When a scientist wins a major award, we instinctively ask what makes this person stand out. We will search intelligencepersistence, creativityor sand. We rarely ask about their partners, mentors or professional network. This tendency reflects a broader tendency of human psychology: we are very good at seeing people and very poor at seeing systems.
We tend to talk about success as if it belongs to individuals: A scientist is “great”. The politician is “talented”. A student is “honorable material”.
The basic assumption is simple: success is mind, action, motivationor persistence. But this story is not complete. Every success is supported by something less visible but quietly powerful: the structure of the networks in which a person is embedded.
The invisible foundation of success
in science, politicsand success in school is often seen as the result of personal qualities. Research on social media shows something else: results are shaped not only by who are the peoplebut by where they are placed:
- Who do they work with?
- Who notices their work.
- Who enhances their visibility.
- Who invites them to conversations and opportunities.
These are not random processes. Consider mentoring. In a recent paper by Martínez-Goni and colleagues, graduate students identified empathy and emotional support as the top qualities they look for in leaders. This finding challenges the image of science as a purely intellectual enterprise. Relationships are important, and supportive mentors can open up opportunities and nurture trustand helps researchers overcome setbacks.
Small differences in one’s network—such as initial mentoring connections—can add up to large differences in visibility and recognition over time. In other words, a win pier. (These dynamics are explored in more detail in my recent publication (Vromen, 2026) in which I describe early researchers’ cooperation networks determine who remains active in scientific publishing and how effective they are.)
When the view is false with the value
One of the most important breakdowns in systems like academia is the assumption that appearance equals quality:
- A well-connected idea spreads faster.
- A well-placed researcher is more likely to be cited.
- A well networked lab is more likely to get funding.
Over time, this creates a feedback loop: Visibility breeds opportunity, and opportunity breeds visibility. What appears to be individual excellence may, in part, reflect a system-wide advantage that favors certain scientists more than others. Ability is only one component of a much larger system.
Matthew effect: what are the advantages of compounds
Sociologists have long described a pattern known as the Matthew Effect, in which advantage accumulates over time:
- Those that are already visible will become more visible.
- Those already mentioned will be quoted more.
- Those who are already connected will receive more connections.
In science, it can be subtle but powerful. It’s early career opportunities, institutional placement, mentoring, and collaborative networks can shape trajectories long before production is evaluated. The result is often success depends on the road. Small early differences can turn into large disparities later. Likewise, a single, low-level flight departing from LAX may land in Washington D.C. instead of its scheduled destination of New York.
How we judge people
If we think of success as purely individual, we risk over-attributing success to individual brilliance, associating it with systemic positioning, and misinterpreting inequality as a difference in talent rather than a difference in access.
It can shape hiring, funding decisions, and even informal judgments about who is “promising” or “capable.” It can also shape how people see themselves, either uniquely deserving of success or, conversely, failing to measure up in systems they don’t fully see.
Intelligence Essential Readings
A clearer way to think about success
As I argue in my earlier post, the system view does not remove individual agency. Instead, it revises it. Individuals are not isolated entities that produce results in a vacuum. They are nodes within dynamic systems of interaction, reinforcement, and vision. “Who is the most talented?” Instead of asking. We also ask, “Who has a comfortable place to see?” we can ask. “Which networks enhance which types of contributions?” and “Which forms of work are becoming systematically invisible?”
This is not just a scientific matter
Although this debate is rooted in science and academia, the implications extend far beyond that. Many domains, including workplaces, leadership pipelines, creative industries and healthcare systems operate through similar network dynamics. Network dynamics are also affected gender and racial differences:
- Who gets noticed and who contributes more is not always the same.
- Who gets ahead and who works harder is not always the same.
- Who gets recognized is not always the same as who is most qualified.
Understanding this will help clarify achievement.
Rethinking Success
A more honest model of success requires consideration of not only individual or systemic effects, but also the interaction between the two. People bring strength, creativity, intelligence and determination. Systems shape which of these qualities are viewed, rewarded, nurtured, and perpetuated. When we ignore the system, we overpersonalize the results. If we ignore the individual, we miss the agency. But when we combine the two, we get closer to how success is created.
Final reflection
It can be uncomfortable to realize that success does not come in isolation. But this is also freedom. Because if achievement is shaped by networks, it is not fixed. Networks can be informed and gradually changed. The view can be redistributed. Opportunities can be redeveloped. And this means that success is not only a reflection of people, but also the systems we build and what we are willing to see.
