Today I want to unsettle the classic idea of success. We were taught to see it as a final goal, a trophy, a title that certifies that you have arrived. Winning. Being the best. Having visible recognition. The problem with that definition is that it locks you into a frozen picture. And life, as you know, is video in real time. If we measure success only by final outcomes, we live in fear of losing the scoreboard and we waste the entire match. That is why I propose another view, one that puts the focus on the process, on learning and on sustained growth, both individual and collective.

Think about it. When you reduce success to winning, you become risk averse. You avoid uncomfortable projects, you stay where you already dominate. Paradoxically, that strategy keeps you stuck. A more useful definition is this: success is the ability to improve your system, iteration after iteration, with honest feedback and concrete adjustments. It is moving from “Have I arrived?” to “What did I learn today that I did not know before?” It is measuring progress by the quality of your questions, not only by the number of your medals. But be careful, “process” does not mean romanticizing error. It means making it productive. The isolated error is a blow. The error with an autopsy and an action plan becomes intellectual capital. The question is not whether you will fail, but which learning habits you activate when it happens. A key habit is closing the loop: design, execute, measure, reflect, decide the next micro change. If your week does not close loops, your results will keep depending on luck.

This is where teamwork comes in. We tend to celebrate the lone hero. The reality is that today’s complexity exceeds the capacity of any individual. Successful teams are not those who think the same, they are those who contradict each other with respect and use conflict as an engine for clarity. Redefining success in a team key involves changing metrics. Do not only applaud the one who talks the most, but the one who asks better questions, the one who documents, the one who turns tacit knowledge into repeatable processes. The gold is in the transfer of learning, not in the shine of a particular talent.

How do you adapt to new realities with this mindset? Start with the compass, not the map. The compass is your operating principles, the ones that hold when the terrain changes. For example, prioritize short delivery cycles, instrument metrics before giving opinions, write down decisions and assumptions. With a clear compass, any map that expires gets replaced quickly. This makes you antifragile, you grow with uncertainty instead of breaking. Another powerful practice is to distinguish performance from outcome. Performance is what you control: preparation, communication, pace, the quality of your reviews. Outcome depends on external variables. If you judge yourself only by outcomes, you get frustrated. If you judge yourself by performance, you improve. Over time, that translates into better results. This distinction also deflates the ego, because it makes it easier to recognize when someone else on the team has a better solution. The goal is not to be right, it is to find what is right.

It also helps to version your identity. Instead of “I am a leader of X” or “I am the best at Y,” try “today I am version 3.2 of myself in negotiation” or “we are team 1.7 in integration.” Versions communicate that change is expected and that the next jump depends on learning, not on inflated self-esteem. It forces you to specify what is missing for 3.3. What evidence would show that you arrived there. Let’s talk about real systems. If you want your team to improve constantly, design simple, repeatable rituals. A weekly review of three things: what worked, what did not, and what we will try differently. One central metric per objective, visible to everyone. A decision log with date, owner, and criterion. And one concrete cultural agreement, here we discuss strong ideas with soft egos. No empty motivational phrases. Minimum process, maximum discipline. Now the counterargument. There are moments when winning does matter. Finals, bids, evaluation checkpoints. You will not relativize the scoreboard. The key is not to mortgage your system for a short-term spike. You can compete without betraying continuous improvement. In fact, in the moments of greatest pressure, a good system protects you from panic. When you know how you close loops, how you learn fast, and how roles coordinate, you compete better.

To close, redefining success is widening the frame. It is not choosing between process or outcome. It is understanding that big outcomes are byproducts of strong processes and of teams that dare to learn in public. Change your guiding question, instead of “How do I look successful?”, try “How do we design a system that makes us inevitable over time?” That shift pulls you out of the performance theater and into the progress factory. And there, success stops being a destination and becomes a practice, one that does not depend on market weather or on the applause of the moment, but on the solidity with which you improve today what you did not know how to do yesterday. If you turn it into a habit, the goal will arrive. And if it changes, you will keep moving forward. That is the idea.