Imagine two strict modes of living. In one, only the method matters. In the other, only the result matters. We will call the first Methodism and the second Resultism. Both contain truth, both distort reality when taken to extremes. The aim is a principled balance that delivers outcomes without sacrificing integrity or learning.
Methodism: virtue in the how
Definition
Methodism values process, rules, craft, and repeatability above all. Success is measured by fidelity to the method.
Strengths
- Reliability and safety
- Transparent steps that others can audit or teach
- Strong culture of mastery and patience
- Easier troubleshooting because the path is clear
Failure mode
- Rigidity that ignores context
- Slow response to new information
- Comfort in activity that may not create value
Resultism: virtue in the what
Definition
Resultism values outcomes, impact, and measurable change above all. Success is measured by what the world looks like after the work.
Strengths
- Focus on real value and customer impact
- Speed, adaptation, and experimentation
- Clarity in prioritization and tradeoffs
Failure mode
- Corner cutting that erodes trust
- Unstable systems that break under scale
- Short term wins that create long term debt
Why extremes fail in the real world
- Complex systems require both repeatable methods and responsive adjustments.
- People need trust to collaborate. Trust comes from fair methods and dependable results.
- Learning loops depend on disciplined process to generate clean data, and on outcome focus to decide what to change.
The middle path: Constrained Outcome Craft
This balance treats outcomes as the goal and methods as the guardrails and learning engine.
Principles
- Ends define direction, constraints define behavior
Write the target outcome and the few lines you will not cross. - Process exists to produce evidence
Methods should make it easy to see what worked and why. - Small, honest experiments
Iterate quickly inside the guardrails. Prefer reversible steps. - Repair and record
When mistakes happen, fix the harm, update the playbook, and share the lesson. - Cadence over heroics
Steady cycles beat last minute pushes. Quality accumulates.
A simple framework you can use
1. Write the two anchors
- Outcome: the smallest measurable change that matters
- Constraints: the non negotiables for ethics, safety, and quality
2. Choose a minimal method
- The few steps that make the work observable and teachable
3. Run a thin slice
- Deliver a small version to real users or reality, not just a demo
4. Review with dual scorecards
- Score both the result and the process quality
5. Decide and document
- Keep, change, or kill
- Capture why, so the team gets smarter
Worked example: shipping a feature
- Outcome: raise activation from 45 percent to 55 percent in 30 days
- Constraints: no dark patterns, clear consent, accessibility met
- Method: write a one page spec, pair review, analytics events defined before code
- Thin slice: A and B variants to 10 percent of traffic
- Review: B hits 58 percent, process defects are two missed events and one unclear label
- Decision: ship B, fix the label, update the spec checklist
Signals you are balanced
- You can explain decisions with both numbers and reasons
- Fewer surprises in production, fewer fires to fight
- Users see value sooner, and trust grows over time
- New teammates learn the system quickly and improve it
Habits that keep you centered
- Start meetings with the target outcome, end with the next method step
- Maintain a short list of bright line rules everyone can name
- Time box experiments and publish results, win or lose
- Reward people for improving the system, not just hitting the number
- Hold monthly retros that retire useless steps and strengthen useful ones
Bottom line
Methodism without results becomes ritual. Resultism without methods becomes risk. Choose Constrained Outcome Craft. Let outcomes set the aim, let constraints protect character, and let simple methods generate evidence. That balance produces work you can trust and results you can keep.
