'What has IFA ever done for us...?'

[BAJR]

I think you may have answered your own question... you do not wish to take on any more responsibility... which is fair enough... being good at what you do is good enough. I know Curators who are AIFA and fieldstaff who are MIFA - it all depends at what level of responsibility you are. If you don't want to take on the pressure of running several sites, writing them up, collating reports, managing specialists etc etc... (and I can tell you, as the joint manager of a small company a few years back - it was a massive strain) then thats your perogative. however... remember this is a double edged sword... you can't expect to be top of the archaeotree if you don't take the step up. Taking teh step up means taking a lot more stress and responsibility. Digging a posthole well... great... be proud... making sure all the equipment and the specilaist backup is there to complete the understadning of the posthoole, sorting budgets, dealing with hard deadlines, answering to the client etc.... its not for everyone... and thats the difference... responsibility. I once heard it told to me like this

In charge of a bucket.... PIFA
In charge of the wheelbarrows ... AIFA
In charge of the equipment store ... MIFA

seems fair... although as I said... I think Kevins idea is perfection of a stick!

[GnomeKing]

agreed BAJR - but... Managerial Responsibility also includes taking the opinions of the Post-Hole Experts very seriously, especially when it comes to 'post holes' - at present that opinion can be ignored almost at whim, sometimes consistently so...

more can be done to improve this situation, so that Technical Wizards and Alpha Organisers can use each others skills accordingly for mutual benefits...and so that mutual respect can be born from recognition of specific mutual dependencies.

Even counting on both hands, thier are still more managers than fingers whoes beliefs in their own infallibilities and comprehisve abilities significantly outweighs the observable reality of archaeology in the flesh...

i would be happy to be managed by a person with limited technical archaeological knowledge, so long as that person Truly Recognised the Source of the vital and essential data...and also so long as they did not try to snuffle their noses further into the shared Trough than they actually deserved...

the system is unbalanced at present...there are 'managerial bottlenecks' unconnected with possession of archaeological knowledge or research abilities - it perpetuates a self-harming scramble as many try to squeeze in...unbalanced pay scales reinforce the status-quo and leaves many with no clear options other than Preparing for the Salmon Race - which is presented by the victors as simply the natural Way of the World, and not contingent upon present circumstance...

Top financiers were paid huge salaries because they faced more responsibility (over other peoples monetary Wealth) - not only grossly disproportional, but also where has any responsibility actually been taken when it mattered? The scale may be different in archaeology, but the cultural ethos might not differ altogether in quality.



.

[BAJR]

Now here I can agree with you, and to continue my similes ... a steam engine don't go far with no coal... So I agree that mutual understanding and respect are required, this is a two way process... where the idea that managers are money grabbing pigs that drive about in big cars while buying suits at Saville Row. (I have yet to meet one that does not see viscose as a smart fabric!)

job swaps anyone?

[Dirty Boy]

I agree with Troll completely. I think that 3fold system is the way forward in archaeology. While I don't always work for RAO units, as I've found their qulity variable, I will only work for units that carry out archaeology in terms of best practice, and although I'm not a member, do follow the IFA codes in my work

[Dinosaur]

agreed BAJR - but... Managerial Responsibility also includes taking the opinions of the Post-Hole Experts very seriously, especially when it comes to 'post holes' - at present that opinion can be ignored almost at whim, sometimes consistently so...

more can be done to improve this situation, so that Technical Wizards and Alpha Organisers can use each others skills accordingly for mutual benefits...and so that mutual respect can be born from recognition of specific mutual dependencies.....

Interesting that the managers still have to come and consult the likes of us when it comes down to the technicalities of a tender, like what in reality does this scheme mean, how in practice is any fieldwork to be carried out, how long's it gonna take etc etc etc......can't beat the knowledge and expertise of someone who's actually been doing it a while. Then they write it all down and attach some pound signs....

[BAJR]

I wish it was that easy They just sit about and add pound signs :p:face-kiss: ah... that explains my neuralgia and stress related illness... nothing like a nice stir to start the week :face-stir:

[monty]

I for one would be all for the IFA scrapping its current grading system and resorting to two grades only - Associate and Member. I would not allow direct entry into Member grade and would make all applicants serve a probationary period as Associate (for the sake of arguement lets say 3 years). After 3 years Associates could submit evidence and references to show their aptitude for consideration for Member grade. Otherwise they stay (happily) as AIFA. This would avoid one of the things that annoys me greatly about the IFA which is people deciding to join when a job that recommends MIFA membership comes up and go straight in at the top.

A time spent at AIFA would allow them to explain at interviews that they had had a late llife conversion to the IFA and hadn't just joined cos they saw the colour of the money!!

Hey this is a great idea and would certainly help sort the wheat from the chaff .......................:face-stir:

[Odinn]

Interesting that the managers still have to come and consult the likes of us when it comes down to the technicalities of a tender, like what in reality does this scheme mean, how in practice is any fieldwork to be carried out, how long's it gonna take etc etc etc......can't beat the knowledge and expertise of someone who's actually been doing it a while. Then they write it all down and attach some pound signs....

And there was I thinking that most managers had been post-hole experts in a previous life, before they were promoted to their level of incompetence! Oh well, you live and learn. Presumably the managers have all their field experience excised the moment they get promoted, so they no longer know how long things take to do or how much they cost or how they are done in the field. :0

[Dinosaur]

Seems that way, certainly what can and can't be done within budget/timescale. Also, they by-and-large tend to have a somewhat rose-tinted memory from their now-distant fieldwork days when it comes to how much s**t a shovel-operative can move in a day.....

[Windbag]

And there was I thinking that most managers had been post-hole experts in a previous life, before they were promoted to their level of incompetence! Oh well, you live and learn. Presumably the managers have all their field experience excised the moment they get promoted, so they no longer know how long things take to do or how much they cost or how they are done in the field. :0

With several fieldwork managers of varying field experience, I generally find they suffer from that traditional affliction of British management - over-optimism.