Problems can be solved with different mentalities. If we only have the objective in view and strive to achieve it, whatever the cost and without caring about other people, we could say that we are of an “objective mentality”. This differs from what is known as the "objective mind", which is to think about a problem rationally, without sentimentality and passions. The "objective" mind only thinks of winning its own goal, as fast as possible; competition is her instrument and time is her enemy because she does not believe in the process or in the opinions of others, least of all in shared leadership and the leading participation of other people.
Another way to solve our problems is with a “process mentality”, a mind that respects its environment and knows that in order to achieve a goal, it must consider different situations and opinions, because it believes in the participation of more people in a joint effort. Their sin would be their conviction, conscious or unconscious, that everyone can participate in everything and that the process, no matter how long it takes, is always more important than achieving the goal.
During human history we have “solved” many of our problems, motivated by one of these two mentalities, through decisions and projects of individuals and institutions that thought only of their objective or process. The difficulty arises when the conception and exercise of each way are taken to an extreme; the damage, in the first case, is perceived late, once the objective has been achieved, and in the second case, on the verge of the time limit.
Both minds could believe that "The end justifies the means" and be unable to see the consequences of their actions. However, I honestly confess that I cannot state whether or not the two have any of the following ills in common:
An "objective mentality" in the extreme case, would be more prone than that of "process" to assume an attitude of indifference towards those who fall by the wayside and does not care about the pain and injustice that could be caused by achieving their objective; he would burn an entire forest to make way for his cabin. Its law is the struggle for existence and its slogan "the survival of the fittest".
The other mentality, in its extreme exercise, could lead to demagogic manipulations, degenerate the concept of a genuine participation of the people involved, turn the consultation into an indefinite and nebulous process and not arrive, opportunely, at a collective decision to solve the problem.
When facing our problems and designing or executing our plans to solve them, we require, among other conditions, a systemic mentality; one that weighs up all situations and that creates both the importance of the objective and the need for the consultation and reflection process; a mind that does not burn the forest, but opens with care and delicacy, its path to the cabin; to explore reality wisely by "seeing the end in the beginning," as Bahá'u'lláh describes to the wise, and to be able to raise the problem to the level of beginning to find not only its apparent symptoms, but also its causes and roots.
Institutions that form work teams made up of both mentalities and better yet, with systemically-minded people, will surely create a synergy of capacities and talents that ensures the exercise of a healthy consultation process and the achievement of sustainable objectives through application. of wise and empowering solutions.
My purpose in writing these lines is to reflect on the mentality with which we face our family, business, national and international problems:
Do we only seek the objective in record time or do we also believe in the participation process?
By applying a decision, policy or rule, are we measuring, with a systemic mindset, its side and final consequences? Are we seeing the end at the beginning?
Being people and institutions with ethics and morals, do we justify any means to achieve the end that we seek or do we distinguish those who agree with the nature of our end? And the use of these means, is it free from the exercise of a double standard ?
