The Infinite Game

Here’s an unpopular opinion: I don’t like team sports. 

I’ve never liked them. And I recently realised why. 

Growing up, I disliked competition. I didn’t like seeing people losing at games someone designed using arbitrary rules. I hated the term "sore loser". I hated the people my friends became when they were competitive: vicious and vindictive. I never felt I was in competition with my siblings, cousins, neighbours or classmates. I simply looked for people who made me feel like I could belong to them. I'm still that person. 

I find myself emphatically agreeing with David Rose from Netflix’s Schitt’s Creek when he says, “You know my stance on team sports. Given today's political climate, we don't need to divide ourselves any more than we already have.” 

Yes, David! You said it. 

Competition puts people in these baseless categories of "us" and "them". We often hear terms like healthy competition and team spirit and all that jazz, but I've also seen people doing nasty things to each other because they were focused on winning rather than getting good at something. You don't necessarily have to feel the pressure of outdoing someone to get ahead in life. And what is “getting ahead” anyway?

Simon Sinek talks about the concept of The Infinite Game on his podcast with philosopher James Carse who first came up with the theory. The idea is that there are two types of games: finite games that have a set of players, fixed rules and set objectives (winning and losing). For eg. football or tennis. Infinite games don’t have a fixed set of players or rules and the only objective is to stay in the game for as long as possible. Eg. Lego or clay-making. 

Dr. Carse says that in a game that has definite winners and losers, no one's happy. Losers hate losing, and winners feel they could have done better. This is why making students compete with one another over standardised tests is ridiculous. This is also why children enjoy making sand castles together more than arm wrestling. The former is always more constructive, collaborative, fun and fosters innovation. 

Business leaders talk about “winning,” “beating competition” and “being number one.” But what does that really mean? Are we talking only about pure numbers here? What numbers exactly? Number of customers? Employees? Sales figures? Reviews? 

Sinek believes we should work with an infinite mindset instead of a finite one. Why? Because life has no set objectives. No finish lines. There’s no being number one in our career or our business, or as a parent for that matter. Every person has a distinct journey and a different idea of success. When life itself is an infinite game, maybe we need to rethink our approach towards how we work. 

If we create constructive environments where people work together, share ideas and also have fun, that’s far more powerful than always strategizing how to beat the other and stay on top. In the infinite game, you don’t compete with others. You only try to stay in the game. That’s to say you think of ways to be better and do better. And that is so much more joyous and meaningful. 

Try it. Remove the pressure of being better than your peers, coworkers or rival companies. Trust me, there’s enough for all of us. This talk of market share, top ten lists, blue oceans, sharks and piranhas is exhausting. We can all coexist, cooperate and collaborate. Let’s explore how we can come together as people, groups, teams, companies, communities and countries. 

How can we add more players to the game of life? How about instead of winners and losers we look at everyone as work-in-progress versions of themselves? 

Much like the younger me, the idea of creative collaboration still ignites a bigger spark in me rather than being “the world’s best so-and-so”. 

So maybe that’s it. Maybe that’s what truly matters. Playing the game for the sheer experience it offers, the value it generates, and not simply to win. 

Maybe the key is in living life like it’s a Lego set and not a chessboard.