Finite versus infinite

I once read a really exhausting book about Finite and Infinite Games. The terms have stuck with me even though the book itself was way too heady for my taste. Simon Sinek does a much stronger job explaining the difference in this talk. His book is better, too.

In a finite game, there is a beginning and an end. There are fixed rules. There is a clear path to victory. When this game ends, somebody wins and somebody loses. Players play to win.

An infinite game has no defined end. There are known and unknown players, the variables are constantly changing, and the path forward is not always clear. The point of this game is to "play to play", to learn how to get better, to improve a skillset, to expand your mental capacity. Here, players play to play.

Herein lies the difference: 
If you view your career as a finite game, somebody always has to lose in order for you to win. This is right in line with a scarcity mentality in that it assumes the amount of upward growth potential is limited; if someone else moves up, it means you're being left behind. I've met a fair amount of people who play their careers like finite games. I wonder how that feels for them, even if they do get to the top.

If you view your career as an infinite game, every day is brimming with curiosity. A failure is a building block, not the end of the world. A lesson gets put in your pocket to use next time. When you play to play, you learn how to be better at the game, even as it changes. You do the work better every time. You are curious, you listen to feedback, you synthesize it, and you use it. You know feedback is a light that shines into your blind spots. See, infinite games come from a place of abundance - someone else's growth does not hinder your growth, in the same way your growth does not hinder someone else's.

There is always enough pie.