Second, procrastination is fine in high school and even acceptable in college. But it’s less tenable in work, where projects may be big and other people are waiting on you to pass the project to the next person in the pipeline, or where the quality required of the work doesn’t allow for a quick-and-dirty catch-up effort.
Really, it works very well when you are catching up for other people. As a graphic designer, I find myself doing this a lot, and I'm often the last stop before something goes to print or online. The sales/ad people (many of whom are ExxPs, haha) would come in at zero hour with jobs for me & I'd have to make up lost time.
And it's not "quick & dirty" when there's no quality loss. I think that's a big part of the point - if quality is not sacrificed & deadlines are met, then what is the problem?
A problem is the idea that quality only comes from a steady, incremental style. This is VERY Te, which measures things in impersonal, external units (ie. TIME). The more time it takes, the more valuable it must be, right? NO.
I think that the single biggest drawback to the Perceiver approach is: Are you really living up to your full potential if you need a gun to your head (a deadline, that is) in order to get up off the couch? It’s a reactive way of living, i.e., letting outside things like deadlines determine whether you act or not.
As a procrastinator, for years I had lots of to-do lists full of things to do; they languished because they weren’t subject to deadlines. And if I only did things when they became emergencies, then life became a game of crisis management--pulling all-nighters, high levels of stress on big projects, staying up all night before a cross-country drive at the start of vacation in order to get the bills paid and finish up last-minute projects, etc.
The procrastinating lifestyle has its strengths when it comes to execution. But it’s in non-execution where it falls apart. One needs to be proactive at times (act on your environment rather than vice versa) to live up to one’s full potential. And that’s the province of the Judging functions.
/fly in the ointment
I agree there are major drawbacks, which is why I said, "There are still problems to this of course, and many unrelated to merely being Je conflicts...". However, there are major drawbacks to the Je way, and this is discussed waaaaay loss often except in the cutesy "I'm so perfect my only problem is being too perfect" manner. We have to defend the Pe way, because it's the one that is dismissed as lesser. Ideally, the two can really complement each other (as [MENTION=15004]Mia.[/MENTION] touches on in her example of her ESTJ husband & her in chaotic/unstructured situations).
I wouldn't say that P is entirely for "procrastination" and I don't think that's even what they article is entirely describing. The article is describing a process that is largely mental up until a final burst of energy where the mental work is finally manifested as something tangible. The devaluation of that mental work is sad to me....why are we calling it procrastination in every instance when it can lead to quality results?
I remember [MENTION=8074]Seymour[/MENTION] once talking before about problem solving almost unconsciously (and this is likely more applicable to Ne types, as-is mental work which looks like procrastination) while daydreaming or doing something unrelated. This "messing around" is really a part of the process, a process which yields equal results to the slow/steady pace of the Je types.
I'll also say that Je types can have procrastination issues also, but for different reasons, and it plays out differently. And I'll go ahead & say it - they can have serious fails in innovation & quality, possibly more so than Pe types. They often use routine to create a reliable work flow, but doing it the same way can lead to the same results over & over.... and quality can get diminished as little steps get glossed over from the sheer monotony of it, or in becoming overconfident/too comfortable with the routine.
The problem with Pe, as you say, is the need for the gun to the head & when that is no longer inspiring & exciting but stressful or unproductive. The need for deadlines is big, because, as the article notes too, there is basically a poor sense of time passing, and a deadline suddenly gives you a sense of time by putting markers up for you. Again, I see this particularly applicable to Ne types, notorious for being absent-minded. In some ways, I NEED an existing structure to "work around". It's kind of like how people say Ne works outside the box, but we almost need the box too, or else it's just too open-ended & the mental exploring process will go on forever.
However, I also feel like I am more burdened by the monotony of routine than I am by a slightly chaotic lifestyle. Ideally, there's a balance (probably for Je types too), but I can't say I necessarily feel stressed in a negative way when I'm working off the cuff. I need just a certain amount of structure to anchor me, but it doesn't take too much beyond that for me to feel
repressed, not motivated.
I remember reading an interview with a musician (I want to say it was Jack White of the White Stripes; most certainly an ISxP) and he was saying how it's important for him to give himself restrictions when writing new music, and that sometimes the narrower the restrictions, the more creative he gets. Without any restrictions, then he gets stuck or things become bloated as too many ideas go into it. It's a form of editing to have initial restrictions, especially if you're not one who likes to go back & edit when it's finished. Lack of
any restrictions or structure can lead to either no results or something overwrought too.
I've also seen on design TV shows (Project Runyway or whatever) where a super talented P suddenly fails massively because they were given a "do whatever you want" challenge. This is very illustrative to me of the P mindset & the challenge faced when things are
too open-ended. This is a problem with the P mindset, yes.
As much as I might bag on Je structures, I think they are complementary as long as they function as a sort of flexible framework, an initial sketch of a plan,
nothing rigid or oppressive or which must be followed to the letter. It becomes a starting point, a way of limiting the endless possibilities a Ne type might see & waste time mulling over, and it provides the time constraints needed to even have a sense of time passing or to see time as something measurable which can impact you.
I admit I find it really, really hard to create my own structure. I have a high level of self-motivation with just the tiniest bit of structure, but I have trouble creating even the tiniest bit of structure. I think this is due to the nature of Pe types to create structure internally (Ji), which is why projects are structured mentally & not in visible, external steps. It's also a matter of experiencing the external as objective, as separate from you, something incidental you work around/with, not something you can determine yourself. If you DO determine it yourself, then you'll experience it as "not real", or not a part of the objective, external, which makes it lose its urgency because it's something you can too easily reshape & extend - in short, there are no real consequences to it. Even if you create bad consequences, then you know you can take them away!
Mia mentions positive comments as being really good motivators... I also find focusing on
positive consequences over negative ones to work better for self-motivation. If I focus on how finishing a boring task first will maximize the pleasure of my goofing off time afterwards, then I'm more likely to do it than to just skip to goofing off & avoiding the task. This doesn't always work, and it takes focus & self-control, but hey, those are precisely what need to be developed in Pe types.
Learning to create your own structure, one which feels REAL, is the main challenge, IMO. This is why I was mentioning finding some go-to motivators, some ways to turn on your own "act button" instead of needing for something to spontaneously press it. I'm pretty sure Dario Nardi's study mentioned this as a Ne issue - learning how to put yourself in the creative zone instead of just waiting for it to strike you. In the meantime, before you learn to harness & lead your own creative energy, you have to work around existing external structures the best you can or seek out ones which work with your style instead of hampering it.
It's never been a great fit for me though, never one that I could make work long-term, although in truth I can get a lot of stuff accomplished, a prodigious amount even. Is it my best fit, do I get as much pleasure out of stuff? No. I just cannot work as effectively that way, compartmentalize my time that way (schedule relaxation even, fun?) Nope. I used to have the most elaborate beautiful schedules though ... 
.
