I would say the default view in our modern culture, tends to be that 'grand goals' when achieved, make for an important, and therefore meaningful, life. So I would look towards the rare advocates of an opposite view to this intuition, rather than the many who hold it.
Candide, as he was returning home, made profound reflections on the Turk’s discourse. “This good old man,” said he to Pangloss and Martin, “appears to me to have chosen for himself a lot much preferable to that of the six kings with whom we had the honor to sup.” … “Neither need you tell me,” said Candide, “that we must take care of our garden.” “You are in the right,” said Pangloss; “for when man was put into the garden of Eden, it was with an intent to dress it: and this proves that man was not born to be idle.” “Work then without disputing,” said Martin; “it is the only way to render life supportable.”
This is typically aphorised as, 'the important thing in life is to tend one's own garden', and interpreted as saying interfering with the affairs of the world is frequently counterproductive and frustrating, whereas paying close attention to 'one's own patch' provides a benefit to everyone, and is universalisable ethical advice in the Kantian sense. Candide is quite polemic, and Voltaire clearly considered his influential writing career to be 'on his patch', despite it's wider impacts.
The Christian basis for this 'garden tending' as an ideal life is clear in this, indeed explicit. Rousseau with his idea of 'the noble savage' broadened that, to suggest simple living allows the best human qualities to flourish, and lives of the greatest 'nobleness' therein. (the Irish 'national poem' The Lake Isle Of Innisfree, inspired by Thoreau's account of attempting to live such a life, are other examples of this view)
The opposite or undermining view is I think not so much that humans need greatness, but a view that 'idleness' is problematic. Adam Smith in his Theory Of Moral Sentiments & Wealth of Nations laid out that view influentially, and certainly that ethic helped create an economic & militarily successful empire, though few now would argue, that created more net happiness..
Who decides what is good, or admirable? As children and young adults we tend to see answers to that as having been set, and work within them. As we mature, and especially through studying philosophy, we realise we can decide for ourselves at least to an extent what is good and admirable, by rethinking assumptions like in my 1st paragraph her, and living 'an examined life'. Further, if we do that, and notice how society changes it's views over time, we can even work consciously to change and influence what is seen as good and admirable, by sharing clearly thought views we can make a case for, by example, etc.
Diogenes is perhaps the best example of someone diverging from society's views about what is good & admirable. He lived a life of poverty, and was enslaved, but was still happy in all situations, and kept his integrity. His example went on to influence Stoics, and so Marcus Aurelius, a person in the opposite circumstance, but in need of the same independent thinking about what was good and admirable, as emperor of Rome - yet is better remembered for his book 'Meditations' which is still very widely read. Who was 'greater'?
When we come to our own views of what is good and admirable, we must be ready to risk being condemned by the crowd. Perhaps for idleness, or for lacking in 'greatness', which may be more tools of empire building culture, than truly worthy things to avoid. Unlike those things, integrity is it's own reward, and I would say the true basis for lasting influence on others, for a Diogenes of an Aurelius. So whether you take up 'great goals' or not, think through and live by your own criteria, and live with integrity, and that will be the basis of a good and admirable life.