Golf Architecture by Colin Powell: Lesson FIVE

[Ben Sims]

This is an 18-lesson 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.

My favorite lesson so far, Lesson Five approximates why I think the minimalist camp (Doak, Hanse, Coore, DeVries, Nuzzo, etc)  are the best out there right now. The devil is in the details whether it be with the golf holes themselves, or in the people you choose to build golf holes.  My opinion is that one can have the most complete golf hole possible, and one missed detail in contour placement or in the attitudes of the person building it, and the entire golf hole will be affected.  

Lesson Five

Never neglect details. When everyone's mind is dulled or distracted the leader must be doubly vigilant.

Strategy equals execution. All the great ideas and visions in the world are worthless if they can't be implemented rapidly and efficiently. Good leaders delegate and empower others liberally, but they pay attention to details, every day. Bad ones, even those who fancy themselves as progressive "visionaries," think they're somehow "above" operational details. Paradoxically, good leaders understand something else: an obsessive routine in carrying out the details begets conformity and complacency, which in turn dulls everyone's mind. That is why even as they pay attention to details, they continually encourage people to challenge the process. They implicitly understand the sentiment of some CEO leaders who all independently asserted that the job of a leader is not to be the chief organizer, but the chief dis-organizer.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

"Details" are the last 50% of the design, not something that an involved architect would want to neglect or delegate entirely.

I go back to Gen. Powell's phrasing ... "strategy equals execution".  I think that's what Pete Dye taught me 30 summers ago -- either you are going to get out there and take charge of getting the course built, or you're going to get what you get.  I don't see this as the minimalist vs. non minimalist debate.  I see it as the plans vs. shape-in-the-field debate.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben - sorry, but on this one (Lesson 5), the General seems to want to be all things to all people, both the details man and the embracer of disorganization; and he has tried to couch these meanderings in the guise of paradox, an apparent contradiction that resolves itself on a higher level/plane of understanding.  Yes, I see he is suggesting that true leaders reside in/work at this higher level, but that tells me nothing of value - it's just a cleverly constructed paragraph. Leaders should try to avoid being pithy and paradoxical - they should speak the truth plainly and clearly...sort of like what Pete Dye did, i.e. teach a young TD that if you want it right you've got to "take charge" of everything, big ideas and small details both. Don't mean to be disrespectful to the man, and have enjoyed this series of threads -- but IMHO, on this one he was just talking, and not really saying anything.

Peter

[Colin Macqueen]

Ben,
As a caveat I know nothing!

In that light I am not sure the dictum of "Never neglect details" can really stand up in the context of golf course architecture. I think this because I wonder if some of "detail" that is apparent on completion actually reveals itself after work commences and thus isn't at all obvious in the early stages. As that detail wasn't apparent in the beginning I am not sure how it could be neglected.

Of course I could be talking through my hat!

Cheers Colin

[Carl Rogers]

Ben:

"Details" are the last 50% of the design, not something that an involved architect would want to neglect or delegate entirely.

I go back to Gen. Powell's phrasing ... "strategy equals execution".  I think that's what Pete Dye taught me 30 summers ago -- either you are going to get out there and take charge of getting the course built, or you're going to get what you get.  I don't see this as the minimalist vs. non minimalist debate.  I see it as the plans vs. shape-in-the-field debate.

Tom et al,
Don't you have to do both ... knowing where one stops and the other starts and the interface??  Can you do a good routing plan without some kind of overall sketch?

[Tom_Doak]

Carl:

I didn't mean to imply that you can start without a routing plan ... you've got to have that figured out, and you've got to have some semblance of a grading plan in your head, to the extent that grading will be necessary, to be sure that you can make things balance.  [Note, however, that on most plans guys will draw grading that was unnecessary in order to make things balance -- that's crazy -- that stuff is better left to a field decision over where would be the easiest place to generate a little extra cut or to lose a little extra fill.]

What I mean by "details" is the shaping of greens and bunkers.  I think trying to put those onto the plans is wasted effort, as long as you are going to get out in the field and supervise them.  And if you're not ... then it just isn't going to turn out that great.

[Ben Sims]

I think lesson five begs the question; is it better to execute a bad plan or to have a good plan and not execute it so well?  My opinion is that 100% execution of crap is still crap.  Whereas 50% execution of greatness is still good.   You've got to have the talent and vision to understand how you're going to go about a project.  Paper routings that are sound from a distance and elevation standpoint will most likely be pretty solid once you're on site--I would think.

And Peter--to be blunt--I disagree with the meandering paradox theory.  I empower my 4 Lieutenants to make decisions on a micro level all the time.  I have to.  I don't have time to execute everything that they can in a given day.  But I do ask them what they've done, get involved when I need to, and generally stay vigilant over their work.  It's not micro-management, it's attention to detail.  I don't make the decisions for them, but I guide the mission and attitude of our office and that guides their decision-making.

In golf architecture, I'm sure micro-decisions in the field are left to asscociates and shapers.  But if you're choosing the right people that share a vision and a mindset, then it's as if the head cheese made the decisions himself.  

  

[Terry Lavin]

While I don't doubt that one can use aphorisms like these and apply them to golf course architecture or just about any other profession, I'd rather hear Powell's 18 lessons on how to doubt your superiors.  Those would seem to be hard-earned lessons that we could all learn from.

[Ben Sims]

While I don't doubt that one can use aphorisms like these and apply them to golf course architecture or just about any other profession, I'd rather hear Powell's 18 lessons on how to doubt your superiors.  Those would seem to be hard-earned lessons that we could all learn from.

Here we go again.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben - understood, and that's the way it should be, i.e. as leader I do believe you should be giving you lieutenants responsibility for making decisions re details while still staying vigilant.  But do you actually think of yourself as a "chief disorganizer", to use the General's words? That phrase was what I was referring to - and in general the meanedrings from his sound advice to that pithy and paradoxical statement.  That was all, but it was enough to mar this "lesson" for me. Plus, they're only words...  

Peter

[Eric Smith]

I think lesson five begs the question; is it better to execute a bad plan or to have a good plan and not execute it so well?  My opinion is that 100% execution of crap is still crap.  Whereas 50% execution of greatness is still good.  

This resonates with me, Ben, as I'm three to four weeks away from opening a new retail location and am stuck on the paint and flooring color scheme. I was supposed to hand the contractor my paint colors today, and I was happy with the scheme I had chosen but, last night just enough doubt crept in that it caused me to stay awake most of the night creating a new scheme that isn't quite as bold, but is likely better than my original plan. So, in the interest of getting it right I'm holding off until tomorrow. I want to be absolutely certain I am making the right choices here, which, I won't lie - is agonizingly difficult to do!

[Ben Sims]

Eric,

I definitely don't advocate the Oo-Oo stutter on Col Boyd's OODA loop (observe, orient, decide act).  Patton's quote about a 90% solution now being better than a 100% solution next week resonates in my line of work. 

But in an environment where time is a minor factor--confident decision-making is a product of time.  Gut instincts are great.  But everyone's guts aren't created equal.   

From an architectural standpoint, I would think that an archie gets limited time on site, so he has to make decisions quicker.  However, some of Tom's stories about routing conundrums provide simple examples of why it's good to sleep on things every now and then. 

[Carl Nichols]

Deleted upon reflection.