Simon Sinek - Understanding Empathy

[Applause]

So, I'm embarrassed that I have a career.

I talk about things like trust and

cooperation, and there should be no

demand for my work. But the fact of the

matter is, there is demand for my work,

which means that there's an opportunity.

It means that trust and cooperation are

not yet standard in our organizations,

and yet they should be, and we know that,

which is why we're looking for ways to

bring those things to our organizations.

So, I thought I would do something a

little different today. You know, when

you're speaking to tens of thousands of

people and you have the opportunity to

share a message, of course, most rational

people would say, "Let's go with something

I've talked about lots of times and I'm

really good at," but I'm not normal, so I'm

going to do something completely new, and I

hope this works out. There are two things

that I think that great leaders need to

have: empathy and perspective. And I think

these things are very often forgotten.

Leaders are so often so concerned about

their status or their position in an

organization they actually forget their

real job. And the real job of a leader is

not about being in charge, it's about

taking care of those in our charge. And I

don't think people realize this, and I

don't think people train for this. When

we're junior, our only responsibility is

to be good at our jobs. That's all we

really have to do. And some people

actually go get advanced educations

so that they can be really good at their

jobs--accountants or whatever. Right? And

you show up, and you work hard, and the

company will give us tons and tons of

training on how to do our jobs. They'll

show us how to use the software. They'll

send us away for a few days to get

trained in whatever it is that we're

doing for the company. And then they

expect us to go be good at our jobs. And

that's what we do, we work very hard. And

if you're good at your job, they'll

promote you. And at some point, you'll get

promoted to position where we're now

responsible for the people who do the

job we used to do, but nobody shows us

how to do that. And that's why we get

managers and not leaders. Because the

reason our managers are

micromanaging us is because they

actually do know how to do the job

better than us. That's what got them

promoted. Really, what we have to do is go

through a transition. Some people make it

quickly, some people make it slowly, and

unfortunately, some people will never

make that transition at all. Which is we

have to go this through this transition

of being responsible for the job and

then turning it to somebody who's now

responsible for the people who are

responsible for the job. And as I said

before, one of the great things that is

lacking in most of our companies is that

they are not teaching us how to lead. And

leadership is a skill like any other. It is

a practicable, learnable skill. And it is

something that you work on--it's like a

muscle. If you practice it all the days,

you will get good at it, and you will

become a strong leader. If you stop

practicing, you will become a weak leader.

Like parenting, everyone has the capacity

to be a parent. Doesn't mean everybody

wants to be a parent, and doesn't mean

everybody should be a parent.

Leadership is the same. We all have the

capacity to be a leader, doesn't mean

everybody should be a leader, and it

doesn't mean everybody wants to be a

leader. And the reason is because it

comes at great personal sacrifice.

Remember, you're not in charge; you're

responsible for those in your charge.

That means things like when everything

goes right, you have to give away all the

credit. And when everything goes wrong,

you have to take all the responsibility.

That sucks, right? It's things like

staying late to show somebody what to do.

It's things like when something does

actually break, when something goes wrong,

instead of yelling and screaming and

taking over, you say, "Try again." When the

overwhelming pressures are not on them,

the overwhelming pressures are on us. At

the end of the day, great leaders are not

responsible for the job, they're

responsible for the people who are

responsible for the job. They're not even

responsible for the results. I love

talking to CEOs and saying, "What's your

priority?" And they put their hands on

their hips all proud and say, "My priority

is my customer." I'm like, "Really? You haven't talked

to a customer in fifteen years."

[Audience laughing].

There's no CEO on the planet responsible

for the customer. They're just not.

They're responsible for the people who are

responsible for the people who are

responsible for the customer. I'll tell

you a true story. A few months ago, I

stayed at the Four Seasons in Las Vegas.

It is a wonderful hotel. And the reason

it's a wonderful hotel is not because of

the fancy beds. Any hotel can go and buy

a fancy bed.

The reason it's a wonderful hotel is

because of the people who work there.

If you walk past somebody at the Four

Seasons and they say hello to

you, you get the feeling that they

actually wanted to say hello to you. It's

not that somebody told them, "You

have to say hello to all the customers,

say hello to all the guests." Right? You

actually feel that they care. Now, in

their lobby, they have a coffee stand. And,

one afternoon, I went to buy a cup of

coffee, and there was a barista by the

name of Noah who was serving me. Noah was

fantastic. He was friendly and fun, and he

was engaging with me, and I had so much

fun buying a cup of coffee, I actually

think I gave a 100% tip. Right?

He was wonderful. So, as is my nature, I

asked Noah, "Do you like your job?" And

without skipping a beat, Noah says, "I love

my job." And so I followed up, I said, "What

is it that the Four Seasons is doing

that would make you say to me, 'I love my

job?'" And without skipping a beat, Noah

said, "Throughout the day, managers will

walk past me and ask me how I'm doing, if

there's anything that I need to do my

job better." He said, "Not just my manager,

any manager." And then he said something

magical. He says, "I also work at Caesar's

Palace." And at Caesar's Palace,

the managers are trying to make sure

we're doing everything right. They catch

us when we do things wrong. He says, "When

I go to work there, I like to keep my

head under the radar and just get

through the day so I can get my paycheck."

He says, "Here at the Four Seasons, I feel

I can be myself." Same person, entirely

different experience from the

customer who will engage with Noah. So, we

in leadership are always criticizing the

people. We're always saying, "We've got to get

the right people on the bus.

I've got to fill my team. I've got to

get the right people." But the reality is,

it's not the people. It's the leadership.

If we create the right environment, we

will get people like Noah at the Four

Seasons. If we create the wrong

environment, we will get people like Noah

at Caesar's Palace. It's not the people.

And yet, we're so quick to hire and fire.

You can't hire and fire your children. If

your kids are struggling, we

don't say, "You got a C at school,

you're up for adoption." So why is it that

when somebody has performance problems

at work, why is it that our instinct is

to say, "You're out?" We do not practice

empathy. What does empathy look like?

Here's the lack of empathy. This is

normal in our business world. You walk

into someone's office, someone walks into

our office and says, "Your numbers have

been down for the third quarter in a row.

You have to pick up your numbers,

otherwise I can't guarantee what the

future will look like." How inspired do you

think that person is to come to work the

next day? Here's what empathy looks like.

You walk into someone's office, someone

walks into your office and says, "Your

numbers are down for the third quarter

in a row. Are you okay? I'm worried about

you.

What's going on?" We all have performance

issues. Maybe someone's kid is sick, maybe

they're having problems in their

marriage, maybe one of their parents is

dying. We don't know what's going on in

their lives. And of course, it will affect

performance at work. Empathy is being

concerned about the human being, not just

their output. We have, for some reason, our

work world has changed in the past twenty

and thirty years. We are suffering the side

effects of business theories left over

from the '80s and '90s. And they are bad

for people, and they are bad for business.

Let me give you an example. The concept

of shareholder supremacy was a theory

proposed in the late 1970s. It was

popularized in the '80s and '90s. It is now

standard form today. You talk to any

public company, and you ask them their

priority, and they say, "Maximize

shareholder value."

Really? That's like a coach prioritizing

the needs of the fans over the needs of

the players. How are you going to build a

winning team with that model? But that's

normal today. We don't even perceive it

as broken or damaged or wrong or

outdated. Remember, the '80s and '90s were

boom years with relative peace and a

kinder, gentler cold war. Nobody was

practicing hiding under their desks in

school anymore. We are no longer in those

times. These are no longer boom years.

These are no longer peaceful times, and

those models cannot work today.

Here's another one: mass layoffs--using

someone's livelihood to balance the

books. Right? It's so normal in America

today that we don't even understand how

broken and how damaging it is, not only

to human beings but to business. You know,

companies talk about how they want to

build trust and cooperation, and then they

announce a round of layoffs. Do you know

the quickest way to destroy trust and

destroy cooperation in a business--

literally in one day? Lay people off. And

everyone gets scared. Right? Can you

imagine sending someone home to say,

"Honey, I can no longer provide for our

family because the company missed its

arbitrary projections this year?" And

forget about the people who lost their

jobs--think about the people who kept

their jobs. Because every single decision

a company makes is a piece of

communication. And the company

has just communicated to

everybody else: This is not a meritocracy.

We don't care how hard you work or how

long you've worked here. If we miss our

numbers and you happen to fall on the

wrong side of the spreadsheet, I'm sorry,

we cannot guarantee employment. In other

words, we come to work every day afraid.

And we're asking our youngest generation

to work in environments where how would

any of us ever stand up and admit, "I made

a mistake." We're constantly being told,

"You have to be vulnerable. Leaders are

vulnerable." What does that even mean? It

doesn't mean you walk around crying, "I'm

vulnerable," right? No. What vulnerability

means is you create an environment in

which someone feels safe enough to raise

their hand and say, "I don't know what

I'm doing.

You've given me a job, and I haven't been

trained to do it. I need help. I made a

mistake. I screwed something up. I'm

scared.

I'm worried." All of these things no one

would ever admit inside a company

because it puts a target on your head in

case there's another round. And so, we

keep it to ourselves. And how can a

company ever do well if nobody's ever

willing to a,dmit they made a mistake

that they're scared, or they don't know what

they're doing? And so, we've literally

created cultures in which every single

day, everybody comes to work and

lies, hides, and fakes. And we're asking

our youngest generation to work and

succeed and find themselves and build

their confidence and overcome their

addiction to technology and build strong

relationships at work. We're asking to do

this, and these are the environments we've

created. We keep saying to them, "You're

the future leaders. We're the leaders now.

We're in control." What are we doing? This

is what empathy means: it means if

there's an entire generation struggling,

maybe it's not them. It's like, you know,

the only thing that I, that, the common

factor in all my failed relationships? Me.

Same thing. "Well, we just can't get the

right, you know, the right

performance out of our people." Maybe it's

you. Right? It's not a generation. It's not

them. They're not difficult or hard to

understand. They're human beings like the

rest of us, trying to find their way,

trying to work in a place where they

feel that someone cares about them as a

human being. By the way, that's what we

all want. In other words, it's not even

generational. It's all of us. This is the

practice of empathy. That if we're

struggling to communicate to someone, if

we're struggling to help someone be at

their natural best, I'm tired of people

saying to me, "How do I get the best out

of my people?" Really? That's what you want?

They're like a towel, you just wring them? "How can

I get the most out of them?"

No. How do I help my people be at their

natural best? Right? We're not asking

these questions. We're not practicing

empathy.

We have to start by practicing empathy

and relate to what they may be going

through, and it will profoundly change

the decisions we make; it will profoundly

change the way we see the world.

Someone's driving to work, you're driving

to work, and someone wants to cut into

your lane. What do you do? If you pull

your car up, would you let them in? Most

of us pull our cars up and go like this,

"You wait your turn." Now, let's practice

empathy. I don't know, maybe they've been

out of work for six months. Maybe they

had trouble getting the kids out to

school this morning, and now they're

running late for a really important

interview, and they just have to get to

this interview, and they're going to cut

into our lane. Or maybe they're just a

bastard, I don't know. But that's the

point. We don't know. We don't know. And

the practice of empathy will say, "I'll

let them in, and I'll arrive to work one

car length late." Right? We don't always

have to be right. We do always have to be

in charge. We don't have to be the one

who succeeds. It's not about winning or

losing. And that's where I go to the

second point. After empathy comes

perspective, where it's not about winning

or losing. In game theory, there are two

kinds of games. There are finite games

and there are infinite games. And this is

how you're going to change your perspective.

Right? A finite game is defined as known

players, fixed rules, and an agreed-upon

objective. Baseball, for example, we know

the rules, we all agree to the rules, and

whoever has more runs at the end of nine

innings is the winner, and the game is

over. No one ever says, "If we can just

play two more innings, I know we can come

back." Doesn't work that way. The game is

over. Right? That's a finite game. Then you

have an infinite game. Infinite games are

defined as known and unknown players, the

rules are changeable, and the objective

is to keep the game in play, to

perpetuate the game. When you pit a

finite player versus a finite player,

this system is stable.

Baseball is stable. Right? When you pit an

infinite player versus an

infinite player, this system is also

stable, like the Cold War, for example,

because there cannot be a winner and a

loser, there are no winners and losers in

an infinite game. Right? It doesn't exist.

And because there are no winners or

losers, what ends up happening in the

infinite contest is players drop out

when they run out of the will or the

resources to play. But there's no winners

or losers. Problems arise when you pit a

finite player versus an infinite player.

Because the finite player is playing to

win, and an infinite player is to playing

to keep the game going. Right? This is

what happened to us in Vietnam. We were

playing to win, and the Vietnamese were

fighting for their lives. We were the

ones who got stuck in quagmire. This was

the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They

were trying to beat the mujahideen, and

the mujahideen would fight for as long

as necessary. Quagmire. Now, let's look

at business. The game of business has

preexisted or has existed long before

every single company that exists on this

planet today. And it will outlast every

single company that exists

on this planet today. There's no winning

the game of business. And the reason is

is because we haven't agreed to the

rules. I get such a kick out of this. You

realize how many companies actually

don't know the game they're in. Right?

Listen to the language that the companies

use. "We're trying to beat our competition."

"We're trying to be number one." Did you

know that we were ranked number one? Look

at the listing. Based on what criteria?

Revenues? Profits? Market share? Square

footage? Number of employees? Based on

what time frame? A quarter? A year? Five

years? Ten years? Twenty years? Fifty years? A hundred

years? I haven't agreed to those

standards. How can you declare yourself

the winner?

How can you declare yourself number one

where no one else in the game has agreed

to the rules? It's arbitrary. There is no

winning because there's no end. In other

words, companies are playing finite games.

Listen to their language. They're trying

to beat their competition. What does that

even mean? It's the leaders and the

companies that understand the game that

they're in and organize their resources

and their decision-making around

the infinite contest that outlast and

frustrate their competition. All the

companies that we've referred to as the

exceptions--Southwest Airlines, Apple

Computers, Harley Davidson--they're the

exception. No. They're playing the

infinite contest. They frustrate their

competition is what happens. That's what

happens because they're not playing to

win.

Jim Senegal, the founder of Costco, which

is the only real company that

gives Walmart a run for its money.

He says, "Public companies are looking to

succeed for the quarter." He says, "We're

looking for the next fifty years." You can

hear him. He's playing the infinite

contest. I spoke at a leadership summit

for Microsoft. I also spoke at a

leadership summit for Apple. Now, at the

Microsoft summit, I would say 70% of the

executives, and this was under the Steve

Ballmer days, I would say about 70% of

the executives spent about 70% of their

presentations talking about how to beat

Apple. At the Apple summit, a 100%

of the executives spent a

100% of their presentations

talking about how to help teachers teach

and how to help students learn. One was

obsessed with their competition, the

other one was obsessed with where

they're going. So at the end of my

presentation at Microsoft, they gave me a

gift. They gave me the new Zune, which was

the competitor to the iPod Touch when it

was a thing. Right? And I have to tell you,

this piece of technology was spectacular.

It was beautiful. The user interface was

incredible. The design was amazing. It was

intuitive. It was one of the most

beautiful, elegant pieces of technology

I'd ever seen. Right? Now, they didn't work

with iTunes, which is an entirely

different problem. I couldn't use it.

[Audience laughing].

But that's something else. I'm sitting in

the back of a taxi with a senior Apple

executive, sort of employee number 12

kind of guy, and I decide to stir the pot.

And I turn to him and I say, "You know, I spoke

at a Microsoft summit, and they gave me

their new Zune, and I have to tell you, it

is so much better than your iPod Touch."

And he turned to me and said, "I have no

doubt." Conversation over.

[Audience laughing].

Because the infinite player isn't playing to be

number one every day with every product.

They're playing to outlast the

competition. If I had said to Microsoft,

"Oh, I've got the new iPod Touch, it's so

much better than your new Zune," they would have said,

"Can we see it? What does it do? How--We

have to see it." Because one is obsessed

with their competition, the other is

obsessed with why they do what they do,

the other is obsessed with where they're

going. And the reason Apple frustrates

their competition is because secretly,

they're not even competing against them.

They're competing against themselves. And

they understand that sometimes you're a

little bit ahead, and sometimes you're a

little bit behind. And sometimes your

product is better, and sometimes you're

not. But if you wake up every single

morning and compete against yourself, how

do I make our products better than they

were yesterday? How do I take care of our

customers better than we did yesterday?

How do we advance our cause more

efficiently, more productively than we

did yesterday? How do we find new

solutions to advance our calling, our

cause, our purpose, our beliefs, our why

every single day? What you'll find is,

over time, you will probably be ahead

more often. Those who play the infinite

game understand it's not about the

battle, it's about the war. And they don't

play to win every day, and they frustrate

their competition until their

competition drops out of the game. Every

single bankruptcy, almost every merger

and acquisition is basically a company

saying, "We no longer have the will or the

resources to continue to play, and we

have no choice but to either drop out of the

game or

or merge our resources with another

player so that we can stay in the game."

That's what that is. And if you think

about the number of bankruptcies and

mergers and acquisitions, it's kind of

proof that most companies don't even

know the game they're in. You want to be

a great leader? Start with empathy. You

want to be a great leader? Change your

perspective and play the game you're

actually playing. Thank you very much.

[Applause]