[Roger Wolfe]

The story of Carolina Golf Club is fascinating but takes a long time to tell.  Most clubs resist change but in rare cases it must happen for a club to survive.  You can make changes and turn over members without changing the basic culture of the club.  In a city like Charlotte that only started booming in the late 90's, the club's founders achieved great things just keeping it private and a going concern for over 40 years.  Having the guts to take advantage of a new environment and a different market speaks very highly of our board.  Noone is happier than the older members and noone regrets it more than the folks who left.  The culture of Carolina should now be preserved for years to come and paying close attention to any amenity that affects the dues structure is the proper way to run the club.  Sometimes a survey is necessary to provide ammuntion for NOT doing something rather than doing it.

[Mike McGuire]

Pat Mucci has argued on this site that a lot of the best clubs are run by dictators.

I have observed the same to be true. Clubs run by committees have a harder time getting things accomplished. If the committees are run by surveys they have almost no chance to be great.

[Carl Johnson]

Pat Mucci has argued on this site that a lot of the best clubs are run by dictators.

I have observed the same to be true. Clubs run by committees have a harder time getting things accomplished. If the committees are run by surveys they have almost no chance to be great.

My observations, in no particular order (believe me), as a mere member of Roger's club.  I got this discussion going again.  Background.  I'm don't feel like an old member, but a member who's older (67, member since 1995).  However, I believe I've been a member longer than at least half of all current members, so maybe I am an old member after all.

First, Mike says that "If the committees are run by surveys they have almost no chance to be great."  Maybe Pat believes thats true, too.  I take it that he means that if committees are run by surveys, and clubs are run committees, then the "club" has almost no chance of being great.  Obviously, this begs the question of what it means to be a "great" club.  Is it one that the members believe brings them high personal status by reason of belonging?  One that has a highly rated course or one on which national championships or PGA tournaments are contested?  Or, one that's been around a long time and is still going strong today? Etc., etc.  Is AGNC a "great club"?  I'm sure most golfers would say "yes," emphatically, but how many would give up membership in their own club to be members only of ANGC?  So, "great" is complicated.  Depends on who you ask, doesn't it?  I'm not asking for answers.  That would be an interesting discussion in itself, and indeed Bradley didn't ask what it took to be a successful club, but rather whether a club could achieve not just "greatness," but rather "true greatness," without a vision.

Second, as a matter of fact, Roger's comments about an assessment for a new club house and the practice tee at Carolina GC were hypothetical, merely to make the point that if you were to do a good survey, you'd have to be very careful with the questions.  If a Board wanted honest answers, the questions should be posed in a way that doesn't push a particular answer.  Surveys must be very carefully constructed to be useful.  (In fact, I believe our most of the new, younger members did join the club knowing exactly what the situation with club house was, and expecting it to stay that way.)  Roger, correct me if I am wrong about the principal purpose of your examples of survey questions.

Third, the question which I got the discussion going again on had to do with whether member surveys could be useful in setting a vision for a club.  Bradley's original post asked:  "In my opinion no club can achieve true greatness without a vision and it's own distinctives.  I also think that vision rarely ever comes from many sources, but rather from one visionary who is the kind of gifted leader that people trust."   Later he added, "Let me bump the topic with this question: are member surveys helpful in developing a vision?"  It seems to me that this presupposes that the club has no vision, or no clear vision, and that it needs to develop a vision.  If you've got a club run by a dictator with a vision and the membership is happy to follow the dictator and his vision, then end of story.  Great.  But that's not what we're talking about, at least not what Bradley's questions seem to point to.  We have three questions: (1) does a club need a vision to be truely great?  (2) must that vision come from a dictator? (3) are surveys useful in setting a vision for a club?

Fourth, specific questions about a new club house or cutting down particular trees on your course or whether to overseed the practice tee in the winter are details, the answers to which may, or may not, be dictated by the established vision.  Vision is a much broader concept.  Bradley's questions have to do with establishing a broader vision that will drive those decisions, with or without surveys.  Bradley, correct me if I misread you.

Fifth, I'm not sure what motivated your questions, Bradley.  Are you thinking about a rudderless club (or maybe just one that is great, but not truely great), real or hypothetical?  That's how I read the question.  You want to know how to move to the next level -- is a vision important, and how does a club find a vision.  Then, you say the most like answer is that the vision to save comes from one particular person, the dictator, so to speak.  Fair enough.  Cliff Roberts, the greatest dictator in golfclubdom that I know of, sure showed how it could work, to a point.  But is that the only way?

Sixth, Roger's club's situation is one that I think suits Bradley's questions very well.  As Roger points out, the club has undergone very rapid changes in membership.  In recent years the Board has done a great job in keeping the club going, rejuveniating it, if you will.  And not to disparage prior Boards.  Things happen.  Pat says:"Letting the club get run down like that sounds like the leadership was AWOL over the years."  So what?  How do you move forward?  Roger's club is not at the greatness level, let alone the true greatness level.  As far as I can tell we're simply trying to do the best we can to live and prosper.  For that I think a vision would be helpful.  Possibly our Board, or individual members thereof, have a vision or visions.  Sometimes I think I've figured it out, and then, bam, something happens which causes me to readjust my thinking.  Of course, this rumination begs the question of whether a vision needs to be expressed explicitly or only implicitely.  For an old, successful club (a truely great club) I am sure that question is irrelevant.  But for an evolving club, I believe it's worth considering.

Seventh:

Roger: "Surveys can be useless without the right wording and quantification of each question.  An established club should have figured out its mission and membership a long time ago.  Its tough when your club has transitioned and the right kind of survey question can be very helpful."

Pat: "I'm sorry but I can't agree with you on that issue.  If the club has been successful in attracting a new cadre of members (53 % ) over the last four (4) years, those new members must have found the club, as it existed prior to them joining, very attractive.  So, what's the rush to change what attracted them in the first place?"

Fact: there's no particular rush to change anything at the club as far as I can see.  The club is a work in progress.  As Roger points out, surveys can help confirm that you're on the right track (though, again, I'm thinking that Roger is talking more about specifics than the vision).  The survey is just a tool to help the Board and management keep the club on track and help it grow and prosper.

Eighth:

Roger: "Why are you so afraid of them [surveys]?"

Pat: "Because they're not accurate.  They don't reflect the feelings of every member, they only reflect the structured opinions of those who respond, and, the way they're phrased often predisposes the membership to set answers.  Having to take a survey indicates that the club's leadership is out of touch with the membership."

Surveys aren't a perfect reflection of the membership.  Not all will respond.  However, public opinion polls are selective, too.  You can't get everyone to respond.  Is a typical club' survey going to be statistically significant?  Probably not, but keeping that in mind it can still be useful.  Pat is right.  The phrasing of questions is critcal.  That, too, was Roger's point with the hypothetical questions posed above.  Club leadership "out of touch with membership."  When you've got the tremendous turnover we've had, that's understandable.  A survey might bring them in touch.

Ninth:

Pat: "And, if you took in 260 members over four years and didn't have a clue as to what they were looking for in a club, the admissions committee just recruited bodies, not members who fit the culture of the club."

That's fine, if you had a culture and you didn't mind going bankrupt in the process of trying to find such members.  Which is not to admit that we "just recruited bodies."

Tenth:

Pat: "But, why would so many people join a club that was allowed to run down?  Most prospective members examine the financial side of the equation, initiation, dues and assessments.  If 260 members joined in the last four years they must have liked the club the way it was.  If not, if they joined knowing that it would cost an additional $ 10,000 assessment once they joined, there had to be some lure."

Answer: Value shoppers.  Promise and hope.  The new members liked lots about the club the way it was, and hoped and expected that it could be "improved" in certain ways, ways that would cost them a little more money, but not the kind of money, for what you get, when you put it in an old line, full service country club.  Remember, Carolina GC is in essence just a golf club.

In sum, it's a club that is still finding its way and I submit, looking for a vision that will guide the club to long-term success (I think true greatness or even greatness is too much to think about right now).  As I suggested in an early post, I think a survey could be useful in helping the "leaders" find a vision.  It's not the end of the road, but properly done could be a useful part of the journey.  I would prefer that to bringing Cliff Roberts back to life to run our club.











 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

I'll respond at length in the next few days, but, I would ask you this in the interim.

Would you say that taking a survey on which trees to cut down is a prudent club policy ?

[Roger Wolfe]

I'll respond at length in the next few days, but, I would ask you this in the interim.

Would you say that taking a survey on which trees to cut down is a prudent club policy ?

Absolutely 100% NO.  If the tree needs to go for agronomic reasons, its up to our superintendent.  If its aesthetic or design-related, we consult our architect.  I am glad we finally agree on something Pat!

[Carl Johnson]

I'll respond at length in the next few days, but, I would ask you this in the interim.
Would you say that taking a survey on which trees to cut down is a prudent club policy ?

A member of the club, generally in favor of surveys, the answer is "absolutely not."  But, to try to make my point again, that's not a "vision" issue in any case.  Well, maybe it is after all, but not the kind of vision I believe we're talking about here.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Carl & Roger,

There are several disadvantages associated with surveys.

1  You only get the opinion of the responders
2  You may get a response beyond your ability to accommodate.
3  You may get a response contrary to current practices.

# 1 is the most serious, because a club can go off in the wrong direction, based on the views of a true minority.

The area where surveys are the most dangerous is ON THE GOLF COURSE.

If a club adopts a survey mentality, soon, a survey will go out asking if a feature or hole is fair, or penal.  This is how course after course gets disfigured.  A VOCAL minority influences outcome.  The result is the alteration and disfiguration of the golf course.

You don't present a survey when determining employee compensation.
You don't present a survey when determining hole location

So why would you send out a survey on the range ?

Just fix it.  Make it a terrific range and charge $ 2 M/m

Do you send out a survey as to whether or not the carpet should be repaired or replaced ?

The walls painted ?

The furniture reupholstered ?

So, why would you send out a survey asking if the range, which is in disrepair, should be repaired ?

It's misguided and shows a lack of leadership.

End of rant.

[JMEvensky]

Carl & Roger,

There are several disadvantages associated with surveys.

1  You only get the opinion of the responders
2  You may get a response beyond your ability to accommodate.
3  You may get a response contrary to current practices.

# 1 is the most serious, because a club can go off in the wrong direction, based on the views of a true minority.

The area where surveys are the most dangerous is ON THE GOLF COURSE.

If a club adopts a survey mentality, soon, a survey will go out asking if a feature or hole is fair, or penal.  This is how course after course gets disfigured.  A VOCAL minority influences outcome.  The result is the alteration and disfiguration of the golf course.

You don't present a survey when determining employee compensation.
You don't present a survey when determining hole location

So why would you send out a survey on the range ?

Just fix it.  Make it a terrific range and charge $ 2 M/m

Do you send out a survey as to whether or not the carpet should be repaired or replaced ?

The walls painted ?

The furniture reupholstered ?

So, why would you send out a survey asking if the range, which is in disrepair, should be repaired ?

It's misguided and shows a lack of leadership.

End of rant.

The above isn't a rant.It's a succint argument against allowing too much democracy to get in the way of running a club.

The first mistake a member usually makes is that his dues buys him something more than the use of the facilities(where's Kavanaugh when you need him?).Allowing a plebiscite for anything specific other than capital improvement budgets is a certain recipe for mediocrity.

I've used the example of survey responses for the removal of trees at my place.Surprisingly,those in favor are the last ones who should be allowed anywhere near golf course decisions.

Few clubs have the good sense to appoint small groups to rule without interference.It's an ego thing among members and perfectly understandable.Unfortunately,few clubs climb above "good" with a collective vision.

Roger Wolfe,with all due respect and no ill will intended,a club GM is an employee.While no club can be great without a great GM,any vision must come SOLELY from the membership.It's their club.

[Jeff Goldman]

Folks,

Unless demand for membership at a club significantly outstrips supply, I think that the idea of a "benevolent dictator" unanswerable to the membership is a bit of a myth.  In the absence of being able to tell the membership to go screw itself if it doesn't like it because there are 5 people waiting to take its place, the dictator, whether a single person or a small group, must respond to the membership or the club will begin to lose members, and if it continues to refuse to respond, it will lose more members, putting more financial pressure on remaining members, which could cause the loss of more members, etc. etc.

That is not to say that every complaint or whim of a member, or the membership, must be accepted.  It seems to me that a key duty of the governing body is to communicate effectively with the membership, including educating the membership to the extent possible about the golf course, and the vision of the club.  As Pat says, the membership committee is a crucial part of this process, because it can help educate new members into the culture of the club, and get them to buy in.  And if the prospective members doesn't buy in, then the membership committee must have the courage to make proper recommendations about the suitability of the candidate for membership.  This is true even where a club is not full; if a club is more concerned with filling up its rolls regardless of whether the member wants to turn the club into some sort of discount house, disaster looms.  Better for the membership to pay more to preserve itself than to have a white elephant sale.  White elephants don't last.

Regardless, all of this indicates that the governing body of a club MUST be responsive to the membership in all but a very few instances.  Even a dictator can be deposed if the natives get restless enough.

Jeff

[Ed Oden]

First of all, I am a member of the same club as Carl and Roger.  I rarely see things in black and white.  The world is more shades of gray to me.  So I have a hard time following those who categorically discount surveys as useless or perhaps even worse.  Your opinion, based on your experience at your club may be that surveys have not yielded good results.  But that doesn't mean they can't work elsewhere or in different circumstances.  Personally, I lean toward the belief that if the leadership is good, then the survey has a good chance of success and that the opposite will likely occur if leadership is poor.  But I think it is a mistake to assume poor leadership just based on the willingness to do a member survey.  That's just silly.  I wouldn't presume to know enough about another club's leadership, decisionmaking, culture, ethos or circumstances to make such a generalization. 

As for our club, if you had seen the course five years ago and could see it today, you would not believe the transformation.  No matter what else you might think about our club, our membership or our leadership, there is no way that you could possibly see anything other than a dramatically improved golf course seeking to reclaim its Ross roots.  We did a member survey before going down that path.  The survey generated discussion among the membership which ultimately led to widespread support for the master plan and momentum to proceed with it.  I am not sure that we would have gotten to where we are today without that survey.  So in this man's opinion, at least one survey has achieved positive results for at least one club.  I don't know whether we have a "vision".  But if we don't, we are at least a lot closer to finding it than we were a few years ago.

Ed

[Roger Wolfe]

Mr. Mucci, my only guess is you have never served on a board OR you are currently a member of a club where the board is the enemy.  Worse yet, you might be one of the miserable few who complain and complain and never get involved in the leadership of the club.  I don’t think that’s the case because your posts, although misguided and demeaning, do show signs of intelligence and true concern for a club you obviously love very much.

I don’t understand your comment regarding my status as an employee.  My job is to manage the staff, report on the financials, serve the members and see that the will of the membership (through the board) is carried through the policies of the club.  I don’t know how we got sidetracked with this ridiculous survey issue so I am going to leave that alone.  But my refusal to make uninformed, dictatorial decision regarding the policies of my club sounds exactly what you would expect from a great GM.  And I quote, “While no club can be great without a great GM, any vision must come SOLELY from the membership.  It's their club.”

There are hundreds of decision either I make or the board make that do not involve the general membership such as clubhouse repairs, personnel issues, agronomic and design issues, etc…  Then there are a few things that even the board cannot agree on how the bulk of the membership will react.   A lot of club members, and I hope you aren’t one of them, bitch about the “problem” then bitch about the “solution.”  Most of the “solution” bitching comes because they were not given the opportunity to voice their opinion and noone made the effort to get them to “buy in” to the change.

I will give an example that I am sure you will find some way to misinterpret as “misguided” or a “lack of leadership.”

We closed the restaurant on Tuesdays while the course was shutdown.  The 10 or so “Mucci’s”  bitched and moaned that they couldn’t get their half turkey sandwich anymore when they came out to read the newspaper and watch “The Price is Right.”  After we reopened we kept the restaurant closed on Tuesdays and only opened the bar and the snack bar.  It saved each member $10 per month ($70,000 total per year) in unnecessary payroll expense and nobody cares anymore.

Tuesday dining, sodding the range instead of hitting off mats for a month every spring, having an auto attendant instead of a full time receptionist, shoe shine personnel, fancy locker room amenities, big non-holiday Sunday brunches, liquor costs, food costs… all of these items have a specific price tag that must be subsidized by the entire membership.  If a “benevolent dictator” is making these decisions without consulting the membership then his leadership is flawed and misguided.  It is a GM’s job to communicate the “price tag” of each of these items to the board.  When the board is uncomfortable making the call a quick email based, internet survey is a valuable tool.  There is no postage, no printing and hardly any labor involved.

Patrick, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and, after reading the following I fully understand why you feel the way you do about boards and surveys:

“I've used the example of survey responses for the removal of trees at my place.”

I agree with you that issues like tree removal and architecture should NOT involve the membership.  The agronomy should be handled by the supe and the design issues should be hired by a third party architect.  If this is the case at your club I strongly suggest you do the following:

GET OUT FROM IN FRONT OF YOUR COMPUTER, GET INVOLVED AND RUN FOR THE BOARD!  By the number of posts you have on Golf Club Atlas, time is not an issue and you obviously care deeply about your club.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mr. Mucci, my only guess is you have never served on a board


Your guess is wrong.
I've served on Boards at several clubs for 20 consecutive years.


OR you are currently a member of a club where the board is the enemy. 


Wrong again.

And, none of those boards has sought membership opinions vis a vis surveys.

Worse yet, you might be one of the miserable few who complain and complain and never get involved in the leadership of the club. 


Like in baseball, three strikes and your out.  You're wrong AGAIN.
I've been actively involved in the leadership at clubs for 40+ years.

No wonder you need surveys, you can't get a feel for the pulse.

I don’t think that’s the case because your posts, although misguided and demeaning, do show signs of intelligence and true concern for a club you obviously love very much.

You'd be accurate in stating that I care and am concerned.
OK, you're 1 for 4.

I don’t understand your comment regarding my status as an employee. 


I NEVER made a comment regarding your status as an employee.
I was under the impression that you were a member.

My job is to manage the staff, report on the financials, serve the members and see that the will of the membership (through the board) is carried through the policies of the club. 

Agreed.

I don’t know how we got sidetracked with this ridiculous survey issue so I am going to leave that alone. 

But my refusal to make uninformed, dictatorial decision regarding the policies of my club sounds exactly what you would expect from a great GM.  And I quote, “While no club can be great without a great GM, any vision must come SOLELY from the membership.  It's their club.”

As I stated before, if leadership at the club (read members of the Board and Executive Committee) have to take a survey to figure out what's going on, what the members want and what makes the members happy or unhappy with, then they're out of touch.

There are hundreds of decision either I make or the board make that do not involve the general membership such as clubhouse repairs, personnel issues, agronomic and design issues, etc…  Then there are a few things that even the board cannot agree on how the bulk of the membership will react.   

It's a rare day when the Board is unanimous on all issues.
Dissent is a normal activity at the board level.
To look for perfection or unanimity is sheer folly.

Don't ever forget these words.
"No one knows the formula for success, but surely the formula for failure is to try to please everyone."

You above all people should know that.

You should also know that even if the survey came back in favor of charging $ 2 for the range improvement, certain members are going to complain anyway.

So, my sense of the issue was that the Board and President lacked vision on this issue.

They should have improved the range and either charged or not charged for the project, but, for God's sake, don't open such a trifling issue up to a general membership survey.

A lot of club members, and I hope you aren’t one of them, bitch about the “problem” then bitch about the “solution.”  Most of the “solution” bitching comes because they were not given the opportunity to voice their opinion and noone made the effort to get them to “buy in” to the change.

I believe in dictatorships.

I belong to a club where this form of governance rules.

Is everything perfect ?  No.  But, it's close enough that the margins of tolerance are ample, and I'm more than satisfied and supportive of the dictators efforts.   Even if a dictator is 80 % right, I'm behind him.

I will give an example that I am sure you will find some way to misinterpret as “misguided” or a “lack of leadership.”

We closed the restaurant on Tuesdays while the course was shutdown.  The 10 or so “Mucci’s”  bitched and moaned that they couldn’t get their half turkey sandwich anymore when they came out to read the newspaper and watch “The Price is Right.”  After we reopened we kept the restaurant closed on Tuesdays and only opened the bar and the snack bar.  It saved each member $10 per month ($70,000 total per year) in unnecessary payroll expense and nobody cares anymore.


You're always going to get dissent.
Leadership has to evaluate dissent to determine if it's valid, if it's constructive criticism.  For without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.

Tuesday dining, sodding the range instead of hitting off mats for a month every spring, having an auto attendant instead of a full time receptionist, shoe shine personnel, fancy locker room amenities, big non-holiday Sunday brunches, liquor costs, food costs… all of these items have a specific price tag that must be subsidized by the entire membership. 

I don't look at those functions as being subsidized.
I view them as services that the members are entitled to.
Let's face it, belonging to a club is a luxury and as such members want service as long as they get value.

If a “benevolent dictator” is making these decisions without consulting the membership then his leadership is flawed and misguided. 

This is where we disagree.

The best run clubs are dictatorships or oligarchies.

Pine Valley
Seminole
Hidden Creek
The Honors Club

The leadership of these clubs has been great and, if you look back, there hasn't been much turnover in the dictatorship position.  There's a marvelous stability.  Each dictator grooms his successor.  What could be better ?

It is a GM’s job to communicate the “price tag” of each of these items to the board.  When the board is uncomfortable making the call a quick email based, internet survey is a valuable tool. 

If the Board is uncomfortable making the call, then you need a new Board.
A Board consisting of intelligent, well informed individuals who have a passion for the club and the time to devote to it, who CAN make a decision without having to ask every member what they think.

If that's the way the board and the club are run, why not just run a referendum on each issue and do away with the Board ?

There is no postage, no printing and hardly any labor involved.


Sounds like "no balls" either.

Patrick, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and, after reading the following I fully understand why you feel the way you do about boards and surveys:

“I've used the example of survey responses for the removal of trees at my place.”

I agree with you that issues like tree removal and architecture should NOT involve the membership.  The agronomy should be handled by the super and the design issues should be hired by a third party architect.  If this is the case at your club I strongly suggest you do the following:

GET OUT FROM IN FRONT OF YOUR COMPUTER, GET INVOLVED AND RUN FOR THE BOARD! 

I've served on the Boards of several clubs for over 20 consecutive years.
I was chairman of a number of committees and a committee member on numerous committees for over 40 years.  Hence, I feel adequately experienced to comment on club issues, having been intricately involved in them for decades and decades.

By the number of posts you have on Golf Club Atlas, time is not an issue and you obviously care deeply about your club.

I love golf, care about clubs and am not a fan of democracy at clubs.

[Ronald Montesano]

Can any participant in this great debate give examples of clubs where benevolent (or otherwise) dictatorships caused negative consequences?

[Roger Wolfe]

Pine Valley
Seminole
Hidden Creek
The Honors Club

Now I understand.  You win.  $50-$100 in disposable income per month means nothing to the members of the clubs you mention above.  And we all know, of course, that the more exclusive and expensive the club, the "better it must be." 

At the clubs you mention above and others, like Quail Hollow in Charlotte and Cliff Roberts at AGNC, a dictatorship probably works best.  I have millionaire corporate lawyers rubbing elbows with building supply salesman... and I am proud to have held on to both of them.

Sorry to have wasted your time... you must be right.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pine Valley
Seminole
Hidden Creek
The Honors Club

Now I understand.  You win.  $50-$100 in disposable income per month means nothing to the members of the clubs you mention above.  And we all know, of course, that the more exclusive and expensive the club, the "better it must be." 

Money and exclusivity weren't the issue, the form of governance was the issue.

You claimed that benign dictatorships or dictatorships didn't work at clubs.
Here are your exact words:

"If a “benevolent dictator” is making these decisions without consulting the membership then his leadership is flawed and misguided."

I just pointed out clubs where benevolent dictators MAKE those decisions, and those members and clubs are happy with the way the club is run.

Your position had nothing to do with money or exclusivity, it had to do with making decisions.  You derided benevolent dictators who made those decisions, claiming that they were misguided and flawed.

I just wanted to point out the folly of your allegation by citing well run clubs where benevolent dictators make those decisions and the membership is content.

At the clubs you mention above and others, like Quail Hollow in Charlotte and Cliff Roberts at AGNC, a dictatorship probably works best.  I have millionaire corporate lawyers rubbing elbows with building supply salesman... and I am proud to have held on to both of them.

That's not the issue.
You can find the same mix at Newport and other clubs.
The issue is leadership or the lack of it and the use of surveys as a crutch to determine what a cadre of members may like or dislike.

You have to defend surveys because you use them.

I have NO vested interest in their use.
I'm opposed to them for philosophical reasons.

You see them as part of a discovery process.
I see them as a barometer for clueless leadership 

Sorry to have wasted your time... you must be right.


For once, you're right, and you didn't need a survey to figure that out.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

In my opinion no club can achieve true greatness without a vision and it's own distinctives.

I also think that vision rarely ever comes from many sources, but rather from one visionary who is the kind of gifted leader that people trust.

Some clubs are host to PGA and USGA events. Those clubs are able to derive vision from those events. But what about other clubs?

What do you guys think?

This is Bradley's opening post.

The answer is:
 
CLUBS don't develop a vision by sending out a survey to the membership.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - on this subject in particular you hold all the cards, and always make a compelling argument. And yet, I'm left to conclude that you believe a genuine and abiding and sustaining ethos comes from the top down, and not from the ground up -- an idea that somehow rings counter-intuitive to me.

Peter

[Mike McGuire]

Please help this develope further.

Let me bump the topic with this question: are member surveys helpful in developing a vision?

Member surveys are more likely to stifle vision than develop it. Developing a vision infers change. There will be  a percentage of members that do not like any change. These members will respond in high numbers to any question of change and can kill it before it has a chance to be developed.

A vision that is developed by someone or some group that is well thought out with the best interests of the entire membership in mind can then be presented with a chance to become reality.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick - on this subject in particular you hold all the cards, and always make a compelling argument. And yet, I'm left to conclude that you believe a genuine and abiding and sustaining ethos comes from the top down, and not from the ground up -- an idea that somehow rings counter-intuitive to me.

Peter,

To serve a club well, meaning the assumption of committee duties, a chair or Board seat, a member must have a love of the entity, wisdom and time.

Those three elements are critical.

Members don't just appear on the Board, they're either appointed or elected.

If elections are part of the process then you must conclude that the membership, or factions of the membership feel that the elected member will represent their interests and use good judgement and that the collective of the Board Members will act in their best interest.

Thus, it's usually the Board that guides the club and has the vision for the club's future.

Rarely does a disinterested member come up with a good idea.
It's the members who care about the club that usually come up with good ideas.

I'm not saying that the above is universal or infallible, but, it's the norm.

When you serve on a board, you find that others may be serving for reasons that differ from your reasons.
Some members like the prestige or the power.
Others have a genuine concern for the welfare and future of the club.

I would classify myself as a "free thinking" Board member, but, I NEVER, in over 20 years, voted for my own agenda.  I always voted for what I thought was in the best interest of the club.   I came up with more than a few ideas that were adopted as club policy.  Many remain in place today.

Board meetings can be the cauldron for creativity.

The President, Executive Committee and Board run the club.
They appoint Committee Chairs and provide direction.
Committees do the work of and for the Board, reporting their activity and their recommendations.  Many good ideas come from the committee level. 
Some are adopted by the board, altered by the board, rejected by the board or postponed by the Board.

Clubs aren't run by the general membership.

The Club's by-laws provide for how the club will be run.
It's a structured system, but, at the top, is the President, Executive Committee and Board.  That triumvirate runs the club and sometimes one of them runs the club.  The notion that the membership actively runs the club is a myth.

It tends to be a cadre of those members willing to put the time in.
However, not all candidates have the wisdom or a love of the entity.
Some Candidates have their own personal agenda.

Sometimes, if not many times, you accept a board member's shortcomings because they're willing to invest their time and because they care about the club.

Some of the Boards I served on represented 10 % or more of the club.
The problem with large Boards is that the meetings can go on forever.
Starting at 7 pm and ending after midnight.  Imagine a Board with 24 members.  Imagine the discussions on each issue if each Board member gets their say.  Imagine the debates.  You could be there for weeks.

That's another reason I prefer small boards, from oligarchies to dictatorships.

Hope that helps.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks much, Patrick - I really appreciate the detailed answer.

Peter

[Jeff Goldman]

Can any participant in this great debate give examples of clubs where benevolent (or otherwise) dictatorships caused negative consequences?

Creek Club, Joe Dey.  Taking out Ryanor bunkers left and right "to make the course more playable."  Accorrding to Tom Doak, he intended to remove all but four.

Augusta National, if one disagrees on the course of the course

Riviera, if one disagrees with the course of the course

Cog Hill, if you think that Dick Wilson's vision should have been preserved.

Bay Hill, same

[JMEvensky]

Can any participant in this great debate give examples of clubs where benevolent (or otherwise) dictatorships caused negative consequences?

Creek Club, Joe Dey.  Taking out Ryanor bunkers left and right "to make the course more playable."  Accorrding to Tom Doak, he intended to remove all but four.

Augusta National, if one disagrees on the course of the course

Riviera, if one disagrees with the course of the course

Cog Hill, if you think that Dick Wilson's vision should have been preserved.

Bay Hill, same

I think a distinction must be made between a benevolent dictator-type arrangement at a member owned club and an owner.They frequently have different agendas.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Can any participant in this great debate give examples of clubs where benevolent (or otherwise) dictatorships caused negative consequences?

Creek Club, Joe Dey.  Taking out Ryanor bunkers left and right "to make the course more playable."  Accorrding to Tom Doak, he intended to remove all but four.

Jeff, I'm not so sure that Joe Dye was the dictator at The Creek.
Certainly, he was influential, but, I don't believe he ran the club.
Perhaps others more familiar with the club history could enlighten us.

Augusta National, if one disagrees on the course of the course

You may be confused here.
Cliff Roberts may have been the last dictator.

Riviera, if one disagrees with the course of the course

Riviera may not qualify since it's not a member owned club.
I think Riviera is a great golf course.
I'd certainly want to be a member.
Is the golf course today substantively different from 1990, 1970 ?

Cog Hill, if you think that Dick Wilson's vision should have been preserved.


Non member owned clubs are in a different category since the dictator's classification is irrelevant.  And, you seem to be anxious to disregard an important qualifier, the word, "benevolent".
   
Bay Hill, same

What negative consequences ?
You can't ignore the fact that Bay Hill is a PGA Tour Venue.

[Ronald Montesano]

Let's go right to the source.  Patrick Mucci, can you suggest any failed benevolent dictatorships, since you shot down the five that Jeff proposed?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Let's go right to the source.  Patrick Mucci, can you suggest any failed benevolent dictatorships, since you shot down the five that Jeff proposed?

Jeff ONLY named ONE person, and he might not have been a dictator at The Creek.

He then named some clubs but failed to name the dictator, benevolent or otherwise.

Off the top of my head I don't know of any failed benevolent dictators.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()