Process oriented vs result oriented

[deathvirtuoso]

I just have to ask this question again. I asked this around a month ago, but failed to get any direct reply. Firstly, are you process oriented or result oriented? And is it related to our types/ functions? Yep, excuse my stupidity. I'm extremely sleep-deprived, because I spent hours typing someone (I just had to be sure!)

 

[TheManBeyond]

Apparently it is related to introvertion or extrovertion, extroverts tend to be result oriented cuz they work in stages, different scenarios, they strive for jumping from one to other, they approach things as they are in that present moment, be them ideas, objects, logic or emotions, introverted people are different cuz they are building a workspace within themselves.
Thus results: what's now, what's objectively proven, what's achievable or what already was achieved, extrovertion while process: what is being built which is a proof by itself even if it's not finished, the fact that's not finished proves we are growing, existing, subjective, it's building us at the same time we build it, introvertion.
Something like that.

 

[Brontosaurie]

It depends. Sometimes i have a difficult time with ritualistic routines, clearly superfluous in relation to the tangible result. Typically it's stuff that people expect each other to do in order to secure that everyone feels that everyone is properly engaged and responsible. This would indicate that i am a result oriented person, comparatively. I want to take shortcuts, but that would violate proper form.

On the other hand, i am never satisfied with just the words, or the surface-level explanation. I need to get into things and understand them, not just apply them. I want to go through the process of knowledge generation. I get lost in thoughts as i feel a compulsion to maintain their meaning by revisiting the process of their discovery. Unless the real substantive meaning is there, i don't care what is true or what applies. This then is of course a process-oriented tendency.

So yeah, it depends. Am i misreading the question or something?

 

[EditorOne]

I'm not even sure how "results" works. I tended to focus on processes, which, in journalism, involves a whole lot of cool stuff. For innovation work, I'd envision a result, like more daily visitors on our newspaper website, and then work backward to imagine all the steps getting us from where we were to where we wanted to be - and each of those steps, of course, involved a new or adjusted process we'd follow. Sometimes it involved buying equipment or software or creating new job descriptions, but those were all part of the process.
For troubleshooting, same thing, my assumption (this in my 'leadership' jobs) going in was if there was a problem there was a flaw in the process. I kind of liked W. Edwards Deming, because when you applied his 14 points it was hand-in-glove with a lot of the creativity and creative people you get in some phases of journalism: Immerse yourself in the details, let it percolate, and insights materialize. Yes, needed detailed information, but it all kind of got processed either subconsciously or through following a detailed outline for the actual processing. Now, sometimes it turned out to be not the process but a shit disturber somewhere in the mix, but examining the processes almost always "outed" the malefactor. (Not everyone comes to work intending to do a good job. Some people come to work and measure success by how much they can get away with. Others come to work determined to prove they should have your job, and sabotage things deliberately. Some people are incompetent, others are in the wrong job. Some people are just shitheads.)

I'm not sure what "results" all by themselves look like. Is that the part where people yell and scream about meeting goals but have no help or specific ideas about how to get there? Worked for a few people like that.

 

[deathvirtuoso]

Ah, I've read all your points well. I pose this question, because I can't quite define results myself as well. It seems like there aren't concrete results to me. Nothing seems to be the end to me. Maybe not even death. So, I can't tell if I'm results or process oriented.

@Brontosaurie
Nope, you're not.

 

[Kuu]

are you process oriented or result oriented?

What does this even mean? Why must one fit either of these categories? What if I am neither?

 

[viche]

In socionics process orientation is attributes to Process types, that if converted to MBTI by strong functions are: INFP, ENFJ, INTJ, ENTP, ISTP, ESTJ, ISFJ, ESFP.

Their TiNe type, which closely corresponds to INTP, is mentioned as being result oriented. This is expressed as the inclination of INTPs to see the system as a whole, to mentally distance and take a "bird's eye" or "panoramic" view of any subject that they are researching, and not be mindful and observant of details (or have to strain themselves to "zoom in" to them). This is extrapolated upon in the thinking style they are assigned in socionics.

This sets the TiNe type from FiNe (MBTI INFP) and TiSe (MBTI ISTP) types, both of which are listed as process-oriented.


Of course, it would be nice to hear INTP feedback and take on this

 

[Happy]

Both and neither.

Why would anyone strive to be one or the other? They're co-dependent, no? Excuse my ignorance

Process leads to results. If you want to be results oriented, you must be process oriented - how else would you get there? If you want to be process oriented, you must have a result in mind - what else would your process be based on?

I may have interpreted this completely wrong. I'm confused

 

[PmjPmj]

Results oriented.

The most effective process (which I can fathom, at least) is devised, but once I launch into action I'm all about the results. The process is just the journey.

... if that at all makes sense.

 

[Absurdity]

Perfectionist so both.

 

[Grayman]

I live understand and breath the process and aim for the results. I do not aim for a process and live for results.