Your are correct in that business models are currently few and far between in CRM. Most owners of CRM came up through the ranks of CRM and never had a business background. Currently, I have worked for a few owners who have gone back to school for business programs and started to implement traditional business practices in CRM. The other approach right now is the larger engineering companies who operate like a business and now have added a CRM division to their business. These often are fitting a round peg into a square hole unless they get a good PI who can work as a liason between the corporate side and the practical side. I myself have implemented business models in IT applications in a CRM company. This also has been difficult to train the CRM staff. These models often require change and rethinking which is difficult and takes a period of time for adoption of new ideas and ways to show how these new ideas are not only fiscally sound but archaeologically sound.

[quote:="s_brann"]
Can management styles/theories be of any use in CRM? Or is it too difficult to encourage employees who feel underpaid, overworked, and unsure of their future with a company to also feel personally invested in that company and that that company is personally invested in them? What about business organization plans/strategies? Does anyone feel that they are effective in CRM? I definitely feel that a lot of the management theories out there are just fads, but I think there must be some that have real benefits and value. Has anyone heard buzzwords like “Teamwork,” “Stakeholder,” or “SWOT,” from the higher-ups at a CRM firm? Has anyone been trained by a CRM firm in a management style? Has anyone tried to implement a management theory in their department or firm? If so, what was it and did it work?
Thanks!

I think that you'll find a good deal of resistance to a lot of the standard business-style "management theory" in most CRM. Remember that archaeologists in CRM fancy themselves as independent spirits and as intelligent people, and many are very likely to chafe under the sort of heavy-handed management that works (at least to some extent) in an office or button-down business environment. Managers who appear to have been "trained" are likely to be viewed as bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, that's also the reason why CRM is not regarded in a terribly professional way. There's a view of it as though the entire process is somewhat "fly by the seat of your pants" and half-assed. Sadly, this is often quite true.

Personally, I think that management can be handled without resorting to canned platitudes and parroted phrases that mean as little to the people spouting them as to the people to whom they're being spouted. The problem is that a lot of folks are completely unaware of how to break those ideas down succinctly and to translate them into concepts and behaviors that work in a relatively informal situation.

I'd love to see some of the managers I've dealt with attend some sort of management training (and I'd love to attend some myself), but with the proviso that it would be applicable to the actual situations that we face as managers in the field.

My observations of good managers in the field (and really, there aren't all that many) is that they recognize that the people who are working for them are intelligent and can smell bullshit, and as such they tailor their strategies to that. Personally, I'm a fan of the "flies with honey, not vinegar" scenario. My experience thus far has been that in all but a few cases, it works. You listen to people's ideas and their complaints, you let them know that you're interested in their opinions. However, you also let them know that once you've made a decision (taking their views into account) they are expected to follow through with that.

Consequently, you don't make decisions lightly, because the worst managers are the ones that can't seem to make up their minds and end up giving conflicting orders.

Am I going on too much? Probably.

This is spooky... I think we must be linked in an archaeopsychic way

we are discussing this as well.. and the pol seems to show that there is one thing being an archaeologist and another to be a manager.. too often we jsut muddle on.. and therefore.. as you say.. are treated by those who are 'real' business as a bunch of wooly headed scruffs!

http://www.bajr.org/bajrforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1212

including this telling comment


actually got signed up to a management training course by my most recent employer. It was I believe an EU funded course for small businesses. Sadly the realities of commercial archaeology- we got really busy, meant that I couldn't attend. So I continue to make do with a hodge-podge of acquired skills and prejudices that passes for management skills in the archaeological industry

[quote:="KidCharlemagne"]I think that you'll find a good deal of resistance to a lot of the standard business-style "management theory" in most CRM. Remember that archaeologists in CRM fancy themselves as independent spirits and as intelligent people, and many are very likely to chafe under the sort of heavy-handed management that works (at least to some extent) in an office or button-down business environment. Managers who appear to have been "trained" are likely to be viewed as bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, that's also the reason why CRM is not regarded in a terribly professional way. There's a view of it as though the entire process is somewhat "fly by the seat of your pants" and half-assed. Sadly, this is often quite true.

Personally, I think that management can be handled without resorting to canned platitudes and parroted phrases that mean as little to the people spouting them as to the people to whom they're being spouted. The problem is that a lot of folks are completely unaware of how to break those ideas down succinctly and to translate them into concepts and behaviors that work in a relatively informal situation.

I'd love to see some of the managers I've dealt with attend some sort of management training (and I'd love to attend some myself), but with the proviso that it would be applicable to the actual situations that we face as managers in the field.

My observations of good managers in the field (and really, there aren't all that many) is that they recognize that the people who are working for them are intelligent and can smell bullshit, and as such they tailor their strategies to that. Personally, I'm a fan of the "flies with honey, not vinegar" scenario. My experience thus far has been that in all but a few cases, it works. You listen to people's ideas and their complaints, you let them know that you're interested in their opinions. However, you also let them know that once you've made a decision (taking their views into account) they are expected to follow through with that.

Consequently, you don't make decisions lightly, because the worst managers are the ones that can't seem to make up their minds and end up giving conflicting orders.

Am I going on too much? Probably.

I agree with you here. The aprt I highlighted in bold I think is more a reflection of dealing with clients. People who manage CRM firms have got to get the work and this means making a good impression on engineers, lawyers, accountants, etc. Those worlds are vastly different than archeology with regard to accepted professional standards. Clients want to know that you are serious, professional, and able to do the job in a timely manner. Unfortunately dress code has a big affect on that and is often what gets your foot in the door.

As far as human resources theory, I'm sure there is a lot of ways to apply that to CRM. Most people don't want to work in a stuffy office, but you don't have to manage people well. A lot of those skills can be learned and a lot of them just come with good leaders. Either way, I think employees can sniff out the bad managers and in the end I don't think those people will be as successful. You probably won't see anything like that taught in grad school, but it wouldn;t hurt anyone to learn it.

While attending archaeology field school, there were two issues I immediately noticed, both stood out like the rainbow adornment of baboon's ____. The first is the strong desire for archaeology to leave the realm of art and join science. The second issue is that the industry is led by a group of very intelligent, yet horribly inexperienced academicians who haven't the slightest clue about running business.

I make these statements based upon my own experience. My background in science as an electrical engineer suggests that archaeology, will continue to embrace science, but because of its unpredictable variability, will always remain an art. Certainly many aspect of archaeology will become science. My other experience is identical with the business of archaeology. That is, electrical engineers, like archaeologist, haven't the slightest clue about running business. I have a slight advantage in that I've survived a few business failures. Personally, and I advise students accordingly, I think young students pursuing an MA in this field are wise to get their degree and then add several business and law courses to their credentials. This will reward them much more than adding GIS or field school certificates. This industry doesn't need anymore archaeologist, but it desperately begs for business managers and attorneys.