Wicked Problems blog #4 - Practising with purpose: reimagining workplace culture in archaeology

In his book[1], John offers a gentle but unequivocal critique of UK professional archaeology. He describes us as inward‑facing— too concerned with our own methods, practices and boundaries. He advocates for a profession that engages directly with global challenges, so-called ‘Wicked Problems’ (climate change, social inequality, conflict and migration, environmental degradation) through collaboration, creative practice, interdisciplinary work and social action, moving away from a discipline that defines itself as a process of excavation and reporting, and embraces delivering public benefit over the recording of loss.

In the responses we received to a discussion of Wicked Problems at CIfA 2025[2], we heard many voices telling us why we are not fully fit to meet this challenge of thinking outwardly and creatively.  We heard that that there is (still) a limiting working culture in parts of the sector, affecting commercial archaeology in particular, and within that, a significant proportion of commercial fieldwork. This limiting culture was linked in the comments we received to practices that value efficiency and keeping costs low over employee welfare, promoting a culture of risk aversion and fear of rocking the boat with clients.  Such practices are perceived to feed other negative behaviours, including bullying and discrimination among teams under stress. Collectively these problems lead to poor wellbeing among staff, poor retention (particularly of some groups) and stifle creativity, innovation and communication – the very things we need to help us thrive and to deliver the benefits that John envisages. How can we hope to give our clients value for money in these circumstances, let alone contribute to solving Wicked Problems?

Comments from the session focussed on the following cultural problems in archaeological organisations (not universally, but in some cases):

• Negative working environments stemming from continual time pressure and micromanagement resulting from the prioritisation of cost/profit and programme over the health and wellbeing of site teams
• Bullying, gossip and other aggressive and micro-aggressive behaviours often discriminatory in nature – possibly linked and certainly not helped by poor working conditions
• The isolation and exclusion of fieldworkers from the bigger picture leading to demoralisation and burn-out
• Lack of leadership support, and sometimes entrenched leaders protecting the status quo over people and outcomes

These opinions are reflected almost verbatim in research carried out by CIfA in 2023[3]. In a sector wide report based on qualitative interviews, respondents frequently raised the impact of issues such as bullying, harassment and discrimination as impacting their careers. In fieldwork, underlying cultural attitudes affecting the workplace were considered to have come from the construction industry, with women and people who described their gender as ‘other’ and disabled people more likely to have experienced bullying and harassment. Poor culture was cited as the reason people felt unable to progress in their career or why they were unable to thrive in their day‐to‐day work. In the findings of the report, often these behaviours were found to go unchallenged by managers or were indeed the behaviours of leaders themselves[4].

Whatever the root of these problems, it follows that when an environment feels stressful, unsafe or demoralising, people naturally stop taking risks or sharing new ideas. Innovation and creativity, the fundamental requirements of solution-focussed thinking, need breathing room — freedom and security to explore, question, and imagine. And without the input of diverse voices homogeneous thinking prevails – working cultures that don’t value other perspectives miss out on fresh insights and creative breakthroughs.

Where does this behaviour come from? There are those leaders in the profession who rely on the pillars of process, risk management and competitive pricing: structures which have protected them through periods of threat to archaeology - from policy review, economic failure and political change. These leaders are subservient to the power of our immediate clients, believing that we must align ourselves with them, to their language, culture and processes, to fit in, ‘reduce risk’ and get in and out as quickly as possible without making our presence felt. Archaeology by stealth. At least that way we keep our jobs, right?

Well, no. We need to be much clearer in our own minds whom we are serving. Yes, we have an immediate client, and their practices may sometimes fall short of the mark – this is something to use as a lesson, not to emulate. But who pays their bills, and what do they want?  The client hierarchy does not stop at construction level. Those organisations work for clients who serve our government bodies (like MHCLG and DfT, through organisations like National Highways and HS2) and our government serves the people of our country. These government bodies are committed to delivering benefits for communities, a better natural environment, sustainable places to live, skills and education, for the good of the UK (as well as in the collective interest of security and prosperity in Europe and the world). 

Perhaps there is a limiting belief at work here – that we are still bound by our historic patriarchal system, where hard economic policy outcomes are the only objective? Perhaps rather, we should take note that a broader intersectional approach is what 21^st century government policy mandates: where long term economic prosperity is inseparable from environmental resilience, strong communities and educational opportunities for everyone. Now these are areas where we can help, and ideally these outcomes should shape our practice, not be subsidiary to it.

Government agencies, non-departmental public bodies, engineering delivery partners, and strategic suppliers want every bit of support they can get to deliver these outcomes, including from archaeology. Demonstrating how we help to meet these needs will secure our place more firmly than simply defending our position.

In a 2022 article, Alex Llewellyn, Co-CEO of CIfA looks at how existing workplace cultures and pressures can have an impact on ethical decision making (for accountability and social impact), and offers some ideas for new behaviours including reflecting on our practice, providing opportunities to try new ways of working, and taking individual leadership[5].

As Alex observes, turning around a poor workplace culture isn’t about a single grand gesture — it’s about consistent, visible shifts in how people lead, communicate, and work together. When culture is broken, people feel it every day, so the repair has to be felt every day too.

What could we do?

1. Accept the problem. A culture can’t be fixed if no one admits what’s wrong.
   1. Define the culture we want. Identify client or organisational practices that are aspirational, collaborative and interdisciplinary.
   2. Strengthen inclusion and diversity. Engage voices from across the team in decision making and idea formation.
   3. Build psychological safety. Encourage trust, questions, dissent, and experimentation. 
   4. Fix leadership behaviour. Hold leaders accountable for how they treat people, giving time to think, and aiming for goals beyond the organisation.
   5. Recognise and reward. Praise collaboration, courage and initiative, celebrating ‘small wins’ for social impact publicly.  

So, responding to the feedback from the Conference session, a vision for a new collective mindset in a profession prepared to address global challenges might be:

Practice based on courage, positivity and collaboration, where staff are treated as skilled, educated professionals who understand the bigger picture and contribute fully, enjoying opportunities to experiment and deliver impact. An emphasis in business toward broader outcomes for communities and the environment, carried forward by supportive and brave leaders serving their teams and the world beyond organisational boundaries.