Work Environment in Relation to Structure
5.3.3 The Role of the Individual and The Importance of Networking
As the last main theme of the London chapter, we now turn to the individual and the institution.
For developing an integrated model of successful team performance, it is important to understand the individual within the institution, and to capture the dynamics at play. It is also important to understand this at a local level, and whether it bears any connection to the urban culture mentioned in Section 3.3.
5.3.3.1 The Individual
‘Traits and characteristics brought in by individuals relate to the overall effectiveness of collective and individual performance’ (Pettinger, 2013: 264). The concept of personality embraces perception, motivation, aspiration, learning and development (discussed in previous sections of this chapter): this is why it is critical for organisations to understand the characteristics, interactions and complexities of individuals and their relationships.
Gustav Milne110 points out a key observation regarding the archaeological community of London, in that ‘the institution may be separate – but the staff are very fluid and very interchangeable...the staff you have to consider as separate from the institution...’ (pers. comm., Milne, 2012: 36).
While the individuals that make up groups are quite fluid, at the same time – as mentioned earlier – there are allegiances and loyalties in place which are noticeable (discussed in Section 5.3.3.4).
110 Senior Lecturer at IoA, UCL (1993 - present). Consultant for EH, Royal Commission for Historical Monuments (England), the Museum of London in Docklands and as project manager for Wellcome Trust’s Centre for Human Bioarchaeology WORD project. Archaeologist for Guildhall Museum, Museum of London from 1973 to 1993, Director of two major community archaeology projects, the Thames Archaeological Survey and Thames Discovery Programme. Currently co-ordinating research at UCL on the multi-faculty "Evolutionary Determinants of Health" programme.
Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London
But throughout archaeology’s development, individuals – as separate from institutions - have played a significant role.
My observation is that only in the past 20 years or so has there been a decline in organisations being recognised through the individual in charge. The impression pre-1990 is that it was very
‘alpha-male run’ (pers. comm., anon., 2012) and quite territorial (e.g. pers. comm., Schofield, 2012: 26). This has changed now, as we see territoriality and ownership of patches of land open up to outside competitors and specialists. What is apparent, for example, is now we talk of GLAAS, or MOLA, or the Museum, or PCA and so on. This seems in contrast to previous years, where it would be Geoffrey Wainwright (of EH), Simon Thurley’s Museum, Brian Hobley and the DUA, Harvey Sheldon and the DGLA, Gary Brown’s PCA, Biddle’s Winchester, and even the IoA under Wheeler, or Grimes, and so on.
From the interviews, 78.2% suggested individuals are the key driver in the direction their organisation takes (Figure 47). They also suggested that individuals are responsible for cross-sector collaboration (Figure 49).
Figure 47 LDN Interviews: Do individuals direct organisations?
Looking at this closer, we notice that the sectors that feel individuals are responsible for the direction organisations take are the Government sector, followed by Academia (Figure 48). This is interesting in terms of understanding how attributes of power are understood (discussed below in Section 5.3.3.1.1).
78.2%
16.4% 5.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Yes No Unidentiiied
Percentage
Responses
Do Individuals Direct Organisations?
Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London
Figure 48 LDN Interviews: Perceptions on individuals directing organisations
Figure 49 LDN Interviews: Individuals are responsible for cross-sector collaboration
The figures above demonstrate the perceptions that managerial individuals are responsible for both the direction of their organisation in which they led if they were in management level, and responsible for any collaborative effort that happened between sectors. It remains true today that a lot of collaboration is initiated by individual relationships (e.g. pers. comm., Bailie, 2012: 2;
Academia Private Government National & Local Orgs
Academia Private Government National & Local Orgs
Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London pers. comm., Bateman, 2012: 12; pers. comm., Cohen, 2013: 13; pers. comm., Cooper, 2012: 4).
While there are collaborations between individuals, there is ‘not nearly as much as there ought to be…and the most productive collaborations are on an individual level [rather] than an institutional level. Individuals are helpful, caring, interested, and willing to go above and beyond. Institutions are not. People who run institutions are not’ (pers. comm., Moshenska, 2012: 12). Of course this is very dependent on the institution, however the point to pull from Moshenska is that individuals are seen as the collaborating actors, not institutions. We talk about the individual and their role in Section 5.3.3.
We can also see that prominent individuals led a lot of development in the early days of professionalisation. This is most apparent through Figure 50, which presents the results of reputable individuals for being influential. Most tend to be figures from the 70s and 80s. In the survey, the participants were asked who they thought were critical or highly influential in London archaeology as:
o A Leading figure in the development of the profession (a) o An important part of change (b)
o A critical or key individual (c) o Irreplaceable (d)
o A public figure (e)
o An individual who knows practically everything happening in London (f) o Influential to UK archaeology as a whole (g)
Plenty of names were put forward, but individuals named more than once are listed in Figure 50.
They are ordered by most named to least:111
Individuals Named In Survey
111 See Appendix 4 for full results
Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London
Schaaf Orton Wheeler
Taryn
Nixon Martin
Biddle
LAMAS Peter
Marsden
Figure 50 LDN Survey: Individuals named according to influential role
Part of the process of organisational transformation advocates the need for symbolic leadership, in that the behaviour of particular individuals needs to communicate and symbolise the kind of values and behaviours being sought, and must simultaneously demonstrate being strongly committed to these new values, creating constant pressure for change. For example, Harvey Sheldon (not DGLA of which he was head of) is seen as instrumental to the Rose Theatre event, which led to huge structural changes in archaeology (see Section 5.2.1.1; see above regarding comment on individual names). The point is, these individuals are separate from their organisation, and took the character and culture of archaeology, impacting the climate, beyond the institutional structures. Their recognition comes predominantly from their roles as ‘shapers’, extroverted and standing firm despite unstable environments or political external influences. As CBA’s Heyworth points out, ‘To some extent, a lot of it, as is always the way, is about various personalities and around situations’ (pers. comm., Heyworth, 2012: 5).
5.3.3.1.1 Social Attributes of Power in Archaeology
French and Raven (1959) developed a classic scheme for categorising various bases of power, which can be used to understand the role of the individual. The categories are listed in Figure 51.
In 1982, Hersey and Blanchard expanded this to include connection and information (Pettigrew, 1972; Raven, 1965, 2008; Marsden & Friedkin, 1994). These categories are put into two separate groups: positional and personal. The concepts also fit well into leadership theories, which include the role of educating engaged citizens, contributing to community service, and generating an organisational culture that reflects the values and beliefs of the organisation (Gaventa, 2004).
Understanding the Six Categories of Power
POSITIONAL PERSONAL
Position of Legitimacy or Authority Recognised Expertise Ability to Reward or Coerce Referent Power
(Charisma, loyalty, respect, admiration)
Connection (Networking)
Control over Information and Resources Figure 51 Categories of attributes of power
Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London
In the survey, I asked participants to rank the level of importance of four of these attributes. I did not include ability to reward or coerce, and connection (networking) was covered in a separate question. Adding ‘most important’ and ‘very important’ options together, expertise rated highest with 64.4% (see Figure 52).
Figure 52 LDN Survey: Power attributes ranked
Referent power came in as second, although the results are not far different from those who thought that control over information and resources were important. I looked further by analysing which attribute was most important according to sector (Figure 53). Interestingly, academia and commercial ranked expertise as the most important attribute, followed by control over information. Those that worked in local or national government viewed authority as most important, followed by expertise. Societies, quite fittingly, felt that referent power (which would include leadership and charisma) was the most important attribute.
32.3%
Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London
Ranking of Power Attributes of Most Important According to Sector Ranked Academia Private Government National & Local
Orgs
Other 1 Expertise Expertise Authority Referent Expertise 2 Control Control Expertise Expertise/Control Referent 3 Referent Authority Referent Expertise/Control Authority 4 Authority Referent Control Authority Control Figure 53 Level of Importance of Power Attributes According to Sector
Interviews support the results of expertise being most important, with claims that particular individuals are ‘worth their gold in weight’ (pers. comm., anon., 2012); that ‘everyone would fall down and roll a red carpet out’ for these particular individuals (pers. comm., Sidell: 17); or that particular individuals provide an amazing hub of expertise and knowledge (pers. comm., Flatman:
7); are very charismatic (pers. comm., anon., 2012); or are ‘some of the big beasts’ (pers. comm., Cotton: 35).112 A lot of the individuals highlighted dominate their position by both their achievements, but also through their personality and character traits – whether positive or negative. For example, particular individuals could be judged as difficult characters, or having bad reputations, but are able to push and drive the organisation or movement which they are a part of (e.g. pers. comm., Hall, 2012: 33).
The individual in the organisation is a crucial agent for the way information is shared, collaborations undertaken, projects negotiated, and relationships established. As demonstrated, position of legitimacy or authority is important, however personal attributes based on expertise, respect, and the individual’s ability to utilise their knowledge and skills is a huge factor on how they are perceived by their peers, and the level of efficiency to which projects are performed.
It is the individual within the organisation that plays an important part for change and innovation (see Section 3.2): ‘…the primary stimulus for change remains those forces in the external environment, the primary motivator for how change is accomplished resides with the people within the organisation’ (Benjamin & Mabey, 1993: 181).
The next section takes the individual one step further, to understand how networking, communicating and intergroup and interpersonal relationships become part of the individual’s social identity and self-concept. It looks at informal channels, and ties in all the above discussion together. We see how the archaeological community operates through different networks.
5.3.3.2 Networking and Interaction
112 There were plenty of opinions on individuals, however these comments were edited out of transcripts. The point here, however, is to highlight these views are present in people’s minds.
Chapter 5: Results – Urban Archaeology in London
Group processes and work teams are about groups and the interaction between individuals, as well as stable patterns of relationships between people who share common goals and perceive themselves as being in some sort of group, either formal groups and informal groups (Figure 54). The point about social interaction, or networking, is that individuals should have some sort of influence on each other.
Figure 54 Identifying types of groups
While formal groups are designed to intentionally direct individuals towards a particular goal, informal groups are naturally developed without any direction from management. As mentioned earlier in Section 1.4.2 and Section 2.2, groups create stable structures which are built up from aspects such as roles, expectations (or norms), status, and also belongingness or cohesiveness (see Section 5.3.3.4; also discussed in Chapter 8). This is why networking is so important.
Clive Orton describes the archaeological community structure:
A lot is completely informal. A lot of what I do is completely informal. It has to do with knowing someone before, who you go to the pub with. It’s got to be informal because there aren’t really the formal structures to bring you together (pers. comm., 2012: 41).
From the interviews, 85.5% said that they found networking critical, while only 9% said that it was not (5.5% not identified). There is no doubt of the benefits of networking and interaction, some areas of which are addressed in this section.