Introducing "Success-Vector Theory"
Success is Non-Binary But Still Measurable
Note: If I had the time, I would submit this to an academic journal and flesh it out more fully, but I think even this quick introduction of the idea is actionable.
Traditional definitions of success collapse multiple dimensions into a binary question —“Did we achieve the intended outcome?” But collaboration is not a single-variable pursuit. Success has direction, weight, and shape across multiple domains. Every collaborative effort produces three distinct results, each of which can succeed, fail, or land somewhere in between:
1. Outcome
Did we achieve what we intended to achieve? (Effective)
2. Constraints
Did we act within the structures and agreements that we have defined for ourselves?(Ethical/Legitimate)
3. Viability
Did we maintain or strengthen our ability to secure the relationships and enabling conditions that make future collaboration possible?(Ecological)
These three dimensions do not collapse neatly into a single score or binary label—they produce a configuration or vector profile. It’s not as simple as saying, “you must have all three in order to be successful.” You don’t.
The Three Axes and Their States
Success is multivariate. In fact, we need to go further than just three dimensions because each dimension has its own internal structure. These are not simple “yes/no” variables—they each have a three-state polarity: positive, neutral, negative.
1. Outcome (Effectiveness)
1+ = Achieved
1° = Partially achieved/ambiguous (optional category)
1– = Not achieved
2. Constraints (Legitimacy/Proper Participation)
2+ = Respected
2° = Adapted within the spirit of the rules (“meta-legitimate deviation”)
2– = Violated/disregarded
3. Viability (System Health/Enabling Conditions)
3+ = Strengthened
3° = Maintained
3– = Weakened
Taken together, the three different vectors for each of the three different dimensions give us three-dimensional vector profiles. For example…
(1+, 2–, 3°): Success but through sacrificing integrity and with neutral viability. Meaning, the outcome was achieved by ignoring constraints, but cooperation wasn’t harmed. Common in crisis situations.
(1–, 2+, 3+): Principled failure with strengthened viability. Didn’t achieve the task, but followed constraints and improved as a group.
This is what makes it a vector theory: each dimension can move independently, and each profile that results can be legitimately called a “success” (well, maybe all except 1-, 2-, 3-).
These different configurations are provided at the end in case you want to look at them, but for now I just wanted to introduce the broad contours of the idea.
What This Theory Does
Allows for paradoxical, rare, or counterintuitive types of success.
Avoids moralizing and lets the system describe itself.
Supports governance, diagnostics, retrospectives, and structural redesign.
Integrates cross-incentives of preserving integrity/legitimacy (dimension 2) and preserving internal and institutional harmony (dimension 3) by acknowledging they are obstacles to achieving the defined goal (dimension 1).
Integrates the integral quadrant model’s three values (“the good, the true, and the beautiful”).
Provides a framework for any collaborative effort to determine appropriate metrics and standards for themselves, but within a full-range map.
Potentially resolves many conflicts in moral philosophy, or at least advances their competing arguments.
It gives us a multidimensional way to understand success, failure, and tradeoffs in collaborative action, and to do so in a way that is both sharper and more comprehensive than any other model.
How to Interpret It
Just because something isn’t a “success” doesn’t mean it’s necessarily bad. That is, “success” as used here is not a moral term, but is used to preserve typical associations.
This framework is intended to point out how things work, direct attention to particular elements that might have gone unnoticed or under appreciated, but then leave the findings up to interpretation.
What’s Missing?
Though I want to present this as a mature integration of several different disciplines, it still has a way to go to refine it’s own elements and applications.
Specifically, I think the difference between 2+ and 2° and 2- needs to be explored in more detail. It is not clear to me yet how best to identify adherence to structure such that we could even make a meaningful determination. I think it’s still useful as it is, as it points to the incentives social systems have to preserve integrity/legitimacy even over effectiveness, but I want to provide more concrete detail on how precisely to tease this dimension apart.
Similarly, more work needs to be done on dimension 3, although I think there is more practical guidance to lean on than for dimension 2. For example, non-profits and public benefit corporations (PBCs) are evaluated against their ability to impact and at least sustain their internal and institutional partners. With some more research, dimension 3 should already have plenty of data and methods to sift through.
Reference: The 27 Configurations of Success
A. Outcomes Achieved (1+)
These are the nine configurations where the intended outcome is fully achieved.
1. (1+, 2+, 3+) The most success-y success
Achieved properly, strengthened the system.
Sustainable in every dimension.
Maybe something we should always aim for, even while acknowledging that even if we do everything right, we can’t guarantee 1+.
2. (1+, 2+, 3°) Procedural success that didn’t harm relationships
Achieved properly and didn’t harm future viability.
System doesn’t improve, but remains stable.
Common in mature organizations.
3. (1+, 2+, 3–) Procedural success but with an ecological cost
Did everything by the book but damaged relationships or morale.
Often indicates brittle structures or hidden overload.
A technically legitimate but system-draining win.
4. (1+, 2°, 3+) Adaptive success that strengthens viability
Deviations occurred within the spirit of the rules.
The team grew in trust, flexibility, or learning.
Shows healthy intuition about when to adapt structures.
5. (1+, 2°, 3°) Adaptive success with stable viability
Improvisation that neither helps nor harms future collaboration.
Common in dynamic environments.
A competent, flexible success.
6. (1+, 2°, 3–) Adaptive success that weakens viability
Bent rules in ways that hurt future functioning.
The outcome was achieved but at relational or systemic cost.
A warning sign: over-reliance on improvisation.
7. (1+, 2–, 3+) Illegitimate success with improved viability
Rare but highly interesting.
Formal structures were violated, but relationships strengthened.
Happens when rules are ill-fitting and need to be broken to reveal better patterns.
8. (1+, 2–, 3°) Illegitimate success with neutral viability
The outcome was achieved by ignoring constraints, but cooperation wasn’t harmed.
Common in crisis improvisation.
A survival-style success without damage.
9. (1+, 2–, 3–) Illegitimate success with ecological damage
Outcome-only win.
Survival success in the harsher sense.
Works once; undermines the next round.
B. Outcomes Partially Achieved (1°)
These nine configurations represent ambiguous, partial, or incomplete success.
10. (1°, 2+, 3+) Partial procedural success that strengthens viability
Didn’t master the task fully, but the group is stronger.
Very positive: learning-rich partial success.
11. (1°, 2+, 3°) Partial procedural success with stable viability
Achieved part of the aim through proper means.
System is unchanged.
Common early in new roles or skills.
12. (1°, 2+, 3–) Partial procedural success with ecological cost
Did things properly but stressed the system.
Indicates structural misalignment or unrealistic outcomes.
13. (1°, 2°, 3+) Adaptive partial success with strengthened viability
Bent rules in legitimate ways and improved relationships.
Classic “we didn’t get all the way there but we learned a ton.”
14. (1°, 2°, 3°) Adaptive partial success with stable viability
A mixed result all around.
Typical of iterative or agile environments.
15. (1°, 2°, 3–) Adaptive partial success that weakens viability
Flexibility didn’t pay off.
Too much adaptation created strain or confusion.
16. (1°, 2–, 3+) Illegitimate partial success with strengthened viability
Broke rules in a way that oddly helped the relationships.
Could signal outdated constraints needing overhaul.
17. (1°, 2–, 3°) Illegitimate partial success with neutral viability
Broke rules but didn’t cause harm and got partway there.
Sometimes this is exploration or rebellion with minimal cost.
18. (1°, 2–, 3–) Illegitimate partial success with ecological damage
A messy, unsatisfying outcome that stresses the system.
Often a result of desperation or misalignment.
C. Outcomes Not Achieved (1–)
These are the nine configurations of failure in the outcome dimension, but not necessarily overall failure.
19. (1–, 2+, 3+) Principled failure with strengthened viability
A very positive failure.
Didn’t achieve the task, but followed constraints and improved as a group.
Mature, healthy collaboration.
20. (1–, 2+, 3°) Principled failure with stable viability
Properly conducted effort that simply didn’t succeed.
No harm done.
Often indicates good governance.
21. (1–, 2+, 3–) Principled failure with ecological cost
Followed the rules but still damaged viability.
Indicates structural misfit or unrealistic mandates.
22. (1–, 2°, 3+) Adaptive failure with strengthened viability
Improvised, failed, but deepened trust or learning.
“Good failure.”
Often happens during innovation or experimentation.
23. (1–, 2°, 3°) Adaptive failure with stable viability
Deviated from the rules and failed, but no harm done.
Neutral failure.
Could be a harmless experiment.
24. (1–, 2°, 3–) Adaptive failure with ecological cost
Improvised unsuccessfully and weakened system health.
Indicates unstable or unclear structures.
25. (1–, 2–, 3+) Illegitimate failure with strengthened viability
Breaking rules leads to failure but paradoxically improves relationships.
Can signal that the constraints were wrong or oppressive.
26. (1–, 2–, 3°) Illegitimate failure with neutral viability
Nothing worked, but no relational harm done.
A practical dead end, but not destructive.
27. (1–, 2–, 3–) Epic failure
The system is worse in every dimension
Used for diagnose-and-reset moments