[Mike_Young]

IMHO many of our private courses have become employee driven in the last 20 years.  The course so often discussed here evolved in a time when golf was a game and not a business.....members dictated more to employees as to what they wanted or expected....in the last few years the employee has become an intimidation for many a club board....and has driven much of the decision making.....most of the time the member cannot and will not argue with the employee....and a corporate culture develops....I think it is getting ready to change....

[Jim_Kennedy]

I think you're about as far off the mark with your assessment as is possible.

[Mike_Young]

I think you're about as far off the mark with your assessment as is possible.

Jim,
That's why I am asking....so tell me where specifically...cause I see a lot of tail wagging the dog stuff happening...

[RSLivingston_III]

I think you're about as far off the mark with your assessment as is possible.

I agree.
Around here in the last decade it seems like most all the clubs fired everyone, starting with the long time pros, and tried to replace all of them with people that might work for minimum wage.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ralph,
I've seen the same thing myself, plus the member who gets a bug up his bum and causes someone's head to roll.

Mike,
I can't think of one golf club where the staff intimidates the membership.

[Mike_Young]

Ralph,
I've seen the same thing myself, plus the member who gets a bug up his bum and causes someone's head to roll.

Mike,
I can't think of one golf club where the staff intimidates the membership.

I can name at least 25 in one state....I guess there is room for all kinds...

[Jim_Kennedy]

Where is that? Wussconsin?

[john_stiles]

In a sense,  I agree.  But this is my sesne.

In the past, my hunch is that many more courses were driven by a small group of board members at the private equity clubs.

My sense is that this sentiment (small board group/or key employees in tune w/ small board driven) will still work at the elite courses with stable waiting lists.   But at most,  board/management will have to be very attuned to what works for the 'most' members. 

The number 1 job for board members and management at most private courses will be to  listen.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Whether its member driven or employee driven what it is is too damn personal. Instead of focusing on the processes that make things work, the focus is always on the members who expect too much or the pro/supers who wield too much power or whatever else you can come up with. All any really good professional employee wants is to know what's expected of him. But just try getting these "big business" types to put anything in writing most of the time.
As a super all I ever want is for my boss to tell me what he wants and then I'll tell him what it costs and how I plan to get there. And if he has questions or concerns at least we're talking about something concrete. Its not that hard but not many want to do it the easy way.

[Mike_Young]

In a sense,  I agree.  But this is my sesne.

In the past, my hunch is that many more courses were driven by a small group of board members at the private equity clubs.

My sense is that this sentiment (small board group/or key employees in tune w/ small board driven) will still work at the elite courses with stable waiting lists.   But at most,  board/management will have to be very attuned to what works for the 'most' members. 

The number 1 job for board members and management at most private courses will be to  listen.

John,
I think we still have the small groups of board members driving things...but the drive and the input and the "listening" comes from the employees...
I see a lot of unnecessary items as well as over the top budget items driven by employees .  I know this makes me sound like the bad guy but as we discuss more and more affordable golf.....the fluff has got to stop....

[Mark Chaplin]

Mike the simple reason clubs have a small board or committee driving things is 98% of members are not interested in getting involved in helping to run the club. The loudest complainers tend to be the ones whom do the least to help.

[Pat Burke]

Don, agreed, when I am working on things now, I come at them from what seems a different angle
to a lot of the managers I run in to.
I grew up very old school, but believe that my background trying to play led me to being pretty
"goal" oriented.  I have yet to get a simple answer, anywhere when I ask what the goal for whatever program we are working on is.


I thought it was just me!!!

[Mike_Young]

Whether its member driven or employee driven what it is is too damn personal. Instead of focusing on the processes that make things work, the focus is always on the members who expect too much or the pro/supers who wield too much power or whatever else you can come up with.

Don,
Your comment above is what I am talking about....
Read the Milgram experiment on Wiki sometime....in one place it says" The first is the theory of conformism, based on Solomon Asch conformity experiments, describing the fundamental relationship between the group of reference and the individual person. A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. "
This why we now have 40,000 dollar pool slides at clubs, three times the mowers needed, over built pro shops and dining rooms that are never used..bunkers with 15 irrigation heads on them....members didn't come up with this stuff....they bought into it....

[Anthony_Nysse]

I think you're about as far off the mark with your assessment as is possible.

I couldnt agree more. Employee opinions are asked and appreciated, but at the end of the day, a member owned club is going to do what they chose and employees are to follow that plan.

[Carl Rogers]

In our culture today, it is very popular for some taking their cue from talk radio, reality tv, cable tv or the web to pretend that they actually know something about a particular subject when in reality they know nothing.

Golf is unfortunately is another area where this problem persists.

[Mike McGuire]

Speaking for Wisconsin

Members definitely run the clubs in my area (SE)

I think we would be better off giving the employees more power.

I would rather have the super, pro and club manager making decisions than a bunch of bankers, insurance men, dentists, stockbrokers etc.

[JMEvensky]

IMHO many of our private courses have become employee driven in the last 20 years.  The course so often discussed here evolved in a time when golf was a game and not a business.....members dictated more to employees as to what they wanted or expected....in the last few years the employee has become an intimidation for many a club board....and has driven much of the decision making.....most of the time the member cannot and will not argue with the employee....and a corporate culture develops....I think it is getting ready to change....

I see your point and agree with a lot of this,at least insofar as my personal experience.

Where I'd disagree is the how and why.It takes a certain confluence of events,IMO.

To me,the important part is the game vs. business.If a particular club goes through a period where the Presidents aren't "golfers",they tend to be reluctant to question a GM or Super.If said President has no frame of reference as to how a proper golf club should be run,he'll just defer to the GM--the guy who's getting paid to know these things.

The problems really get amped up when said GM is mostly a F/B guy.Then,you've got the proverbial blind leading the blind.

After a few years of this,you end up with a membership complaining that the club is being run for the benefit of the employees.It wasn't planned this way,it was just "easier" for the President to defer.

Again,just my personal experience,but I doubt this is a one-off.

IMO,this is another argument in favor of the Mucci Benevolent Dictator Doctrine.

[archie_struthers]

The benevolent dictator is a great way to run a club. I like ten year terms and no renovations  or major projects without a super majority of the board.  Other than that ., let him ( or she) go at it. Clubs don 't need presidents that want to have the  Struthers Bridge or Mucci Green or heaven forbid the Shivas Bunker (lol)  Happy New Year to all .

[JMEvensky]

The benevolent dictator is a great way to run a club. I like ten year terms and no renovations  or major projects without a super majority of the board.  Other than that ., let him ( or she) go at it. Clubs don 't need presidents that want to have the  Struthers Bridge or Mucci Green or heaven forbid the Shivas Bunker (lol)  Happy New Year to all .

RE: renovations and major projects,the best idea I've ever seen was to give a "veto" to a committee of Past Presidents.It guarantees continuity and longer term thinking.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike McGuire,
Thanks for understanding "Wuss-consin".  

The premise here is ridiculous and nothing more than a blame-game, with employees as an easy target. Mike, and others, would have us believe that the members of a club are such a bunch of morons that they can be led around by their noses, and have been for many years, by employees who only have their own welfare at heart. Well guess what, if club presidents or board heads/members are so intimidated by their supers, pros or managers then they as a group should be the target, not the employees.
When it was full speed ahead no clubs cared too much if their restaurant lost some money, after all, they had their own little dining enclave away from the hoi-polloi and that's what the club wanted.  When the swimming pool and tennis courts were put in the costs were absorbed, because the club wanted the amenities. When it was full speed ahead and the club wanted greens that stimped at 12 and lush fairways mowed at 3/8" and were told by the super that it was going to cost XXX$, well, it was full speed ahead because that's what the club wanted.  

At the white elephant clubs, the CCFADs, the story is no different. It wasn't an employee who spent millions on behemoth clubhouses sheltering overblown pro shops, sports bars, locker rooms, dining facilities, etc. It wasn't an employee who decided that there should be official greeters in the parking lot, or cart boys or food carts or ten-acre practice ranges with multple pyramids of PROV1's stacked on the line, and it wasn't an employee that spent the big pile of cash needed to hire the name-brand architect.  

This thread wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for an economy that took a huge downturn, and someone looking to blame someone else.

[Mike_Young]

I think you're about as far off the mark with your assessment as is possible.

I couldnt agree more. Employee opinions are asked and appreciated, but at the end of the day, a member owned club is going to do what they chose and employees are to follow that plan.

Tony,
I agree with you at a club like yours....but so many clubs have boards where the president may not even play golf 5 times per year....and in so many cases " a monster has been created" over the last twenty years at many clubs....the board members want to be sure that when they leave the board they can walk around the club w/o being chastised for decisions so they will often go with whatever the employee tells them so that they can't be blamed.....

[Mike_Young]

IMHO many of our private courses have become employee driven in the last 20 years.  The course so often discussed here evolved in a time when golf was a game and not a business.....members dictated more to employees as to what they wanted or expected....in the last few years the employee has become an intimidation for many a club board....and has driven much of the decision making.....most of the time the member cannot and will not argue with the employee....and a corporate culture develops....I think it is getting ready to change....

I see your point and agree with a lot of this,at least insofar as my personal experience.

Where I'd disagree is the how and why.It takes a certain confluence of events,IMO.

To me,the important part is the game vs. business.If a particular club goes through a period where the Presidents aren't "golfers",they tend to be reluctant to question a GM or Super.If said President has no frame of reference as to how a proper golf club should be run,he'll just defer to the GM--the guy who's getting paid to know these things.

The problems really get amped up when said GM is mostly a F/B guy.Then,you've got the proverbial blind leading the blind.

After a few years of this,you end up with a membership complaining that the club is being run for the benefit of the employees.It wasn't planned this way,it was just "easier" for the President to defer.

Again,just my personal experience,but I doubt this is a one-off.

IMO,this is another argument in favor of the Mucci Benevolent Dictator Doctrine.

Agree....This example is what I see in many different places....

[Mike_Young]

Mike McGuire,
Thanks for understanding "Wuss-consin".  

The premise here is ridiculous and nothing more than a blame-game, with employees as an easy target. Mike, and others, would have us believe that the members of a club are such a bunch of morons that they can be led around by their noses, and have been for many years, by employees who only have their own welfare at heart. Well guess what, if club presidents or board heads/members are so intimidated by their supers, pros or managers then they as a group should be the target, not the employees.
When it was full speed ahead no clubs cared too much if their restaurant lost some money, after all, they had their own little dining enclave away from the hoi-polloi and that's what the club wanted.  When the swimming pool and tennis courts were put in the costs were absorbed, because the club wanted the amenities. When it was full speed ahead and the club wanted greens that stimped at 12 and lush fairways mowed at 3/8" and were told by the super that it was going to cost XXX$, well, it was full speed ahead because that's what the club wanted.  

At the white elephant clubs, the CCFADs, the story is no different. It wasn't an employee who spent millions on behemoth clubhouses sheltering overblown pro shops, sports bars, locker rooms, dining facilities, etc. It wasn't an employee who decided that there should be official greeters in the parking lot, or cart boys or food carts or ten-acre practice ranges with multple pyramids of PROV1's stacked on the line, and it wasn't an employee that spent the big pile of cash needed to hire the name-brand architect.  

This thread wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for an economy that took a huge downturn, and someone looking to blame someone else.

Am not playing a blame game and am not dissing employees....but while this may not be occurring at your club there are plenty of places where this happens on a daily basis....and it happens for the reason you mention....intimidation and plenty of members are led around by their noses....

[JMEvensky]

 

This thread wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for an economy that took a huge downturn, and someone looking to blame someone else.

The original post made no mention of any financial issues.What I inferred was that some clubs had,for whatever reason,allowed their employees too much leeway in decision making which caused clubs to get away from a member-run ethos.

I certainly agree with you that clubs have nobody to blame but themselves.The members/Boards/Presidents allowed it to happen.

The example I cited above happened 5 years ago and had nothing whatsoever to do with finances.It had everything to do with what the club had become.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Please, it's not about intimidation or nose rings, if anything you are making a good case for the failure on the part of board members to do what they are supposed to. That makes them wussies and your premise is false.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()