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

Sinek traces the human need for safety back to the Paleolithic era, when “the lives of early humans were threatened by all sorts of things that could end their time on earth” (25). While the dangers themselves changed, particularly in light of the modern workplace, our collective need to feel safe in our daily work has remained a constant. When organizations feel safe within their own confines, external dangers can be overcome as a united front. Conversely, when organizations prove dangerous to their own, outside challenges and threats such as market unpredictability or global economic recession become harder to take on—which accentuates the need for leadership that is protective by nature. Leaders play a vital role in protecting their organizations from toxicity, which often emerges when they protect their own interests or those of a small inner circle. By insisting on harmful practices, “silos form, politics entrench, mistakes are covered up instead of exposed, the spread of information slows and unease soon replaces any sense of cooperation and security” (28).

During Jack Welch’s tenure at General Electric, managers were forced into competition with each other out of fear of being let go during the annual firing (which targeted the lowest-performing managers). In this kind of environment, trust, empathy, and collaboration become nearly impossible to achieve in a genuine manner. Sinek also emphasizes the role of four chemicals in providing a biological framework for our safety: endorphins and dopamine, which can be traced back to early humans’ instinct to hunt and gather, and serotonin and oxytocin, which “incentivize us to work together and develop feelings of trust and loyalty” (46). Humans are wired for safety and belonging, which only accentuates leaders’ responsibility to cultivate a sense of stability—a luxury not just privy to a few companies but a common need of every organization. In addressing the importance of nurturing a Circle of Safety, Sinek reinforces how our bodies naturally operate and regulate emotions.

Throughout Leaders Eat Last, Sinek devotes special attention to two different generations of people: Boomers and Millennials. The dynamic between Boomers and Millennials makes for a challenging work environment. According to Sinek, Boomers often see Millennials as lazy and entitled, whereas Millennials often subvert Boomer ideologies by suggesting different styles of work (i.e., the exact number of hours in a work week is less important than an employee’s ongoing productivity). As Boomers and Millennials struggle to reach common ground, both groups constantly critique each other, which complicates some of the complex dynamics already at play (at work). When leaders of companies complain about managing Millennials, Sinek advises that they invest in a Circle of Safety. Conversely, when Millennials complain about the old-fashioned approach and values of their Boomer leaders, Sinek suggests that they disconnect from social media and try to connect with said leaders. As each generation makes sweeping generalizations about the other, the future of the workplace becomes less than, hindered by a lack of genuine connection between people from different age groups, different ideologies and strategies for survival. The solution lies in an empathy-based approach: “We must stop blaming each other and start helping each other” (271). At its core, empathy depends on trying to understand another person or group’s life experiences and perspective—as they represent the current working body, Millennials must be understood in order to feel empowered.

While Sinek is thorough in his analysis of the main factors that adversely affect Millennials’ performance in the workplace (i.e., over-parenting, ubiquitous technology, and instant gratification), he also calls previous generations to his conversation. Without dialogue and insights driven by a genuine desire to understand, generalizations about Millennials will continue to deepen the generational divide. Millennials will continue to feel misunderstood while previous generations will only grow in frustration. In his call for understanding, Sinek avoids formulaic responses to the two generations’ inherent tension; rather, he suggests a change in attitude when it comes to understanding Millennials and why they tend to act a certain way in the workplace. Fundamentally, Millennials gravitate toward a different value system, one that relies on encouraging individuality and creativity—and ultimately, making an impact through work. In order to break through to Millennials, thereby maximizing their effectiveness in the workplace, Sinek claims that they will “require employers who are empathetic, understand the challenges that this generation faces, create Circles of Safety and find ways to make the most of the many positive attributes and unique skills that Millennials bring to the table” (271).