|
What Is Success?
August 2026 |
Is It Achieving Your Own Goals? When I was in the Marines in the early 1980s, we had a beloved Commander - Truman W. Crawford - who, at the end of Friday rehearsals (we were ceremonial musicians), would lecture us about Success.
He would repeat this definition: "Success is the progressive realization of predetermined, worthwhile, personal goals." He hammered it into us.
I assumed he had coined it. As it turns out, he was quoting Paul J. Meyer (1928 - 2009), founder of the Success Motivation Institute and Leadership Management International. (Or, maybe Meyer quoted him? Will we ever know?)
Regardless, these were my formative years, and this definition made such a lasting impression on me that I formalized it into the signature, goal-oriented, Lifetime Savings Plan that has been the core of my Economics practice for more than thirty years.
He would repeat this definition: "Success is the progressive realization of predetermined, worthwhile, personal goals." He hammered it into us.
I assumed he had coined it. As it turns out, he was quoting Paul J. Meyer (1928 - 2009), founder of the Success Motivation Institute and Leadership Management International. (Or, maybe Meyer quoted him? Will we ever know?)
Regardless, these were my formative years, and this definition made such a lasting impression on me that I formalized it into the signature, goal-oriented, Lifetime Savings Plan that has been the core of my Economics practice for more than thirty years.
Is It Being Number One in a Group, or on a List? Lately, I've been binging on AI-generated Youtube videos about the Gilded Age: Astor, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller, Hearst, Winchester, etc. Rockefeller has captured my attention in particular because, like me, he wrote letters to his son.
The theme in all of his letters seems to be, "Be Number One. If you're not, you're a loser."
(I say "seems" because, as it turns out, there is fake junk on the Internet that distorts or even contrives out of thin air material attributed to Rockefeller. The primary source material [Dear Father, Dear Son edited by J.W. Ernst] is not this way at all, containing discussions about mundane family affairs, and instructing Junior about philanthropy. The fake hype material contains the "Be Number One" garbage.)
In other words, while he was certainly a goal oriented person, his definition of success was not relative to his own goals. It was relative to a group; and if you weren't Number One in that group, you had lost. Number Two wasn't good enough.
And, since his definition of success was dependent on some sort of group affiliation, he was also fixated on dominating and defeating competitors.
In New York at the turn of the century, this dependency on group affiliation to define success manifested in the proliferation of mega-mansions on Fifth Avenue. In their hubris, the owners built the mansions to last forever; but after 20-40 years, the assets become liabilities that were razed to make room for income properties like hotels and apartments. The only edifices that survived have somehow been converted into income properties themselves, like the Biltmore, Hearst, and Winchester castles that are open to the general public.
It also manifested in the form of exclusive societies and elaborate protocols. Caroline Astor had a ballroom with a capacity of 400 people. Her guest list for that ballroom defined who mattered and belonged to American High Society.
The theme in all of his letters seems to be, "Be Number One. If you're not, you're a loser."
(I say "seems" because, as it turns out, there is fake junk on the Internet that distorts or even contrives out of thin air material attributed to Rockefeller. The primary source material [Dear Father, Dear Son edited by J.W. Ernst] is not this way at all, containing discussions about mundane family affairs, and instructing Junior about philanthropy. The fake hype material contains the "Be Number One" garbage.)
In other words, while he was certainly a goal oriented person, his definition of success was not relative to his own goals. It was relative to a group; and if you weren't Number One in that group, you had lost. Number Two wasn't good enough.
And, since his definition of success was dependent on some sort of group affiliation, he was also fixated on dominating and defeating competitors.
In New York at the turn of the century, this dependency on group affiliation to define success manifested in the proliferation of mega-mansions on Fifth Avenue. In their hubris, the owners built the mansions to last forever; but after 20-40 years, the assets become liabilities that were razed to make room for income properties like hotels and apartments. The only edifices that survived have somehow been converted into income properties themselves, like the Biltmore, Hearst, and Winchester castles that are open to the general public.
It also manifested in the form of exclusive societies and elaborate protocols. Caroline Astor had a ballroom with a capacity of 400 people. Her guest list for that ballroom defined who mattered and belonged to American High Society.
The Scandinavian Way. None of this lasted, however. She died (as we all will), the mansions were demolished, the fortunes were, in most cases, depleted, and time marched on.
Indeed: even now, we have the Forbes 400 list which traces its origins to Caroline Astor's list. And an interesting irony here is that while the Forbes list is strictly quantitative, Astor's list was qualitative. To her, simply being wealthy wasn't enough. The purpose of her list was to exclude the "nouveaux riches" and include people who had Something More than mere money. One might say that it was a gatekeeping system for "Old Money."
Be that as it may, since it began in 1982, 96% of the members on the Forbes 400 list have changed. Only 4% have prevailed.
So if your goal is to be #1 on some list . . . all I can say is, good luck. That's a pretty elusive (and, I would add, pointless) goal.
Not only is it pointless; it can also become brutal, like the battle during the Homestead Strike at Carnegie Steel, and the many other outrages that gave rise to the Labor Movement.
I'm Scandinavian. Where I come from, we have a couple of expressions that don't have direct English translations. One is the Lagom Code having to do with Optimality or "Enoughness." Another is Janteloven or the Law of Jante which says, don't suppose you're special, or better than anyone else. It encourages humility. What happened during the Gilded Age in New York on Fifth Avenue is an affront to both.
In Scandinavia, it's common to own rustic summer cabins; in addition to this, in Finland it's common to own saunas.
And the cabins are truly rustic: just a few rooms (maybe only one), no running water. That's part of the fun: hauling water from a stream or lake, cooking outside over an open fire, honing your Scoutcraft.
Contrast this with Newport Rhode Island, or William Randolph Hearst's Casa Grande that began with this message to his architect:
"Miss Morgan, we are tired of camping out in the open at the ranch in San Simeon and I would like to build a little something."
Hearst's "Little Something" ballooned into a 165 room project over the course of 28 years. Having no "Lagom" in his bones, he never knew when to stop. He just kept going.
Likewise, the 5th Avenue residents in New York vied with each other. Their sense of success was external, dependent on what their neighbors did. It was "Keeping Up With The Joneses" ad absurdum.
I suppose this is why Envy is listed among the Seven Deadly Sins and why one of the Ten Commandments forbids Covetousness.
Will we ever learn?
Indeed: even now, we have the Forbes 400 list which traces its origins to Caroline Astor's list. And an interesting irony here is that while the Forbes list is strictly quantitative, Astor's list was qualitative. To her, simply being wealthy wasn't enough. The purpose of her list was to exclude the "nouveaux riches" and include people who had Something More than mere money. One might say that it was a gatekeeping system for "Old Money."
Be that as it may, since it began in 1982, 96% of the members on the Forbes 400 list have changed. Only 4% have prevailed.
So if your goal is to be #1 on some list . . . all I can say is, good luck. That's a pretty elusive (and, I would add, pointless) goal.
Not only is it pointless; it can also become brutal, like the battle during the Homestead Strike at Carnegie Steel, and the many other outrages that gave rise to the Labor Movement.
I'm Scandinavian. Where I come from, we have a couple of expressions that don't have direct English translations. One is the Lagom Code having to do with Optimality or "Enoughness." Another is Janteloven or the Law of Jante which says, don't suppose you're special, or better than anyone else. It encourages humility. What happened during the Gilded Age in New York on Fifth Avenue is an affront to both.
In Scandinavia, it's common to own rustic summer cabins; in addition to this, in Finland it's common to own saunas.
And the cabins are truly rustic: just a few rooms (maybe only one), no running water. That's part of the fun: hauling water from a stream or lake, cooking outside over an open fire, honing your Scoutcraft.
Contrast this with Newport Rhode Island, or William Randolph Hearst's Casa Grande that began with this message to his architect:
"Miss Morgan, we are tired of camping out in the open at the ranch in San Simeon and I would like to build a little something."
Hearst's "Little Something" ballooned into a 165 room project over the course of 28 years. Having no "Lagom" in his bones, he never knew when to stop. He just kept going.
Likewise, the 5th Avenue residents in New York vied with each other. Their sense of success was external, dependent on what their neighbors did. It was "Keeping Up With The Joneses" ad absurdum.
I suppose this is why Envy is listed among the Seven Deadly Sins and why one of the Ten Commandments forbids Covetousness.
Will we ever learn?
The Ancient Stoics. Now we have the likes of Grant Cardone advising to set a goal and when you reach it, 10X it. Wash, rinse, repeat. The guy is a maniac; he has no Lagom in his bones. It's toxic American Hustle Culture; blind ambition. He's constantly pushing the goal post beyond reach.
What I'm addressing here has been discussed forever, beginning with the Greek Stoic philosophers who were keen about distinguishing between what we can and can't control. We can't control what our neighbors do, but we can set, pursue, and manage our own goals. Some people call this MYOB: Mind Your Own Business.
Easier said than done! Take it from me: taking one's own goals seriously - being definite about timing and amounts - is daunting! It's a heavy lift! If you actually did it, you'd be shocked by what you must earn and save to afford them. In general, I find that it requires a tripling of income, which implies a massive adjustment and probably a career change or two.
No, indeed: it's so much easier to just look around, look at what others are doing, and let them be your standard. It's so much easier to fall into that intellectually lazy pattern of simply "Keeping up with the Joneses", never getting around to setting and pursuing your own goals.
But if you're to take Meyer's definition of success seriously, you have to have goals! It's predicated on them! No goals = no success.
What I'm addressing here has been discussed forever, beginning with the Greek Stoic philosophers who were keen about distinguishing between what we can and can't control. We can't control what our neighbors do, but we can set, pursue, and manage our own goals. Some people call this MYOB: Mind Your Own Business.
Easier said than done! Take it from me: taking one's own goals seriously - being definite about timing and amounts - is daunting! It's a heavy lift! If you actually did it, you'd be shocked by what you must earn and save to afford them. In general, I find that it requires a tripling of income, which implies a massive adjustment and probably a career change or two.
No, indeed: it's so much easier to just look around, look at what others are doing, and let them be your standard. It's so much easier to fall into that intellectually lazy pattern of simply "Keeping up with the Joneses", never getting around to setting and pursuing your own goals.
But if you're to take Meyer's definition of success seriously, you have to have goals! It's predicated on them! No goals = no success.
Modern Psychology: Locus of Control. In 1966, in his monograph “Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement” Psychologist Julian Rotter (1916 - 2014) introduced the concept of Locus of Control.
People with an Internal Locus of Control feel powerful. They believe their behavior can influence outcomes.
People with External Locus of Control feel powerless. They believe that outcomes depend more on a combination of luck, fate, circumstances, and/or powerful others.
At around the same time, another Psychologist, Martin Seligman, performed adjacent research and coined the expression "Learned Helplessness."
Now here is the irony that I find most intriguing: you don't have to be powerful to feel powerful, and vice-versa.
It's possible to have money and power, yet define success by comparing with others.
It's also possible to lack money and power, yet define success in terms of your own goals, achieve those goals, be number one, and not care. What matters to you isn't that you became number one; what matters is, you hit your own target. Being number one is beside the point.
The Astors and other folks on Fifth Avenue competed with each other to build the most impressive mansions there as well as the largest "summer cottages" in Newport.
And in so many cases, it was all folly. Although they were designed to last forever, those Fifth Avenue edifices were demolished in a matter of a few decades.
The futility of it all is astonishing.
People with an Internal Locus of Control feel powerful. They believe their behavior can influence outcomes.
People with External Locus of Control feel powerless. They believe that outcomes depend more on a combination of luck, fate, circumstances, and/or powerful others.
At around the same time, another Psychologist, Martin Seligman, performed adjacent research and coined the expression "Learned Helplessness."
Now here is the irony that I find most intriguing: you don't have to be powerful to feel powerful, and vice-versa.
It's possible to have money and power, yet define success by comparing with others.
It's also possible to lack money and power, yet define success in terms of your own goals, achieve those goals, be number one, and not care. What matters to you isn't that you became number one; what matters is, you hit your own target. Being number one is beside the point.
The Astors and other folks on Fifth Avenue competed with each other to build the most impressive mansions there as well as the largest "summer cottages" in Newport.
And in so many cases, it was all folly. Although they were designed to last forever, those Fifth Avenue edifices were demolished in a matter of a few decades.
The futility of it all is astonishing.
The Point: Embrace Internal Locus of Control. What's my point in all of this?
Adopt an Internal Locus of Control. You don't have to wait until you're rich and powerful to do this. You can do it right now.
Eschew envy and covetousness. Stop comparing yourself with others. Set your own goals and take them seriously. Believe me, they're challenging enough by themselves, you don't need to waste time or attention comparing yourself with the Joneses.
If you're typical, you'll have to triple your income and savings to afford them. That, all by itself, is a sufficient challenge. You don't need the additional challenge of comparing yourself with others. It's wasted motion, an impertinent distraction.
And by the way? This doesn't mean that luck doesn't matter. It does, and it happens - both good and bad. But I have found that those who set their own goals and take them seriously lean in to good luck when it happens, and work hard to mitigate bad luck when it happens, because they view both in the context of their own predetermined, worthwhile, personal goals.
Jim Collins researched this in his book Great By Choice. He found that great companies (what he calls "10X" companies, companies that performed ten times better than comparison companies) had less good luck and more bad luck than their fellows.
What was unique about them was that when they experienced good luck, they recognized it as an opportunity to accelerate toward their goals. They leaned in to that opportunity and leveraged it to the max. Likewise, when they experienced bad luck, they viewed it as a threat to their goals and did all they could to mitigate it.
In either case, they viewed both good and bad luck in the context of their predetermined, worthwhile goals. Simply having goals magnified, amplified, and accelerated the luck.
Adopt an Internal Locus of Control. You don't have to wait until you're rich and powerful to do this. You can do it right now.
Eschew envy and covetousness. Stop comparing yourself with others. Set your own goals and take them seriously. Believe me, they're challenging enough by themselves, you don't need to waste time or attention comparing yourself with the Joneses.
If you're typical, you'll have to triple your income and savings to afford them. That, all by itself, is a sufficient challenge. You don't need the additional challenge of comparing yourself with others. It's wasted motion, an impertinent distraction.
And by the way? This doesn't mean that luck doesn't matter. It does, and it happens - both good and bad. But I have found that those who set their own goals and take them seriously lean in to good luck when it happens, and work hard to mitigate bad luck when it happens, because they view both in the context of their own predetermined, worthwhile, personal goals.
Jim Collins researched this in his book Great By Choice. He found that great companies (what he calls "10X" companies, companies that performed ten times better than comparison companies) had less good luck and more bad luck than their fellows.
What was unique about them was that when they experienced good luck, they recognized it as an opportunity to accelerate toward their goals. They leaned in to that opportunity and leveraged it to the max. Likewise, when they experienced bad luck, they viewed it as a threat to their goals and did all they could to mitigate it.
In either case, they viewed both good and bad luck in the context of their predetermined, worthwhile goals. Simply having goals magnified, amplified, and accelerated the luck.
In my decades of professional experience, I have found that ordinary people's locus of control is external. They're disinclined to say, "If it is to be, it's up to me." They're more inclined to say, "It depends."
And if your locus of control is external, how inclined will you be to set goals and take them seriously? Not very. It'll feel like a futile exercise. It's a case study in Learned Helplessness.
Then there's the rare gem with the internal locus of control. Once in a while, here and there, now an then, I've had the privilege and pleasure of working with them. It's fun to help them soar.
And if your locus of control is external, how inclined will you be to set goals and take them seriously? Not very. It'll feel like a futile exercise. It's a case study in Learned Helplessness.
Then there's the rare gem with the internal locus of control. Once in a while, here and there, now an then, I've had the privilege and pleasure of working with them. It's fun to help them soar.
So, which one are you: external, or internal? If you're internal, or want to be, click the buttons, and let's explore the possibility of working together.
