On professional identity, organisational behaviour, ambition, cultural expectations, and the different ways we measure a successful life.
By Sahil Tayal | October 21, 2026 | 0216
There is a question I find myself returning to, even after accumulating achievements that an earlier version of me would have considered meaningful: Am I successful?
It is a curious question because, at least on paper, success should be relatively easy to establish. We can examine educational qualifications, professional experience, income, promotions, projects completed, businesses built, professional networks developed and the measurable impact of our work.
These are familiar indicators in professional environments. They help employers evaluate candidates, organisations allocate responsibility, and individuals communicate their capabilities.
Yet something interesting happens when we attempt to use those same indicators to evaluate the entirety of our lives.
The evidence may suggest progress, while the emotional verdict remains uncertain.
Why?
I have become increasingly interested in this question through my experiences in education, organisational behaviour, professional work, business, research, writing and, more recently, technology. What began as a personal inquiry has gradually developed into a broader question about the relationship between achievement, identity and human flourishing.
Are we measuring professional success, personal wellbeing and human worth using the same scoreboard, even though they are fundamentally different things?
This article explores that question through organisational psychology, cross-cultural research, philosophy and the competing paradigms that influence how we define success.
1. From class topper to corporate professional: the scoreboard changes
Most of us encounter formal performance measurement long before entering the workforce.
In school, achievement is relatively structured. We receive marks, rankings, certificates and promotions. We are rewarded for meeting clearly defined expectations, and those rewards gradually shape how we understand our capabilities.
A high-performing student may come to identify strongly with being academically successful.
Then the environment changes.
The student enters a selective college, where many classmates were also high achievers. Later, the graduate enters a workplace where performance is no longer determined primarily by examinations.
Now success may depend on execution, communication, leadership, organisational context, collaboration, judgment, visibility and the ability to navigate ambiguity.
The rules have changed, but the individual may still be operating with an identity formed under the previous rules.
This is related to the big-fish–little-pond effect, extensively studied in educational psychology. Herbert Marsh and colleagues have demonstrated how academic self-concept is influenced by the achievement level of one's reference group.
In simpler terms, being a strong performer in one environment does not necessarily produce the same sense of exceptional ability in a more competitive environment.
The workplace introduces additional complications. Promotions may depend on factors beyond individual effort. Two equally capable employees may experience different outcomes because of organisational structures, managerial relationships, market conditions or access to opportunities.
This does not make merit irrelevant.
It makes success contextual.
Performing well within a system and feeling successful as a human being are related experiences, but they are not the same experience.
2. Corporate life and the achievement paradigm
Contemporary professional culture places considerable emphasis on measurable accomplishment.
We track revenue, compensation, market share, promotions, productivity, performance ratings, educational credentials, professional certifications and business growth.
There are good reasons for doing so.
Organisations need accountability. Markets require coordination. Employers must evaluate competence. Professionals need ways to demonstrate their capabilities, particularly when competing for opportunities beyond their immediate networks.
Measurable achievement is not inherently superficial.
It can represent years of discipline, learning, perseverance and valuable contribution.
The difficulty arises when professional measurement becomes a universal philosophy of life.
A person may begin to interpret their designation as their identity, their salary as their worth, and their productivity as the primary justification for their existence.
This is particularly visible in what is commonly called hustle culture, where professional ambition extends beyond working hours and becomes an organising principle for almost every activity.
Reading becomes professional development. Hobbies become potential businesses. Social interactions become networking opportunities. Rest becomes recovery for future productivity.
Even personal growth can become another performance indicator.
I find this tension particularly interesting because I genuinely enjoy building things. Recently, advances in AI-assisted software development have allowed me to translate ideas into functioning websites and interactive tools with a speed that would have been difficult for me to imagine years ago.
That experience gives me a strong sense of autonomy and competence.
But enjoying productive work does not mean I must monetise every project, optimise every hour or convert every personal interest into a commercial service.
The distinction matters.
Work can be an expression of agency without becoming the sole measure of a meaningful life.
3. Spiral Dynamics and the values behind professional success
One framework that provides an interesting vocabulary for this discussion is Spiral Dynamics, associated with Clare W. Graves and later developed by Don Beck and Christopher Cowan.
In this model, the achievement-oriented worldview is commonly associated with Orange, characterised by rationality, competition, innovation, personal accomplishment, material progress and a belief in the power of individual initiative.
Much of modern corporate culture fits comfortably within this description.
Consider the language of professional life: targets, growth, optimisation, market leadership, promotions, career progression, financial independence and measurable impact.
These are not necessarily undesirable values. An achievement-oriented culture can support innovation, technological advancement, entrepreneurship and economic development.
However, the framework invites us to consider what happens when one particular value system becomes so dominant that alternative definitions of success become difficult to recognise.
A professional might derive considerable meaning from mentoring colleagues, caring for family members, conducting research, serving a community or developing expertise without pursuing managerial promotion.
Would we necessarily consider such a person less successful than someone with a larger compensation package?
That depends on the paradigm through which we evaluate them.
An important qualification is necessary here: Spiral Dynamics is best treated as an interpretive framework rather than a scientifically established hierarchy of consciousness. Its categories should not be used to rank individuals or dismiss disagreement as evidence of inferior development.
Its value in this discussion is more modest and more useful.
It reminds us that our definitions of success are influenced by the values of the systems in which we participate.
4. Is the Western model of success different from the Eastern model?
Professional discussions sometimes contrast Western individual achievement with Eastern ideas of collective responsibility, contentment or spiritual development.
There are meaningful cultural differences worth studying, but a simple East-versus-West division is inadequate.
Western traditions include the American Dream and entrepreneurial individualism, but also Aristotle's account of human flourishing, Stoic philosophy and extensive critiques of materialism.
Eastern traditions include Buddhism, Confucian thought and Indian philosophical approaches to the good life, but contemporary Asian societies also demonstrate intense academic competition, entrepreneurial ambition and professional status consciousness.
India, for example, contains both sophisticated philosophical traditions questioning attachment and highly competitive educational and professional systems.
The distinction is not that one civilisation values ambition while another rejects it.
Rather, different cultural and philosophical traditions give different weights to individual achievement, family responsibility, social harmony, ethical conduct, material security and personal fulfilment.
In Indian philosophy, the purusharthas offer a particularly interesting illustration. The four commonly discussed aims of life include dharma (ethical conduct and responsibility), artha (material prosperity), kama (pleasure and desire), and moksha (liberation).
Interpretations differ across traditions, but the broader perspective is instructive: material prosperity is recognised as a legitimate human concern without necessarily being treated as the entirety of human purpose.
In organisational settings, these differences can influence employee expectations, leadership preferences, career decisions and attitudes toward work–life boundaries.
A professional who prioritises family stability may be making a coherent choice rather than displaying insufficient ambition. Another who chooses entrepreneurial uncertainty may be prioritising autonomy over security.
Neither decision can be evaluated adequately without understanding the person's circumstances and values.
5. What cross-cultural psychology tells us
Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama's influential 1991 work on culture and the self examined how independent and interdependent understandings of identity influence cognition, emotion and motivation.
Independent orientations tend to place greater emphasis on personal attributes, individual preferences and autonomous achievement. Interdependent orientations give relatively greater emphasis to relationships, social roles and connectedness.
These are broad psychological tendencies, not fixed characteristics of entire populations.
Nevertheless, they help explain why the same career decision may carry different meanings in different social contexts.
Leaving a prestigious corporate role to pursue an independent project may represent self-determination to one person and a rejection of responsibility to another.
Similarly, research by Shigehiro Oishi and colleagues across 39 nations found that predictors of life satisfaction vary across cultural and economic contexts.
The significance for organisations is substantial.
Employees do not arrive at work with identical definitions of achievement, motivation or wellbeing.
Some may prioritise advancement. Others may value stability, meaningful contribution, intellectual autonomy, family responsibilities, supportive relationships or opportunities to develop mastery.
An organisation that assumes all employees are motivated by the same rewards risks misunderstanding the very people it is attempting to develop.
6. Money, compensation and the limits of simplistic narratives
One of the most persistent debates about success concerns money.
Does earning more make people happier? Is financial achievement a meaningful indicator of success? At what point, if any, does additional income cease to matter?
The research does not support a simplistic answer.
Income can provide security, healthcare, housing, education, mobility and greater freedom to make choices. For people experiencing economic insecurity, these benefits can be transformative.
In 2023, Matthew Killingsworth, Daniel Kahneman and Barbara Mellers published an adversarial collaboration examining apparently conflicting findings about income and emotional wellbeing.
Their analysis suggested that emotional wellbeing generally continues to increase with income for many people, while a flattening pattern may occur among the least happy respondents.
This challenges the popular idea that there is one universal income threshold beyond which additional earnings have no relationship with wellbeing.
At the same time, Tim Kasser and Richard Ryan's research on financial success as a central life aspiration found associations between strong materialistic aspirations and poorer psychological adjustment.
These findings should not be interpreted as evidence that earning money causes unhappiness. The studies examine different questions, and correlational findings have limitations.
A useful distinction is between earning money, obtaining financial security, enjoying commercial achievement and treating wealth as the ultimate measure of one's value.
These are not equivalent.
For HR professionals and organisational leaders, the implication is not that compensation is unimportant. Fair pay, financial security and economic opportunity remain essential.
It is that compensation cannot reasonably be expected to satisfy every psychological and social need associated with work.
7. Why professional milestones do not always produce lasting satisfaction
Consider a familiar career sequence.
An individual works toward admission to a prestigious institution. Once admitted, the next objective becomes securing a desirable job.
After employment comes the first promotion, followed by a higher designation, greater compensation, managerial responsibility, executive leadership or entrepreneurial independence.
Each milestone may be genuinely valuable.
Yet the emotional satisfaction associated with achievement may diminish as the accomplishment becomes familiar and new aspirations emerge.
Psychological research on affective adaptation helps explain this process. Wilson and Gilbert's work examines how people adapt emotionally as experiences become understood and integrated into ordinary life.
This does not mean every achievement quickly loses its significance or that people adapt equally to all circumstances.
It suggests that expecting a single accomplishment to create permanent emotional fulfilment may be unrealistic.
Social comparison adds another layer.
A professional earning considerably more than they did five years earlier may nevertheless feel unsuccessful if their current reference group earns even more.
A researcher may produce meaningful work while feeling inadequate compared with more widely cited colleagues.
An entrepreneur may build a sustainable business while comparing themselves with founders operating at a vastly different scale.
The reference group changes, and with it the apparent definition of success.
This is one reason professional self-evaluation requires more than external benchmarking.
Without some awareness of one's own values and circumstances, career development can become an endless exercise in moving the goalposts.
8. Self-determination theory: competence is not enough
Edward Deci and Richard Ryan's self-determination theory provides an especially useful framework for examining professional motivation and wellbeing.
The theory identifies three fundamental psychological needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness.
Autonomy concerns the experience of acting with volition and ownership. Competence concerns effectiveness and the development of capability. Relatedness concerns meaningful connection and belonging.
These dimensions offer a more comprehensive account of human motivation than achievement metrics alone.
An employee may be highly competent but experience little autonomy. A senior executive may enjoy substantial professional authority while struggling with meaningful connection. A technically capable professional may receive strong performance evaluations while feeling disconnected from the organisation's purpose.
Conversely, a person in a less prestigious role may experience considerable satisfaction through supportive relationships, meaningful contribution and a sense of agency.
For leaders, this suggests that employee development should not be reduced to increasing productivity or accelerating promotion.
Professional environments also shape whether people experience agency, psychological connection and opportunities to exercise their capabilities.
This does not eliminate the need for performance standards.
It expands our understanding of the conditions under which people can perform and flourish.
9. The privilege of redefining success
There is an important limitation to discussions encouraging people to define success on their own terms.
Not everyone possesses the same freedom to do so.
A person supporting dependants, managing debt, facing illness or experiencing employment insecurity may have limited capacity to prioritise creative autonomy or personal exploration over immediate financial obligations.
The ability to leave an unsatisfying job, start a business, return to education or pursue an unconventional career may depend on savings, family resources, institutional access, social networks and broader economic conditions.
Advice to abandon conventional success can sound very different depending on who is receiving it.
This is why I remain interested in human capital and organisational behaviour.
Individual effort matters, but so do the systems that enable or constrain opportunity.
A serious conversation about success must account for both personal agency and structural circumstances.
The question is not merely whether people are sufficiently ambitious.
It is also whether they possess meaningful opportunities to pursue lives they value.
10. Four questions for professionals reconsidering success
Rather than offering a universal formula, I find it more useful to separate four questions.
What do I need?
This includes financial security, health, professional stability, responsibilities and the practical conditions required to live with reasonable dignity.
What have I inherited?
Which definitions of success came from family expectations, educational systems, professional culture, industry norms or social comparison?
A prestigious designation may genuinely matter to someone. It is still worth asking why.
What do I actually value?
Which forms of work, contribution, learning, relationships and personal development remain meaningful even without public recognition?
For some, the answer may involve organisational leadership. For others, entrepreneurship, research, mentoring, public service, family or creative independence.
What am I sacrificing?
Every career path involves trade-offs.
Higher compensation may require longer hours. Greater autonomy may introduce uncertainty. Leadership responsibility may reduce time for technical mastery. Professional mobility may create challenges for family relationships.
The purpose is not to eliminate trade-offs, but to make them conscious.
These questions are not a validated psychological scale. They are a reflective framework for distinguishing practical needs, inherited expectations, personal values and opportunity costs.
That distinction can make career decisions more deliberate.
11. What this means for HR, leadership and human capital development
If success is multidimensional, organisations should be cautious about assuming that a single model of career progression suits everyone.
Traditional career systems often emphasise vertical advancement. The most visible reward for a strong individual contributor may be promotion into management, even when the person derives greater satisfaction and creates more value through specialised expertise.
Similarly, organisations may unintentionally reward visibility more strongly than quieter forms of contribution, including mentoring, knowledge sharing, institutional continuity and collaborative problem-solving.
This raises several questions for HR professionals and leaders.
Are we designing career systems that recognise multiple forms of contribution?
Do our performance measures capture the behaviours that genuinely create long-term organisational value?
Are employees able to pursue professional development without being compelled toward managerial positions they do not want?
Do we distinguish high performance from sustainable performance?
And are we helping people develop capabilities that remain useful beyond their current role or organisation?
These are not arguments against ambition, competition or performance measurement.
They are arguments for understanding the human assumptions embedded within those systems.
Human capital development should concern not only what people can produce for organisations, but also the capabilities and agency they develop through participation in them.
12. Can a person be successful and still unfinished?
I return to the question with which I began.
Am I successful?
I can point to educational experiences, professional work, creative projects and forms of personal development that I consider meaningful.
I can also identify ambitions that remain unfinished, decisions I continue to question and dimensions of life that cannot be adequately represented on a résumé.
Both observations can be true.
I remain grateful for my education at Sri Venkateswara College, University of Delhi, and Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies, and for the professional and personal experiences that have shaped my thinking.
I continue to value competence, ambition, curiosity and the satisfaction of producing meaningful work.
But I am increasingly reluctant to treat professional achievement as a complete verdict on the quality of a human life.
A career can be successful while a person remains uncertain about other dimensions of living.
A person can make meaningful contributions without occupying the highest position in an organisational hierarchy.
And someone can value ambition without accepting that every moment of their existence must be justified through productivity.
Perhaps the more useful question is not whether we have finally accumulated enough achievements to call ourselves successful.
Perhaps it is whether our pursuits are consistent with our circumstances, responsibilities, values and understanding of a life worth living.
Success may be less useful as a permanent identity and more useful as an ongoing conversation between achievement, agency, responsibility and wellbeing.
I do not think that conversation ever needs to be completely finished.
Questions for fellow professionals
Has your definition of success changed since entering the workforce?
Have you ever achieved a milestone you once considered decisive, only to discover that your expectations changed afterward?
And if you were designing an organisation from scratch, how would you recognise professional success beyond compensation, designation and promotion?
I would particularly welcome perspectives from professionals working in human resources, organisational behaviour, leadership, education and talent development, including those who disagree with the assumptions explored here.
The purpose of this article is not to replace one universal definition of success with another. It is to examine the definitions we inherit and consider whether they adequately reflect the lives we want to build.
Research and further reading
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (2003). Big-Fish–Little-Pond Effect on Academic Self-Concept: A Cross-Cultural (26-Country) Test of the Negative Effects of Academically Selective Schools. American Psychologist, 58(5), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.364
Oishi, S., Diener, E. F., Lucas, R. E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-Cultural Variations in Predictors of Life Satisfaction: Perspectives from Needs and Values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 980–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672992511006
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A Dark Side of the American Dream: Correlates of Financial Success as a Central Life Aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.410
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Killingsworth, M. A., Kahneman, D., & Mellers, B. (2023). Income and Emotional Well-Being: A Conflict Resolved. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(10). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2208661120
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). Explaining Away: A Model of Affective Adaptation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 370–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00085.x
Related writing and projects
This article is adapted from my longer personal essay:
Am I Successful? Who Taught Me What Success Means? — Medium
My broader work explores identity, agency, education, organisational behaviour, human development and the relationship between technology and creative expression.
Sahil Tayal is an MBA graduate of Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies with experience spanning organisational research, consulting and business. His interests include organisational behaviour, psychology, education, human capital development and technology-enabled creative experimentation.
Thoughtful disagreement and alternative perspectives are welcome.
Preserved from the LinkedIn data export of 24 October 2026. Links and references reflect the original article; they are not independently re-verified here.