A Regular Week

One more week has passed since the challenge began, and we can certainly now register what this “half” experience has been like.

First of all, it is important to stress how “different” and “challenging” it is to work with very different profiles (in terms of culture, professions, feelings, etc.). This has undoubtedly allowed for a very diverse and enriching atmosphere, but it has also generated friction (although very minimal) between group relations.
I believe that the fact that there are frictions within the group is logical, bearing in mind that there are very different realities (times and spaces) and motivations (in relation to the academic load, the existence of some kind of evaluation, the theme of the challenge, among others) in each member. Despite the above, I also believe that everyone, within their own reality and time, dedicates a degree of effort and emotion to the project. What is the basis of this statement? is my comparison objective to say that I contribute more than anyone else? could there be a reason that is more accurate? is time my axis of reference? what about “effort” and “contribution?
In short, sometimes we fall into conflicts taking ourselves as a point of reference and forget the realities and motivations behind each person.

Another point to highlight is how bureaucracy affects project and group performance. It is interesting to raise this point because, when Max Weber identified and classified bureaucracy, he did so by postulating that the goal of bureaucracy was par excellence to achieve effectiveness, and of course, objectives are achieved effectively, but often not efficiently. I will use the transcripts of the interviews as an example, since the fact of transcribing each of the interviews word for word is an arduous and tedious process, although it is perhaps necessary in order to have conclusive evidence and standardized support for the data obtained for processing, on the other hand, if we apply the logic of “opportunity cost”, by dedicating a group session solely to transcribing these interviews we are choosing to renounce the option of discussing, sharing and summarizing the most relevant information obtained by each of the members at the time, and there it is relevant to talk about the priorities.

Moving to another point, it is important to mention that the level has been decreasing with the passing of the weeks, possibly due to a “fatigue” effect typical of the activities carried out, and it is that carrying out or applying the methodology is not an easy task, however it is remarkable to continue forward and not be overcome by stress or anxiety.

In short, the challenge has had very marked stages in terms of diversity of opinion and culture, as well as frictions due to these differences in their forms of motivation and realities, since it is not like an ordinary subject where everyone has a similar academic load or at least comes from similar careers. Another point to highlight was the bureaucracy within LaPassion and within the same group, because while this often allows standardizing and achieving the objectives, many others do not ensure the efficiency or productivity of the activities. And finally it is important to note that during these weeks the energy (taking into account the first week as a starting point) has indeed been decreasing due to possible wear and tear due to all these things already mentioned.

Until the next Post!

What do you think about this post?