[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.

Continuing the unpopular trend of threads not about golf in Mullen, Holyoke, or Hanse Golf design, our quest for understanding marches on with Gen Powell.

This is an interesting lesson from a military man, particularly one that attained the rank of four star General.  But I think of this lesson often in my own life.  How often do I bypass mid-level managers for those the can get the job done, whether higher or lower in "grade"?  Quite a lot.  A good idea is a good idea, no matter who arrives at the conclusion.  And getting the job done is getting the job done no matter the rank or grade of the job-doer.  Leaders that have an ability to wade through organizational resistance to find the innovative problem solvers will always be in demand.

My own opinion is that specialization in a particular field homogenizes the work, much like an assembly line.  For so long that was the mantra in golf course devleopment.  There was a dedicated architect, builder, sub-contractors, and so on.  Newer models exist where innovative thinkers with a critical mind are favored as "jacks-of-all-trades" that are successful in many different facets.  They are knowledgeable enough to push the envelope while retaining safety and normalcy.  Org charts and specialization don't foster this thought process, they supress it.  

LESSON NINE

Organization charts and hence titles count for next to nothing.

Organization charts are frozen, anachronistic photos in a workplace that ought to be as dynamic as the external environment around you. If people really followed organization charts, companies would collapse. In well-run organizations, titles are also pretty meaningless. At best, they advertise some authority—an official status conferring the ability to give orders and induce obedience. But titles mean little in terms of real power, which is the capacity to influence and inspire. Have you ever noticed that people will personally commit to certain individuals who on paper (or on the org chart) possess little authority—but instead possess pizzazz, drive, expertise and genuine caring for team-mates and products? On the flip side, non-leaders in management may be formally anointed with all the perks and frills associated with high positions, but they have little influence on others, apart from their ability to extract minimal compliance to minimal standards.

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,

This is the best one yet IMO.  I couldn't agree more that the companies who "get it" are the ones that value and respect the opinions of everyone, and I do mean everyone, and look past the artificial boundaries when it comes to implementing good ideas and solution.

[Ben Sims]

...and look past the artificial boundaries when it comes to implementing good ideas and solution.

Kalen,

Very nicely stated.  We live in a society where Kim Kardashian is considered successful and people think they can stop a genocide by "liking" an amateur video on Facebook.  Mediocrity is rewarded because it fits a mold and doesn't scare anyone.

Sustainability and fun for golf will be built on the backs of people who aren't afraid to use great ideas instead of an old model. 

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Although in essence Powell’s mantra is plausible, when everything’s going fine but what happens when things go wrong?

There has to be someone to be responsible, to have the overview, to be informed, to take the lead etc, that’s where organisation is important.

 It’s hard to believe a 4-Star General can discard the methods of the most stringent and inflexible of all organizations- his own Military ?

[Kalen Braley]

Although in essence Powell’s mantra is plausible, when everything’s going fine but what happens when things go wrong?

There has to be someone to be responsible, to have the overview, to be informed, to take the lead etc, that’s where organisation is important.

 It’s hard to believe a 4-Star General can discard the methods of the most stringent and inflexible of all organizations- his own Military ?

John,

I think that's point...these are Colin Powell's lessons learned from being a member of the Military for so long.

I've always thought the rigid processes were a liability to the armed forces in general, even if I understand why they do it that way.  I look at special forces and those guys have wayyyy more latitude/flexibility than the other masses of troops and that seems to be working out pretty well for them.

[Steve Okula]

  Mediocrity is rewarded because it fits a mold and doesn't scare anyone.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Some are born to mediocrity, others achieve mediocrity, and a few have mediocrity thrust upon them.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

I never wanted to have any rank or hierarchy among the people in my firm.  I let them print their own business cards and I really never cared what was on them.  My goal was to have everyone in the company willing to take the lead role on one project and then the back seat on the next.

This has not gone over universally well among my associates.  Some believed that seniority was important; others wanted to play up the jobs that they had run.  Nearly all of them still prefer the title of "design associate" [or even "senior design associate" ] to "shaper", even though it is often the shapers who are contributing most to the end product.  That was entirely an argument for outside consumption; they just don't believe the term "shaper" carries as much respect with people outside our tight circle, and sadly, that might be true.

Likewise, there are people who seem appalled when I grab a rake or jump on the bulldozer for a little while [though it doesn't happen that often anymore, sadly].  They think that the head of the company should never lift a finger.  We've had that problem in foreign lands, too -- like South Carolina, where there is one class that works and another class that supervises.  We were told we were setting a bad example by getting out there and working!  But, the golf course turned out pretty well.

[Mike Policano]

Hi Ben, hope all is going well for you.

When my partner and I started our firm, I suggested that we not have titles.  He asked why. I said, "titles take too mich time. first we have to decide titles, then we have to assign titles, then we have to explain titles, then we have to disucss titles with people who don't like their titles, then we have to discuss when their title would change. And so on and so on. What finally won him over was the savings in business cards since we didn't have to change titles.

Cheers, Mike

[Brett_Morrissy]

Interesting lesson Ben, and likewise comments, of course it can be applied across all different segments of business, but the context here is golf - I think many golf clubs could be better operated and more efficient using the above lack of title protocols.

For me, the what should be on people's "business card" is the tasks and roles the provide for the business, and not a singular title. Seriously, what does Senior Vice President mean anyway, for this America has a lot to answer for.

For the architect or Design firm, perhaps they would be better served with-

 "Jack Nicklaus: routing, hand finishing and bulldozer work"
"John Smith: plans, drawings and making sure everyone is on site on time"

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

In the military, the general sentiment of late from commanders is that to stay in AF, there is a company line that must be toed.  It is passe' to say out loud that you want to be the best combat aviator you can be for 20 years.  Everyone goes into "vectoring" meetings with their commander and says, "Yes Sir!  I definitely want to be a squadron commander one day.", whether they actually do or not.  I think this is bull.  I will never understand what is wrong with someone having the presence of mind to know they they aren't command material. These individuals instead want to have as large an impact as they can for as long as they can, but not necessarily from a command position. 

Is it like that in architecture firms?  If a talented guy came to you and said, "I have no interest in having my name on a golf course, I just want to build the best courses in the world for as long as I can for you", would you think him crazy?  Or worse, unambitious?  My opinion is that there is serenity in knowing your capabilities.  I would much rather be Stonewall Jackson than Robert E. Lee, if that makes sense.

Mike P,

You have no idea how long we spend in staff meetings trying to "vector" our mid-level officers.  It wastes more time than you can imagine.  If we spent more time trying to output a tremendous product instead of wondering who was getting quarterly awards and what their performance reports looked like, then we'd all be better off.

Brett,

I think you raise an interesting point.  But as I wrote in the OP, specialization homogenizes work IMO.  So putting on a card what responsibilities you have goes against Gen Powell's lesson.  It further typecasts an individual into what they are capable of doing.  Gen Powell's entire point was to reduce org chart management so that everyone was able to make an impact outside of their "grade."

[Tom_Doak]

 
Is it like that in architecture firms?  If a talented guy came to you and said, "I have no interest in having my name on a golf course, I just want to build the best courses in the world for as long as I can for you", would you think him crazy?  Or worse, unambitious?  My opinion is that there is serenity in knowing your capabilities.  I would much rather be Stonewall Jackson than Robert E. Lee, if that makes sense.

Ben:

It's more difficult with some people than with others to get them to say what they really want to do; and, of course, it can change over time.  But it's better when they say what they mean.  One of my current associates decided not to come to work for me years ago, because he wanted the chance to design a course on his own; and I was advised by a friend not to fight that, but to work with him when he was available, and let him see the pros and cons of running his own show.  Eventually, he got sick of the collections side of business, and he's probably been my happiest employee ever since.

It's certainly much more difficult to figure out the staffing for projects when I'm dealing with 5-10 independent contractors, who all get to say whether they feel like working on this job or that, than it was when they were all on my payroll.  But, that's the trade-off for trying to have less responsibility on my end.  Believe me, though, if someone just wanted to be a great shaper, I wouldn't call them "unambitious".  I have a lot of respect for that job.

P.S.  Stonewall Jackson died in battle, didn't he?  Don't be like him, even if he did have a good golf course named after him.

[Brett_Morrissy]

Thanks Ben, I really didn't think my post thru enough.

Perhaps i was talking of something toward you point, but probably a long way off, i find the practicality difficult without an entire cultural shift. ...in this lesson, you want the option/potential available to all staff, to have a say, or inputs, into all aspects of the business or process? No managers,  just natural leaders, who people will just follow by instinct?

Now I can see how this can work out in the field or in a very small business, contractors, owners, design firm staff - no bad ideas, just different perspectives, - but that is assuming that you have all great people working for you, those middle managers you speak of, that don't seek real input from the people they manage are the ones at fault, and their employers are reponsible for this, for giving them this position. In essence it seems that this lesson works best in a REAL team environment, where open and honest dialogue is encouraged, each individual's ideas are respected and nurtured. Great businesses run like this, successful teams operate like this. It is part collaboration, part leaving the ego at the gate, part pride and dedication to your chosen field of work. It is very easy to see how this could work for a Design firm in the field while working on a specific element of a project, but the practice of running the business or the project as a whole, is much harder for me to get my head around on this lesson.

Finally, don't all business, from the solo Shaper Contractor who is a 'gun for hire', to the pipe contractor, to the golf course architect, if he/she wants any kind of success, will need someone to manage the book work, marketing to ensure their is more work in the pipe, business compliance, etc - the one man band is the epitome of a small business owner, and if or when that business grows, more skill, more manpower and mor responsibilities are required to ensure success continues.  Great Leaders, have great people under them. Poor leaders and poor business models have poor middle 'yes men' managers in their business.

[Sean Walsh]

Tom,

Jackson died returning to his own lines after a scouting trip.  Was shot by a Union (as Jim notes below this should be Confederate) sentry.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben - this thread and others like it are valuable and interesting. But with respect to the General (who seems a good and decent man), how many of these lessons did he articulate when he was still in the military? How many did he try to put in practice while he still had an actual  leadership role there?  The head of my department -- the worst one we've ever had, IMO, ineffectual as well as seemingly disinterested in anything but career advancement -- eventually did move upwards and onwards and is now leading a big think tank. And now, at this think tank, he suddenly has dozens of ideas about how his former department can be run more efficiently and better serve the people; and yet I don't remember him expressing even one of those ideas when he was with us and still in charge -- and I know he certainly didn't put any of them into practice.  My guess is not that he developed those ideas after he had time to reflect; my guess is that he had those same ideas back then, but that back then when he was in charge knew that it would be hard, tedious work to put them into practice, and knew that he would meet with resistance, and most of all knew that he might fail, i.e. that he would put the ideas out there and not be able to put them into practice (and failure is a fate worse than death, for people like him).  Maybe in his heart of hearts he now regrets not taking a true leadership role when he had the chance; maybe deep down he is/was afraid that he didn't have the skill or authority to pull it off.  But if that's the case, his spouting of those ideas now -- when he is far removed from leadership and at the think tank -- is basically like saying to the man currently in charge: I couldn't do it, put I'm demanding (by setting out in print this new high standard) that you do.  And to me that's not leadership; that's hypocrisy.  Now, I've been around too long to expect anyone in a leadership role to fall on their swords; I'm just asking that, every once in a while, they have the courage to at least pick one up -- and pick one up while they're actually still on the battlefield and not off on the sidelines enjoying some R&R.  Again, I understand why you respect the General; but I'd be much more inclined to listen to the ideas/guidance of someone who is actually doing the work -- in government, in the military, in banking or the arts, in golf design -- than someone who has left those professions and is now blessing us with the wisdom he never put in practice before.   

End of ramble.

Peter

[Terry Lavin]

Peter,  

I'm with you. Powell's business aphorisms might sell books. His lack of leadership sold a country on a war that killed tens of thousands. He can blame bad intelligence. So can we, meaning HIS.

I say let the military historians bow at the altar of Colin Powell. He's just as impressive to me as Tony Robbins.

Men like Tony Robbins might influence a boy to fail in business. Men like Colin Powell inspire young men like my nephew to enlist and die in Afghanistan. Neither one knows jack shit about GCA.

What's next?  "His Kampf--what Hitler could tell us about bunker construction?"

[Jim Nelson]

Tom,

Jackson died returning to his own lines after a scouting trip.  Was shot by a Union sentry.

OT, but Jackson was shot in a friendly fire incident.

Darkness ended the assault. As Jackson and his staff were returning to camp on May 2, they were mistaken for a Union cavalry force by the 18th North Carolina Infantry regiment who shouted, "Halt, who goes there?", but fired before evaluating the reply. Frantic shouts by Jackson's staff identifying the party were replied to by Major John D. Barry with the retort, "It's a damned Yankee trick! Fire!" [33] A second volley was fired in response; in all, Jackson was hit by three bullets, two in the left arm and one in the right hand. Several other men in his staff were killed, in addition to many horses.

[Ben Sims]

...I couldn't do it, ut I'm demanding (by setting out in print this new high standard) that you do.  And to me that's not leadership; that's hypocrisy.  Now, I've been around too long to expect anyone in a leadership role to fall on their swords; I'm just asking that, every once in a while, they have the courage to at least pick one up -- and pick one up while they're actually still on the battlefield and not off on the sidelines enjoying some R&R.

Are you saying that everyone that teaches anything should be simultaneously in the operational aspect of the particular subject they are teaching?  Does that mean all college professors are full of it and should be dismissed because they are past their operational experience or never even had it?  Let's say Tom hangs it up tomorrow to spend his days painting and snowmobiling.  Does that mean any lofty architectural opinions he has aren't worth anything because he isn't operational anymore?  Lastly, who says Colin Powell didn't use these lessons when he was in service?

I don't think it's wise to simply dismiss a message because of its lack of timeliness or even who delivers the message.  Peter and Terry, divorcing ourselves from Gen Powell himself, what is so bad about his lessons?

[Mike Nuzzo]

Ben
Peter is saying that Tom could always teach about golf design & the business because he has done it and successfully.
He is asking if Powell implemented any of the lessons.
Cheers

[Ben Sims]

Mike,

I asked long ago that politics not get in the way of good dialogue, yet it continues to creep in.   Peter and Terry want to debate the validity of the messenger without engaging in the message.  It's a diversion to marginalize what are good points to ponder.  I find the relationship that the 18 lessons have with putting a great golf course in the ground to be worth examining.  To this point, it has been fun and I have gotten a lot out of it.  I will continue the series and hope they can join in. 

All I am asking is for them to divorce themselves from a cynical and chastising view of the man, and simply read what he is writing.  Nothing more.  If a homeless man gives you a financial advise and it makes you wealthy, is the advice less legitimate because he was homeless?

[Terry Lavin]

Ben,

You picked the wrong slogan salesman.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben - keep going with this series of threads, because some good insights/information is being shared.  My point is that it is being shared not by the General (or via his maxims), but by the likes of Tom D and Don M and Mike N etc; it is THEIR ideas that strike me as valid and nuanced and practical and true-to-life and to the human experience as I know it.  And that's not surprising, since they are the ones actually still working in their professions, still grappling with real people and real situations, and they are the ones trying to put their ideas/ideals into practice now that they have the chance. You might be right - perhaps I was slagging the messenger (I really wasn't intending to though); my intention was to question the validity of the message and of the advice.

Peter   

[Jim Nelson]

Hi Ben:

Thanks for the thread.  It keeps me from posting on the Ballyneal foreclosure.

So, maybe the mistaken shooting of Jackson does have some relevance after all to this discussion.  BTW, Sean, are you from North Carolina?   Anyway, it seems that there are two different management needs at different times.  In official military terms, it might be the difference between strategic and tactical, staff and line.  What I'm getting at here is there are times when you can actually take your time and think it through, make calm decisions in a room and see what happens.  Then there are times when all hell breaks loose.  The trick is having an organizational structure which fits both conditions and everything in between.  Command probably broke down when Jackson was shot.  He was properly challenged, then someone had a trigger finger, in effect, taking things into his own hands, and Jackson is dead.  It would seem that the more compressed the time needed for decisions, the more important the structure.  But then, you have plenty of times when independent thinking saves the day instead of destroying it.

So what does this have to do with GCA?  Not having been through building a course or a battle, I would speculate that they could be similar up until bullets start flying.  The former has lots of pre-thinking, logistics and movement.  Then anything they have in common ends.  Mistakes on a golf course design or execution can usually be worked out tomorrow, next month or next year.  Mistakes on the battlefield are forever.

[Tom_Doak]

So what does this have to do with GCA?  Not having been through building a course or a battle, I would speculate that they could be similar up until bullets start flying.  The former has lots of pre-thinking, logistics and movement.  Then anything they have in common ends.  Mistakes on a golf course design or execution can usually be worked out tomorrow, next month or next year.  Mistakes on the battlefield are forever.

Jim:

That's a good analogy, in many respects. 

In golf course design, the bullets start flying when there is disagreement between any two of the owner, architect, contractor and superintendent.  Cue Jeff Brauer coming on here to tell us that the key to everything is a bulletproof plan.  But, even then, there's no bulletproof plan if any of those other stakeholders are questioning the plan.

The key is to foster an environment where the plan can keep getting better with everybody on the same page.  Sometimes the personalities make that impossible, but usually it has some chance of success.  Bill Coore and I have both tried to minimize the number of possible disagreements the same way that Pete Dye did -- by minimizing the contractor's role in the process, and filling some of those key positions with our own guys.  After that, it's just a matter of picking clients you think you can get along with, and helping them find a superintendent cut from the same cloth.

[Terry Lavin]

So what does this have to do with GCA?  Not having been through building a course or a battle, I would speculate that they could be similar up until bullets start flying.   Mistakes on the battlefield are forever.

Jim:

That's a good analogy, in many respects.  

In golf course design, the bullets start flying when there is disagreement between any two of the owner, architect, contractor and superintendent.  Cue Jeff Brauer coming on here to tell us that the key to everything is a bulletproof plan.  But, even then, there's no bulletproof plan if any of those other stakeholders are questioning the plan.

Let me start by saying that I like Ben and respect his service to our country.  Like everybody in our service, he volunteered to put himself in harm's way, which is beyond noble.  But these comments go to the gravamen of my objections to Ben's series of threads.  There's nothing wrong with getting a group of business/organization/success slogans and analogizing them to golf course architecture.  That's what we are here to discuss, in the main.  What do we have now?  Discussion of bullets flying and bulletproof vests when our men and women are still dying on the battlefield and civiliians are still dying.   Selecting a controversial leader for these analogies, when his misjudgments led us into a war that cost untold billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives is disturbing and inappropriate.  I said it before my brave Marine nephew was killed in action and I say it again.  Powell's presence is offensive to this site, IMHO.  Carry on your mission if you will, Ben, but don't object when you catch a little unfriendly fire here, you attached yourself to a target, after all.

[Jim Nelson]

So what does this have to do with GCA?  Not having been through building a course or a battle, I would speculate that they could be similar up until bullets start flying.   Mistakes on the battlefield are forever.

Jim:

That's a good analogy, in many respects.  

In golf course design, the bullets start flying when there is disagreement between any two of the owner, architect, contractor and superintendent.  Cue Jeff Brauer coming on here to tell us that the key to everything is a bulletproof plan.  But, even then, there's no bulletproof plan if any of those other stakeholders are questioning the plan.

Let me start by saying that I like Ben and respect his service to our country.  Like everybody in our service, he volunteered to put himself in harm's way, which is beyond noble.  But these comments go to the gravamen of my objections to Ben's series of threads.  There's nothing wrong with getting a group of business/organization/success slogans and analogizing them to golf course architecture.  That's what we are here to discuss, in the main.  What do we have now?  Discussion of bullets flying and bulletproof vests when our men and women are still dying on the battlefield and civiliians are still dying.   Selecting a controversial leader for these analogies, when his misjudgments led us into a war that cost untold billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives is disturbing and inappropriate.  I said it before my brave Marine nephew was killed in action and I say it again.  Powell's presence is offensive to this site, IMHO.  Carry on your mission if you will, Ben, but don't object when you catch a little unfriendly fire here, you attached yourself to a target, after all.

Terry, I certainly mean no disrespect by my comments.  If you knew me, you would understand.  This is understandably a very personal area.  I am truly sorry for your family's loss.  My use of the "bullets flying" metaphor was meant to point out just that.  In business, the decisions people make are not usually life and death unless you are involved in medicine or the military.  The metaphors for business start to fall apart for just that reason.  Only egos get bruised.  Money is lost, not lives.  If I have caused you any additional pain, please accept my apologies. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()