High performers frequently assume their ambitions to be autonomous, forged by discipline, originality, and singular vision. Yet as René Girard (1961, 1972) argued, human beings rarely desire independently. Desire is mimetic, formed through largely through imitation, producing cycles of escalation and dissatisfaction. What appears as originality is often the repetition of long-standing cultural patterns.
This paper situates high performance within a wider intellectual lineage, drawing on philosophy, history, and psychology. From Plato’s reflections on appearance and reality (Republic, c. 380 BCE/1997) to Nietzsche’s analysis of the will to power (1887/1994), thinkers have long recognised ambition as both a generative and destabilising force. Modern psychology reinforces these insights: Festinger’s (1954) theory of social comparison, Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory, and Amabile’s (1996) research on intrinsic motivation all point to the restless instability of ambition when oriented toward external validation. Sociological perspectives, such as Durkheim’s account of collective consciousness (1912/1995) and Veblen’s critique of conspicuous consumption (1899/2009), further reveal the structural dimensions of desire, which will be explored further in this writing.
The argument advanced here is not that ambition is misguided, but that it is seldom examined. The fundamental danger for high performers is succeeding brilliantly at ambitions never consciously chosen. To recognise the mimetic nature of desire is to recognise oneself as part of a much larger civilisational story, and to open the possibility of redirecting ambition toward more authentic and contributive ends.
Max Stephens is a developmental theorist, personal development strategist, and bestselling author whose work explores the hidden dynamics of high performance, ambition, and human flourishing. He has written more than 100 research articles on the psychological and cultural drivers of success and has coached over 30 high-performing leaders each year, from CEOs and entrepreneurs to elite athletes, creatives and military professionals. His coaching practice and intellectual work intersect at a single point: the recognition that high performance is often a compensatory strategy, born of relational fracture and sustained by unresolved emotional wounds.
Drawing on philosophy, developmental psychology, and history, Max situates high performance within the broader story of civilisation. His work challenges high performers to see themselves not as isolated anomalies, but as participants in enduring patterns of desire, rivalry, and ambition. By integrating insights from thinkers such as René Girard, Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ken Wilber and contemporary psychology, he reframes success as more than the pursuit of wealth, status, or control, as a deeper movement toward contribution, systemic responsibility, and structural integration.
Max is the author of What the F** Do You Actually Want?*, a bestselling book that critiques the illusions of success and invites readers to orient their ambition toward purpose that extends beyond their own immediate desires. He lectures on applied developmental theory, and his frameworks, including the Fracture-Strategy-Distortion (FSD) model and the Relational Rights Model (RRM), both of which are used in both coaching and academic settings. His essays form a philosophical canon that explores the hidden costs of ambition while pointing toward a more integrative path.
With a background that bridges high performance, developmental psychology, and philosophical inquiry, Max’s mission is to help high performers discover their completeness within themselves and reorient their drive as a force for meaningful impact in the world.
High performers often view their ambition as singular, the product of discipline and originality, sharpened by their own experience. The entrepreneur believes they are blazing a path where none existed; the executive sees themselves as self-made, advancing by sheer merit; the artist insists their vision is uniquely their own. To a degree, this self-conception is understandable: extraordinary results do demand ingenuity and effort. Yet beneath the surface, what appears to be originality is often the latest enactment of patterns as old as civilisation itself.
René Girard named this pattern mimetic desire — the idea that human beings almost never desire independently, but through imitation (Girard, 1961, 1972). Desire does not emerge in isolation. It is triangulated: subject, object, and mediator. The subject desires an object because the mediator — in human beings’ case, fellow tribe members — confer value upon it. We want what others want. Rivalry is contagious. Ambition is borrowed. In this way, even the most accomplished high performer may be propelled less by an inner compass than by an invisible field of imitation.
This insight unsettles the central myth of modern high performance: the belief in autonomy. Contemporary western culture often frames the entrepreneur or leader as an icon of independence — a rational agent pursuing goals of their own design. Yet essentially all schools of history, philosophy, and psychology suggest otherwise. Human beings, even at their most ambitious, are not solitary actors but participants in longstanding cultural scripts. In short, our desires have ancestors.
Consider the hunger for legacy. To the modern entrepreneur, this might appear as the dream of a billion-dollar exit, a name etched into the annals of business history. But the desire for immortality through achievement is hardly new. It animated warriors, kings, poets, and statesmen long before the language of markets and valuations. The modern pursuit is recognisably continuous with older ones, even if its forms differ.
To understand the high performer’s trap, then, we must trace its lineage. When we see
ambition stretched across the arc of civilisation, we begin to understand its continuity and its cost. In myth and philosophy, in religion and sociology, the same themes appear: the pursuit of glory, the restlessness of desire, the futility of control, the longing for permanence from being haunted by the vastness of the cosmos. These are not new dilemmas. They are ancient inheritances that shape high performers still.
The argument of this paper proceeds along those lines. First, we will examine the canon of desire as it appears in some of civilisation’s earliest texts and philosophical reflections. Second, we will explore how these dynamics manifest in contemporary high performance, whether that be in business, leadership, and entrepreneurship. Third, we will consider the consequences: psychological dissatisfaction, cultural distortions, and the danger of succeeding brilliantly at ambitions never chosen. The task is not to undermine ambition as a character trait, but to see it more clearly as a force that situates each high performer inside a much larger story.
1.1 The Canon of Desire: Part I
The oldest surviving epic in human history is the Epic of Gilgamesh, composed in Mesopotamia around 2100 BCE. Gilgamesh, the semi-divine king of Uruk, is described as restless, ambitious, and insatiable. His exploits — conquering enemies, building monumental walls, rejecting limitations — are recognisably those of the archetypal high performer. Yet the heart of the epic is not his triumphs, but his confrontation with mortality. When his companion Enkidu dies, Gilgamesh is thrown into existential despair. He seeks immortality, travels vast distances, and demands the secret of eternal life from the gods. In the end, he fails. His legacy is not eternal life but the walls of Uruk — a monument to ambition, achievement, and the inevitability of human limitation (George, 2003).
Gilgamesh’s story already contains the central tension of high performance: the drive for immortality through achievement, and the inevitability of the suffering of life. Modern leaders may no longer build walled cities, but the skyscraper, the IPO, or the “unicorn” valuation function much the same way: monuments against mortality, attempts to etch
one’s name into history.
Centuries later, Homer’s Iliad presented another variation. Achilles, the greatest warrior of the Greeks, is given a choice: a long, uneventful life, or a short life crowned by immortal glory. He chooses the latter. His fundamental desire is for recognition — to be remembered as the greatest warrior who ever lived. The parallels to modern high performance are striking: the fixation on reputation, the sensitivity to comparison, the willingness to sacrifice even peace and longevity for the sake of being “the best.” Achilles embodies mimetic desire long before the concept was named: his worth is mediated by the recognition of others (Homer, trans. Fagles, 1990).
If the Iliad reveals the hunger for glory, the Odyssey reveals the restlessness of desire. Odysseus, celebrated for his cunning, spends ten years wandering after the Trojan War, facing trial after trial. His journey home is prolonged not only by divine interventions but by his own compulsions — detours into temptation, encounters that delay his return. Even when offered comfort and immortality by the goddess Calypso, he refuses. Odysseus is the archetype of the restless achiever, compelled always toward the next trial, never satisfied with rest. In this, he resembles the entrepreneur who, even after success, feels compelled to build again, because striving itself has become the mode of existence.
Greek philosophy reinforced these insights in a more reflective key. Plato, in The Republic, described human beings as prisoners in a cave, mistaking shadows for reality (Plato, c. 380 BCE/1997). The allegory resonates with the dynamics of desire: we chase symbols of recognition — wealth, titles, possessions — mistaking them for the real substance of fulfilment. Aristotle, by contrast, argued for eudaimonia — human flourishing — as the highest end, achievable only through the cultivation of virtue (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, c. 340 BCE/2009). Already, philosophy was distinguishing between desires that enslave and those that liberate.
Much later, Nietzsche would reframe ambition through the concept of the will to power. For Nietzsche, life itself is an expression of striving, of expansion, of overcoming (Nietzsche, 1887/1994). Yet he also warned of ressentiment — the corrosive envy that arises when one’s will is defined primarily by comparison with others. His thought reveals both the creative and destructive faces of ambition.
What unites these ancient and philosophical reflections is their recognition that desire is never simple. It is structured by comparison, bound up with mortality, mediated by recognition, and prone to restlessness. These are not modern dilemmas. They are civilisational constants, recorded in epics and philosophy long before the language of entrepreneurship or performance emerged. The high performer of today is, in this sense, the heir to Gilgamesh, Achilles, and Odysseus — the latest participant in humanity’s oldest dramas of ambition.
1.2 The Canon of Desire: Part II
If the ancients revealed desire in myth and early philosophy, the modern era sought to systematise it. The nineteenth and twentieth centuries produced new frameworks for understanding ambition, many of which remain foundational today.
Joseph Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949) synthesised comparative mythology into what he called the “monomyth”: the Hero’s Journey. Across cultures, Campbell found a recurring pattern — departure and return — in which the protagonist answers a call, endures trials, descends into an abyss, and emerges transformed. The appeal of this structure lies in its universality. It suggests that striving, suffering, and self-transcendence are the essential architecture of human development.
High performers may dismiss myth as archaic, yet their lives often mirror this pattern. The entrepreneur hears a call to adventure — to build, to innovate, to disrupt. They face ordeals in the form of market failures, financial strain, or leadership crises. They encounter their abyss in burnout, divorce, health crisis, or existential dissatisfaction. What Campbell illuminates is that their journey is not exceptional, but reliably archetypal. The narrative of ambition has always been bound up with the possibility of deep personal transformation.
René Girard sharpened this insight with his theory of mimetic desire. In Deceit, Desire, and the Novel (1961) and later works such as Violence and the Sacred (1972), Girard argued that desire is triangular: we desire an object not directly but through a mediator. The mediator — often a rival — confers value on the object, which in turn inflames rivalry. In literature, this is evident in Cervantes, Stendhal, Dostoevsky: characters desire not simply women or wealth, but what their rivals desire. For Girard, this mechanism explains not only literature but the dynamics of human culture itself, including conflict and violence.
The implications for high performance are profound. What appears as a rational pursuit — market share, valuation, influence — often arises from mimetic structures. An entrepreneur raises a fifty-million-dollar round to outdo his rival who only raised forty-five million. The achievements that define success are, in Girard’s terms, mediated desires, borrowed from others, disguised as originality.
Philosophers and psychologists alike have circled this dynamic. Søren Kierkegaard, writing in the nineteenth century, described despair as the condition of not being oneself — of constructing an identity through external mirrors (Kierkegaard, 1849/1980). Leon Festinger (1954) formalised the theory of social comparison, showing how individuals evaluate themselves by reference to others. These frameworks converge on the central truth that identity and desire are essentially relational.
Modern psychology has reinforced these insights. Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory (1985) distinguished between intrinsic motivation (driven by autonomy, mastery, purpose) and extrinsic motivation (driven by reward, recognition, status). Mimetic desire, by its nature, aligns with the extrinsic. It orients ambition outward, tethering the high performer’s worth to external benchmarks. Teresa Amabile’s research (1996) on creativity shows that intrinsic motivation produces deeper fulfilment and resilience, while extrinsic drivers often correlate with anxiety, burnout, and decreased innovation.
Sociology, too, has recognised the cultural dimension of desire. Thorstein Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899/2009) coined the concept of conspicuous consumption: the display of wealth done for the sole purpose of external recognition. Émile Durkheim (1912/1995) argued that collective consciousness shapes even the most personal decisions, binding individuals into cultural logics larger than themselves. These perspectives remind us that high performance cannot be understood solely in psychological terms; it is entangled with cultural scripts that prescribe what is desirable.
Thus, by the twentieth century, the canon of desire had crystallised into a coherent insight: ambition is relational, comparative, and culturally mediated. Far from being a unique or private force, it is a script that individuals inherit, replay, and rarely question. The high performer stands at the end of this lineage — heir to Gilgamesh’s search for immortality, Achilles’ hunger for glory, Odysseus’ restless cunning, Plato’s shadows, Nietzsche’s will to power, Campbell’s heroic arc, and Girard’s mimetic triangles. Their desires may be expressed in the language of markets, valuations, or leadership, but the structure is recognisably the same.
The patterns of desire described by Girard and others are deeply visible daily in the culture of business and entrepreneurship. Mimetic desire animates many of the practices high performers take for granted, shaping benchmarks, comparisons, and even the definition of success itself.
One clear example is benchmarking. In theory, benchmarking is a rational tool for assessing performance relative to industry standards. In practice, it often serves as a mediator of desire. When a rival company raises capital, the event does not simply inform the market — it reshapes the desires of competitors. A founder who might have been satisfied with a modest growth trajectory suddenly feels compelled to raise more, expand faster, or pursue riskier strategies. What has changed is not the intrinsic viability of their business, but the mimetic field in which it operates.
Valuations function similarly. To be valued at one billion dollars — the mark of the “unicorn” — has little intrinsic meaning. Yet the symbolic power of the figure is immense, conferring status and recognition. The drive toward unicorn status is primarily economic mimetic: it is a number that matters because others treat it as desirable. The pursuit mirrors Achilles’ hunger for immortal glory, though refracted through the language of venture capital.
Even legacy itself is mimetic. Few leaders articulate their legacy in terms entirely of personal meaning; rather, legacy is defined by cultural recognition. To “leave a mark” is to be remembered by others, to be validated by posterity. This longing for permanence mirrors many a hero’s futile quest for immortality. The modern executive may not seek literal eternal life, but the impulse to transcend mortality through reputation, institutions, or wealth is a direct descendant of his ambition.
Organisational studies echo this. Amabile (1996) found that creativity and innovation flourish when individuals are intrinsically motivated but decline when driven primarily by extrinsic recognition. Harvard Business Review articles on leadership burnout (HBR, 2001–2020) repeatedly document the same cycle: achievement does not resolve dissatisfaction but intensifies it, producing restlessness, anxiety, and in some cases collapse.
Culturally, the effects are magnified. The executive who insists on a private jet, the founder who buys a supercar, or the company that announces inflated valuations all participate in mimetic displays. Durkheim’s insight that individuals are shaped by collective consciousness is borne out: even the most “independent” leader is enmeshed in cultural scripts of recognition.
The result is a paradox. High performers believe they are independent, rational actors. Yet their desires are mediated by rivals, benchmarks, and cultural narratives that long predate them. What they take to be originality is in many cases mimicry. What they take to be progress is often mimetic disguised as autonomous. The trap is not simply that they desire, but that they succeed at desires that were never theirs.
2.1 The Psychological Trap
The most immediate cost of mimetic desire is psychological. High performers often achieve extraordinary results, yet describe an underlying dissatisfaction: the sense that no milestone delivers the fulfilment they anticipated. The problem is not simply unmet goals but the structure of desire itself. When ambition is mediated, every success becomes provisional. The moment a goal is attained, comparison shifts, benchmarks move, and the sense of insufficiency returns. The hedonic treadmill, a concept in positive psychology, captures the tendency for satisfaction to fade quickly after achievements, leaving individuals at baseline despite outward gains (Brickman & Campbell, 1971).
For high performers, the trap is compounded by fracture. Many enter their pursuits not from a place of wholeness but from a wound — an early sense of inadequacy, rejection, or conditional worth. Ambition becomes a compensatory strategy, an attempt to disconfirm the fracture by proving oneself through achievement. Yet because the driver is lack, each success intensifies the need for more. The executive who builds a company to disprove childhood insignificance, the athlete who wins to escape feelings of unworthiness, the entrepreneur who raises capital to silence inner doubt — all find that the wound remains even after the achievement. The compensation fuels the strategy but never resolves it.
And the symptoms are well documented. Burnout, defined by the World Health Organization (2019) as a syndrome of exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced efficacy, disproportionately affects high performers. Anxiety and depression are prevalent among executives and entrepreneurs, with studies indicating higher rates of mental health challenges compared to the general population (Michael Freeman et al., 2019). The narrative of “peak performance” often conceals the psychological toll of sustaining mimetic ambition.
The paradox is stark: the very strategies that generate success — relentless drive, comparison, refusal to rest — also generate suffering. Achievement compounds rather than heals the fracture. The psychological trap is not ambition itself but ambition in thrall to mimetic desire: the endless attempt to resolve inner lack through external recognition.
2.2 The Cultural Trap
Thus, if the psychological trap operates within, the cultural trap surrounds without. High performers live not only with their own fractures but within collective myths that amplify them. These myths present themselves as truths, shaping the logic of ambition and the very definition of success.
One such myth is that of individualism. Western culture often venerates the “self-made” figure — the entrepreneur who rises without help, the leader who builds through solitary vision. Yet sociological analysis undermines this narrative. Émile Durkheim (1912/1995) argued that individuals are embedded in collective consciousness: norms, values, and structures that pre-exist and shape them. Charles Taylor (1991) showed how the modern ideal of authenticity — “being true to oneself” — is itself culturally produced, a social script rather than a natural given. The myth of independence obscures the degree to which desire is always relational, ambition always situated.
The myth of control further intensifies the trap. High performers often equate success with independence — the ability to dictate outcomes, shape markets, and bend circumstances to will. Yet the illusion of control has been critiqued extensively in philosophy and psychology. The Stoics distinguished between what is within one’s control (judgment, action) and what is not (outcomes, external events). Modern psychology documents the illusion of control bias, in which individuals overestimate their influence over external factors (Langer, 1975). For the high performer, this illusion creates perpetual anxiety: every deviation from expectation feels like personal failure, even when shaped by systemic or random forces.
Consumer capitalism provides perhaps the most powerful cultural reinforcement of mimetic desire. As Shoshana Zuboff (2019) has argued, surveillance capitalism thrives by predicting and shaping desires, transforming them into commodities. Within such systems, high performers are not only subject to mimetic desire but are active participants in perpetuating it — comparing, signalling, displaying, and amplifying. These cultural traps are not neutral. They shape the aspirations of entire societies, directing energy toward competition, accumulation, and display. They also legitimise the psychological trap: fractures are not seen as wounds but as fuel for achievement. The entrepreneur who works to exhaustion is celebrated as visionary; the executive who sacrifices family for legacy is valorised as dedicated. The cultural narrative sanctifies what is, at its core, a mimetic cycle.
Together, the psychological and cultural traps form a reinforcing loop. The inner fracture drives ambition outward; the cultural myths validate and amplify the ambition; the resulting success compounds the fracture rather than heals it. The high performer is caught in a system that appears to reward them while subtly eroding their well-being.
2.3 Toward Integration
As stated previously, to describe mimetic desire as a trap is not to suggest that desire, or ambition itself is a mistake. Human civilisation has been propelled by ambition as much as by necessity. The monuments of history — from Bronze Age epic adventures in the name of glory to Silicon Valley’s technologies — are products of striving. The same patterns that generate rivalry also generate creativity, innovation, and cultural progress. To dismiss desire as inherently pathological would be both inaccurate and unhelpful. The task is not to escape desire, but to integrate it.
Integration begins with recognition. Girard argued that mimetic desire exerts its force most powerfully when unacknowledged (Girard, 1961). To name it is already to weaken its hold. The high performer who recognises that their ambition is not purely self-authored but shaped by imitation can begin to discern which desires are authentic and which are borrowed. This discernment does not eliminate desire but reframes it. The benchmark ceases to be “what others have achieved” and becomes “what I am called to contribute.”
The concept of contribution can itself be misunderstood if reduced to altruism. To contribute is also not to deny ambition but to situate it within a larger system. Aristotle’s vision of eudaimonia was flourishing through virtuous participation in community (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, c. 340 BCE/2009). Charles Taylor (1991) argued that authenticity is realised in dialogue with shared horizons of meaning. Contribution, in this sense, is not the negation of self-interest but its integration with the good of others.
For high performers, this integration can be both pragmatic and philosophical. Pragmatically, the market itself rewards contribution. Businesses that genuinely serve needs, cultivate trust, and generate value beyond profit tend to endure longer than those driven solely by extraction (Collins, 2001). Philosophically, contribution offers a way of aligning ambition with civilisation’s ongoing story. Instead of seeking immortality through monuments or valuations, the high performer can situate themselves as a steward — one who uses their capabilities to extend the conditions for others to thrive.
The reframing also addresses the fracture at the heart of many high performers’ lives. When ambition is compensatory, it intensifies pain. When ambition is contributive, it can become integrative. Forgiveness — of self and others — plays a role here. Girard himself noted that the only true release from mimetic rivalry comes not through victory but through reconciliation (Girard, 1977). To forgive is to break the cycle of comparison, to release oneself from the demand to prove worth in the eyes of rivals. For the high performer, this can be experienced as an inner liberation: achievement ceases to be an attempt to silence the fracture and becomes an expression of wholeness.
Philosophically, this shift resonates with Stoic and Buddhist traditions, which distinguish between craving and conscious choice. The Stoics argued that freedom lies not in controlling outcomes but in governing judgments (Epictetus, Enchiridion, c. 125 CE/2008). Buddhism identifies craving (tanha) as the root of suffering, but does not deny desire entirely — it calls for the transformation of craving into mindful aspiration (Rahula, 1959). Both traditions align with the integrative approach: desire is inevitable, but it can be redirected toward forms that generate flourishing rather than suffering.
To integrate ambition is also to embrace paradox. High performers thrive on control, yet life remains fundamentally uncertain. The attempt to eradicate uncertainty produces anxiety; the acceptance of uncertainty produces resilience. Kierkegaard called this the “leap of faith” — not belief without evidence, but action in the face of uncertainty (Kierkegaard, 1849/1980). Nietzsche’s idea of eternal recurrence offers a similar provocation: to live as though one would choose the same life eternally is to affirm existence without guarantee (Nietzsche, 1882/1974). For the high performer, integration means no longer striving for control over outcomes but affirming the process of becoming.
What emerges from these reflections is a different model of high performance. Not the isolated genius or the self-made titan, but the conscious participant in a civilisational lineage. The integrated high performer recognises that their ambition is both inherited and creative, both mimetic and authentic. They no longer imagine themselves unique, but neither do they collapse into conformity. Instead, they step into their role as stewards — shaping their contribution in dialogue with the human story that precedes and will outlast them.
The story of high performance is older than the modern corporation, older than capitalism, older even than recorded philosophy. From Gilgamesh’s restless pursuit of immortality to Achilles’ hunger for glory, from Plato’s shadows to Nietzsche’s will to power, the dynamics of desire have been recognised and wrestled with for millennia. What we call “high performance” today is one contemporary expression of these enduring patterns.
René Girard’s theory of mimetic desire clarifies why ambition so often brings dissatisfaction: our desires are mediated, borrowed, refracted through others. The entrepreneur chasing valuation, the executive pursuing legacy, the athlete striving for recognition — each is caught in a mimetic cycle older than themselves. Psychology confirms the costs: comparison erodes satisfaction (Festinger, 1954), extrinsic motivation undermines well-being (Deci & Ryan, 1985), and identity foreclosure produces fragility rather than strength (Marcia, 1966). Culture amplifies these patterns through myths of individualism, legacy, and control, sanctifying rivalry as virtue.
Yet the recognition of this lineage need not lead to despair. To the contrary, it offers liberation. To see oneself as part of civilisation’s oldest story is to understand that one is neither broken nor unique. The trap is not ambition itself but the unexamined imitation that drives it. The danger is not failure but succeeding brilliantly at desires never chosen.
The opportunity lies in integration: to acknowledge the mimetic nature of desire, to discern which ambitions are authentic, and to redirect striving toward contribution. In doing so, the high performer situates themselves not outside history but within it, consciously. They become heirs to the lineage not by repeating it unconsciously, but by interpreting it anew.
In the end, the measure of ambition is not whether it secures legacy or recognition, but whether it participates in the unfolding of human flourishing. To integrate desire is to accept one’s place in the larger story, and to write one’s chapter with clarity rather than compulsion. For the high performer, this is the highest pursuit: not the conquest of rivals, but the contribution to civilisation’s ongoing work.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Aristotle. (2009). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published ca. 340 BCE)
Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory (pp. 287–302). Academic Press.
Campbell, J. (1949). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton University Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap… and others don’t. HarperBusiness.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer.
Durkheim, É. (1995). The elementary forms of religious life (K. E. Fields, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1912)
Epictetus. (2008). The Enchiridion (N. P. White, Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work published ca. 125 CE)
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Freeman, M. A., Staudenmaier, P. J., Zisser, M. R., & Andresen, L. A. (2019). Mental health in entrepreneurs: A systematic review and research agenda. Small Business Economics, 53(2), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-00743-8
George, A. (2003). The epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian epic poem and other texts in Akkadian and Sumerian. Penguin Classics.
Girard, R. (1961). Deceit, desire, and the novel: Self and other in literary structure (Y. Freccero, Trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
Girard, R. (1972). Violence and the sacred (P. Gregory, Trans.). Johns Hopkins University Press.
Girard, R. (1977). Things hidden since the foundation of the world (S. Bann & M. Metteer, Trans.). Stanford University Press.
Homer. (1990). The Iliad (R. Fagles, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
Kierkegaard, S. (1980). The sickness unto death (H. V. Hong & E. H. Hong, Trans.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1849)
Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.2.311
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023281
Nietzsche, F. (1974). The gay science (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Vintage. (Original work published 1882)
Nietzsche, F. (1994). On the genealogy of morals (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Vintage. (Original work published 1887)
Plato. (1997). The republic (G. M. A. Grube & C. D. C. Reeve, Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work published ca. 380 BCE)
Rahula, W. (1959). What the Buddha taught. Grove Press.
Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Harvard University Press.
Veblen, T. (2009). The theory of the leisure class. Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1899)
World Health Organization. (2019). Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon”: International Classification of Diseases. WHO.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.