Performance Related Bonuses

[beamo]

Mr Hosty

This topic comes just too late for your enjoyable jousting with the Framework Archaeology zealots at the IFA conference. A 'productivity' bonus was paid to all members of the T5 team at Framework (fieldwork and post-ex) for bringing the project in on time/budget etc. As I was not one of those involved I cannot shed any light on how the sum was divvied up, except that for field staff it related to the amount of days that they had spent on site.

This may have been a good thing from the clients' perspective in terms of getting an incentivised workforce, but it caused some level of resentment at the two organisations that make up FA (Wessex and Oxford). Other field staff at these two organisations had not worked for FA but had spent the equivalent time slogging their guts out on similar large projects (e.g. CTRL) and numerous smaller ones, bringing in money to add to the companies' overall operating surpluses (profits) and yet did not seen even the glimmer of any sign of any bonus payment. This T5 productivity scheme was therefore seen as divisive.

I suppose that the same might happen in any contracting organisation where workers on one project got a bonus whereas those on another didn't. When I worked as a manager for a large unit I remember being told by a new financial officer that manager's performance would be judged by the total profit generated by the projects that they managed. I pointed out that this would be fine by me as long as I had the right to refuse to manage any project that I thought could not be completed within budget - sometimes we were given projects where the finances were already constrained, amd any action by the manager would not be enough to turn them around (damage limitation projects, loss leaders etc). The point was eventually accepted.

Collectivisation - there is at least one archaeological contractor that operates as a co-operative - Southern Archaeological Services, based in Southampton.


Beamo

[Illuminated]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

Illuminated makes some very interesting comments.

for example:

"I can not see how any routine task in field archaeology can be given a set 'standard' time. There are too many variable factors ranging from .....spoil dumping difficulties, not always having the best tool for the job ....

I can also see people making a huge rush for the one or two good mattocks and barrows first thing in the morning. I personally find having good tools is a great benefit to speed and efficiency, but the general standard of tool quality on most sites does not reflect this need (another issue perhaps)."

All other things being equal if there were enough good mattocks and better spoil management etc how much would the speed of an excavation increase. Both of these things are down to poor management. A mattock costs UKP 30 even a slight increase in speed say 2% this could equate to something like a UKP500 per year more pay for a grade III.

If what Illuminated is saying is right then one reason for the poor pay in archaeology is some pretty poor management at a very basic level.

Apologies for the slow reply to this, in which time the debate has moved on.

Just to clarify, spoil management usually has nothing to do with on site management. It is only ever a problem in urban or otherwise consticted sites, and is determined by the size and location of the area being excavated, as specified in the brief being worked to. Any digger with a bit of common sense can see where the best place to dump spoil is and how to best get it there, and has the capability to construct or move a barrow run. It is surprising to hear the view from the office that field archaeologists and their supervisors are running round like headless chickens creating problems for themselves. The problem comes from the original decision on the location of the trench in relation to its surroundings.

In relation to having a set time for digging a type of archaeological feature, the physical restrictions of the particular site would be an important factor determining how quickly a particular feature could be excavated, and one that varies widely.

As for tool conditions, the majority i've seen are in a worn but useable state, and a lot of it comes down to personal preference. I prefer a mattock with the longest blade and heaviest weight of head i can find, others may prefer the lighter ones with shorter blades, or even those with the arm jarring plastic handles. If my performance was being judged against others for cash on a criteria of speed, I would feel hard done by if i couldn't get what I thought was the best tool for the job. Specifying in a brief that adequate tools must be provided can do no harm, as many tools provided are substandard and barely fit for purpose.

My view is that while a stakeholder / profitshare scheme may be a good thing, archaeology as an industry is fundamentally unsuited to perfomance related bonuses. Speed of completion is the only way this bonus could be earned, and that speed could only come about through rushing, corner cutting, or not finding what was expected. The vast majority of field archaeologists are doing their best anyway, and a bit of extra cash would not speed them up.

It was mentioned above some jobs have tighter financial constraints than others, and the trend is to underbudget in relation to archaeological potential rather than provide sufficient contingency. Putting a performance related bonus on a jobs like these (most jobs i've worked on) is a joke.
Perhaps the most fundamental and overlooked point about performance bonuses, speed and archaeology is that WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO FIND UNTILL WE HAVE EXCAVATED IT. That is why we are excavating in the first place. To put a fixed cost on an unknowm is hard enough (hence contigency monies). To put a speed related bonus on top is ridiculous.

[mercenary]

I absolutely hate the whole concept of work incentives in site based archaeology. I've seen its divisive and demotivating results in other industries and cannot think of many applications in archaeology where it might be useful. A possible exception might be finds or specialist work involving 'piece work', but certainly not anything in the field.

As an academic exercise I can understand Dr. Pete's desire to put aside for the moment the issue of standards to engender debate, but the resulting debate is going to be pretty sterile is it not? Also, an assumption that an incentive system could work without standards being lowered assumes that there is inefficiency in the system. More to the point it implies that the inefficiency is with the excavators. (Bad management is going to be difficult to improve with incentives I feel) Compared to every other industry I've been part of, and I've seen a few, archaeological excavators graft. The one's that don't, have generally been demotivated to the point where they don't give a s**t anymore and are about to leave the profession. (Also difficult to incentivise) So not a lot of inefficiency there.

Central to the problems in archaeology is the standards vs. time/profit equation. In every company I have worked for this has translated into an adversarial system where the managers are pushing for quicker work and resulting higher profit, while the excavator's (most of them) are pushing for more time and higher standards of work. The resulting compromise varies a bit depending on the experience/bolshiness of the excavators and the ruthlessness of the manager, but seems to work. I long ago gave up on the curator having any real impact on the standard of site work, except in the most extreme cases, and sometimes not even then.

Any incentive system for field work would remove this balance at the expence of archaeological standards. Nothing could be clearer.

I am even cautious about co-operative units, for the same reasons. Good idea in theory, but I can see individuals who are concerned about standards pretty quickly falling out with those that are more profit oriented.

Sorry to be so negative.

[drpeterwardle]

mercenary said

Any incentive system for field work would remove this balance at the expence of archaeological standards. Nothing could be clearer.

Would an incentive scheme which rewarded quality be a bad thing?
Errors in the field increase post X costs. Therefore this could be cost effective.

As I have said before I see intrinsic difficulties in this kind of scheme in fieldwork but I think it is at least worth exploring.

Peter Wardle

[Illuminated]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

mercenary said

Any incentive system for field work would remove this balance at the expence of archaeological standards. Nothing could be clearer.

Would an incentive scheme which rewarded quality be a bad thing?
Errors in the field increase post X costs. Therefore this could be cost effective.

As I have said before I see intrinsic difficulties in this kind of scheme in fieldwork but I think it is at least worth exploring.

Peter Wardle

I don't think anyone could agree as to what constituted 'quality', and I'm sure no one could agree who should be in a position as to judge what was quality. Judging quality in any meaningful way would be very labour intensive too, and I can't see it being cost effective.
I'd echo previous points about the divisiveness and damage to morale caused by any known practical application of performance related bonuses on an individual level - it becomes a case of knowing how to play the game and box ticking, whilst genuine hard workers producing good work are overlooked.

If a unit could be financially rewarded (by a curator perhaps - in my experience debateable as to their ability to judge quality) for a sound brief, thoroughly carried out with an excellent archive and timely reports, that would be a great thing.

Apologies for caps in my last post - a change of colour has been demonstrated to be more effective for emphasis.

[drpeterwardle]

Illuminated said

"I don't think anyone could agree as to what constituted 'quality', and I'm sure no one could agree who should be in a position as to judge what was quality."

I find this statement interesting. If nobody agrees what constitutes quality surely we have no minimum standard in archaeology and can never have one. Surely a key element in the quality of a project is the quality of the work done by the individual site assistant.

Peter Wardle

[Illuminated]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

Illuminated said

"I don't think anyone could agree as to what constituted 'quality', and I'm sure no one could agree who should be in a position as to judge what was quality."

I find this statement interesting. If nobody agrees what constitutes quality surely we have no minimum standard in archaeology and can never have one. Surely a key element in the quality of a project is the quality of the work done by the individual site assistant.

Peter Wardle

I'm glad you're finding my comments so 'interesting'!

Minimum standards are just that - a lowest common denominator of what is acceptable practice.
High, rewardable quality is another thing to judge alltogether.

I totally agree that the individual site assistant has responsibility for their quality of work. Again, as stated before many times, people do not work in field archaeology for an easy life, and it is a safe bet any given site assistant is giving of their best to the limit of their ability and experience.

This willingness is at the moment exploited by employers who also dictate standards field assistants are uncomfortable with.