Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Together and Others Don’t

This term refers to the Baby Boomer generation of Americans born between 1946 and 1964, contributors to a “boom” in population growth post-World War II. As Boomers entered adulthood, historical events such as the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal made them more cynical. As a result, Boomers had—and continue to have—a tendency to act more selfishly, acting out of the belief that the government can’t be trusted—which exacerbates the fact that they became “a group that seemed to be more concerned about their own happiness and well-being than the happiness or well-being of those around them” (109). In Leaders Eat Last, Boomers receive special attention for their clash with the younger generation of Millennials, a dynamic that complicates the modern workplace.

A key concept in Leaders Eat Last, Sinek defines a “Circle of Safety” as the environment that results from organizations proactively caring for their own (those within the Circle), thereby eliminating internal competition in lieu of protecting themselves from outside dangers and threats. Sinek argues that “without a Circle of Safety, people are forced to spend too much time and energy protecting themselves from each other” (27). Organizations that cultivate a Circle of Safety and make it obvious from the get-go benefit from trust, which allows for a sense of unity. The primary role of leaders is to “look out for those inside their Circle” (27); from sharing successes to opening up about failures, people who feel empowered by and safe within their Circle can work in ways that actually benefit their companies rather than feeling as if their position is constantly threatened.

Cortisol is a steroid hormone that acts as a “fight or flight” indicator, flowing into our bodies when we perceive a threat to our well-being. Sinek describes cortisol as a chemical that’s “not supposed to stay in our systems; it is supposed to fire off when we sense a threat and then leave when the threat has passed” (67). In some organizations, cortisol flows frequently and aplenty, which creates a culture of stress and potentially even aggression. When people go to work under stressful conditions in which a toxic culture affects day-to-day operations, cortisol becomes our new reality, one that can affect our bodies and minds in a permanent manner.

In Leaders Eat Last, this term is often used in relation to abstraction. Sinek characterizes dehumanization is an ideological process by which human beings are stripped of their individual qualities and stories, thereby becoming an amalgamated mass of “customers, shareholders, employees, avatars, online profiles, screen names, e-mail addresses and expenses to be tracked” (120). When companies dehumanize both their employees and their consumers, the effect can literally be deadly. In order to illustrate this point, Sinek alludes to an experiment set up by a Yale psychologist named Stanley Milgram, in which participants detached themselves from the pain of others. The more distant the participants’ individual decisions became in relation to the pain of others, the less likely they were to act with empathy or a strong code of ethics. In other words, when we dehumanize, we become increasingly capable of causing harm to others by means of our detachment. Sinek argues that many companies today have knowingly dehumanized both their own employees and their current and prospective customers, all for the sake of profits.

Dopamine is the chemical responsible for motivation, satisfaction, and ultimately, pleasure. As we complete long-term projects, overcome obstacles and personal challenges, or make new friends at work (and beyond), we experience bursts of dopamine: “We all know how good it feels to cross something off our to-do list. That feeling of progress or accomplishment is primarily because of dopamine” (50). While dopamine is a largely positive chemical for our bodies, it also has its drawbacks. Various addictions are tied to dopamine, including our addiction to social media (especially among Millennials)—which Sinek argues is a pervasive issue in our world today.

Endorphins are hormones that mask pain, replacing potential discomfort with pleasure (that of dopamine). Going for a long run or working out extensively produces endorphins, which is why athletes often describe intense physical exercise as “feeling good.” This trade-off doesn’t just apply to athletes: “Without endorphins to give us the edge we need to keep going, we would not keep striving even when we were tired and exhausted” (54). Endorphins are a necessary part of our work ethic as they help us persevere even when obstacles prove mentally or physically taxing. The benefits of both endorphins and dopamine can be traced back to the Paleolithic era in which humans hunted and gathered materials for survival. Beyond the dynamics of the modern corporate world and workplace, endorphins are a primary function of human existence.

Like he does with Boomers, Sinek pays special attention to Millennials, a term that refers to anyone born from the early 1980s to the early 2000s “because they were the first generation to come of age in the twenty-first century” (245). In the modern workplace, Millennials are “often accused of being superficial, lazy and disrespectful” (245). Millennials are just as much products of their time as the previous generation, making the inherent challenge of an intergenerational workplace far more complex than simply wagging a finger and saying “kids these days.” The most significant factors that contextualize Millennials and their ideologies are the following: “over-parenting, ubiquitous technology and greater opportunities for instant gratification” (249). Rather than lamenting these factors and seeing them as purely negative influences on Millennials, Sinek argues that understanding this group is crucial to productive work across generations.

Like dopamine, oxytocin is a largely positive chemical—albeit with a key difference. Tied to feelings of love and friendship, oxytocin is released when we either give or receive kindness. In a nutshell, “Oxytocin makes us social” (60). In contrast to dopamine, which is connected primarily to instant gratification, the effects of oxytocin are long-lasting as we build different relationships and learn how to become more open and vulnerable with each other. In organizations that cultivate a strong sense of belonging (via a Circle of Trust), oxytocin is frequently present.