This seems incorrect. The archetypal process-oriented professional in my book is the money-making poker player. In poker, you cannot control the result of any

This seems incorrect. The archetypal process-oriented professional in my book is the money-making poker player. In poker, you cannot control the result of any hand -- not even the result of a week's play. To achieve long-term success, you must have a good process for your playing, and not be influenced by the results. A good process sets you up for the best chance of success, but it cannot guarantee success. If you start to adjust based on results (and not deeper changes to the causal matrix -- these are process-informed changes) you'll do worse. Edwards Deming called this "tampering". The same thing applies, of course, in business. The greatest process will produce bad results if you're unlucky with uncontrollable external factors. A bad process can by chance produce good results if you're lucky with uncontrollable external factors. You cannot judge a process by its results in individual instances alone. Judgment of a process must be made in terms of theory, repeated experiment, and long-term tendencies of the outcomes. And, as in poker, any long-term successful business is process-oriented. They carefully build processes that set them up for greatest chance of repeated success. Any results-oriented business has -- by de-emphasising the process -- no way to influence the outcome. They are "driving on the highway by looking at the centre line in the rear view mirror" as someone put it. Theory and process is the only thing that can tell you anything about future results. I strongly recommend reading Deming's The New Economics.