What is Success?

I think this an ever-pertinent question for all of us. I may have written and spoken about them at various points. Probably, my answer was different everytime. Doesn't matter!

Here's what I said today to one of my colleagues:

'For me, success is walking out of my office into the hallway and meeting some colleagues I genuinely like and in seeing the same feeling on their face.'

You may think why I define it this way. Do I want to make it easy for myself? There are so many other goals which are far more concrete, much more measurable.

Name and fame in the academic world. Publications, citations, promotions, awards, projects etc. these are all almost universally accepted as measures of success for academicians. I don't question their authenticity. I have spent a good portion of my career chasing them, fretting about them. Even now, I don't want to make any tall claim that I don't care about them anymore. Yet, other intangible, immeasurable goals have steadily gained in importance and have clearly surpassed the tangibles in their desirability.

Does it sound that I have chosen an easier goal from for myself? If you look at the number of people who achieve this versus those who achieve the tangibles, you will probably reconsider your opinion. In fact, in any place with people of high capability, genuine goodwill is as rare as pearl in an ocean. What you see are jealousy, unbridled ambition, high stress, conspiracy, secrecy and, at best, fake pleasantries.

These are all offsprings of hypercompetition which is an inevitable result of people desirous of something that's finite, and hence scarce, getting together at the same place. There can only be one director in an institute, one head in a department. If you got a paper selected in a prestigious venue, it's inevitably because your paper prevailed over several others. Each success is accompanied by countless failures, because the lower the probability of success the more desirable that success becomes.

Let me repeat that this alone doesn't make such successes bad. Their difficulty is also related to their inherent value. A director does important service for an institute and nation. An HoD plays an important role in shaping a department. An idea published in an influential venue has the potential of changing the world for the better. The real value of these achievements is in what they give to the world, not inherently in how many people desire for them.

The desirability or popularity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for inherent value. For example, having sex with an attractive model on Instagram may be a matter of desire for millions. Does that by itself make the attractiveness of that model an inherently valuable thing? I hope you are saying 'no', for that's definitely my answer. Einstein's discoveries may be inaccessible to all but a few in the world. Beyond what's available in popular media, most of us don't know him at all. His being one of the most famous scientists may evoke feeling of awe. Some of us who consider themselves mentally capable may develop aspirations of becoming a legendary scientist or intellectual like him. Yet, the pure beauty of intellectual pursuits is completely hidden from a vast majority of the world population. Does this make Einstein's work unimportant? So, does that convince you that public desire or popularity or high competition may be correlated with inherent value of something, yet it mustn't be mistaken to be analogous with inherent value?

Now, hopefully, you will allow me to argue more fervently in favour of my choice of the goals on the basis of which I intend to define success.

Genuinely liking somebody, especially in a space where you are heavily invested, where bars are implicitly high due to high density of talent making genuine and well-meant compliments and acknowledgement of contribution and talents harder to come by, is also very hard. Competition begets more competition, giving rise to a host of insecurities, jealousies and other forms of negativities. To aspire to experience genuine liking towards a fellow worker, with whom feeling competition and rivalry is much more obvious and is even tacitly encouraged by the prevailing professional atmosphere, is a non-obvious choice, so that's one thing.

There's one simple way to be universally likeable: become a stupid and an utterly useless person. That way, you are no more a threat to anybody. But that rules out the possibility of your being able to add any real value to the world with your existence. That's a choice one may make; but it's not a good one. Earning amicability by bartering the very point of being alive is hardly a good bargain. So, we are closing off this route too.

How do you experience and evoke amicable feelings in others while being busy trying hard to live a truly meaningful life? High performance will inadvertently bring in rewards: money, accolades, praise, power, even if you genuinely don't work for them. You can't stop them from coming, as you can't stop your rivals from noticing this and making you the subject of their jealousy. The only way this can be done is by becoming a cause of a major inner transformation among people who surround you.

In consequence of this transformation, your colleagues will be able to focus on the real, implicit value of your efforts and contribution rather getting consumed with jealousy. Such a fundamental transformation at a social level is unthinkable unless it actually takes root in yourself. It's vain and dishonest to preach a nobility that we ourselves fail to practice.

Therefore, the project of earning yourself a workplace full of genuine camaraderie and positivity is, more than anything else, an exercise in self-transformation and purification. To be able to do this is very hard and even more valuable - and hence a truly monumental success.