Golf Architecture by Colin Powell: Lesson One

[Ben Sims]

This is an 18-step series designed to promote discussion amongst golf architecture fans.  The use of Gen (ret.) Colin Powell's Leadership Primer is used only for this discussion and not profit or personal gain

I am finishing up a 5-week leadership course here in Montgomery, AL for Air Force captains.  The course has been designed to emulate many Fortune 500 company's executive development courses and military leadership courses from all services.  I have found myself comparing much of our course material to golf architecture.  

I'd like to start a series of conversations about golf architecture, golf construction, and golf maintenance using Colin Powell's Leadership Primer.  Put his politics aside for a moment and really digest each of his "lessons."  My expectation is that these lessons will start an academic dialogue about how to build a golf course and the future of golf.  I hope we can get max participation from all of our members that work in the business.

Lesson One

Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off.
 
Trying to get everyone to like you is a sign of mediocrity: You'll avoid the tough decisions, you'll avoid confronting the people who need to be confronted, and you'll avoid offering differential rewards based on differential performance because some people might get upset.

Please discuss in the context of golf architecture, construction, and maintenance.  I'll let each topic go a couple days and move on to the next lesson.  

[PCCraig]

Ben:

Really interesting topic.

As to your first point it is hard to think of a GCA pissing people off (owners, players, etc...) and still getting ahead, but then again Tom Doak obviously ruffled a few feathers when he wrote The Confidential Guide...while setting himself apart from the other young architects.

It would be interesting to hear how this would work once in the field though...can a GCA "piss off" an owner and create something that would later be viewed (hopefully) as a better piece of work. I suppose it's entirely possible for a GCA to piss off a member of his crew, let's say a shaper, when a bunker or feature isn't done well and he wants it redone.

The idea of pissing off a paying customer or member is interesting though. I recently went to a lecture/book reading where the owner of a top 10 restaurant in the world was in the process of opening up a new restaurant but with a "revolutionary" reservation system = tickets. He said that the margins are so tight in his restaurants that when just a few tables cancel and remain empty they don't make money that night. So he came up with a way for people to pre-pay for their dinners via a ticket system. When someone asked "Don't you risk alienating a certain type of customer with this system?" he responded "I don't care if I alienate them, in fact I prefer that type of customer to not dine with us." (**Long way to get to a simple point, sorry**). (Side note, this guy is a member of a Doak designed course).

Anyway, if a GCA designs a course or feature that he knows his customer base will love, should he care what the people who won't like it think? For example, not everyone is going to be a fan of some of Tom Doak's wilder greens...but should he care as long as there are many people who want what he's building? On the flip side, minimalist golf courses are all the rage in the industry, but why should Rees Jones care as long as he has customers are buying what he's selling? 

[Don_Mahaffey]

From a maintenance viewpoint, a good super is going to piss off someone occasionally. When you aerify, or need to raise green mowing height during periods of high heat, or need to close the course for some other maintenance function, someone usually has something negative to say about it. But, if you know what your doing is for the greater good, then your being a steward of the course, a leader.
I really like what he says about differential rewards based on differential performance. So many managers seem to be focused on “being fair” to everyone and end up creating a environment of mediocrity instead of excellence.

[Mike_Young]

BEN,
I am getting ready to answer Bob Crosby on the Design/Build thread in much the same manner but I would say this:

For the last 50 years there has been an effort to have the business of golf dictate the game of golf and this has occurred in many aspects of the game.  Examples of where it occurs in the actual building and maintenance of the courses are:
1.  If you are an architect who builds his own work and doesn't use a general contractor then they will do everything in their power to make you into the "bad guy".  The architect/general contractor scenario is a back scratching game in many many cases.  Watch how many signature will give a list of guys that they will allow to bid their work.   We once did a project for around 2.2 million total and when I was interviewing for one of the Architect Fraternity groups it was mentioned to me that a local contractor had said that he had heard the owner did not get his moneys worth.  The actual truth was we had always gotten a couple of prices just to show the owner and the owner had never said such a thing BUT that contractor was gong to slam it one way or the other.  Same goes for some architects.
2.  Try specifying a basic irrigation system or not using USGA greens or telling an owner he can use a triplex greensmower and see how many supts will be slamming you at the next supt meeting.
3.  Tell an owner he can budget $450,000 for maintenance and watch the supts start bitching to the others.

But you are right.  You just can't worry who you piss off as long as you are doing the right thing.  What did Satchel Page say? If they ain't talking about you then ain't doing nothing...or something like that.

I have experienced this stuff first hand....but I think most of my courses have been able to actually cash flow over the last few years...

I think one has to choose if he wants to be one that works for owners or if he wants to get in the "supt" circles and get his work for the committee run clubs via the supt. and GM channels.  One group wants you to save him dollars and the other wants you to help justify more budget.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

I can't wait to see the other 17 lessons.  Did he really come up with 18?  How fortuitous!

As someone who has made a career out of pissing people off, I would like to offer a few observations on this first lesson.

1.  Golf course architecture does not exactly carry the same responsibilities as being a military commander.  There is plenty of room in the marketplace for milquetoast designs -- even though there are already a lifetime supply of such courses.  Still, they aren't going to get anybody killed.

2.  Golf course architects [with rare exceptions] aren't the owner of their own designs.  If we were, then we could all seek higher truth.  But in real life, we are generally NOT at the top of the chain of command ... we are one rung down.  In the military, that would mean we must tell our commanders the truth as we see it, but we must abide by their orders.

3.  In our wars, there are a lot more than two sides.  There is room for a variety of viewpoints to thrive in the industry.

4.  Pete Dye never worried about pissing off his clients ... he jousted with most of them on an everyday basis.  It was part of the game with Pete, and part of the reason he was so good.  He never had a client that wouldn't put up with it; he sorted those guys out way before he signed a contract.  He ignored their calls!!  If they went away and hired someone else, he didn't sweat it.  If they stuck it out until he talked to them, then Pete had the upper hand.

5.  Even among architects, no one is ever appointed General, but it's much harder to show leadership when you are at the bottom of the food chain trying to work your way up.  I had several early clients who did not appreciate what I had observed from watching Mr. Dye, and for a while there I was afraid it would keep me from having a productive career.  Luckily, I also had some key supporters who had good words to say about me when others did not; and I was very lucky to have made an impression on the people who were more important and taken seriously.  [Well, it wasn't all luck; I made an effort to cultivate people who were of similar mind, and when they wound up becoming influential in the golf business, I was in the right place after all.]

6.  The most important thing I had to learn was that everyone cares about money, but that can't be your raison d'etre.  The best developers are the ones who want to do something great.  They care about how much it costs, but their first goal is to build a great course ... so that's what they want to hear about in the beginning.  If you build a great course and save them money, too, they will tell your next potential client all about it; but you've got to deliver the great course or it was all a waste of money to them.

7.  Mike speaks the truth about the golf business ... if you are doing something different, and you are really onto something good, you are dangerous to the status quo and you can expect to be attacked in private.  But the establishment only gets pissed off when you are really onto something, so that's all a good sign! 

[Terry Lavin]

Lesson One from Colin Powell should be:  Make sure you get good information before you agree to be the front man to send men and women to war.

[Ben Sims]

Terry,

I'd like to refrain from critiquing politics if we can. But as someone intimately involved in our current conflict, I echo the sentiment.

Corky

[Terry Lavin]

Fair enough.

[DMoriarty]

. . . if you are doing something different, and you are really onto something good, you are dangerous to the status quo and you can expect to be attacked in private.  But the establishment only gets pissed off when you are really onto something, so that's all a good sign! 

+1

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

I really like that idea. It works towards the idea of not trying to build a course suitable for everyone all the time. If you want to build a course playable for ladies and average men, then do so, and if the scratch players don't like it, let them complain. If you want to build a course in the Pine Valley or Oakmont model, then do it, and who cares if "grandmother" or "Jimmy 16 handicap" can play. But I think that is what the greatest courses share, the lack of ability to really "appeal" to everyone, courses may be great to all or many, but they might not be enjoyable, in a certain sense of the word.

[Tom_Doak]

I really like that idea. It works towards the idea of not trying to build a course suitable for everyone all the time. If you want to build a course playable for ladies and average men, then do so, and if the scratch players don't like it, let them complain. If you want to build a course in the Pine Valley or Oakmont model, then do it, and who cares if "grandmother" or "Jimmy 16 handicap" can play. But I think that is what the greatest courses share, the lack of ability to really "appeal" to everyone, courses may be great to all or many, but they might not be enjoyable, in a certain sense of the word.

Jamie:

That is true for most other things as well.  Do the great restaurants try to have something for every taste on the menu?

[Steve Kline]

Playing the middle of the road in business with your product will get you killed. You better know your product, know your audience, and know how they interact. It is true in every line of work.

[Jim Nelson]

Playing the middle of the road in business with your product will get you killed. You better know your product, know your audience, and know how they interact. It is true in every line of work.

Not sure if I agree with the first part of this quote.  It does depend on what you do or what your product is.  Never forget that you can't run a business without clients.  They or the general product could be middle of the road.  There are plenty of restaurant chains, to use Tom's restaurant analogy, that are doing great business right in the middle of the road.  That's there model.  In golf, there are plenty of middle of the road architects who design for clients who want the middle of the road product.  I'm guessing, based on reports, that there's lots of this going on in China right now.  Yes, you have to know your product, know your audience and know how they interact, but you might find them in the middle of the road. 

That being said, I do agree with Tom regarding design of all types.  The top designers are always trying to lead their clients away from the mundane and ordinary towards fresher, innovative solutions.  Sticking to your guns and developing a reputation is the hard part.  In the end, execution is everything.  You better be able to pull it off.

Ben, I think this is a fascinating topic and look forward to the next posts.  When I first read this quote, I really thought it applied to managing peers and subordinates more than superiors.  Is that how it was approached in your training?

Jim

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

I really like that idea. It works towards the idea of not trying to build a course suitable for everyone all the time. If you want to build a course playable for ladies and average men, then do so, and if the scratch players don't like it, let them complain. If you want to build a course in the Pine Valley or Oakmont model, then do it, and who cares if "grandmother" or "Jimmy 16 handicap" can play. But I think that is what the greatest courses share, the lack of ability to really "appeal" to everyone, courses may be great to all or many, but they might not be enjoyable, in a certain sense of the word.

Jamie:

That is true for most other things as well.  Do the great restaurants try to have something for every taste on the menu?

The most certainly do not. They either have steak, or Italian, or seafood, whatever. Certainly we've all been to places where you could order all those off the same menu, and none were exceptional. And we've all been to golf courses that tried to equally appeal to ladies, average golfers, scratch players and everyone else, and really wound up not appealing to any of them. And yet, we see these courses built all the time.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben, I think this is a fascinating topic and look forward to the next posts.  When I first read this quote, I really thought it applied to managing peers and subordinates more than superiors.  Is that how it was approached in your training?

Jim

Jim:

Very good point.  Leave it to me to think about it the other way around.

Managing people is just as important to good golf architecture.  No architect gets the course built by himself ... it requires a lot of help, and you have to get your helpers on board with what you are trying to do.  This is not just a matter of "my way or the highway" ... but occasionally, it has to be.

This is one of the ways in which I never understood the model of hiring a golf course contractor to build the course.  In that model, the architect has no real say over the management of the crew -- he can only complain about the results and keep reworking things until he gets it right.  That's why most architects prefer to work with a contractor they know and trust, but in the end, you don't have any real leverage in the way the present project is managed, you just have the threat of taking your business elsewhere in the future.

[Jim Nugent]

Mike speaks the truth about the golf business ... if you are doing something different, and you are really onto something good, you are dangerous to the status quo and you can expect to be attacked in private.  But the establishment only gets pissed off when you are really onto something, so that's all a good sign! 

That is true in every field I know of.  Status quo does not want to lose its status. 

[Bruce Katona]

Tom: While not really a common practice with GCA, one way to control QA/QC of construction is to have the GCA sign-off the the construction draws for the course, including change orders.  Witholding payments because soemthing was constructed incorrectly gets a contractor's attention.

Architect's sign-off on draws and Cahnge Orders is very common in commercial building construction as the Architect represents the Owner in this suituation.

[Steve Kline]

But don't Tom and some of the others operate without drawings or just very loose ones? It's not like a building where you need specific plans.

[Ben Sims]

Jim,

It's both really.  I think the concept of dynamic followership is sadly lost by many "go-getters" in my generation.  Most young professionals think that you're either a follower or the boss.  That's simply not the case.  It's okay to be the "indian" every now and then as long as you challenge when necessary, promote ideas and solutions when appropriate, and also know when to shut up and color.  

So to answer your question, we approached the concept from the full spectrum.  Though I would argue that in terms of golf architecture an construction, I'd much rather be pissing off a client or general contractor than the guy on the dozer.  Disenfranchised subordinates produce lousy work.  Always.  

[SL_Solow]

To Jamie's point, I think the new equipment has made it harder to build "one size fits all" courses.  My reading of MacKenzie suggests that he thought he could build courses that were appealing and challenging to all levels of players.  But the new equipment seems to have helped expand the differential between the professionals and the reasonable amateur player requiring considerably longer courses for the pros.  Accordingly, absent an extremely clever use of alternate tees, it is difficult to build courses that create reasonable challenges for the broad spectrum.

[Bill_McBride]

To Jamie's point, I think the new equipment has made it harder to build "one size fits all" courses.  My reading of MacKenzie suggests that he thought he could build courses that were appealing and challenging to all levels of players.  But the new equipment seems to have helped expand the differential between the professionals and the reasonable amateur player requiring considerably longer courses for the pros.  Accordingly, absent an extremely clever use of alternate tees, it is difficult to build courses that create reasonable challenges for the broad spectrum.

But isn't the "extremely clever use of alternate tees" the architect's core responsibility?   I always enjoy a course where my wife, son and I can all have a great time and .competitive match, and those alternate tees are essential. 

[Peter Pallotta]

What a fine thread!  I remember a psychologist raising this question/example: Two generals in WW2, both of whom conclude that they have to send 1500 men to 'take that hill'.  General X makes the decision quickly, and believes it's a great decision and that it will be a resounding military success.  General Y, however, takes much longer to make the decision, in part because he knows that, while it is indeed necessary to 'take the hill', many of his soldiers will die in the attempt, and the success will be short lived.  So: who is the better general? The answer the pyschologist gives is General Y -- because he has more knowledge and experience (i.e. he can see how the operation will turn out, while the other general can't), but more importantly because he has a capacity for suffering, a suffering that in fact comes hand-in-hand with that greater knowlegde he posseses. Both generals say: "Do it!", but only one really knows what that will entail.  A bad example perhaps, as Tom D noted right away there is a big difference between generals and architects.  But it is my rambling way of suggesting that true leadership is not just about 'making decisions' -- any ass with an ego can do that.  It is about knowing all the facts and all the consequences and still being able and willing to painfully and slowly come to a decision, often a decision that no one else can or will fully understand (since they don't have the same smarts etc).  In short, a true leader is willing to suffer; a true leader comes not to command but to serve.  I think that in my whole life I may have met all of about one or two such leaders (I hope Ben has met many more than that; I'd like to think so).

Peter

PS - that's why, from what I've heard about it, "Blink" is such a sad development: while the ideas/intentions behind it may be good, I think its appeal actually lies in our inherent laziness and fear, i.e. we don't want to work long and hard at making decisions, and we are afraid above all else of suffering, especially of suffering in silence and alone.  

PSS - I'm not wishing or asking that gcas 'suffer' -- that would be, well, silly. But the easy and facile and in-fashion 'answers' to questions/problems on a site I can do without (as I can with the facile answers of writers and doctors and lawyers and home renovators), and I can do without quick decisions passing themselves off as experience or intuition or guts or talent.

[Phil McDade]

Peter:

Patton, a general in World War II, had this to say about that:

"Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home....When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a German will get to him eventually. The hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the enemy time to dig one either....I don't want to get any messages saying, 'I am holding my position.' We are not holding a Goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls....From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that...."

I would argue that pushing for an end result, without necessarily knowing the means by which one will get there, or the unknowns sure to occur in the process of getting there, is often how things get done that need doing.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom: While not really a common practice with GCA, one way to control QA/QC of construction is to have the GCA sign-off the the construction draws for the course, including change orders.  Witholding payments because soemthing was constructed incorrectly gets a contractor's attention.

Architect's sign-off on draws and Cahnge Orders is very common in commercial building construction as the Architect represents the Owner in this suituation.

Bruce:

That is the way it works between golf course architects and contractors in the golf world, too.

But, in a creative endeavour, it's not an ideal approach.  You can't withhold payment from a contractor because his guys aren't being creative enough -- only when you think that things are being billed falsely or when the quality of the work is not up to the specs.  And even then, you have to get your owner on board first, because you know you are about to start a big argument and that ultimately the owner is the one who will have to decide who he's siding with. 

In these situations, I've dealt with a couple of project managers who just didn't want to get in the middle of a big argument, and signed off on a construction draw even when I recommended against it.  That was awful, because the contractor from then on knows they can get away with murder.  That's why now I insist on knowing in my design contract who is the guy I answer to ... and it's not going to be a weak project manager.

[Kirk Gill]

The part of this quote that immediately connects to GCA for me is:

...you'll avoid offering differential rewards based on differential performance because some people might get upset

For a lot of people, the offering of differential rewards based on differential performance is at the heart of golf course strategy. If the player successfully challenges a hazard then there is a reward such as a better angle to the green, etc. Does the application of this type of strategy upset any players?

[Tags:]

Tags: