Game theory has continued to be one of the most significant frameworks for analyzing how social players compete. The theory has been instrumental in real-life situations, where users of the framework can predict the outcome of an event. Finite and infinite game theory approach are vital to organizations decision making . Game theory is currently applicable to leadership and management skills. Conversely, game theory has been the source of conflict between leadership theory and the management approach. Proper understanding of game theory is useful in the understanding of leadership and managerial skills.

Game Theory analysis

Management and leadership interest in game theory have risen in the recent past. This development is probably because of the importance of game theory in real-life situations. The classification of game theory is either a finite game or infinite game. Simon Sinek (2017) in the video equates finite game to baseball game, where there are fixed rules, known players and agreed objectives. Finite games, in this case, concentrate on the existing rules without much deviation. For instance, the significant metric used by companies as their performances includes revenues, net profits, and market capitalization rating. In most instances, the analysis of the performance of the businesses is the end of the financial year. This means that all businesses subscribe to this rule. On the other hand, the infinite game entails both known and unknown players, the rules are changeable and the main objective is to ensure that the game does not stop. In the case of infinite game, the end of the session is marked by the exit of one player. If a player exits from a game, it does not mean that the remaining player wins. It simply suggests that the player who left ran out of resources. One example of a player exiting from the game as per the video is Soviet quitting the Cold War. The development did not mean that the U.S was the winner in the war. The happening was because the Soviet ran out of resources. Simon Sinek (2017) thinks that pitting the finite and the infinite player usually has mixed outcomes. In this case, the finite player engages in the game to win, while the infinite player aims at remaining in the game. The perfect example of a scenario where the final players are finite and infinite is the case of the U.S and Vietnam. The former intended to win, while the latter was to survive. The U.S had to exit the war because its objective was not forthcoming.