18th April 2006, 08:47 PM
Quote: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.