Hiring a Construction Super and Beyond

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

 But I have, three times, and I can tell you it's a lot easier to deal with puffy grass after you’re covered up than spend months chasing a sod cutter and repairing erosion because you didn't want to grow thatchy grass. In reality, all this generalizing is BS. Yeah, maybe some guys just want to cover the course up and move on, but just about everyone who directs a grow in has also been a maintenance super. I believe most of them get it and understand the long term goals. I guarantee you that if you were doing a grow in a thunderstorm prone area, and you've had to deal with serious erosion because you decided to slow it down, you'll be working your tail off to get it covered up ASAP the next time.
IMO, the quicker you get covered up, the quicker you can get about the business of providing a good golfing surface.

Don (Greg) are you not proving my point? Did you guys stick around long term after the grow-ins? I'm figuring that since you guys have done it 3 and 4 times respectively then probably not for very long. I'll agree with you that the generalizing is BS, that wasn't my intention and I'm certainly not interested in getting into a (public) pissing match with either of you or anyone else about this, my only point was to state that in some situations, to an outsider, it may look like a super does not know what he is doing, while in fact he is looking at his and the clubs long term goals (I actually made my post to defend guys on Mike Young's post and probably should have quoted it ). I'll agree that a grow-in super understands the long term goals (he shouldn't be a super if he didn't) however due to the nature of the positions they are different. I'm not saying a 'grow-in super' is different to a 'maintenance super' and either couldn't do the others job but it's just that there can be two different thought processes.

FYI, I've done a construction and grow-in and throughout had some of the worst storms that you can imagine, so I know all about the 'get it stabilized' philosophy, but I stuck with it and managed to keep the thatch under control (Someone contracted only for the grow-in probably wouldn't have had that luxury). Personally I did not want to deal with a grow-in thatch layer (and having to tell the board I going to have to aerate and topdress the crap out of their spanky new greens, especially when there would be no time considering the schedule I was under) all of which I and they knew going into construction. It's easy to say we have great aerators and can take care of it later but if I was able to prevent it, why not?

[Bradley Anderson]

For the one grow in that I did my wife made me a cooler to go to work every day with all three meals in it. The only thing I did at home was sleep.

Even on Saturday and Sunday I would stay at the course and keep the sprinklers running. I would bring one of my kids to work with me every other day or so and that was the time that we had to spend together. The operators would let my boys climb up in the seat of the dozers and ride with them. I guess they wouldn't be allowed to do that on most jobs now-a-days but these guys were very cool.

I enjoyed every minute of it. The friendship that you develop with all the contractors and operators on a project is priceless.

One thing about THATCH that we need to be careful with in grow-ins is the newer grasses that we are using on greens do not need the huge feedings that we have traditionally used on greens grow-ins. Whereas on the older strains of bent you might use more than 6 lbs of N, on the A series grasses you may not even need 2 lbs of total N for the grow-in.

[Bradley Anderson]

I have to say that I am not at all offended by the suggestion that all superintendents fall in to one of only four categories - hell that's two more categories than what all the architects fall into. 

[Mike_Young]

I have to say that I am not at all offended by the suggestion that all superintendents fall in to one of only four categories - hell that's two more categories than what all the architects fall into. 

Bradley,
and I am in no way offended by the above...

[Jake Straub]

Here's a couple of questions

I think it is safe to say then the philosophy behind growing in and maintaining is different, correct?  Then at what point does and GCA feel like his layout plays the intended way, if the intention is firm, fast, etc?  Is it months, years? 

[Shannon Wheeler]

I didn't know that the gca cared much after the check had cleared, from my experience.

[Mike_Young]

I didn't know that the gca cared much after the check had cleared, from my experience.

Shannon,
Your post really doesn't offend me as much as it interest me that you would have that view.  Will you tell me what you do and how you came about that view.  I can only speak for myself but I know I have gone back to courses I have designed at least every two years to see how they are maturing and in most cases at my own expense w/o being asked......I guess there may be some archies that may not care what happens but I would think most do.

[JSPayne]

Why can't a super be considered first rate based on the results he produces, and not for sacrificing his health and personal relationships for the benefit of a real estate developer and some golfers?

Steve.....I agree whole-heartedly with you, but your point is one of sincere arguement, as noted by Ian's follow-up post.

I'll tell you, from my experience and personal work ethics, that my motto has always been "I work to live, not live to work." But having this motto by no means gives anyone the right to tell me I don't love my job and that I don't dedicate myself to doing to best I can at it. The hard pill to swallow about this profession is that no matter how much time you spend "doing your job" there's ALWAYS something you could be doing more, better, etc. It's all about where you place your values. I heard the running joke that a non-divorced superintendent is a rarity, but family and marriage are two things I'll never compromise on for my job. That may get me some jobs, and cost me others, but it's a choice we all have to make.

And just to show the disparity of this issue of being "married to the job" in our industry, I cite two examples, from two of my turf mentors I respect the absolute most: One told me "If you feel you ABSOLUTELY have to work more then 40 hours a week to get the job done, you're not doing enough things right (i.e. delegating, creating and following good turf programs, time management, etc.); the other told me, "If you're ever doing any job where you can be gone for two weeks (i.e. vacation) without issue, you're probably not necessary at all."

[Steve Okula]

For the one grow in that I did my wife made me a cooler to go to work every day with all three meals in it. The only thing I did at home was sleep.

Even on Saturday and Sunday I would stay at the course and keep the sprinklers running. I would bring one of my kids to work with me every other day or so and that was the time that we had to spend together. The operators would let my boys climb up in the seat of the dozers and ride with them. I guess they wouldn't be allowed to do that on most jobs now-a-days but these guys were very cool.

I enjoyed every minute of it. The friendship that you develop with all the contractors and operators on a project is priceless.

Bradley, with all due respect, because I know that you are a conscientious professional, but if you’re living at home, and you  go all week without eating a meal with your family because you’re at work,  you’ve got issues as a manager. Either you’re not hiring the right people, or you’re not training them properly, or perhaps you're not extending to them the trust and confidence they deserve. (Unless the budget is so tight that you are absolutely alone out there.)

You better hang on to that wife of yours, because not many women would tolerate an absent husband like that, at least not for long.

If the only time you see your kids is at your work, and the only friendships you have are with people from your work, then your life is seriously out of whack, in my opinion.

After all, we’re only producing golf courses so other people can have a diversion from their work.

[Bradley Anderson]

Steve,

If I did grow-ins for a living I would definitely not do it that way again. But as I was on the learning curve while it was happening, and it was only going to happen once so to speak, well I didn't spend too much time training my assistants to be in charge. Actually at the time I was keeping a full 18 hole operation going and I was training them to run that side of the operation.

But you are right, it would not be good management to do it that way all the time, unless you were single and that was your life.

The other thing is I just loved it all so much that I didn't want to delegate it to someone else.

But I do think that there are seasons in life where we may put everything we have into one focused effort. We can not live every day on a set pattern or schedule. Not to sound too philosophical here, but life is essentailly all about balancing time and relationships. And sometimes we must weigh in more on one side of the balance. My wife had seven children and each child was a lot of her attention during infancy. We kind of looked at my grow-in as my own baby so to speak. When a golf course is being built and growing in, its wants are its needs, and you have to respond in the moment to what it needs. Exactly like an infant.

[Bradley Anderson]

One of the things that I did was I asked Bob Lohman to generate a drawing of everywhere on the course where I could have any erosion during grow-in. With that map I had square footages of where to focus on erosion control.

I bought a truck load of erosion control wood fiber blanket to lay on these areas immediatly after they were seeded. This made the grow-in so much easier. We did not have one single washout, and the on the slopes where things would tend to dry out we did not have to go back and hand water. Basically it allowed the enitre grow-in to happen with automatic sprinklers, and fertilizer spreaders.

So while there was a lot of time involved, it wasn't crazy reaction stuff.

I think erosion control can make a big difference in the success or failure of a grow-in.

[Mike_Young]

Steve,



 My wife had seven children and each child was a lot of her attention during infancy. We kind of looked at my grow-in as my own baby so to speak. When a golf course is being built and growing in, its wants are its needs, and you have to respond in the moment to what it needs. Exactly like an infant.

Bradley,
Are you saying you have 7 children.....grow-in ain"t nothin

[Steve Okula]

Nobody has a more acute interest in the construction and grow-in of a golf course than either the developer, whoever is paying for it, or the architect, whose name will be forever attached to it. Would some one please point out to me which developers and architects spend 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, week in and week out, month after month, on site?

If you don't know any, it's because they don't exist. They hire superintendents, shapers, irrigation contractors and so on and delegate them the responsibilities.

Why are supers the only ones who brag about the hours on site?  (Answer: Because they're chumps). Tom Doak, Jeff Bauer, Mike Young, et al post here and don't talk about how wonderful they are for never thinking about the world beyond the site boundaries. When we judge them as architects, we discuss the merits of their work, based on its inherent golfing and aesthetic interest. We never say, "Country Club is a fantastic course because the architect spent 80 hours a week there for six months." It's totally irrelevant.

If you owned a gold mine, which would be more important, the ounces of gold it produced, or the tons of slag?

[Ian Larson]

I don't know who your circles are but I've never heard a superintendent "brag" about working so many hours. Growing in a golf course takes a hell of alot more commitment than overlooking everyday maintenance. If a grow-in superintendent delegates so well that he is working 40 hour weeks compared to 60-70 plus hours he's not going to have a job long because all of the contractors that ARE working the hours to get the job done will be going to the assistant an awful lot, most likely loosing any respect for him while he is the one that gets to spend his evenings with his family and they don't. Doing construction and grow-in is a tremendous team effort, and that's not even including the owner, developer and architect. The project manager, all the contractors, the super and his team....the people actually there for every second of the process. The kind of super you're describing in your posts is the "CEO" super and that mentality can fit in just nice to an already established golf course where you can show up at 8 am and leave at 4 pm with weekends with the family. But that outlook will fail miserably on the construction site and "good delegating" so less hours are worked will not earn the respect of everyone on site.

The bottom line is that nobody ever forces a super to be a grow-in super. And if a super wants to be the "CEO" super then he needs to find an established club, delegate his load down to 40 hours and keep his family in one spot. Grow-in supers don't brag about the hours they work and where it like a badge. They already know the time and commitment needed to get a project done and have no problem going balls to the wall for a year. They just do it, and they love it.

[Greg Chambers]

Steve,

If the construction contractor is working sun-up to sun-down six days a week, then should the superintendent not be there the same number of hours?  What about when they're ready to turn over a hole, you gotta be there to sign off on the finish work, then remain to turn on the irrigation.  What if the construction super has an issue, you gotta be there to help solve it.  After all, the reason you are hired is not just to grow the grass, but to keep an eye on the process as a whole.  If you're not there while the construction is going on, then you're not doing your job.  The hours you work on a grow-in are long, very long, and it's just simply not for everybody.  The worst grow-ins I've seen are the ones where the super felt he could "delegate" to his subordinates and then spend 40 hours a week on the job.  It just doesn't work that way.  And then, on that seventh day, when the construction crews are off, there's no better way to spend the day than on the project, by yourself, taking it all in, making adjustments, etc etc etc.  I really enjoyed my Sundays during the construction/grow-in process.

[Bradley Anderson]

Steve,

I don't agree with you about the hours that architects work. You see there two kinds of architects. Only two. One kind wears blue jeans to the job site, and the other kind wears khakis. But both kinds work a lot of hours.

The contractors come and go and those guys work long hours every friggin day. For instance, our irrigation guys worked till dark four days a week. The dirt guys worked till 7 every day, and till noon on Saturdays. And you should be there when they are there. And when you get some seed popping on the first holes, you have to water lightly and frequently, which means that you are responding to temperatures, wind, sunlight, humidity - stuff that you can not schedule or control.

But I remember one Sunday when I was the only guy out there and I was running sprinklers with my hand held. I drove my cart up on a huge dirt pile and ran sprinklers and drank some beers. The course was germinating and turning from dirt to green everywhere. That was my greatest experience so far as a superintendent - and the beer was pretty good too.

[Steve Okula]

I don't know who your circles are but I've never heard a superintendent "brag" about working so many hours. Growing in a golf course takes a hell of alot more commitment than overlooking everyday maintenance. If a grow-in superintendent delegates so well that he is working 40 hour weeks compared to 60-70 plus hours he's not going to have a job long because all of the contractors that ARE working the hours to get the job done will be going to the assistant an awful lot, most likely loosing any respect for him while he is the one that gets to spend his evenings with his family and they don't. Doing construction and grow-in is a tremendous team effort, and that's not even including the owner, developer and architect. The project manager, all the contractors, the super and his team....the people actually there for every second of the process. The kind of super you're describing in your posts is the "CEO" super and that mentality can fit in just nice to an already established golf course where you can show up at 8 am and leave at 4 pm with weekends with the family. But that outlook will fail miserably on the construction site and "good delegating" so less hours are worked will not earn the respect of everyone on site.

The bottom line is that nobody ever forces a super to be a grow-in super. And if a super wants to be the "CEO" super then he needs to find an established club, delegate his load down to 40 hours and keep his family in one spot. Grow-in supers don't brag about the hours they work and where it like a badge. They already know the time and commitment needed to get a project done and have no problem going balls to the wall for a year. They just do it, and they love it.

Ian, what construction and grow-in have you done?

[Steve Okula]

Steve,

If the construction contractor is working sun-up to sun-down six days a week, then should the superintendent not be there the same number of hours?  What about when they're ready to turn over a hole, you gotta be there to sign off on the finish work, then remain to turn on the irrigation.  What if the construction super has an issue, you gotta be there to help solve it.  After all, the reason you are hired is not just to grow the grass, but to keep an eye on the process as a whole.  If you're not there while the construction is going on, then you're not doing your job.  The hours you work on a grow-in are long, very long, and it's just simply not for everybody.  The worst grow-ins I've seen are the ones where the super felt he could "delegate" to his subordinates and then spend 40 hours a week on the job.  It just doesn't work that way.  And then, on that seventh day, when the construction crews are off, there's no better way to spend the day than on the project, by yourself, taking it all in, making adjustments, etc etc etc.  I really enjoyed my Sundays during the construction/grow-in process.

I know very well how it works, having been superintendent on six golf construction and/or grow-in projects since 1985. There are long days and weeks for everyone involved.

The "construction contractor" as an individual is never there 24/7 for months on end. If the end result is achieved, then you are doing your job, regardless of the hours.

[Greg Chambers]

I didn't say 24/7, I said sun-up to sun-down six days a week.  And with every construction project I've been involved with, that's been the case.  There's no shame in putting in countless hours in order to achieve the best results possible...when I'm dong a grow-in I trust nobody but myself to get to that point.

[Ian Larson]

I don't know who your circles are but I've never heard a superintendent "brag" about working so many hours. Growing in a golf course takes a hell of alot more commitment than overlooking everyday maintenance. If a grow-in superintendent delegates so well that he is working 40 hour weeks compared to 60-70 plus hours he's not going to have a job long because all of the contractors that ARE working the hours to get the job done will be going to the assistant an awful lot, most likely loosing any respect for him while he is the one that gets to spend his evenings with his family and they don't. Doing construction and grow-in is a tremendous team effort, and that's not even including the owner, developer and architect. The project manager, all the contractors, the super and his team....the people actually there for every second of the process. The kind of super you're describing in your posts is the "CEO" super and that mentality can fit in just nice to an already established golf course where you can show up at 8 am and leave at 4 pm with weekends with the family. But that outlook will fail miserably on the construction site and "good delegating" so less hours are worked will not earn the respect of everyone on site.

The bottom line is that nobody ever forces a super to be a grow-in super. And if a super wants to be the "CEO" super then he needs to find an established club, delegate his load down to 40 hours and keep his family in one spot. Grow-in supers don't brag about the hours they work and where it like a badge. They already know the time and commitment needed to get a project done and have no problem going balls to the wall for a year. They just do it, and they love it.

Ian, what construction and grow-in have you done?

The 4 golf courses at Barefoot Landing in North Myrtle Beach with Dave Downing. Hollowbrook Golf Club in Westchester County, NY and Bayonne Golf Club, NJ with Empire Golf. Freestone Golf Course for a single owner in my hometown State College, Pa.

And why even ask that? Is that to see once again how I can even have an opinion on this based on it being as many or better construction & grow-in experience compared to you? All that matters is that Ive spent a good portion of my career on the construction site working from sun up to sun down 6 1/2 days a week.

In construction if the grow-in super can get away with "delegating" his work hours away where does that stop? Can all the contract supervisors do that? To the point where all the management on site is at home with their families while their crews are working their 70th hour of the week? I'm sorry man but that just doesn't cut it and if you got away with working 40 hour weeks during construction & grow-in projects you should give yourself a big pat on the back for being a great "delegater".

To each his own but I know that in my experience this wouldn't be acceptable. Like Greg said there's just too much going on at the site that super needs to be there for anyone to feel comfortable about being away from it. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. And it certainly wouldn't gain the respect of the guys around me.  

[Bradley Anderson]

Steve makes some good points. I think every project is different too. And I can see how a guy could actually do a grow-in without being there all of the time. Especially with the tools we have now.

Steve I agree with a lot of what you have said here. I guess the project that I was on was different because I did all of the green and tee seeding, and I managed all of the subs and provided all the materials. Plus I had a golf course to run, and I built a new shop at the same time. But I can see how on certain projects you wouldn't have to be there dawn to dusk seven days a week.

A lot of supers put in all these crazy hours because they want to. They don't necessarily have to.

[Steve Okula]

I didn't say 24/7, I said sun-up to sun-down six days a week.  And with every construction project I've been involved with, that's been the case.  There's no shame in putting in countless hours in order to achieve the best results possible...when I'm dong a grow-in I trust nobody but myself to get to that point.

Well, Greg, I never said 40 hours a week either. No, there's no shame in putting in excessive hours, unless you are neglecting your family to do so.

Greg, I found it telling that in an earlier you spoke about your success on a project because, "the owner was impressed with the hours I put in". You didn't say he was pleased with the results, though obviously he was, but you appear to value the amount of work over the quality of the product.

I hate to think I couldn't hire people I could trust to turn my back on for a day.

Look, a golf course is never finished. There's always, always, always something left to do, even if you stay out there all day and night. You have to draw the line on what's a reasonable effort, and what descends into madness.

[Ian Larson]

I don't know, I mean if Steve is right in his approach towards growing in a golf course and the guys putting in the time are knuckleheads then if someone were to interview with investors, owners, architects.....shouldn't the guy be upfront in the interview about his management style?

If multiple guys are interviwed for a job and everyone comes off as willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done. But then there's the one guy saying I'm willing to do whatever it takes but I'm not working more than 40-50 hours a week. I won't be here in the late afternoons, evenings or weekends. But I'm the man for the job because I'm a good delegator.

Who's going to be more impressive? Who would the owners feel more comfortable supervising their dream? The guy who is there as long as it takes or the guy who delegates responsibility? And let's be honest here...how hard is it to "delegate"? Especially when it's about working less hours and relying on others to pick that up. In a construction and grow-in environment that's wrong to me on sooo many levels.

Some projects are very different than others depending on a multitude of factors. Some are very simple, some are very complex. But either way...the construction and grow-in phase is no time for the super trying not to get his khakis dirty and seperating himself from his crew and the other subcontractors by not putting in the same time and not digging in and getting dirty. If that's somebodies style they shouldn't be in construction & grow-in.

There's one thing that annoys me about the industry and that's the knuckleheads who avoid working over the 40 hours that their annual salary doesn't cover with overtime. The guys that wrap it up at 3 or 4 because they don't get time and a half. Those are the guys that show why they're really in it and it's not because they're passionate.

I don't think anybody is promoting for someone to get burnt out because that helps nobody. And family should always come first but if someone wants to do construction & grow-in they should understand the time that needs to be committed before hand and it should be understood that their personal life isn't going to affect their commitment or performance.

[Steve Okula]

A lot of supers put in all these crazy hours because they want to. They don't necessarily have to.

Or are some of them afraid not to? I worked jobs in the States where work and dedication to the project came first, last, and middle. Work took precedence over family, faith, health, and absolutely over anything that might ever be fun away from the job. If you weren't prepare to spend every daylight hour every single day on the job, then you weren't perceived as being serious and there was someone standing in the wings waiting to grab the job. And it didn't matter how good the product was, if you took an afternoon off, it could have been better.

Mind you, I have found this attitude only in the U.S., not in the 6 or 7 other countries where I've lived and worked.

[Bradley Anderson]

Steve,

I have never really had an employer monitor my hours or evaluate me on the time I spend. Actually I have been more criticized for spending too much time with the operations and not enough time playing golf.

[Tags:]

Tags: