Understanding Employee Confidence and the Factors That Truly Affect It
In corporate consulting, human resources management, and HR technology more broadly, the simplest concepts are often the most difficult to measure. Confidence is one such construct, and within the framework of Axiomatology it has been clarified at a fundamental level.
In contemporary corporate environments, confidence is frequently positioned as a critical soft skill, with organizations seeking to assess and enhance the “confidence” of key employees. However, this effort is often undermined by a superficial understanding of confidence from both psychometric and psychological perspectives. Confidence is commonly treated as an isolated personality trait or as a readily adjustable behavioral pattern. In reality, it is a multi-layered phenomenon, deeply embedded within the individual’s internal value structure and broader existential framework.
In this article, we propose a novel conceptualization: confidence is best understood as the emergent byproduct of what we term Existential Instrumentality (EI) — the degree to which an individual perceives themselves as a purposeful and necessary agent within a meaningful structure of reality. We argue that the construction of a Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH), where the individual aligns their values within a clear and unified system, serves as the psychological mechanism for fostering Existential Instrumentality.
This framework positions confidence not as a stand-alone psychological resource but as the downstream result of existential coherence. Specifically, when an individual internalizes a singular, transcendently anchored value hierarchy, they naturally reduce existential angst, thereby enabling a resilient and action-oriented sense of self.
In the sections that follow, we will outline a causal argument tracing the roots of confidence from Romanticist critiques of modernity through to contemporary psychological theories of existential anxiety, motivation, and psychometric profiles. We will conclude by offering actionable insights into how confidence can be reliably cultivated in organizational settings through the implementation of SIVHs.
The Nature of Confidence and Its Ontological Non-Existence
At the outset, it is critical to interrogate the ontological status of confidence. From a rigorous psychometric perspective, confidence does not exist as a discrete, standalone trait. Unlike well-defined constructs such as Extraversion, Conscientiousness, or Neuroticism within the Big Five framework (McCrae & Costa, 1997), "confidence" emerges as a composite phenomenon rather than a primary psychological dimension.
In fact, the challenge of defining confidence echoes the Taoist principle of arriving at the essence of a thing by recognizing what it is not. Confidence, in its most observable form, is the absence — or functional minimization — of key facets of Neuroticism, particularly withdrawal and volatility (DeYoung et al., 2010).
In its transient, momentary manifestation, confidence can be interpreted as a state where low emotional volatility (emotional stability) and low withdrawal (absence of avoidance tendencies) are present simultaneously, leading to clear-headed, assertive engagement with the environment. Over extended periods, confidence appears as a systemic condition where this low neurotic affect is combined with assertive, proactive behavior — generating consistent feedback loops that validate one’s actions.
Thus, confidence is less a "thing" to be located within psychometric structures and more a byproduct of two converging forces:
Minimized Neuroticism: Specifically the suppression of volatility (emotional reactivity) and withdrawal (avoidance and social inhibition).
Assertive Action Producing Reward Prediction Accuracy: Confidence arises when action reliably yields feedback congruent with one’s anticipatory models, reinforcing agency and perceived competence.
Therefore, confidence is most accurately conceptualized as the emergent property of a self-system in alignment with its existential and motivational conditions. It is a functional byproduct of existential instrumentality (EI) — the perception of oneself as a necessary and competent actor embedded within a meaningful structure of reality.
Crucially, this points toward a larger ontological claim: confidence is not an isolated psychological entity but a secondary effect of resolving existential tensions. Specifically, it is rooted in how effectively an individual resolves the friction between the experience of being-in-the-world (Heidegger, 1927/1962) and their internalized value structures. The absence of such resolution leaves the individual vulnerable to paralyzing doubt and dissonance, manifesting as neurotic symptoms. Conversely, existential instrumentality dissolves these tensions, enabling the emergence of stable, sustainable confidence.
The Double-Nature of the Problem in Generating "Fake Confidence"
When addressing the phenomenon of “confidence creation” within organizational and psychotherapeutic settings, one encounters a common paradox: most intervention models—whether rooted in pseudo-scientific frameworks or evidence-based practices like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)—frequently misdiagnose the underlying mechanics of the motivational architecture responsible for sustaining authentic confidence.
The result is the proliferation of “false confidence,” a maladaptive cognitive state built on a two-fold mechanism: (1) an artificial reframing of existential conditions, and (2) defensive fortification through avoidance and repression. While such techniques may produce short-term improvements in self-reported confidence, they invariably set the individual up for long-term dissonance and psychological instability.
First Dimension: Minimizing Fear Through Distorted Existential Reframing
A central feature of this dynamic is the widespread use of minimization heuristics that attempt to reduce existential anxiety by distorting the perception of risk and adversity. Practitioners commonly induce cognitive reappraisals such as:
“The worst that could happen is not that bad.”
“The likelihood of that happening is statistically low.”
This reframing strategy, while superficially calming, generates a distorted ontology—an illusion of a less tragic and less volatile world than what reality consistently delivers. By framing existential uncertainty as statistically negligible or emotionally manageable, such interventions foster a denial of life’s inherent unpredictability and the omnipresence of suffering (Frankl, 1959/2006; Becker, 1973).
The issue is not merely cognitive; it is ontological. The practitioner effectively assumes a quasi-divine position, “constructing” an altered metaphysics of existence for the client. This externalized worldview is implicitly predicated on the fantasy of a benevolent universe, where suffering is rare, preventable, or proportionate to one’s behavior — a framework deeply inconsistent with existential and clinical realities.
This approach ignores two fundamental conditions of Being:
The Inevitable Tragedy of Existence: Illness, death, and undeserved misfortune are not anomalies but structural features of the human condition. Suffering is not a statistical outlier but an ontological certainty, often occurring in clusters and at moments of heightened vulnerability (Frankl, 1959/2006; Heidegger, 1927/1962).
The Volatility of Social Interactions: The optimistic assumption that social agents (e.g., peers, superiors, partners) will respond favorably — or respond at all — is equally fragile. Human interactions are mediated by complex and often unpredictable variables, making socially derived confidence highly volatile (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
The combined effect of this distorted framing creates a short-lived illusion of confidence — one that is hyper-sensitive to reality testing. While it may buffer anxiety temporarily, it seeds deeper vulnerabilities. When external events inevitably contradict the softened existential narrative (e.g., sudden loss, rejection, betrayal), the dissonance experienced can be severe, often triggering collapses in self-efficacy and emotional resilience.
This is why such interventions often backfire over time. The practitioner, despite good intentions, has inadvertently produced a form of cognitive infantilization — encouraging the individual to adopt a worldview that cannot withstand the existential and social demands of lived reality.
In sum, the superficial creation of “confidence” through minimization and avoidance frameworks sets the stage for later disillusionment. True confidence cannot be manufactured via ontological distortion but must emerge from alignment with existential instrumentality — where the individual’s agency is embedded within an authentic and durable confrontation with the tragic and unpredictable conditions of life itself.
Second Dimension: Bullet-Proofing the Self Through Avoidance and Self-Deception
The second mechanism contributing to the creation of false confidence is the tendency to "bullet-proof" the individual through avoidance of self-criticism and the systematic repression of existential limitations. In many contemporary therapeutic and coaching interventions, clients are frequently presented with affirmations such as:
“You are capable of doing whatever you want to strive for.”
“There is nothing wrong with you; you are enough as you are.”
While seemingly empowering, these statements conceal two deeply problematic dynamics that ultimately undermine the long-term development of genuine confidence: (1) denial of biological constraints and (2) the normalization of self-deception.
Ignoring Biological Dispositions and Structural Limits
One of the most pervasive errors in confidence-building programs is the implicit rejection of biologically mediated traits and capacities. Although it is relatively intuitive for individuals to accept immutable physical givens — such as height or body proportions — as largely non-modifiable, there is a widespread resistance to acknowledging similar constraints within psychological domains.
Research from behavioral genetics and psychometrics has consistently demonstrated that core personality traits (e.g., orderliness, industriousness, assertiveness) and cognitive capacities (e.g., general mental ability, working memory) are highly heritable and subject to biological ceilings (Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001; Plomin et al., 2016). While environmental interventions and training can produce marginal shifts within certain sub-traits (e.g., increasing assertiveness in low-assertive individuals), these changes tend to be modest relative to the exaggerated expectations often projected in therapeutic and self-help discourses.
When practitioners assure clients with extremely low extraversion or assertiveness that they are capable of becoming “charismatic leaders” or “dominant communicators” through sheer willpower or positive visualization, they foster a dangerous discrepancy between self-perception and reality. This distortion not only creates future disillusionment but also undermines the individual’s ability to pursue goals aligned with their authentic trait constellation, which is essential for well-being and success (Roberts et al., 2007).
Enabling Self-Deception Through Avoidance of Criticism
The second facet of this dynamic is the cultural and therapeutic tendency to shield individuals from self-confrontation by discouraging rigorous self-criticism. Many interventions now prioritize unconditional affirmation, creating environments where challenging the individual’s self-narratives — especially those involving subtle or overt dishonesty — is avoided under the guise of "non-judgmental support."
This results in two systemic failures:
The Denial of Lying as a Psychopathology Driver: Authentic confidence cannot emerge without an unwavering commitment to truth-telling, both to oneself and others (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). However, in many modern therapeutic paradigms, the tendency to rationalize, externalize blame, or omit inconvenient facts about one's own behavior is tacitly tolerated, if not subtly reinforced. The individual is often excused from the discomfort of recognizing their complicity in maladaptive patterns, promoting further dissociation from reality.
The Social Complicity of Silence: Peers and practitioners alike frequently engage in the “sin of omission,” whereby they fail to challenge self-serving distortions in others’ narratives. This silence, whether out of politeness, fear of conflict, or misguided empathy, exacerbates the individual’s alienation from truth. Over time, this erodes the motivational clarity and adaptive realism required to navigate adversity effectively (Baumeister & Newman, 1994).
The combined effect of these two forces — denial of existential limitations and avoidance of truth-telling — forms a self-reinforcing cycle that generates a fragile, contingent confidence. It may buoy the individual in the short term, but it lacks the resilience to withstand existential challenges, where biological constraints and moral reality invariably reassert themselves.
In sum, this defensive strategy produces a hollow sense of agency that collapses when exposed to the inevitable tragedies, uncertainties, and limitations that structure human existence.
The Inevitable Consequences of Constructing Fake Confidence
The short-term creation of artificial confidence — through avoidance of existential realities and self-deception — inevitably precipitates a profound disillusionment when confronted by the unyielding conditions of the external world. Psychologically, this collapse is marked by a sharp increase in neuroticism: both volatility (emotional instability) and withdrawal (avoidant coping mechanisms) rise sharply as individuals encounter repeated failures to achieve the outcomes that their inflated expectations have led them to anticipate (DeYoung et al., 2010).
Moreover, this process is accompanied by a progressive erosion of assertiveness. The individual, disoriented by the mismatch between internal narratives and external results, begins to exhibit learned helplessness (Seligman, 1972), relinquishing proactive engagement with the world.
The soldier metaphor encapsulates this tragedy: sending someone into a battle armed with childlike, ineffective weapons under the illusion that the enemy is weak is not a recipe for resilience but for psychological defeat. The only path to short-term "victory" in this paradigm is the unlikely alignment of external reality with naïve internal expectations — an occurrence that is statistically improbable and, if it does occur, merely delays the inevitable encounter with existential limits.
The Camusian Absurd and the Amplified Disillusionment
Taking Albert Camus’ notion of the absurd (1942/1991) further, we encounter a deeper layer of this dilemma. Camus famously observed that the universe is indifferent to human desires — a passive, silent partner in the human condition. However, the tragic insight of existential psychology suggests that, at times, reality does not merely remain indifferent but appears to actively thwart individual expectations. Illnesses, injustices, accidents, and systemic failures strike precisely when least expected, often compounding at once.
This is not pessimism but a sober acknowledgment of the contingency and harshness embedded within Being itself. When unprepared individuals, schooled in over-optimism and false confidence, are inevitably confronted with such existential ruptures, the psychological fallout is intensified. Naïveté, underpinned by illusory self-assurance, morphs into cynicism, despair, or pathological withdrawal.
The Self-Help Industry and the Failure of Collective Illusions
A parallel can be drawn to the exponential rise of self-help and motivational material in modern culture. Despite being marketed as tools to foster self-efficacy and confidence, the insatiable demand for these products and services betrays their failure to offer lasting solutions.
Were such interventions genuinely effective in fostering sustainable confidence, we would expect a stabilization or even decline in the global consumption of motivational content. Instead, we observe an inflationary spiral: the more individuals seek artificial boosts to self-concept via simplified slogans (“You can do anything,” “Your potential is limitless”), the more chronic their underlying disillusionment appears to become.
This phenomenon can be partially explained by the mismatch between these cultural narratives and the immutable aspects of human nature and existential conditions. As evolutionary psychology and psychometrics emphasize, individuals operate within biological constraints that shape their potential, often in ways that do not conform to utopian visions of boundless agency (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992; Roberts et al., 2007).
When external reality punctures these inflated narratives, individuals are left vulnerable to intensified neurotic reactions, decreased assertiveness, and an escalating sense of alienation. In this light, the cultural obsession with confidence-building workshops and hyper-positivist rhetoric becomes less a sign of progress and more a symptom of collective denial.
The Clash with Reality – Neurobiological Foundations of Neuroticism
When the illusion of artificial confidence collides with existential reality, the result is not merely psychological dissonance but a measurable neurobiological disturbance. Both dimensions of neuroticism — volatility and withdrawal — are shaped by dysregulations in key neurochemical systems, which amplify emotional instability and maladaptive coping.
Serotonin
Serotonergic activity is central to emotional regulation and impulse control, particularly through its influence on prefrontal-limbic circuits (Carver et al., 2008). In the case of volatility, serotonin deficits diminish prefrontal inhibition over subcortical structures like the amygdala, reducing emotional braking mechanisms and increasing the likelihood of anger, irritability, and impulsive aggression (Linnoila et al., 1983). Conversely, in withdrawal-prone individuals, low serotonergic tone fosters chronic rumination, hypersensitivity to criticism, and social withdrawal (Canli & Lesch, 2007). Serotonin depletion disrupts emotional homeostasis, leading to either externalized reactivity (volatility) or internalized anxiety and avoidance (withdrawal), depending on the individual’s psychometric and neurobiological profile.
Cortisol
The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and its primary output — cortisol — are key mediators of stress responses. In withdrawal, cortisol is typically chronically elevated due to sustained HPA axis activation (McEwen, 2004), leaving the individual in a prolonged state of hypervigilance and avoidance. In contrast, volatility may initially trigger cortisol surges, but chronic stress exposure can lead to a blunted or flattened cortisol response, impairing the emotional regulation capabilities of the prefrontal cortex (Fries et al., 2005). This dysregulation promotes unchecked irritability and emotional lability. In both cases, cortisol’s imbalance exacerbates neuroticism by weakening executive control over emotional impulses.
Dopamine
The mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway, particularly the nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area, plays a pivotal role in motivation, reward-seeking, and emotional arousal (Wise, 2004). In volatility, dopaminergic hypersensitivity contributes to sensation-seeking, impulsivity, and emotional explosiveness (Zald et al., 2008). Elevated dopamine tone primes individuals for aggressive responses, especially in dominance-oriented social contexts. Conversely, withdrawal is associated with diminished dopaminergic signaling, leading to anhedonia, emotional numbing, and social disengagement (Treadway & Zald, 2011). This dopaminergic deficiency fosters motivational paralysis and a tendency to retreat from challenge or reward-based opportunities.
Norepinephrine
As a core driver of the autonomic nervous system’s fight-or-flight circuitry, norepinephrine amplifies arousal, vigilance, and emotional intensity (Bremner et al., 1996). In volatility, heightened norepinephrine reactivity hyper-sensitizes the amygdala, precipitating emotional outbursts and rage episodes in response to minor provocations (Raine et al., 2000). In contrast, withdrawal is marked by chronic norepinephrine elevation manifesting as anticipatory anxiety, risk aversion, and persistent hypervigilance without overt aggression (Nitschke et al., 2009). In both profiles, the noradrenergic system tilts the organism toward maladaptive responses — outward aggression or inward anxiety — depending on individual differences and contextual triggers.
GABA
Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the brain’s principal inhibitory neurotransmitter, acts as a brake on excitatory neuronal activity, regulating both anxiety and aggression (Ehrlich et al., 2009). In volatility, impaired GABAergic transmission reduces emotional inhibition, lowering the threshold for impulsivity, mood instability, and anger dysregulation (Jiang et al., 2017). In withdrawal, low GABAergic tone exacerbates chronic worry, inner tension, and difficulty modulating fear circuits, particularly within the amygdala-prefrontal circuitry (Etkin & Wager, 2007). Deficient GABA function thus contributes to both dimensions of neuroticism by compromising the neural mechanisms necessary for downregulating excessive arousal.
Integrative Perspective
The neurochemical profile underlying volatility and withdrawal illustrates why artificially constructed confidence inevitably collapses under existential pressures. Without a structurally sound internal architecture, such as one provided by existential instrumentality (e.g., SIVHs), individuals are left at the mercy of dysregulated neurotransmitter systems. Each system — serotonin, cortisol, dopamine, norepinephrine, and GABA — plays a role in modulating the psyche’s response to environmental and internal stressors. However, when external frameworks for meaning and value are deficient, these neurobiological imbalances become the architecture of dysfunction itself, perpetuating the volatile or withdrawn behavioral patterns characteristic of heightened neuroticism.
The Concept of Existential Instrumentality (EI) as a Solution to "Confidence Creation"
To address the inherent limitations of artificially constructing "confidence" — as outlined earlier — this section introduces Existential Instrumentality (EI) as a psychologically grounded, sustainable alternative, operationalized through Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs). EI offers a pathway for stabilizing neurobiological markers of emotional resilience and fostering authentic, long-term confidence.
Existential Instrumentality (EI) is the psychological state in which the individual perceives their life as functionally embedded in a higher-order purpose. This internalized belief acts as a regulatory mechanism, stabilizing neurobiological and affective responses to adversity. Specifically, EI serves to lower baseline neuroticism by:
Downregulating cortisol production through reduced chronic stress perception.
Enhancing serotonergic tone, contributing to emotional regulation and impulse control.
Facilitating positive dopaminergic feedback loops via purposeful action and delayed gratification.
When an individual perceives themselves as an active agent within a meaningful narrative — where their actions contribute to something transcendent—the physiological burden of unpredictability and existential threat is alleviated. This phenomenon mirrors findings from existential and positive psychology, which link perceived purpose with reduced stress responses and enhanced well-being (Frankl, 1946; Ryff & Singer, 1998).
The Core Mechanism: A Purpose-Driven Reduction in Neuroticism
At the heart of EI is the internalized conviction that “within the larger scheme of existence, things will stabilize because my life serves a greater purpose.” While this assertion may, at first glance, appear oversimplified or akin to self-affirmation, its true psychological potency hinges on depth of belief, not on its mere conceptual acknowledgment.
In other words, it is not the intellectual repetition of this proposition that lowers neuroticism, but the degree to which it becomes a deeply embodied reality within the individual's value system. This highlights the essential role of SIVHs: by generating a coherent and singularly directed hierarchy of internal values, the individual secures a psychological anchor point that buffers against existential uncertainty.
Critically, such anchoring cannot be imposed solely through cognitive reframing or “positive thinking.” Authentic existential instrumentality emerges through action-based evidence accumulation. It is only through the retrospective integration of repeated, value-aligned behaviors that the individual can generate a “chain of experiential credibility.” Over time, this consistency forges what is perceived as "earned confidence," rooted in the experiential reality of sustained action toward higher-order goals.
Differentiation from Artificial Confidence Constructs
Unlike pseudo-confidence techniques that rely on momentary cognitive distortions or environmental minimization, EI derives its regulatory power from an ontological alignment with existential conditions. Rather than shielding the self from the inherent tragedies and uncertainties of existence, EI provides a framework to endure and integrate them. In this respect, EI mirrors Viktor Frankl’s (1946) logotherapeutic principle that meaning acts as a bulwark against suffering, but it moves beyond mere meaning-making by structuring this meaning within a psychometrically verifiable value hierarchy (SIVH).
Thus, existential instrumentality serves as an antidote to the double-nature problem previously described. It resists both:
The illusion of a “benevolent universe” where negative outcomes are improbable or inconsequential.
The internalized fallacy that one is already fully equipped for all challenges without requisite growth, humility, or strategic self-assessment.
In sum, EI is an integrative model for sustained confidence, merging existential psychology with value hierarchy theory and neurobiological stabilization.
SIVHs – The Instrumental Mechanism within Existential Instrumentality
At the structural core of Existential Instrumentality (EI) lies the concept of Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs). While SIVHs themselves represent a framework for internal organization of values, their true functional role within EI is not merely organizational, but instrumental. The term “instrumental” here should not be misunderstood as referring to external tools or strategies; rather, it points to a fundamental psychological reorientation, whereby the individual conceptualizes themselves as an instrument in service of a value that transcends the self.
In this model, the conquest of existential angst — and the byproduct of genuine confidence — arises from subordinating the self to a singular, higher-order purpose. In practical terms, the individual no longer orients their actions solely toward self-serving outcomes, but instead toward a meta-goal or value structure that operates beyond immediate personal gratification or ego defense.
This inversion of focus is counterintuitive within modern individualistic paradigms, which often emphasize self-actualization in purely personal terms. Instead, EI, when operationalized through SIVHs, proposes that true psychological stability and confidence stem from perceiving oneself as a functioning component of a larger, value-oriented system.
The Mechanics: The Self as Tool, Not as End
From the perspective of EI, the individual becomes a means, not the end, within the hierarchy they construct. This reframing achieves two critical psychological outcomes:
Reduction of Existential Anxiety: By positioning oneself in service of an externalized, coherent purpose, the internal focus on self-preservation, self-image, and self-sufficiency is mitigated. This allows the individual to tolerate existential uncertainty and setbacks with greater equanimity, as personal hardship becomes instrumentalized within a larger narrative of meaningful striving.
Facilitation of Psychological Resilience and Confidence: When the self is subordinated to a transcendent aim, emotional responses to failure or adversity are buffered by the perceived continuity of purpose. Failures or setbacks lose their existential threat value when interpreted as mere fluctuations within a long-term, purpose-driven trajectory. This realignment directly stabilizes neurobiological stress circuits (e.g., cortisol, serotonin, dopamine), supporting durable reductions in neuroticism.
The individual who successfully integrates SIVHs into their self-concept internalizes an existential logic: "I am not the ultimate endpoint of my actions; I am the executor of a purpose higher than myself." This psychodynamic shift mirrors insights from philosophical traditions, such as Kierkegaard’s teleological suspension of the ethical or Frankl’s logotherapeutic focus on meaning beyond the self, yet formalizes them within a psychometric framework.
Ultimately, SIVHs provide the scaffolding through which existential instrumentality becomes actionable, measurable, and trainable — allowing the individual to structure life not around transient, ego-based needs, but around a singular, stabilizing value system capable of generating authentic confidence as a byproduct of alignment with Being itself.
Heideggerian Perspective – The Self as Zuhanden, Not Vorhanden
Incorporating Heideggerian ontology provides a valuable lens through which the mechanics of Existential Instrumentality (EI) can be deepened and contextualized. Specifically, EI aligns closely with Heidegger’s distinction between zuhandenheit (readiness-to-hand) and vorhandenheit (presence-at-hand), a key bifurcation within his phenomenology of Being (Sein und Zeit, 1927).
From this standpoint, EI invites the individual to reframe themselves as zuhanden—a tool whose significance is realized through its engagement in purposeful activity — rather than as vorhanden, a detached object of analysis or contemplation. Just as a hammer is not fully "understood" when merely observed, but only when grasped and used for its intended function, so too is the self not fully integrated or stable when it is regarded primarily as an isolated phenomenon.
Advanced application:
Zuhandenheit in the context of EI implies that the self achieves ontological stability by becoming ready-to-hand—a conduit for enacting a transcendent purpose or Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH). In this mode, one’s focus is directed outward, toward the utility and contribution of the self within a broader existential or cultural framework.
Vorhandenheit, by contrast, aligns with the self that has become "objectified," studied or scrutinized primarily through its idiosyncratic features, detached from context and higher-order purpose. While Heidegger emphasizes that both modes of Being are inevitable aspects of Dasein, EI posits that excessive orientation toward vorhandenheit fosters over-intellectualization, paralyzing self-reflection, and eventually existential stagnation.
The Instrumental Path to Self-Actualization
It is crucial to clarify that EI does not advocate for the rejection of self-awareness or self-actualization. Rather, it suggests that genuine self-actualization is only attainable when one first integrates themselves into a purposeful structure — becoming a "tool" for something greater than personal gratification or self-referential pursuits. In Heideggerian terms, this means fully participating in the worldhood of the world, becoming an agent of unfolding meaning rather than merely an isolated observer.
This interpretation also resonates with Heidegger’s later emphasis on care (Sorge) as the fundamental mode of Dasein. To "care" in the Heideggerian sense is to be attuned to the facticity of one’s existence and its embeddedness within a larger web of relationships and projects. Through this lens, Existential Instrumentality is not a denial of the self but its most stable and fertile mode of disclosure — truth emerging through function.
In sum, by adopting zuhandenheit as the orientation of the self — seeing oneself as an instrument in service of a Structured Internal Value Hierarchy — the individual simultaneously minimizes existential angst, reduces neurotic tendencies, and generates the ontological conditions necessary for authentic confidence to emerge as a byproduct of Being-in-the-world.
SIVHs as a Comprehensive Solution to Existential Instrumentality
Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) offer a foundational mechanism for constructing a coherent and sustainable framework of meaning within an individual's life. By establishing a monotheistic value system — where one central, transcendent value is elevated above the self — the SIVH model aligns the individual’s actions with a long-term, purpose-driven trajectory.
Such a value may manifest as family, legacy, scientific contribution, social justice, spiritual devotion, or any other singular focus that provides enduring significance beyond self-referential goals. In practice, the SIVH system enables individuals to anchor their daily activities within this overarching aim, thus generating existential coherence and resilience.
Habitualization and Value-Driven Action
One of the key mechanisms by which SIVHs cultivate confidence is through behavioral habitualization. By consistently subordinating immediate desires to the demands of the higher-order value, individuals engage in repeated action patterns that strengthen their self-concept and reduce cognitive dissonance. Over time, this habitual alignment generates a feedback loop of existential validation, as purposeful behavior is reinforced by internal and external cues of progress and congruence.
The Contrast with Modern Positivistic Models
While contemporary discourse often emphasizes personal happiness, self-esteem, or emotional well-being as primary goals, these pursuits are frequently fragile and reactive to external circumstances. In contrast, SIVHs promote a value-anchored orientation that stabilizes emotional fluctuations by focusing the individual on something external and enduring.
Although this approach may run counter to popular cultural narratives that prioritize self-fulfillment or hedonic well-being, it provides a more robust and empirically sound path to long-term psychological resilience and what is colloquially referred to as "confidence."
Whereas pseudo-positive psychology often encourages cognitive reframing or surface-level optimism in isolation, the SIVH framework tackles existential uncertainty and neurotic instability at their root by repositioning the self in relation to a singular, guiding principle.
Existential Instrumentality as the Underlying Mechanism
In the context of Existential Instrumentality (EI), SIVHs represent the structural armature through which the individual assumes the role of an instrument in service of their monotheistic value. Rather than seeking self-actualization solely through internal states or momentary feelings of efficacy, EI situates the person as a functional agent within a higher-order system.
Confidence, in this model, ceases to be a goal in itself and instead becomes an emergent property — the psychological byproduct of a life lived in alignment with clearly defined existential priorities.
The Power of Existential Instrumentality: An Antidote to Existential Angst
While some critics might argue that one must first "achieve happiness" before dedicating oneself to serving others, Existential Instrumentality (EI) reveals a reversal of this logic. In practice, it is not happiness that precedes purposeful engagement, but purposeful engagement that generates long-term psychological resilience and well-being. EI stands as a robust antidote to the full spectrum of existential anxieties as identified by Irvin Yalom (1980), including the fears of death, freedom, meaninglessness, and isolation.
1. Confronting Death Anxiety
EI reframes the individual's relationship with mortality by reducing the urgency to accumulate hedonic experiences or avoid life's finitude. When one's daily actions are embedded within a system that prioritizes contribution to a transcendent goal — whether legacy, family, or societal good — the proximity of death loses its paralyzing grip. The question is no longer, "How long will I live?" but rather, "Am I fulfilling my role as an instrument in service of a larger aim today?"
By de-centering personal hedonism and emphasizing value-driven action, EI alleviates the panic associated with limited time horizons, providing existential stability even in the face of impermanence.
2. Resolving the Burden of Existential Freedom
EI offers a structured antidote to the paralyzing effects of absolute existential freedom. Where radical freedom can leave individuals feeling "adrift in space," EI places them on a defined pathway — a "staircase" that provides trajectory and orientation. By subordinating the self to a singular value hierarchy, the burden of infinite choice is replaced by committed action within a chosen system of meaning.
This structure reduces the disorientation and inertia often associated with existential freedom, anchoring the individual to clear, purpose-oriented action.
3. Neutralizing the Crisis of Meaninglessness
At its core, EI resolves the problem of meaninglessness by offering a psychologically integrated framework in which meaning is generated through one's contribution to a cause that transcends the self. The construction of a Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) anchors the individual’s actions in a higher-order system that inherently answers the question, "Why continue?" without requiring external validation or endless subjective searching.
In Viktor Frankl's terms, EI mirrors the logotherapeutic principle that meaning arises from purposeful work, relationships, or courageous suffering, yet EI narrows this further by linking meaning to one's instrumental role in a value-based system.
4. Conquering Isolation
Finally, EI serves as a potent remedy to existential isolation, not by dissolving individuality but by embedding the self in a relational and purpose-driven framework. A monotheistic value system — such as family, legacy, or communal service — ensures that the individual’s daily actions reverberate outward, influencing others and solidifying a connection to the broader human story.
By engaging in work that transcends the self, EI generates bonds of significance and belonging that mitigate feelings of alienation or existential loneliness, both in life and symbolically after death.
Keys to the Kingdom of Ends: The Kantian Roots of Existential Instrumentality
Kant’s third formulation of the Categorical Imperative is often overshadowed by its more commonly cited predecessors. Yet, its implications are highly relevant to the concept of Existential Instrumentality (EI). The maxim reads:
“Act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends.” (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 4:439)
Here, Kant invites individuals to see themselves not only as autonomous agents acting out of duty but as legislators of a universal moral order — the Kingdom of Ends — in which every rational being is both sovereign and subject.
Interestingly, although Kant does not explicitly phrase it this way, the structural logic underpinning the Kingdom of Ends aligns closely with the principles of EI. In Kant’s schema, all individuals are simultaneously ends in themselves and contributors to a universal order (the Kingdom of Ends), in which moral maxims are universally applicable. This dual role mirrors the existential instrumentality model, where the individual functions as an instrument (zuhanden) in service of a value or system that transcends the self.
From this vantage point, EI can be viewed as a practical instantiation of Kantian ethics: the individual becomes a willing means — an instrument — to the realization of a moral order that stands above and beyond their subjective desires. The agent's self-concept, therefore, is rooted in purpose-driven action aimed at sustaining or advancing the broader ethical ecosystem in which they operate.
Existential Instrumentality as Kantian in Essence
In this context, Existential Instrumentality is inherently Kantian. It reaffirms that freedom does not rest in unbounded self-determination, but in binding oneself to a universalizable value hierarchy—becoming the means to a collective end. Just as Kantian autonomy entails self-legislation according to principles that could be adopted by all rational beings, EI calls for the subordination of the individual to a singular, transcendent purpose that serves the Kingdom of Ends.
Thus, EI unifies core elements of German Romanticism — with its emphasis on purpose, meaning, and transcendent aims — with Existentialist thought, which grapples with the void of meaning in the face of freedom. Where Sartre famously concluded that "existence precedes essence," the logic of EI suggests that while the individual exists freely, their essence is only fully realized when they act as a purposeful instrument within an enduring moral structure.
In short, Existential Instrumentality bridges the historical gap between Kantian deontology and existentialist ethics, offering a psychologically viable pathway for individuals to resolve existential angst by embracing their role as contributors to the metaphysical Kingdom of Ends.
Identity Formation Through Constant Meaningful Action
One of the most profound applications of Existential Instrumentality (EI) lies in its role in identity formation, particularly when framed through the lens of consistent, purpose-driven action. Within this framework, identity is not a static psychological artifact but an emergent property generated through the continuous engagement in meaningful activities that serve a value system transcending the self.
A key proposition of EI is that identity coherence and psychological resilience — commonly associated with what is colloquially termed “confidence”—stem from one’s sustained commitment to a structured hierarchy of values. This aligns with well-documented principles in developmental and moral psychology, where self-concept clarity and self-efficacyemerge most robustly when individuals anchor themselves to stable, long-term goals and moral frameworks (McAdams & McLean, 2013; Bandura, 1997).
The Role of Religion as a Template for SIVHs
While Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) can theoretically be built around secular or individualized systems of values, religion historically and cross-culturally stands out as one of the most effective and enduring models for such hierarchical structuring. Organized religions typically provide a monotheistic or transcendent top value—be it God, Dharma, or a cosmological principle — which serves as the ultimate orienting principle. Beneath this top value, a cascade of subordinate aims (e.g., moral duties, communal obligations, personal virtues) structures the believer’s daily actions and long-term pursuits.
This monotheistic structuring of values provides several distinct psychological benefits that mirror the goals of EI:
Existential anchoring: The individual’s life narrative is positioned within a broader cosmological and moral order, reducing existential uncertainty.
Moral clarity: A well-defined value hierarchy simplifies decision-making and reduces cognitive dissonance in ethically ambiguous situations.
Sustainable motivation: The sense of working toward a transcendent aim generates resilience against short-term frustrations or setbacks.
Although religion may represent the idealized or archetypal manifestation of an SIVH, EI, as a model, does not require explicit religiosity to function effectively. Any internally structured system that places a singular, non-egoic value at the apex of one’s motivational hierarchy can serve the same stabilizing role.
From Belief to Embodied Confidence
Thus, in the context of confidence creation, EI demonstrates that psychological security and composure arise not from superficial affirmations or reframing tactics but from the empirical accumulation of actions that align with a transcendent value system. When one persistently acts in accordance with a personally constructed or culturally inherited SIVH, they gradually embody the belief that:
“In the overall context, things will be okay, because my life serves a purpose beyond myself.”
This belief is not cognitive wishful thinking but the byproduct of lived consistency — a conviction rooted in the historical pattern of one's actions and their alignment with something greater than transient emotional states or circumstantial fluctuations.
In summary, EI provides both a philosophical model and a practical roadmap for how purposeful action can scaffold a stable identity and reduce neurotic vulnerabilities by engaging with timeless mechanisms of meaning-making and existential grounding.
Some of the References Used for the Article
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516.
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2010). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896.
Heidegger, M. (1927/1962). Being and Time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Harper & Row.
Frankl, V. E. (1946). Man's Search for Meaning. Beacon Press.
Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. Free Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Bouchard, T. J., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and personality. Behavior Genetics, 31(3), 243–273.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 3–23.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2007). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25.
Baumeister, R. F., & Newman, L. S. (1994). How stories make sense of personal experiences: Motives that shape autobiographical narratives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 676–690.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual Review of Medicine, 23, 407–412.
Camus, A. (1942/1991). The Myth of Sisyphus. Vintage International.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The Adapted Mind (pp. 19–136). Oxford University Press.
Carver, C. S., Johnson, S. L., & Joormann, J. (2008). Serotonergic function, two-mode models of self-regulation, and vulnerability to depression: What depression has in common with impulsive aggression. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 912–943.
Linnoila, M., Virkkunen, M., Scheinin, M., Nuutila, A., Rimon, R., & Goodwin, F. K. (1983). Low cerebrospinal fluid 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid concentration differentiates impulsive from nonimpulsive violent behavior. Life Sciences, 33(26), 2609–2614.
Canli, T., & Lesch, K. P. (2007). Long story short: The serotonin transporter in emotion regulation and social cognition. Nature Neuroscience, 10(9), 1103–1109.
McEwen, B. S. (2004). Protection and damage from acute and chronic stress. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1032(1), 1–7.
Fries, E., Hesse, J., Hellhammer, J., & Hellhammer, D. H. (2005). A new view on hypocortisolism. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30(10), 1010–1016.
Wise, R. A. (2004). Dopamine, learning and motivation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(6), 483–494.
Zald, D. H., Cowan, R. L., Riccardi, P., Baldwin, R. M., Ansari, M. S., Li, R., ... & Kessler, R. M. (2008). Midbrain dopamine receptor availability is inversely associated with novelty-seeking traits in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(53), 14372–14378.
Treadway, M. T., & Zald, D. H. (2011). Reconsidering anhedonia in depression: Lessons from translational neuroscience. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 537–555.
Bremner, J. D., Krystal, J. H., Southwick, S. M., & Charney, D. S. (1996). Noradrenergic mechanisms in stress and anxiety: I. Preclinical studies. Synapse, 23(1), 28–38.
Raine, A., Venables, P. H., & Williams, M. (2000). Relationships between NAA and serotonin transporter binding in healthy individuals: Implications for impulsivity. Biological Psychiatry, 47(12), 1114–1123.
Nitschke, J. B., Sarinopoulos, I., Oathes, D. J., Johnstone, T., Whalen, P. J., Davidson, R. J., & Kalin, N. H. (2009). Anticipatory activation in the amygdala and anterior cingulate in generalized anxiety disorder and prediction of treatment response. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166(3), 302–310.
Ehrlich, I., Humeau, Y., Grenier, F., Ciocchi, S., Herry, C., & Lüthi, A. (2009). Amygdala inhibitory circuits and the control of fear memory. Neuron, 62(6), 757–771.
Jiang, X., Xu, Y., Zhu, Y., Chen, S., & Zhang, J. (2017). GABAergic signaling and neuropsychiatric disorders. Neuroscience Bulletin, 33(4), 446–458.
Etkin, A., & Wager, T. D. (2007). Functional neuroimaging of anxiety: A meta-analysis of emotional processing in PTSD, social anxiety disorder, and specific phobia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164(10), 1476–1488.
Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential Psychotherapy. Basic Books.
Kant, I. (1785/2011). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative identity. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity (pp. 36–69). Guilford Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. Oxford University Press.
