Hacker News Reader

Comment by necovek | Hacker News Reader

As a counter point, I've also seen plenty people too focused on doing every little step up to some imagined standards that they never get to complete anything — basically, life intervenes and they got to leave with nothing really done at all.

I am personally goal motivated: I like achieving and building things (I enjoy the process in as much as I got the better of it :)). When things are complex, I come up with smaller goals that are on the path to getting the big thing done, all the while thinking how these things fit together.

This has made me great at coming up with iterative steps where each step brings value: even if I stop at any one point, I have done something useful.

In your example, I would probably dismantle the car enough to get the engine out and rebuilt and back in, and then go back to it sometime in the future to work on other stuff, all the while keeping a functioning car as I am rebuilding it.

View on HN

> This has made me great at coming up with iterative steps where each step brings value: even if I stop at any one point, I have done something useful.

This is really just getting caught up on semantics, and what you've described is essentially the same as a 'quest mindset'. The goal vs quest mindsets are basically waterfall vs (lowercase a) agile mindsets. In the former you risk building something you don't want or under-allocate resources to achieving it, in the latter, you've realized that you've misestimated what the final outcome will be or should be, and know that there will be a discovery process alongside development.

> basically, life intervenes and they got to leave with nothing really done at all.

And perhaps there is no sense in that journey being 'complete' as there's always some way to improve things. But I think the caution here on the 'quest' mindset, is to still have something functional early on – "Release early, and release often" as it were. But this caution also holds for the 'goal' mindset, perhaps moreso, as there's a higher risk of misunderstanding what 'complete' looks like, or all the side-'goals' you never anticipated, and becoming dismayed when you've found yourself settling in on a loong quest anyway.

> This is really just getting caught up on semantics, and what you've described is essentially the same as a 'quest mindset'. The goal vs quest mindsets are basically waterfall vs (lowercase a) agile mindsets.

But most people describe the difference as "enjoying the process" vs "enjoying the result". I enjoy the result, I only come up with multiple "results" along the way to an "end goal".

Instead of seeing it as a difference in semantics, this is probably how "goal-oriented" people can learn to achieve big things. As in, everybody can get there, and really, this means to me that you can be agile whether you are goal oriented or process/quest oriented.

There's a lot to unpack here. But firstly, "enjoying the process" and "enjoying the result" aren't really in binary opposition. If one weren't to 'enjoy the process' but only 'enjoy the result' they would be working in desperation to reach the end. If one only 'enjoyed the process' they would never finish anything, because completing would be the end of the joy. Porque no los dos?

I'm certain that most people that 'enjoy the process' also enjoy completing things, and are dismayed when there's a trail of half-finished works cluttering their mental (and physical) space. Similarly, I couldn't imagine someone who doesn't 'enjoy the process' ever embarking on anything that has no external motivation (e.g., a paycheck, prestige, etc.). But if we imagine them to actually be in binary opposition, and I had to pick between a life of 'quiet desperation' and eternal enjoyment, I'd probably opt for the latter. And this is as someone who's spent much of my professional career in anguish at the process and desperate to reach the goal to feel that sweet dopamine hit (and a lot of unfinished personal projects in my wake).

> this is probably how "goal-oriented" people can learn to achieve big things

The implication here – again – is that "process enjoyers" don't achieve big things/don't complete things, and perhaps also that "goal enjoyers" fail to achieve less often, and I'm not sure what that assertion is based on.

Perhaps an alleged 'goal-focused' mind is more willing to indulge in a lot of unpleasant work to reach a goal, but then a 'process enjoyer' can enjoy the work instead and also reach the goal. I would say the latter – 'the pig in shit' – is more likely to reach their goals. But perhaps you are under the belief that the 'process enjoyer' is less likely to do things that most people find unpleasant. Once again, I'm not sure what that belief would be based on, but it could be true.

> But firstly, "enjoying the process" and "enjoying the result" aren't really in binary opposition.

Obviously: I assumed we do not need to be explicit that these are not the only options, but that everyone would be somewhere on a continuum between the two extremes, and even then, not all the time in the same spot either (eg depending on the motivation, circumstances etc).

My argument was a counterpoint to someone claiming how "their dad never completed anything because they were goal oriented compared to them" (paraphrasing) to point out that both can achieve things, but also both fail to achieve things.

So your rethoric seems misplaced: I am arguing none of the things you are implying.

> So your rethoric seems misplaced: I am arguing none of the things you are implying.

I was mostly seizing on this line:

> this is probably how "goal-oriented" people can learn to achieve big things

I made the inference here that you meant process-oriented people are, at least, less likely to achieve big things, and that was my mistake. But it lead me on an interesting train of thought, perhaps even doubling down on my assertion: that actually being process-minded is not only as likely but actually more likely to compel someone to achieve great things.

I imagine most people (not necessarily you) look at a Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, or an Elon Musk and go, "They must be really goal-driven". But I couldn't imagine them turning up to work everyday and dread the meetings, talking to staff, and actually doing the work. Most people see this as the daily grind, but for people who enjoy showing up and getting to work, they are more likely to achieve great things.

That's of course not to say they don't savor seeing a rocket launch or something, but I bet they don't dwell on it either. They'll be straight back into the process. It's also not to say that those that enjoy only the goal can't achieve great things, but I'd imagine it would be a lot harder to navigate the 'development hell' that often accompanies such pursuits.

> ...being process-minded is not only as likely but actually more likely to compel someone to achieve great things.

This is the point that I was originally disputing :)

And it is where I disagree: I find the "achieving great things" requires breaking things up into smaller pieces (agile, or engineer mindset), and it's orthogonal to your goal vs process character.

Basically, my counter is that just like badly managed[$] goal-oriented people might suffer through a long process to the goal (and thus give up), badly managed process-oriented people might enjoy the ride too much to not care about the end result. A common saying of "work smart, not hard" kinda supports that too.

[$] I am using "managed" here liberally: they could be self-managed, for instance.

What you need to do to achieve both small but especially big things is to be smart and manage yourself well along with having enough motivation to do it.

And the source of motivation is where I think the only difference is: neither goal nor process does warrant one having enough of it, but they are sources of it for different people.

And again, goal-oriented people do not necessarily dread all of the process, it's just that they get most of their motivation from achieving things. And certainly process-oriented people enjoy achieving things, even if they get motivated with the road as well.

> This is the point that I was originally disputing :)

I did suspect we were at odds with each other somehow!

> requires breaking things up into smaller pieces (agile, or engineer mindset), and it's orthogonal to your goal vs process character

Agreed.

> And again, goal-oriented people do not necessarily dread all of the process

I think much of what I'm saying is that achieving 'great' things probably entails a long road. Management style aside, I think loving the process would greatly improve your odds of going the distance without burnout during the inevitable development hell (e.g., tasks that take longer than anticipated, unanticipated tasks, unanticipated hurdles, etc.) of doing something novel or overwhelming in scale – which I think all 'great' things would have one or both of those characters. But I'm happy to agree to disagree here, and I thank you for the insightful discussion.

> I've also seen plenty people too focused on doing every little step up to some imagined standards that they never get to complete anything

This is the true definition of the Yak Shave.

It's not yak shaving. Yak shaving is (possibly) recursive explosion of seemingly unrelated tasks which are required to complete the original task. The comment fits description of a maladaptive perfectionism.

Not at all. Yak shaving is getting caught up in all the surrounding, sometimes supporting tasks, so you never get to the main task.

Yak shaving is spending time finding the ultimate editor, choosing between syntax highlighters and schemes, configuring git, et c., so you never actually get around to write any code. That is different from wrenching the last nanosecond of optimisation from some not particularly central part of the code.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com