Wow... That can be very frustrating to deal with. I've been in your position before too, and it was not good. Do these newbie crew chiefs have an advanced degree? A lot of us have probably heard about the famous example of a freshly-minted MA with no real experience who laid out her field map and compass on the hood of the pickup truck, under the power lines, and wondered why the angles weren't right.

I had my first promotion to crew chief after 3 years of experience, and even then I actually argued against it, because I thought I wasn't ready yet.

Is there something else going on with your company... Are they only promoting from within? Sometimes a firm will just look at the person on the crew who they think might have the best potential, and figure that they can train them from there.

Now, it would be more frustrating if the green crew chief was not willing to listen to any of the opinions of the most experienced crew. Has this been the case?

The problem sounds about normal, but a bit excessive in your case. This really should only arise when the market is flush with work and companies are stretched thin on crew. If this is a standard procedure at these three companies, then I would suggest looking for another place of employ if possible. If not, then offer up your services as crew chief.

I guess it all depends on the newbie. But generally speaking no they should not immediatley be put into a leadership position. Sometimes the stipulations of the contract may require that the crew chief meet SOI standards (hold an MA). However most people right out of school with limited field experience should not be running field crews. I have seen newly grduated crew chiefs do incedibly stupid things like having the crew carry a string 15 meteres long with each crew member holding an end to make sure they maintqain 15 meter intervals. Or, the classic, having the crew march thru a shallow pond just to maintain the straight transect. Experience usually helps develope common sense---but not always!

CMM

No all of the newbie crew chiefs have been straight out of a BA/BS program with maybe 3 months of experience. then they would be put over crews with people who have years and years of experience.

At one of the companies the one kid was atleast a perminant employee. And it is not a case of kids with seniority either. At my current company one of the crew chiefs has the second to least seniority. At my current company it is a case of a moronic PI who promotes people who hang out with him. That is all it takes. Oh it also helps that she does some of his job for him.

In a field of supposed professionals, It doesn't seem like you would have to say hey look at me I have over 7 years of experience make me a crew chief instead of some kid.

At one company the actual owner of the company told me that it was a case of the person that helps make the PI's job easier getting promoted. So appearantly I have to do my job and someone elses to get promoted.

I've run into this at a well-known company that has fine people in the office, but inexperienced, arrogant, ignoramouses as crew chiefs. Their rational is that they were "training" them, but in the meantime, they couldn't have found their own butts with a ten-man crew. Very frustrating, and scary, when you considered that they were in charge of what data went to the field supervisors. The reports produced sounded great, but were based on REAL shakey data... :evil: As noted above, too, they were more interested in exactly straight transects than understanding what they were seeing on them. Heesh... 8-)

These companies are probably hiring "green" Master's, or even worse-BA's, as supervisors, because you, with your knowledge and experience, would be insulted by their meager wages. The bottom line always helps the PI! :)

maybe I'm looking back with rose colored glasses but I seem to remember when I look back to when I started the only people who became crew chiefs were those with masters degrees and those with years (10or so) of experience.

I am going back to school. This fall I am going to start a MA, and I plan to one day start my own company so I don't have to put up with this crap anymore.

you know Indy Jones never had to deal with this!!!
I think I might prefer dealing with the occasional Nazi instead of people who have forgotten where they came from...

one word for this practice -

UNFORGIVABLE.

Not only does it destroy moral of the existing teams but it really puts someone in charge who knows very little. But then, that is exactly what some firms I have seen seem to want - it gives them the ability to lay blame on the field crew for poor reporting, missing sites, etc. even if the crew itself is a good one.

Yuk, Bad Nasty PIs :evil: I spit at them.

The only justification for taking someon with a freshly minted degree to be in charge is if they have worked themselves while getting that degree and have some real experience. Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case that you have described.

My experience has been that often the crew chiefs are people with no degree, but a lot of experience and savy (often 15 years or more). Beside making sense, this gives a good company a way to reward experience for even those folks that do not meet the "academic" criteria to be made project directors - even though they are really doing that job.

The best advice I could give is to get out of those companies as quickly as possible. Good Luck
DM

A theory I have is that some companies prefer these kids. I assume because they dont know that what they are being told to do is shotty work practices. So they do what they are told.

Another thing is we all were pretty willing to go above and beyond when we started. So maybe they see these kids and think that their inititive will make them good workers.

What ever. I still have NO RESPECT for the people who do this. putting someone with no experience as you said not only distroys moral, but is a slap in the face of those with more experince and seniority.
Not only that but it is like saying "please, scre up my project. I beg you."

[quote:="disgruntled"]A theory I have is that some companies prefer these kids. I assume because they dont know that what they are being told to do is shotty work practices. So they do what they are told.

I agree with this comment, and I have heard it confirmed DIRECTLY from the mouth of an HR person at one of these types of companies ("we can train them the way WE want them to work"). Ughhhh.

The other reason this happens is from a budgetary standpoint--but this is also unacceptable from a respect standpoint--i.e. the company doesn't respect the work history, knowledge skills and even the investment in a long-standing employee. If they start out with a "newbie" crew-chief, they can pay them much less than someone who has been around for twenty years who (should be) already paid at a higher rate and understands the increased work levels that are required.

However there are exceptions in BOTH cases-Early on in my career, I had crew chiefs who had been around forever, and were extremely knowledgeable, but just couldn't handle managment of people. They should not be crew chiefs either. If you can't treat your staff like human beings, then you shouldn't have a staff. There's no call for NOT promoting someone who deserves it if the opportunity arises.

I have seen many projects where newbies have been made crew chiefs. Not a fan of the practice. No matter how bright they are it rarely works out unless they know they are in over their heads and ask for help from an experienced person. If they are bright enough to know to ask (rarely) they just might make it. I have at times trained my crew chiefs during the project.

It is a poorly advised practice on the part of the company to hope it works out this way. Because if this doesn’t happen so much time will be lost that it will be an exponential cost to the budget (2-20 people standing around waiting) compared to a couple of dollars an hour.

On the other hand seniority with a company alone does not guarantee a good crew chief. You can have 10 years experience or 1year experience 10 times. You have to know the job and how to deal with the crew, field director, landowners etc.

Sincerely
Robert D Morgan
aka Country Bob

'No matter how bright they are it rarely works out unless they know they are in over their heads and ask for help from an experienced person. If they are bright enough to know to ask (rarely) they just might make it. I have at times trained my crew chiefs during the project."

Okay, what do you highly experienced folks think of that particular situation? You've got a crewchief, fresh out of college (lets say MA), with a minimum of experience...BUT, that chief is friendly, aware of their lack of experience, and asks for advice and guidance from the more seasoned professionals on the crew.

Would this be an annoyance (lets assume that they take your advice)...somoene getting paid more than you but using your expertise, or is it okay, a chance to teach someone who is eager to learn?

Experience is important for supervising in any industry. That doesn't mean a "newbie" can't handle it, but I would advise against it. Just like you would hire a more experienced field tech over a green one. Some companies are willing to bill out that "learning curve" to their clients though to get their people trained and experienced. It is good to listen to your more experienced crew and ask them questions, but crew chiefs need to remember they are getting paid to know how to do their job, not ride the coat tails of their crew. That is why you pay them more money than the crew, to make decisions and take responsibility, not to establish a democracy among the crew.

Prisoner makes a good point. Having a novice crew chief that is willing to take advice and seek it when necessary, and most of us have done this at some point I'm sure, is a good thing - but to pay them a significantly higher wage simply due to the posession of an M.A. engenders resentment down the line and is a bad political move for the company.

Well, I believe you should be paid for the task you are performing not because of how much experience you have or your degree. So, if you hire an MA to dig shovel tests you shouldn't pay them any more than you pay a BA to dig shovel tests, or any more than someone without a degree for that matter. You are not hiring them for their vast knowledge, but for their ability to put holes in the ground. You should pay a crew chief more because they are taking on added responsibility above what you are asking of the crew.

First of all, let me say that someone who has little experience and holds only a BA/BS degree should not be put in charge of crews/projects.

I think the same holds true for those with Master's in anthro/arch with little to no field experience.

I have never worked on a project in my area of the country that a "newbie" BA/BS in anthro/arch was ever put in charge of a crew or project. The state/fed agencies would not allow it.

However, some state SHPO's and state/fed agencies require the crew chief/supervisor hold a Master's in anthro/arch regardless of field experience. Those agencies will require that someone with a Master's in anthro/arch be "out there" on the project and technically in charge.

Even if a person holds a Master's in some field, say history, and has years of experience in archaeology, that person may not be able to be "permitable" for the project in that state or in that region of the state by the state or federal agency, regardless of experience or competence........so who should be paid more??: The person with a Master's in history (or some other field) with lots of good experience or the Master's in anthro/arch person with no or very little experience??

And what if the "awarding" of the project contract depends on who can be named on the permit?? Who then is worth more and who should be paid more??

If you were a recent graduate with a Master's in anthro/arch and had little field experiance, would you be OK with being paid less than a BA/BS person in anthro/arch who had many years of experience and who was competent in running crews/projects and in writing reports and was permitable?? Who is worth more??

If you were a recent Master's graduate in anthro/arch with little or no experience, would you be comfortable with a crew chief/supervisor who has only a BA/BS in anthro/arch, and several years of experience, but is also "permitable" and has been "grandfathered" in by state/fed agencies and allowed to be in charge of projects as the "Field Supervisor" because of experience and competence in that region, and in essence the person in "charge"?? How would you feel about that BA/BS person telling you what to do??

If you were the Master's person, would you feel you should be paid more than the BA/BS person who has been grandfathered in and is permitable on projects (and has been running projects/crews and writing reports for several years) or would you think that by virtue of the fact you have a Master's degree that you should be paid more regardless??

I throw this all out there for discussion as it seems in the past few years those recent grads who have applied to my employer and are holding a Master's in anthro/arch and who have very little to no real field experience (beyond a field school) seem to think they are deserving (perhaps "entitled" is a better term) to a wage that is equal to or at least very close to those who have the degrees and tons of experience.

I may have digressed a bit from the original posting topic, but oh well...

Scott

Having been in the position of being on a crew with chiefs holding only BAs, AND having little experience, AND thinking they were Big Deals because they were crew chiefs, And being paid more than me, And constantly have to be told what it was that they were seeing...heesh!...I can only say that as with far too much in the world of CRM, we need better standards, and standardization across the board, from qualifications, to how SHPOs operate, to definitions of the terms in the NRHP criteria, etc. The massive confusion the lack of standards causes is frustrating at best, and causes real damage, at worst. One-size-fits-all rarely works, so this needs to be carefully thought out, not a knee-jerk, feel-good quick fix, and thus, probably will never happen, but it is certainly worth discussing, n'est pas? 8-)

Too much emphasis can be placed a graduate degree as a minimum standard for the work in this industry. I have also seen recent MAs who think that they are deserving of higher wages and more responsibility. That doesn't mean that an MA is not valuable. MAs are often times more practical when they are utilized for research designs, site synthesis, artifact analysis, and application of archaeological theory. This is how they should have been trained. This can also be accomplished through experience as well, but a lot of that depends on the person and it is hard to put a benchmark on how many years of experience=competency. Just like it is hard to evaluate whether a newly graduated MA has the competency to perform the tasks at hand.

It is up to the employer to determine whether the people they hire are competent to perform the job. The advanced degree is just another skill set they can offer. If the applicant can demonstrate their ability to perform the job then there is no reason to not consider them, unless state or federal regs prohibit it.

Newly minted MA's is not the only problem. I've recently had an experience where a 40+ year old who had a MA degree for almost 20 years was put in charge of a very large project...no one seemed to care when he was hired that his only experience until then was teaching archaeological field school at a small private college. From beginning to end the project was a disaster. Problems in the field expanded exponentially when it came to producing a report. This problem of inexperience by a crew chief or PI doesn't necessarily come from a person who has just recently received a degree. In this case, since the person was older and had their degree for a long period of time, it was assumed (by the powers that be) that they knew what they were doing. Never trust someone who has to tell their crew "I've been doing this for 20 years!"

I also have to say that at one time I was that newly minted MA (or MS in my case) with little experience. I was lucky in my career though as I started with small companies on small projects. I was willing & able to learn from people, and was not embarrassed when I didn't know something. Asking questions & keeping a chip off my shoulder has done me well. I now run large scale projects and have a crew that respects me. I always remember those awkward days in the beginning and always try to give good advice & tricks of the trade to the up & coming newbies.

Being in that position a couple years ago, I came under some harsh duress from co-workers. I came from a MA program and consider myself a professional archaeologist. I also have a bachelors degree in anthropology, and business. I currently am a permanent project manager at an archaeology consulting firm.
I may not be the most experienced archaeologist on projects, however, in many cases, I consider myself the best leader.

The business of archaeology is still a business, as much as we don't want it to be. I'd rather have someone leading me who is the best leader out there, and using everyone's skills to their advantage. Let people do what they're good at, and manage them, not micro-manage.
It hear that it's probably difficult to watch people who have less eperience work more senior roles, but sometimes it's important to put the right person in the right seat on the bus.

I think it's all about attitude. If the MA with little or no experience put in charge knows enough to trust his senior techs for advice, then that bit of respect will go a long way.

EDIT: Removed for lack of clarity and lack of time to clarify properly.