The success model

What is success after all? Is it the golden light at the end of the tunnel? Is it that ultimate defining moment which makes the dearest of dreams come true? Is it that ultimate victory that justifies millions of sacrifices? Is it analogous to the zenith when you target an ascent, and the nadir when we aspire for a descent? In this article, I make a modest attempt at modeling it.

One of the consequences of being a student of science is the tendency to explain things with a mathematical equation. My science-trained mind tends to describe success (S) as a function of several factors, including but not limited to:

1. Longevity (L)
2. Good health (H)
3. Quality of relationships (R)
4. Wealth (W)
5. Achievement in profession (P)
6. Popularity or fame (F)
7. Happiness or joy (J)
8. Contribution to universe (C)

The list could be longer, but most likely the additional items that one could think of, could in one way or another be grouped with at least one of the aforesaid factors. Even the ones listed above are not completely mutually exclusive, but fairly discrete to be considered as independent variables.

 

I model success as:

S = S0 + (pL^a + qH^b + rR^c + sW^d + tP^e + uF^f + vJ^g + wC^h)

where (a, b, c, d, e, f, g,h) are the exponents of factors of success and (p,q,r,s,t,u,v, w) are the coefficients of factors of success. S0 is what I call "postpartum constant" that is representative of successful birth on planet earth following a successful conception and gestation in mother's womb. Beyond S0, the story is different for different people, based on the rest of the factors.

John Keats, one of the greatest and most loved English Romantic poets, died before he turned 26. He fell to tuberculosis. He published only fifty four poems in his short lifetime, but those were so great that they are cherished, researched, recited and adored even today. He did not see much fame during his lifetime, but he became extremely popular after his death. So, do we call Keats successful?

 

Amitabh Bachchan is the king of Bollywood. But his kingdom practically rose after he turned 60. He had a troubled midlife career in Bollywood, as well as a failed attempt at politics. He rose to popularity in his early phase of career as the angry young man, and romantic hero in Bollywood. But that graph soon fell and ebbed out. His company KBCL went bankrupt. Then, in his ripe age, a TV reality show became a hit, and Mr. Bachchan shot to exponential fame thereafter. Ever since, he has been giving major hits, and today he stands at the helm of affairs as one of the most respected actors. So, do we call him successful? If we sample his early life and late life, the answer is perhaps yes. If we sample his midlife, the answer would perhaps be no. So do we take the aggregate, that is "the area under the graph"? Perhaps.

 

Steve Jobs of Apple fame transformed the way the world has known computing and consumer electronics. He did not have a normal childhood, he had a troubled career, and some troubled relationships. His health ditched him and he died early. But during the 56 years that he walked this planet, he gave the world the Mac, the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad to name a few of his major contributions that have redefined humanity. So, when you add up all that, was Steve successful?

 

Mahatma Gandhi may not have left a fortune for his direct descendants. But he has gifted the world its largest democracy and has taught the world nonviolence as an effective means of fighting for ones rights. He lived for close to eight decades - a fairly long lifespan. But his life has not been a bed of roses. It has been one of sacrifice and struggle. On one hand, he is renowned as one of the greatest leaders and finest politicians to have ever walked this planet. But at the same time there were people who disagreed with his principles and hated him. He was assassinated. So, do we call the Mahatma successful?

 

On the other extreme, visualize that nameless common man, say a village school teacher, who led a long life in his village, lived mostly hand to mouth, did not see much of the world outside his village or province, worked hard each day of his life to meet the needs of his family, nurtured good relationships with his family members and relatives, was able to have a hearty laugh frequently and peaceful sleep every night. A self-made man, who fulfilled all his duties - as a father, son, husband, brother, neighbor, villager and school teacher. He brought adequate contribution in each role he played in life. But he is not famous, he has not left behind much in the bank, and he has not done anything extraordinary for the world to take specific notice of. He is not a Jobs, a Gandhi, or a Bachchan. Where does he feature on the success graph?

 

The answer to all these questions lie in the values of (p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w) - the coefficients of factors of success, which in turn are determined by an individual's value system and life centre. And the answers also lie on the exponents of factors of success (a, b, c, d, e, f, g,h) which are same for every person on earth. Since (a, b, c, d, e, f, g,h) are universally applicable and extrinsic in nature, the real determinants of success are (p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w) which are intrinsic to an individual, and hence are directly within his control. I am solely responsible for my success as I am the sole architect of my success. It is my choice whether I shall associate more value to wealth in my life, or to my contribution to the universe, or to my relationships or career, or for that matter to any other factor. This also means that the evaluation of success can only be done by the individual and not by the world, as the world is not even aware of the values of (p,q,r,s,t,u,v,w) for the individual. That is why it is not easy for you and me to answer the questions about whether Gandhi, Keats, Jobs or Bachchan are successful. That answer could only be given by them.

 

It is also not easy to determine the universal exponents of success factors (a, b, c, d, e, f, g,h). But they can be empirically observed and relatively approximated. By observing others, one can approximately guess which factor bears higher exponential influence on success versus the other factors. In my guesstimate, the exponents of factors which bring about self-gain are of lower order as compared to the ones which bring about gain to others. In my personal opinion, the highest exponent is that of "Contribution to universe". If you can make a difference to this world in a net postive way, that adds up very significantly to success. By your being part of any system (home, organization, apartment complex, locality, city, province, country, or world at large) does that system become any better? Is your home a better place for your family because of you? Does your organization get better because of you? Do you leave the world a better place? 

If I were to plot the success quotients of others on a graph, it will be not only difficult for me but may also be deemed inaccurate by you. First, because it will be with my own coloured lens - my own value system. But within my own frame of reference, I could attempt to make such a plot if I am thoughtful about the relative exponents. For example, one person can have a short lifespan but be able to contribute supernormally to society. Another person may have a long lifespan in which he contributes normally to society. Given all other factors constant, probably the coordinates of both these plots wont be as wide apart in my graph as it may seem when not done thoughtfully enough. Because ultimately the "area under the curve" matters. Total quantum of contribution is a product of time and the intrinsic value of the contributions during that time.

 

History won’t remember Bill Gates as much as for his fortune as for creating Microsoft and giving the world the Windows operating system. History will remember Lata Mangeshkar primarily as the melody queen, and Sachin Tendulkar as the master blaster cricketer, and not so much for their wealth or awards won. But only Gates, Mangeshkar and Tendulkar can evaluate for themselves how successful have they been using their own private yardsticks. Because only they know.

(This article was also published in the Assam Tribune dated July 15, 2015)