I think there's a driver there that "the rest" of us just don't have. I enjoy an easy life. I don't want to work hard; that's not my driver in life. Therefore by this measure I will never be "successful".

Fortunately for me I'm happy with my own definition of "success".

Is it that they don't get stressed, or that they are great at hiding it to project an air of confidence at all times. And how would you tell the difference?

> Is it that they don't get stressed, or that they are great at hiding it to project an air of confidence at all times.

I wouldn't say it's that they don't get stressed, but that they are able to quickly compartmentalize it and move on without dwelling on it.

On the "are they just great at hiding" question, at least in my experience this isn't really possible. Personally, I have severe negative physical effects in response to long term, chronic stress. I sleep poorly, get severe intestinal issues, etc. At some point it becomes pretty impossible for me to just "hide it" - I'd LOVE to be able to quiet my body's physiological responses, but I'm just not capable. In seeing how some of my colleagues dealt with the same stressors, I can assure you they weren't just "hiding it" - if they were experiencing the same physical effects I was, at some point it would have been impossible to hide.

I agree but I'd like to add that in my opinion "successful" is probably quite risky to use in general, meaning that there are multiple levels (e.g. successful for yourself, for the company/government, for the investors/people, for the future maintainability, etc...) and timelines (e.g. now, in 1 year, in 10 years, ...). For example Stephen Elop can probably be considered "successful" as having managed to be CEO of Nokia for a while, but not the same could be said for the company itself (not sure about its investors)?

In any case I think that it would be safe to say that sociopaths have at least the embedded advantage of being "quicker", as they most probably ponder less than other people about in/direct consequences of their actions.

Agreed. I was referring to people that are able to get to the top of their games because they are able to "get shit done." Whether that shit is good or bad is another issue entirely.

Without getting too political, take Donald Trump, who in my mind kind of exemplifies this definition of success. Whatever your thoughts about Trump, he's definitely not lazy, and his early morning tweet storms seem to signify that he gets by on little to no sleep. Of course, he may cause WWIII in the process.

Concerning D.Trump:

being swiss, if he gets little or no sleep (because or routine work or anything which he triggered himself) I would judge that as mismanagement :)

Good leaders identify good delegates. Poor leaders micromanage.

I hear this a lot, and while I generally agree with it, I feel like it ignores the significant counterexamples. You can argue whether Elon Musk and Steve Jobs were good leaders, but I think it's difficult to argue they weren't able to accomplish something uniquely remarkable. In my experience, good leaders may not micromanage but the best leaders are able to, and often do, "get into the weeds" and are actually able to understand and act on the nitty-gritty details even better than the people doing those jobs.