Infinity symbol in neon on black background

The Tech Industry – Which Game Are We Playing?

This week I’m going to have a few posts about the tech industry specifically that probably apply everywhere in the business world. The reason is that I’ve spent quite a lot of time reading, thinking, and listening to very smart people talk about what’s wrong with the industry. My post from last week about what I learned from Annie Duke about goals is part of that.

This video is five years old but coincidentally it randomly fell into my TikTok view this past weekend and it resonated on the topic. You may have seen or read Simon Sinek talk about the Infinite Game previously. I had seen it previously, but in rewatching it, I was taken aback at how much worse it’s become.

Simon uses football as an example of a finite game. We have known competitors playing by agreed-upon rules with an agreed-upon ending. Everyone agrees to the rules of the game, and at the end of the allotted time, the team who has scored the most wins, and the game is over. Everyone goes home until the next game starts.

But in other areas of life, that’s not at all how the game works. War, business, education, etc. are not finite games. It’s not clear who all of the competitors are, the rules change and there’s no one “score” that everyone has agreed upon. Maybe most importantly, it doesn’t end at the allocated time, it goes on and on with some of the competitors giving up over time and dropping out of the game.

The problem Simon identifies is that when the game is infinite, but you play it as if it were finite, you end up in a quagmire. (His Vietnam comparison is spot on here, by the way.)

Let’s take the example I’ve been using when talking about layoffs in the tech industry. Many tech companies saw some pretty massive growth in users, revenue, and profits in 2020-21. If the shareholders and VC funders had been viewing the game as infinite, that would have been really nice. They would have been happy to see the company moving ahead, gaining customers, and see a good opportunity to invest in ensuring the future sustainability of the company because, in an infinite game, the goal is to remain sustainable for the long term, longer than any of us will be alive to see. We do that by being profitable and making sure we have a healthy culture and solid leadership.

But when the players are playing a finite game, that’s not what happens. Grow 20% in one year and anything less than that, no matter how profitable and sustainable it is, is a catastrophe. We have watched time and time again as perfectly profitable companies have laid off thousands of workers at a time. 10-15% of the employees of organizations suddenly left to their own devices to find another job to take care of themselves and their families. The remaining employees are tasked with more and more work being piled on them as they work in fear of being next. All in search of winning a game that doesn’t exist outside of the minds of short-term rent seekers. Investors who are not interested in the long-term sustainability or the long-range mission of a company but only how much money they can make from their investment now.

They’re playing their own game and have pulled the entire tech industry into a quagmire. We aren’t changing the world and making people’s lives better, we’re enriching the very worst among us to our own detriment.

Think of how this plays out long-term if you plan on working in tech for the next 20 years.

  • You join a startup, and things are good. You’ve had 10% growth in your first year there. You went from 10,000 customers to 11,000.
  • Your second year’s growth is even better. You’re up 20%. 11,000 to 13,200. You’re starting to do more than break even, there’s a net profit of $500,000.
  • In the third year, you add another 2,500 users. That’s slightly more users than last year, but it’s only 19% growth. Investors are starting to get nervous about this drop in customer growth. Plus, even with 19% growth, due to more investment to keep up with the growing customer base, your profit only grew 10% to $550,000.
  • In year four the company is still on relatively solid footing, but the user base is growing slower, you need to find new markets to continue growing, so the company starts a massive marketing campaign. You still grow, from 15,700 to 17,000 but that’s only 12%. The profit dips down to $350,000 to account for the new marketing work. Investors are restless. Founders are feeling a lot of pressure. If this marketing campaign doesn’t bring in 3-5,000 new users next year the company will be in trouble.
  • In year five, the marketing campaign only brought in 1,500 new customers. A measly 8.8% growth rate. Halfway through the year, 10% of the staff is let go to cut costs and increase the profits for the investors. By the end of the year, the investors don’t see how the company will have 20% growth again, and convince the founders to sell the product to Google, which makes most of the leftover staff redundant. The founders walked away with millions. The investors walked away with millions. You are unemployed with 6 weeks severance if you’re lucky. Let go from a company that wasn’t losing money and was growing every year. Just not enough to satisfy the finite game players who run things.

This is what the tech industry looks like. It’s a quagmire for workers. You can’t get ahead when you are constantly starting over every few years. Yet we keep playing by the same rules. There will be more on that later this week.

Similar Posts

  • Want to Stand Out? Just Put in Some Effort

    I’m sure by now you’ve seen the photos, if not read the article about the Japanese team at the World Cup, and their fans. If you haven’t, the gist of it is this; even after a gut-wrenching defeat, the team thanked their fans, spoke to the media, cleaned their own locker room, and left a…

  • End of Year Cleaning

    So after spending so much time hunting down the malware PHP file on the site, I decided it was time to clean up. As Steve pointed out in the comments on that post, there are some steps I should be taking, like getting rid of old plugins and unused themes, that I had gotten lazy…

  • |

    Happiness Lab On How Grades And Rewards are Manipulative

    One of the most popular arguments we hear, and one I’ve made myself, is that to truly stay informed, and avoid living in the bubble of our own political bias, we need to make sure we are getting information from a variety of sources, including ones we may not agree with.

    This study seems to be telling us that isn’t enough, and it can easily be manipulated. If I read an opposing viewpoint, and there’s no reward for doing so, I’m unlikely to really be influenced by it, but if I read an opposing viewpoint and get rewarded for it, I’m more likely to change my mind.

    Now, remember that emotional contagion we might get from social media? What if I shared one side of a political view, and got rewarded by the algorithms or whomever with lots of likes and comments, and the post got shared a whole bunch, but posts from the other side, got none of that? Which side am I more likely to agree with? Right, the one that I got better grades on. Not because it’s true, better, or more accurate, but because I am rewarded for thinking that way. Rewarded the way I’ve been my whole life, since I was a little boy, from the first time my parents wanted me to behave a certain way, all the way through my school years, and for all of my career.

    How hard would that be to fight against? Almost impossible, I’d say. How easy would it be for social media to do it, either the companies themselves, or large groups of users?

    How does that influence what we do see on social media?

  • |

    Linked – A Business Case for Building Empathy, Trust, and Psychological Safety

    What I would like, however, is just once for someone not to feel the need to make a business case for treating your employees with kindness and empathy. This need to include the business case and the impact on the bottom line is an appeal to management in their self-interest and the financial interest of their business.

    How about we make the case that being kind, thoughtful, and empathetic towards employees is the right way to treat a fellow human being, regardless of what it means for the bottom line? Is it too much to ask managers and CEOs to treat people like people? Or are we so far down the caste system at work that we have to convince managers to act as if they care about their employees to benefit themselves?

  • Google Continues Devolving Plus

    Back when Google first made their foray into social networks with Google Plus, they were all about making all of their products accessible through one, public, profile. They were going to grow their social network by making everyone who used any Google product, sign up for Plus. That was a surefire way to get the…

  • |

    Linked: The Future of Remote Workplaces: 3 Things You Must Have for Better Employee Mental Health

    Look, I will 100% agree with the tips in the article, those three things are the base upon which everything your team does will grow. Get them wrong, and you won’t have much of a team left. But, don’t do them just because you want to run a team. You can say you want open communication, but that requires you to care about what they have to say, including things that are hard. It means caring about how decisions made by the organization are affecting their mental health, their work-life balance, and their home lives.

    Too many people in management have not cared about that stuff for too long. Thankfully that is changing. It’s been a long time coming.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

To respond on your own website, enter the URL of your response which should contain a link to this post's permalink URL. Your response will then appear (possibly after moderation) on this page. Want to update or remove your response? Update or delete your post and re-enter your post's URL again. (Find out more about Webmentions.)