacy of short term gains for a few and distress for many. That's his legacy. And every single one of us gets the choice of the kind of legacy we want to have. Do we want to be remembered for our contributions? Are our or our detractions to live with a finite mindset to to live a career with a finite mindset, to be number one, be the best, be the most famous? [00:08:07] Uh, you live a life like Jack Welch, you know, to live a life of service to to see those around us rise, to contribute to our communities, to our organizations, to leave them in better shape than we found them. [00:08:21] That's that's the kind of legacy most of us would like to have. [00:08:25] So day to day, when you think about what is the the fundamental goals, dreams, motivations of an infinite game, of seeing your life, your career as an infinite game, what does that what does that look like? I mean, I guess I'm sort of trying to stick on this personal ego, personal drive. The thing that the fire the reason we want to wake up in the morning and the reason we can't go to bed because we're so excited. [00:08:55] Yeah, what is that? [00:08:56] So for me, it's about having a just cause. It's about a vision that's bigger than me that my work gets to contribute to something larger than myself. [00:09:04] You know, that's what. Drives me every day, I wake up every morning with a with a vision of a world that does not yet exist, a world in which the vast majority of people wake up every single morning, inspired, feel safe at work and returned home fulfilled at the end of the day is not the world we live in. [00:09:20] And so that we still have work to do is the thing that drives me. You know, I know what I know what my underlying values are. [00:09:28] You know, I wake up to inspire people to do the things that inspire them. And these are the things that these are the things that I these are my go to is my touch points. [00:09:37] That inspire me to keep working, you know, I think of a career like an iceberg, you know, if you have a vision for something, you're the only one who can see the iceberg underneath the ocean. But if you start working at it a little bit, shows up and now a few other people can see what you imagine to be like. [00:09:52] Oh, right. Yeah, no, I want to help build that as well. And if you have a lot of success, then you have a lot of iceberg and people can see this huge iceberg and say you've accomplished so much. [00:10:00] But but what I see is all the work still yet to be done, yet I still see the huge iceberg underneath the ocean. [00:10:06] And so the growth, you talk about momentum. So the incremental revealing of the iceberg is what drives you? [00:10:15] Well, it necessarily is incremental. [00:10:17] What drives me is that is the realization is realizing the iceberg, bringing more of the iceberg from the unknown to the known, bringing more of the vision from the imagination to reality. [00:10:29] And you have this fundamental vision of optimism, you call yourself an optimist. I mean, in this world, I have sort of I see myself a little bit as the main character from The Idiot by the Husky, who's also kind of seen by society as a fool because he was optimistic. [00:10:49] So, one, can you maybe articulate where that sense of optimism comes from and maybe also try to articulate your vision of the future where people are inspired or optimism drives us? [00:11:02] Yes, it's easy to forget that when you look at social media and so on with the word toxicity and negativity can often get more likes. That optimism has a sort of a beauty to it. [00:11:13] And I do hope it's out there. So what can you try to articulate that vision? [00:11:17] Yeah, so I mean, for me, optimism and being an optimist is just seeing the silver lining in every cloud. You know, even in tragedy, it brings people together. And the question is, can we see that? Can you see can you see the beauty that is in everything? I don't think optimism is foolishness. I don't think optimism is blindness, though. It probably involves some naiveté, the belief that things will get better. The belief that that we tend towards the good even in times of struggle or bad. [00:11:53] Um, you know. You can't sustain war, but you can sustain peace, you know, I think I think things that are are stable or more sustainable, things that are are optimistic and more sustainable than things that are in a chaotic city. [00:12:10] People are fundamentally good. I mean, some people may disagree that you can't you can't sustain peace. You can't sustain war. [00:12:17] I mean, you don't have to you I think war is costly. You know, it involves life and money. And peace does not involve those things. It requires work. I'm not saying it doesn't require work, but it doesn't drain resources. [00:12:31] I think the same way that war does, you know, the people that would say that we always have war and I just talked to the story and a Stalin is, you know, I would say the conflict and the desire for power and conflict is is central to human nature. I sungkar. [00:12:50] But something in your words also, perhaps it's the naive aspect that I also share, is that you have an optimism that people are fundamentally good. [00:12:58] And I'm an idealist, you know, and I think idealism is good. I'm not I'm not a fool to believe that the ideals that I imagine can come true. Of course, they'll never be world peace, but shouldn't we die trying? [00:13:09] You know, I think that's the whole point. That's the point of vision. Vision should be idealistic and it should be or for all practical purposes, impossible. [00:13:19] But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. And it's it's the milestones that we we reach that take us closer to that ideal that make us feel that our life and our work have meaning and we're contributing to something bigger than ourselves. [00:13:31] You know, we just because it's impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't try. As I said, we're still moving the ball down the field. We're still making progress. Things are still getting better even if we never get to that that ideal state. [00:13:44] So I think idealism is a is a good thing, you know, in the word infinite game. One of the beautiful and tragic aspects of life, human life, at least, at least from the biological perspective, is that it ends. So sadly to some people, you find that it's it's tragic to some people or is it? [00:14:06] And I think some people believe that it that it ends on the day you die and some people think it continues on. There's and there's a lot of different ways to think what continues on, it looks like. But let me drag it back to the personal. Sure. Which is how do you think about your own mortality? Are you afraid of death or do you think about your own death? I definitely haven't accomplished everything I want to contribute to. I would like more time on this Earth to to keep working towards that vision. [00:14:37] Do you think about the fact that it ends for you? Are you cognizant? [00:14:40] Of course I'm cognizant of it. I mean, we all I, I don't dwell on it. I'm aware of it. I know that my life is finite and I know that I have a certain amount of time left on this planet. And I'd like to make that time be valuable. [00:14:57] You know, some people would think that ideas kind of allow you to have a certain kind of immortality. [00:15:04] Yeah, maybe to linger in this kind of question. So first, to push back on, you said that everyone cognizant of the mortality, there's a guy named Ernest Becker who would disagree, that you basically say that most of human cognition is is created by us trying to create an illusion and try to hide the fact from ourselves, the fact that we're going to die, to try to think that we're all going to go on forever. [00:15:34] But the fact that we know that it doesn't. Yes, but this mix of denial, I mean, I think the book called Denial of Death is this constant denial that we're running away from it. [00:15:45] That's, um, in fact, some would argue that the inspiration, the incredible ideas you've put out there, your TED talk has been seen by millions and millions of people. Right. Is just you trying to desperately fight the fact that you are biologically immortal and to the your creative genius comes from the fact that you're trying to create ideas that live on long past you. Well, that's very nice of you. [00:16:10] I mean, I, I would like my ideas to live on beyond me because I think that is a good test, that those ideas have value, have value in the lives of others. I think that's a good test that that others would continue to. Talk about or share the ideas long after I'm gone, I think is perhaps the greatest. Complement one can get for one's own work. That's very good, but I don't think it's my awareness of my mortality that drives me to do it. [00:16:42] It's my desire to contribute that drives me to do it. [00:16:47] It's the optimum it's the optimist vision, it's the the pleasure and the fulfillment you get from inspiring others, it's just as pure as that. Is let me ask this. I'm rushing, I'm trying to get you're good and you're good. I mean, you get get you into these dark areas. I'm enjoying it. Is the ego tied up into it somehow? So your name is extremely well known. If your name wasn't attached to it, do you think you would act differently? [00:17:15] I mean, for years, I hated that my name was attached to it, you know, I had a rule for years that I wouldn't have my my my face on the cover, the front page of the website. You know, I had a fight with the publisher because I didn't want my name big on the book. I wanted a tiny on the book because I kept telling them it's not about me, it's about the ideas. They wanted to put my name on the top of my book. [00:17:37] I refused none of my books had my names on the top because I won't I won't let them. They would like very much to put my name on the top of the book, but the idea has to be bigger than me. I'm not bigger than the idea. That's beautifully put. Do you think ego. But I also am aware that I've become I'm become recognized as the messenger. And even though I still think the message is bigger than me, I recognize that I have a responsibility as the messenger. [00:18:02] And whether I like it or not is irrelevant. I accept I accept the responsibility. I am happy to do it. [00:18:10] I'm not sure how to phrase this, but there's a large part of the culture right now that emphasizes all the things that nobody disagrees with, which is health, sleep, diet, relaxation, meditation, vacation are really important. And there's no you know, it's like you can't really argue against that. [00:18:30] In fact, people less sleep less just. I'm joking. Yes. Well, that's the thing. I often I often speak to the fact that passion and love for you what you're doing. And the two words hard work, especially in the engineering fields, are more important than are more important to prioritize than sleep. Even though sleep is really important, your mind should be obsessed with the hard work, with the passion and so on. And then I get some pushback, of course, from people. [00:19:02] What do you make sense of that? Is that just me, the crazy Russian engineer, really pushing hard work? Probably. [00:19:08] What do I think that that's a short term strategy? [00:19:12] I think if you sacrifice your health for the work, at some point it catches up with you. And at some point it's like it's like going, going, going. And you get sick. Your body will shut down for you if you refuse to to take care of yourself, you know, you get sick. It's what happens sometimes, you know, more severe illness than something that just slows you down. [00:19:31] So I think I think taking like getting sleep. [00:19:35] I mean, there have been studies on this that, you know, executives, for example, who who get a full night's sleep and stop at a reasonable hour, actually accomplish more, are more productive than people who work and burn the midnight oil because their brains are working better because they're well rested. So, you know, working hard. Yes, but why not work smart? I think that giving our minds and our bodies rest makes us more efficient. [00:20:04] I think just driving, driving, driving, driving is is a short term. It's a short term strategy. So put the push back on that a little bit. [00:20:11] The annoying thing is you're like one hundred percent, right, in terms of size. But the thing is, it's because you're 100 percent right. [00:20:20] That weak part of your mind uses that fact to convince you. Like what? So, you know, I get all kinds of my mind comes up with all kinds of excuses to try to convince me that I shouldn't be doing what I'm doing, to rationalize, to rationalize. [00:20:35] So what I have a sense I think what you said about executives and leaders is absolutely right. But there's the early days, the early days of madness and passion for sure. Then I feel like emphasizing sleep as thinking about a sleep is giving yourself a way out from the fact that those early days, especially it can be suffering as long as it's not sustainable, you know, it's not sustainable. [00:21:04] Sure, if you're investing all that energy in something at the beginning to get it up and running, then at some point you're going have to slow down. Or your body will slow you down for you, like you can choose, your body can choose. I mean, so OK, so you don't think from my perspective, it feels like people have gotten a little bit soft, but you're saying no, I think I think that there seems evidence that that. [00:21:29] That working harder and later. Have taken a back seat in. I think we have to be careful with broad generalizations, but. But I think if you go to the workplace, there are people who would complain that that more people now than before, you know, look at their watches and say up to five o'clock, goodbye. Right. [00:21:54] Now, is that a problem with the people? You're saying it's the people giving themselves excuses and people don't work hard or is that the organizations aren't giving them something to believe in, something to be passionate about? We can't manufacture passion. You can't just tell someone be passionate. You know, that's not how it works. Passions and output, not an input. Like if I believe in something and I want to contribute all that energy to do it. We call that passion, you know, working hard for something we love is passion. [00:22:19] Working hard for something we don't care about is called stress, but we're working hard either way. [00:22:24] So I think I think the organizations bear some accountability in our leaders, bear some accountability, which is if they're not offering a sense of purpose, if they're not offering us a sense of cause, if they're not telling us that our work is worth more than simply the money it makes, then, yeah, I'm going to come at five o'clock because I don't really care about making you money. [00:22:40] Remember, we live in a world right now where a lot of people, rather a few people are getting rich on the hard work of others. [00:22:46] And so I think when when when people look up and say, well, why would I do that? [00:22:51] I'll just if you're not going to look after me and then you're going to lay me off at the end of the year because you missed your arbitrary projections, you know, you're going to lay me off because you missed your arbitrary projections. Then why would I offer my hard work and loyalty to you? So I think I don't think we can immediately blame people for going soft. [00:23:09] I think we can blame leaders for their inability or failure to offer their people something bigger than than making a product or making money. [00:23:19] Yeah. So that's brilliant. And start with why leaders eat last your books. [00:23:25] You kind of basically talk about what it what it takes to be a good leader. [00:23:31] And so some of the blame should go on the leader. But how much of it is on finding your passion? How much is it on the individual and allowing yourself to pursue that passion, pushing yourself to your limits to to really take concrete steps along your path towards that passion? [00:23:50] Yeah, there's mutual responsibility as mutual accountability. I mean, we we're responsible as individuals to find the organizations and find the leaders that inspire us. And organizations are responsible for maintaining that flame and and giving people who believe what they believed, you know, chance to contribute, sort of to linger on it. [00:24:09] Have you by chance seen the movie Whiplash? [00:24:11] Yes. Again, maybe I'm romanticizing suffering again. It's the Russian and you. [00:24:17] It's the Russian. Yeah, the Russians love suffering. [00:24:20] But so but people haven't seen it's the movie Whiplash as a drum instructor that pushes the drum musician to to his limits to to bring out the best in him. And there's a toxic nature to it. There's suffering in it like you've you've worked a lot of great leaders, a lot of great individuals. Is that toxic relationship as toxic as it appears in the movie? Is that fundamental? I've seen that relationship, especially in the past with Olympic athletes, with especially in athletics. [00:24:55] Extreme performers seem to do wonders. It does wonders for me. There's some of them are my best relationships. Now, I'm not representative of everyone, certainly, but some of my best relationships for mentee and mentor have been toxic from an external perspective. [00:25:13] What do you make of that movie? [00:25:14] What do you make of that kind of relationship that not my favorite movie. [00:25:21] OK, so you don't think that's a healthy you don't think that kind of relationship is a great example of a great thing, a short term strategy? [00:25:30] I mean, short term. I mean, look, being hard on someone is not the same as toxicity. You know? You know, if you go to the Marine Corps, you're a drill instructor will be very hard and on their Marines. [00:25:43] And then but still, even in the last day of of boot camp, they'll take their hat off and they'll become a human. But the the of all the drill instructors, you know, the the the three or four main drill instructors assigned to a group of recruits, the one that they all want the respect of is the one that's the hardest on them. That's that's true. And you hear, you know, there's plenty of stories of people who want to earn the respect of a of a hard parent or a hard teacher, but fundamental that parent, that teacher, that drill instructor has to believe in, that person has to see potential mean. [00:26:15] It's not it's not a formula, which is if I'm hard on people, they'll do well, which is there has to still be love. It has to be done with absolute love and it has to be done with it has to be done responsibly. I mean, some people can take a little more pressure than others, but it's not I don't I think it's irresponsible to think of it as a formula, but that I'm just toxic at people. They will they will do well. [00:26:37] It depends on their personalities. First of all, that works for some, but not all. And second of all. It can't be done willy nilly. It has to still be done with with care and love and and sometimes you can get equal or better results without all the toxicity. [00:26:54] So so one of the, I guess, toxicity on my part was a really bad word to use. But if we talk about what makes a good leader and just look at an example in particular, looking at Elon Musk, he's known to put push people to the limits in a way that I think really challenges people in a way they've never been challenged before to do the impossible. Sure. But it can really break people. [00:27:24] And jobs was hard and Amazon is hard. And, you know, but the thing that's important is none of them lie about it. You know? You know, people ask me about Amazon all the time, like Jeff Bezos never lied about it. You know, even the ones who like Amazon don't last more than a couple of years before they burn out. But when we're honest about the culture, then it gives people the opportunity who like to work in that kind of culture, to choose to work in that kind of culture, as opposed to pretending and saying, oh, no, this is all, you know, it's all lovey lovey here. [00:27:51] And then you show up and it's it's the furthest thing from it. So, I mean, you know, I think the reputations of putting a lot of pressure on people to, you know, jobs, jobs was not an easy man to work for. [00:28:05] He pushed people. But everyone who worked there was given the space to create and do things that they would not have been able to do anywhere else and work at a level that they didn't work anywhere else. And and jobs didn't have all the answers. I mean, he pushed his people to to come up with answers. He he he wasn't just looking for people to execute his ideas and people did people accomplish more than they thought they were capable of, which is wonderful. [00:28:29] How do you you're talking about the infinite game and not thinking about two short term, and yet you see some of the most brilliant people in the world being pushed by Elon Musk to accomplish some of the most incredible things when we're talking about autopilot, when we're talking about some of the hardware engineering and they they do some of the best work of their life and then leave. [00:28:54] How do you balance that in terms of what it takes to be a good leader, what it takes to accomplish great things in your life, you know? [00:29:01] So I think there's a difference between. Someone who can get a lot about get a lot out of people in the short term and building an organization that can sustain beyond any individual, there's a difference. [00:29:15] When you say beyond an individual, you mean beyond beyond like if the leader dies, correct. [00:29:20] Like, could could Tesla continue to do what it's doing without Elon Musk? You know, and you're perhaps implying is a very interesting question that he cannot I don't know, you know, the argument you're making of this this this person who pushes everyone arguably is not a not a repeatable model. You know, is Apple the same without Steve Jobs or is it slowly moving in a different direction? Or has he established something that could be resurrected with the right leader? [00:29:51] That was his dream, I think, is to to to have to build an organization design beyond them at least. I remember reading that. [00:29:58] I think that's what a lot of leaders desire, which is to create something that was bigger than them. You know, most businesses, most entrepreneurial ventures could not pass the school bus test, which is if the founder was hit by a school bus, would everyone continue the business without them or would they all just go find jobs? And the vast majority of companies would fail that test, you know, in especially in the entrepreneurial world, that if you take the inspired visionary leader away, the whole thing collapses. [00:30:29] So is that a business or is that just a force of personality? [00:30:33] And a lot of entrepreneurs, you know, face that reality, which is they have to be in every meeting, make every decision, you know, come up with every idea, because if they don't, who will? And the question is, is Will, what have you done to build your bench is it's not sometimes it's ego, the belief that only I can. Sometimes it's just things got did so well for so long that just forgot. And sometimes it's a failure. [00:31:05] To build the training programs or or hire the right people, that that could replace you, who are maybe smarter and better and browbeating people is only one strategy. I don't think it's necessarily the only strategy, nor is it always the best strategy. I think people people get to choose the cultures they want to work in. So this is why I think I think companies should be honest about the kind of culture that they've created. [00:31:33] You know, I heard a story about Apple where some somebody came in from a big company, you know, who had accomplished a lot. [00:31:40] And his ego was very large. [00:31:43] And he was going on about how he did this and he did that and he did this and he did that. And somebody from Apple said, we don't care what you've done. [00:31:51] The question is, what are you going to do? [00:31:54] And that's that's, you know, for somebody who wants to be pushed, that's the place you go because you choose to be pushed. Now, we all want to be pushed to some degree. You know, anybody who wants to, you know, accomplish anything in this world wants to be pushed to some degree, whether it's through self pressure or external pressure or, you know, public pressure or whatever it is. [00:32:17] But I think this whole idea of one size fits all is a false narrative of how leadership works. But what all leadership requires is creating an environment in which people can work at their natural best. [00:32:28] But you have to have a sense that it's possible to create a business where it lives on beyond you healthy. If we look at now, if we just look at this current moment, I just recently talked to Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, and he's under a lot of pressure now. I don't know if you're aware of the news that he's being pushed out as a potential as the CEO of Twitter because he's the CEO of already of an incredibly successful company. [00:32:52] Plus, he wants to go to Africa to live a few months in Africa to try to connect with the world that's outside of Silicon Valley. And sort of there's this idea, while can Twitter live without Jack? We'll find out. [00:33:07] But you have a general as a student of great leadership, you have a general sense that it's possible. [00:33:14] Yeah, of course it's possible. I mean, what Bill Gates built with Microsoft. May not have survived Steve Ballmer if the company weren't so rich, but Satya Nadella is putting it back on track again. It's become a visionary company again. It's attracting great talent again. It went through a period where they couldn't get the best talent and the best talent was leaving. Now people want to work for Microsoft again. Well, that's not because of pressure. Ballmer put more pressure on people mainly to hit numbers than anything else that didn't work. [00:33:46] Yes, right. [00:33:48] And so the question is, is what kind of pressure are we putting on people? We're putting a pressure people to hit numbers or hit hit arbitrary deadlines or putting on pressure on people because we believe that they can do better work. And the work that we're trying to do is to advance a vision that's bigger than all of us. And if you're going to put pressure on people, it better be for the right reason. Like if you're going to put pressure on me, it better be for a worthwhile reason. [00:34:09] If it's just to hit a goal, if it's just to hit some arbitrary date or some arbitrary number or make a stock price, hit some target, you can keep it. I'm out of here. Yes, but if you want to put pressure on me, because we are we are brothers and sisters in arms working to advance a cause bigger than ourselves that we believe whatever we're going to build will significantly contribute to the greater good of society. Then go ahead. [00:34:32] I'll take the pressure. And if you look at the apples and if you look at the the the the the the the Elon Musk's, you know, the jobs in the Elon Musk, they fundamentally believe that what they were doing would improve society and and it was for the good of humankind. And so the pressure, in other words, what they were doing was more important, more valuable than any individual in the team. And so the pressure they put on people served a greater good, and so we we we we looked to the left and we look to the right, to each other and said, we're in this together. [00:35:06] We accept this, we want this. But if it's just pressure to hit a number or, you know, make the widget move a little faster in that soul sucking. [00:35:20] That's not passion, that's stress, and I think a lot of leaders confuse that making people work hard is not what makes them passionate. [00:35:32] Giving them something to believe in and work on is what drives passion, and when you have that, then turning up the pressure on the. Brings people together, drives them or done the right way, done the right way. [00:35:47] Speaking of pressure, let me give you 90 seconds to answer the last question, which is, if I told you that tomorrow was your last day to live, you talked about mortality, sunrise to sunset. Can you can you tell me? Can you take me through the day? What do you think that day would involve? You can't spend it with your family. Oh, yes. [00:36:08] Well, I would probably want to fill all of my senses with. [00:36:14] Things that excite my senses, I'd want to look at beautiful art, I want to listen to beautiful music and want to taste incredible food, I want to smell amazing tastes. I'd want to touch, you know. Something that, you know, something beautiful to touch, I'd want all of my senses to to just be consumed with with things that I find beautiful. And you talked about this idea of we don't do it often these days of just listening to music, turning off all the devices and actually taking in and listening to music. [00:36:47] So as an addendum. If we're to talk about music, what song would you be blasting in this last day of your life that Led Zeppelin we have that I love? [00:36:57] No, no, there's probably going to be a Beatles song in there. They'll definitely be some Beethoven in there. The classics, the classic. Exactly. Well, thank you so much for talking to us. Thank you for making time for it. Under pressure. We made it happen. [00:37:12] It was great. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Simon Sinek and thank you to our sponsors Kashyap and Masterclass. Please consider supporting the podcast by downloading cash and using Coeliacs podcast and signing up to master class at master class dotcom slash. Lex, if you enjoy this podcast, subscribe on YouTube. Review it with five stars and Apple podcast supporter and patron simply connected me on Twitter. Àlex Friedemann. And now let me give you some words from Simon Sinek, there are only two ways to influence human behavior. [00:37:49] You can manipulate it or you can inspire it. Thank you for listening. Hope to see you next time.

本集資源與出處