[Jason Goss]

Our friend Mr. Wilber has blogged about a disturbing trend on our side of the business.  I'm sure most of you can figure out the club.  (Santa Cruz and very highly regarded)

A very sad situation to be sure.

http://www.turfnet.com/wilber/index.php/2012/12/12/an-open-letter-to-a-job-poster/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=an-open-letter-to-a-job-poster

[Mike_Young]

Jason,
With all due respect to Supts.  the letter you show in the article could be for any person in any business.  Supts are no different than any other business except that I don't think they are trained to be as profit motivated as they should be in school. 

[Jason Goss]

Thanks for beginning your reply "With all due respect".  A sure sign someone is about to be disrespected.  I wasn't aware that all of us Superintendents were trained in the same manner or that we gain all of our knowledge in school.  Thank you for clearing this up for all of us.  

You completely missed the whole point of the post.  The golf industry is trending in a very troubling way toward large management companies taking over the maintenance side of operations.  I'm sure there are many other industries where people who do a good job or even in this case an exceptional job and still lose their job for one reason or another.  It is after all a business and the almighty $ is all that matters in the end.  It just makes me worry for the future of golf if this kind of decision making continues.  I won't re-post the job posting here or get into specifics of what happened (I do not know the facts and I am not directly involved in any way) this is not the forum for that.

The golf course is THE asset of any golf facility.  The Golf Course Superintendent and his staff are the reason any property is able to turn ANY kind of profit.  NOT the golf shop, NOT the kitchen, NOT the banquet space.  Keep looking at the golf course maintenance as THE place where a facility can and will make the FIRST and DEEPEST cuts, pretty soon everyone will feel it.  How many times have you gone to a course because of their shirt selection or the club sandwich?  While these are important aspects of the total experience, that is not where the asset lies.  Keep slashing the maintenance, watch the whole thing go downhill.

A very wise man once told me that the golf course maintenance team will ALWAYS be at the bottom of the totem pole.  He was right.  It's there to hold EVERYTHING else up!

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jason, I agree that the course is THE asset for most of us.  It is not necessarily the only asset that many guys look at for joining a club.  It may be true for public play that the course trumps everything else but not for private clubs.  Country clubs need to have the whole package.  When I joined my present CC it needed to have activities for the entire family.  That included a good junior program, nice pool, tennis, and quality food.  I belong to two cubs that are strictly golf.  At those places the course, is indeed, THE asset, but I joined because of the entire package.  How much play did the course get.  Can I just show up and walk 18 in under three hours?  It needed to have a membership that valued the traditions of the game.  It also needed a good staff that was welcoming and warm to my guests.  I asked, "Is this a place I want to bring guests?" It is difficult to overstate the importance of the course, yet it is just one component of many that are important.

[Steve Okula]

Jason,

If I may, I have a few comments on your post.

Thanks for beginning your reply "With all due respect".  A sure sign someone is about to be disrespected.  I wasn't aware that all of us Superintendents were trained in the same manner or that we gain all of our knowledge in school.  Thank you for clearing this up for all of us.

I didn't find Mike's post to be the least bit disrespectful. He only made the (valid) point that  superintendents have no special exemption from the normal pressures of the business world that every other professional experiences. I don't understand the reference to training, I didn't see that in Mike's post.

You completely missed the whole point of the post.

It would have been helpful had you explained the point of the post to begin with. It's not the reader's fault if he missed it.

 The golf industry is trending in a very troubling way toward large management companies taking over the maintenance side of operations.  I'm sure there are many other industries where people who do a good job or even in this case an exceptional job and still lose their job for one reason or another.  It is after all a business and the almighty $ is all that matters in the end.  It just makes me worry for the future of golf if this kind of decision making continues.  I won't re-post the job posting here or get into specifics of what happened (I do not know the facts and I am not directly involved in any way) this is not the forum for that.

Jason, if you don't know the facts then you shouldn't be making the post. That's common sense.

The golf course is THE asset of any golf facility.  The Golf Course Superintendent and his staff are the reason any property is able to turn ANY kind of profit.  NOT the golf shop, NOT the kitchen, NOT the banquet space.  Keep looking at the golf course maintenance as THE place where a facility can and will make the FIRST and DEEPEST cuts, pretty soon everyone will feel it.  How many times have you gone to a course because of their shirt selection or the club sandwich?  While these are important aspects of the total experience, that is not where the asset lies.  Keep slashing the maintenance, watch the whole thing go downhill.

A very wise man once told me that the golf course maintenance team will ALWAYS be at the bottom of the totem pole.  He was right.  It's there to hold EVERYTHING else up!

I've been a GCS since 1980, and the business sucks, but my suspicion is it sucks no worse than the next profession.

[Jason Goss]

I agree that not all clubs are strictly golfing clubs nor do they have strictly golfing memberships.  But regardless of the other club amenities, the golf course is still the bread and butter of any facility.  If it is not, then it will show in the overall presentation and will impact the health of the membership (or public $ it can attract).  Would you have joined your new club if all of the non golf amenities were a 10 and the golf course was a 3?  Especially if it is the only club you belong to?  I'm happy for you and your family that you found a facility that fits all of your needs.  However I do not believe your family represents the majority of the golfing public.  You stated that you belong to two other clubs where golf is the priority and I'm guessing that even in golf's darkest times we would still have you to rely on as a customer.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe if all of the golf courses in the world, public and private are run by men and women who have never gotten their hands dirty doing the real work it takes to run a facility, everything will be better or at least more profitable.  I don't see it.

We need to start looking at these changes in culture of management as a dangerous thing for the FUTURE of the game.  Far too many accountants are making decisions based purely on short term gain (or reducing short term loss).  They are not seeing the big picture.

[Jason Goss]

Jason,

If I may, I have a few comments on your post.

Thanks for beginning your reply "With all due respect".  A sure sign someone is about to be disrespected.  I wasn't aware that all of us Superintendents were trained in the same manner or that we gain all of our knowledge in school.  Thank you for clearing this up for all of us.

I didn't find Mike's post to be the least bit disrespectful. He only made the (valid) point that  superintendents have no special exemption from the normal pressures of the business world that every other professional experiences. I don't understand the reference to training, I didn't see that in Mike's post.

From Mike's post: Supts are no different than any other business except that I don't think they are trained to be as profit motivated as they should be in school.

Its right there

You completely missed the whole point of the post.

It would have been helpful had you explained the point of the post to begin with. It's not the reader's fault if he missed it.

I believe I stated it was "a disturbing trend on our side of the business".  I was simply linking Dave's blog post.  I did not write it.  I thought it was a good topic for discussion.

 The golf industry is trending in a very troubling way toward large management companies taking over the maintenance side of operations.  I'm sure there are many other industries where people who do a good job or even in this case an exceptional job and still lose their job for one reason or another.  It is after all a business and the almighty $ is all that matters in the end.  It just makes me worry for the future of golf if this kind of decision making continues.  I won't re-post the job posting here or get into specifics of what happened (I do not know the facts and I am not directly involved in any way) this is not the forum for that.

Jason, if you don't know the facts then you shouldn't be making the post. That's common sense.

On this point you are correct. That is why I did not get into details in my original post.  I was trying to spark a discussion related to the trend of clubs turning over maintenance to management companies, not this one particular case.  I do think it is a valid topic for discussion as a general trend that I'm sure you have observed as well

The golf course is THE asset of any golf facility.  The Golf Course Superintendent and his staff are the reason any property is able to turn ANY kind of profit.  NOT the golf shop, NOT the kitchen, NOT the banquet space.  Keep looking at the golf course maintenance as THE place where a facility can and will make the FIRST and DEEPEST cuts, pretty soon everyone will feel it.  How many times have you gone to a course because of their shirt selection or the club sandwich?  While these are important aspects of the total experience, that is not where the asset lies.  Keep slashing the maintenance, watch the whole thing go downhill.

A very wise man once told me that the golf course maintenance team will ALWAYS be at the bottom of the totem pole.  He was right.  It's there to hold EVERYTHING else up!

I've been a GCS since 1980, and the business sucks, but my suspicion is it sucks no worse than the next profession.

If you think the business sucks why not try to help change it?  I don't know, maybe you have.  I appreciate your dedication to the game.  Anyone who spends 32 yrs doing what we do should be appreciated.  That is exactly what I am seeing go away.  So many experienced professionals such as yourself being pushed aside for the younger cheaper version.   I have spent the last 20yrs of my life in the dirt on the golf course.  I hope to spent at least 20 more.  My hopes for that dwindle every time a club turns over the keys to a management company that doesn't have the game or the course at the top of the priority list.

[Bill Brightly]

Jason,

I live 3000 miles away and certainly do not know the specifics of the case you cite. I suspect that you know the superintendent and think he got a raw deal. But let's say this is a trend: more clubs will be turning to a hired management model.

You and many other superintendents may not like this. And with all due respect, you and many superintendents may not have the skill set needed to successfully work in an environment that is far more "corporate." I tend to think that people attracted to the golf business, especially superintendents, may fall into this boat. But rather than call it "industry madness," which I take as a defeatist attitude, I would suggest that it might point to a glaring need for many superintendents to work on some new skills.

I am a "suit" and have worked in large corporations. There are ways to work with corporate managers and survive. If the guy is really good: can grow grass, run his crew well, keep the equipment running and work within a budget , all he may need to do is learn how to deal with the new "suit" to whom he now reports, rather than a restaurant guy who knows nothing about growing grass. It might be repugnant, but it is really not that hard. I wonder if the superintendent's association offers training in this regard?

[Jason Goss]

Jason,

I live 3000 miles away and certainly do not know the specifics of the case you cite. I suspect that you know the superintendent and think he got a raw deal. But let's say this is a trend: more clubs will be turning to a hired management model.

You and many other superintendents may not like this. And with all due respect, you and many superintendents may not have the skill set needed to successfully work in an environment that is far more "corporate." I tend to think that people attracted to the golf business, especially superintendents, may fall into this boat. But rather than call it "industry madness," which I take as a defeatist attitude, I would suggest that it might point to a glaring need for many superintendents to work on some new skills.

I am a "suit" and have worked in large corporations. There are ways to work with corporate managers and survive. If the guy is really good: can grow grass, run his crew well, keep the equipment running and work within a budget , all he may need to do is learn how to deal with the new "suit" to whom he now reports, rather than a restaurant guy who knows nothing about growing grass. It might be repugnant, but it is really not that hard. I wonder if the superintendent's association offers training in this regard?

You are correct.  I do know him, he is not a close friend, just an acquaintance.  So as to the raw deal he may or may not have gotten, I cannot say.  I was trying to open a discussion about the trend that IS occurring. 

I also happen to work for a management company, just not a large, swallow you whole, corporate type.  For that I feel lucky.  The people I work for in the "suits" have had their hands in the dirt as well and understand the business top to bottom.  They are small and VERY successful because they listen to the people who work FOR them.  Do I have to make choices at times for budget sake that are not always in the best interest of Agronomy? Sure.  But they let ME decide where the money needs to be cut because they understand that I am on the ground every day of the week and I know better than they do where we can afford to cut back a bit without sacrificing the end product to unacceptable levels.

  As for the title of the thread, that may be a bit harsh, but I have seen this happen to so many peers now that looking at it from my perspective it is maddening(and its helped generate over 400 reads since yesterday).  In no way do I consider this a "defeatist" attitude, just an opinion.  Why should we have to "survive" working with corporate managers?  Should it not be the goal of the entire corporation to SUCCEED and not survive?  And yes our association offers lots of training but not everyone is afforded the opportunity to take it.  Especially those who work at lower end, public facilities often run by the corporate giants who won't pay for OR allow the necessary time off to continue ones education.

[Jason Goss]

sorry double post

[Mike_Young]

Jason,
With all due respect to Supts.  the letter you show in the article could be for any person in any business.  Supts are no different than any other business except that I don't think they are trained to be as profit motivated as they should be in school. 

Jason,
I have been in this business for almost 30 years myself and my wife's father was a supt for his entire life.  I understand the gist of your post but I make no apologies for my post.  I stand by it.  So many supts have allowed the speeches and the dogma of the GCSAA to create the impression for them that they are the key to the golf business.  Well, I can agree that the supt is very very important but it is a team thing.  I have many buddies that were realistic about the profession and actually realized that the supt job became much more political and difficult for supts over 50 and therefore they set out to figure a way to continue with other aspects of the business using the knowledge they had acquired. 
I have grown tired of all of the letters I have seen that are similar to what Dave is writing.  I'm not saying it is not happening and I am not saying it is not right.  What I am saying is that in this economy the owners will do what they need to do to survive and so many supts  ( not all) have been trained thru school and at continuing education seminars on how to get more budget and by getting more budget create a better product which will allow them to move on to the next bigger and better job.  Well, that is what I mean by not being profit motivated.  I have not seen one school or seminar telling a supt how to cut that budget in a manner that gives an owner the same product for less money.  Why?  Because so many supts will say it is a reflection on them.  So , I offer no apology . I just see a different industry.
Cheers.

[Jason Goss]

 I have not seen one school or seminar telling a supt how to cut that budget in a manner that gives an owner the same product for less money.  Why?  Because so many supts will say it is a reflection on them.  So , I offer no apology . I just see a different industry.
Cheers.

No need to apologize.  

I never needed a seminar or my school to teach me that if I do the job for less money and better than the next guy I will be valuable to my owners.  I take pride in the fact that I do what I do for less money than most can do it for.  Never understood the spend it or they will take it away next year mentality.  I've worked for those types, and the club always suffers in the end.


I am not trying to defend the individual who unfortunately lost his job.  I nor anybody here knows what really happened.  I do know that the situation was handled very poorly and does not reflect well on our profession.

[Bruce Katona]

I read the letter posted on TurfNet and the responses both there and here.

Downsizing and staff attrition happens everywhere.

While it may or may not be fair to the GCA who was let go, the club in question can certainly save some money by terminating it's UNION employees (if correct per the letter) and replace them with at-will employees.  Union contracts are very expensive when benefits, etc are added on to the salary line.

[Dave_Wilber]

Since this has gotten some play here and because a lot of traffic from here has gotten to my blog, I'd like to say just a couple things that might be of interest.

For the last year or so, I've seen some really ugly hands dealt to golf course superintendents. This past summer, I wrote something I didn't publish on my TurfNet blog called, "An Open Letter to Mr. Green Committee Chairman". This was crafted after I was invited to attend a green committee and watched a modern day Witch Hunt in action. I may resurrect this piece. Along the same lines, after watching another Turfhead be executed at the whim of a GM and following the resulting fallout, I wrote up "An Open Letter to Mr. General Manager". Again, based on the interest that has come recently for this genre, I may need to publish that one as well.

In this case, http://www.turfnet.com/wilber/index.php/2012/12/12/an-open-letter-to-a-job-poster/, the fodder for my writing came from one of the strangest job announcements that I have ever seen. Since the original job posting was sent out to members of a specific association chapter membership, it wasn't OK to post that job listing. Others did, but I decided not to. It wasn't mine to post or in the public domain to copy and paste. So unless you saw that job posting, you are operating with not all the info. The OP here had seen that, he's a member of the chapter.

When the job announcement came out, a bunch of things happened.

One, the realization occurred that someone, whom many people respect, had been canned. A bit of shock and awe there for the fraternal society of turfheads. No one likes to hear about an execution.

Two, those that read the job announcement, on a widespread basis, were knocked over by the tone and content of that posting. Both for what was in the posting and what was not. My email and voicemail inboxes filled with the astonished responses.

My blog post wasn't about this particular super. I know him, have some, but not regular contact with him, didn't do much work with him and hadn't had any contact with him since him being sacked. So my sole info source was a fairly absurd document in the form of a job posting. After the piece came out, I heard from the ex-employee. He was shocked at his situation and wanted to know how I had hit the nail so closely on the head.

Answer: Because I've seen this movie before. A bunch of times from a bunch of different angles. Certainly this one is one of the worst. But it is becoming the norm. A trend we Turfheads don't think is so damn good.

As other topic posters here have pointed out, other businesses have similar situations. Agreed. However, last I looked, this is Golf Club Atlas and the topic on this DG is the game and the places where the game is played. And like it or not, there's no golf without Greenkeeping. It's part of the culture and the world that we love. Sure, it's easy to come here and pick on a passionate superintendent and tell them that if they don't like it, they can go get other work. It's a straw man to burn. That's not the point. Growing grass is hard. Unless you've done it and made it your profession, it's nearly impossible to explain the range of good and bad that are connected to the job. Again, I'm sure that's true for other professions and so you can make that point over at Stock Broker Atlas Forums or Real Estate Gazzette DG.

 In this day of Golf not being on a very strong footing, those of us that make our living every day supporting whatever aspect of the game, and especially the green side of the game have had it pretty tough. Again, that's not unlike other industries. But I don't work in other industries, I work in THIS one and telling me, or my Turfhead friends to stop whining is pretty much akin to telling us to we don't matter. Only really makes it worse.

I'm super sad a friend got the axe. But I don't know the day in and day out of that operation. I've now heard a lot of the good and the bad and for the most part, that's just hearsay. I don't know the details of the divorce or why the super and the GM couldn't take warm showers together or why the board gave up or whatever happened behind the closed doors. What I did have at my hands as fodder for blogging is a pretty much jacked up job posting as a billboard, lit brightly, by what a lot of people see as being very bad for the biz. Can your super, for whatever reason, and know that you'll get a ton of resumes and a ton of "options" and in the process don't really divulge to the unsuspecting readers of the fantasy job posting what is really going on at the club. That's ugly. In this case, the info over what's going on at a higher profile place is not that hard to find. The amalgam of about a dozen of these debacles over the last year on my radar starts to show some of the same stuff.

Here on GCA, I'd think that we'd all stand up for greatness. In whatever form, likable or not. And for stewardship of the beloved courses that we all talk about, be it the fun local muni or the big profile historical landmark. A long time ago, Tom Doak and some others told me that if I didn't come here and post a bit and try to educate or at least talk about what I'm feeling and dealing with, people would be missing a big part of the picture. A lot of Turfheads have landed here, with some mixed results. Some with formulas and agendas and some with the idea that somehow the Art of Greenkeeping can be taught. But man, one thing is for sure, when you guys decide to trash someone, both in public and in private, the culture seems to applaud. "Show those damn whining grass guys what's really the deal", seems to to be the attitude. And so, large lurk factor and not much posting from the subset being attacked equals mutual admiration.

Sure, my blog often gets a bit raw. It's a reflection of me. I'm not always the spit and polish poster child. Haven't made my living trying to be that. I don't think I have a big responsibility to uphold turtle waxing the easy stuff and avoiding sand blasting the tough stuff. There are others in Safe Agronomy that do that. Not me. I guess that's why I have the space to write there. Because I'm not letting all the filters that others have apply to me.

Once again, I think the OP here wasn't positing as much about the specific situation in Santa Cruz. I think he was doing a good thing and trying to talk about a disturbing trend in OUR business. Not in the world of business, but in the world of the Turf business. Which some of us still think is important to The Golf.

Thanks for reading. Please don't start the usual GCA thrash and start quoting this post in your responses in dissecting my post. I don't really battle the battle bots. One of the first rules in surviving online community.

[PGertner]

Hammer, meet nail.

Thanks Dave.

Patrick Gertner
GC Supt
Potowomut GC
East Greenwich, RI

[Mike_Young]

Since this has gotten some play here and because a lot of traffic from here has gotten to my blog, I'd like to say just a couple things that might be of interest.

For the last year or so, I've seen some really ugly hands dealt to golf course superintendents. This past summer, I wrote something I didn't publish on my TurfNet blog called, "An Open Letter to Mr. Green Committee Chairman". This was crafted after I was invited to attend a green committee and watched a modern day Witch Hunt in action. I may resurrect this piece. Along the same lines, after watching another Turfhead be executed at the whim of a GM and following the resulting fallout, I wrote up "An Open Letter to Mr. General Manager". Again, based on the interest that has come recently for this genre, I may need to publish that one as well.

In this case, http://www.turfnet.com/wilber/index.php/2012/12/12/an-open-letter-to-a-job-poster/, the fodder for my writing came from one of the strangest job announcements that I have ever seen. Since the original job posting was sent out to members of a specific association chapter membership, it wasn't OK to post that job listing. Others did, but I decided not to. It wasn't mine to post or in the public domain to copy and paste. So unless you saw that job posting, you are operating with not all the info. The OP here had seen that, he's a member of the chapter.

When the job announcement came out, a bunch of things happened.

One, the realization occurred that someone, whom many people respect, had been canned. A bit of shock and awe there for the fraternal society of turfheads. No one likes to hear about an execution.

Two, those that read the job announcement, on a widespread basis, were knocked over by the tone and content of that posting. Both for what was in the posting and what was not. My email and voicemail inboxes filled with the astonished responses.

My blog post wasn't about this particular super. I know him, have some, but not regular contact with him, didn't do much work with him and hadn't had any contact with him since him being sacked. So my sole info source was a fairly absurd document in the form of a job posting. After the piece came out, I heard from the ex-employee. He was shocked at his situation and wanted to know how I had hit the nail so closely on the head.

Answer: Because I've seen this movie before. A bunch of times from a bunch of different angles. Certainly this one is one of the worst. But it is becoming the norm. A trend we Turfheads don't think is so damn good.

As other topic posters here have pointed out, other businesses have similar situations. Agreed. However, last I looked, this is Golf Club Atlas and the topic on this DG is the game and the places where the game is played. And like it or not, there's no golf without Greenkeeping. It's part of the culture and the world that we love. Sure, it's easy to come here and pick on a passionate superintendent and tell them that if they don't like it, they can go get other work. It's a straw man to burn. That's not the point. Growing grass is hard. Unless you've done it and made it your profession, it's nearly impossible to explain the range of good and bad that are connected to the job. Again, I'm sure that's true for other professions and so you can make that point over at Stock Broker Atlas Forums or Real Estate Gazzette DG.

 In this day of Golf not being on a very strong footing, those of us that make our living every day supporting whatever aspect of the game, and especially the green side of the game have had it pretty tough. Again, that's not unlike other industries. But I don't work in other industries, I work in THIS one and telling me, or my Turfhead friends to stop whining is pretty much akin to telling us to we don't matter. Only really makes it worse.

I'm super sad a friend got the axe. But I don't know the day in and day out of that operation. I've now heard a lot of the good and the bad and for the most part, that's just hearsay. I don't know the details of the divorce or why the super and the GM couldn't take warm showers together or why the board gave up or whatever happened behind the closed doors. What I did have at my hands as fodder for blogging is a pretty much jacked up job posting as a billboard, lit brightly, by what a lot of people see as being very bad for the biz. Can your super, for whatever reason, and know that you'll get a ton of resumes and a ton of "options" and in the process don't really divulge to the unsuspecting readers of the fantasy job posting what is really going on at the club. That's ugly. In this case, the info over what's going on at a higher profile place is not that hard to find. The amalgam of about a dozen of these debacles over the last year on my radar starts to show some of the same stuff.

Here on GCA, I'd think that we'd all stand up for greatness. In whatever form, likable or not. And for stewardship of the beloved courses that we all talk about, be it the fun local muni or the big profile historical landmark. A long time ago, Tom Doak and some others told me that if I didn't come here and post a bit and try to educate or at least talk about what I'm feeling and dealing with, people would be missing a big part of the picture. A lot of Turfheads have landed here, with some mixed results. Some with formulas and agendas and some with the idea that somehow the Art of Greenkeeping can be taught. But man, one thing is for sure, when you guys decide to trash someone, both in public and in private, the culture seems to applaud. "Show those damn whining grass guys what's really the deal", seems to to be the attitude. And so, large lurk factor and not much posting from the subset being attacked equals mutual admiration.

Sure, my blog often gets a bit raw. It's a reflection of me. I'm not always the spit and polish poster child. Haven't made my living trying to be that. I don't think I have a big responsibility to uphold turtle waxing the easy stuff and avoiding sand blasting the tough stuff. There are others in Safe Agronomy that do that. Not me. I guess that's why I have the space to write there. Because I'm not letting all the filters that others have apply to me.

Once again, I think the OP here wasn't positing as much about the specific situation in Santa Cruz. I think he was doing a good thing and trying to talk about a disturbing trend in OUR business. Not in the world of business, but in the world of the Turf business. Which some of us still think is important to The Golf.

Thanks for reading. Please don't start the usual GCA thrash and start quoting this post in your responses in dissecting my post. I don't really battle the battle bots. One of the first rules in surviving online community.

Dave,
Good post.  I agree that this "movie" is becoming the norm.  But I still think that my other post are a continuation of what you are saying here.  I just don't see where most supts can argue their points with a board or a GM.  At no point are they trained to do so and they end up in these situations you mention time and again.  It's not a question of who is right with these boards , it is a question of who can argue their point and convince the board.  I am betting the supt loses 9 out of 10 times.  The GM's know that.  This should be taken as constructive and not slamming supts.

[Alex Lagowitz]

While I am no expert, my opinion on this is that at as private golf course that has now included public play course XYZ is seriously a money-oriented club and this move does not surprise me.  In the current economy, clubs often are taking the wrong approach and cutting the golf course.  Honestly, many golfers cannot tell the difference; they want everything to be the same, and they can tell when the food sucks, but its a little harder for the average joe to notice the course changes.

In regards to the best private clubs around the country, while most are stringent on budgets, they "get it" and are doing the best they can to keep the course good.  Part of this is compromise; I know a lot of superintendents that see their course as their pride and joy, and have a hard time adjusting to budget cuts.  One of the newest trends is having more untamed and fescue-type areas to reduce mowing.  Another can perhaps be letting it brown and going F&F.  This compromise will have to be with the members as well, but the results are promising.

[Greg Chambers]

Great post, Dave. Wow

[RJ_Daley]

One aspect of this on-going modern theme in the confrontation of 'corporate management principles VS local craft shop quality values) is this notion of the often-used excuse with the turn of the phrase; "in this economy", which implies all manner of austerity and bean counting expediencies must be acceptable, because of "this economy". 

I think that throw away line is bunk, to explain severe austerity budgetary measures that leads to real human disruption of work/labor and rationalized quality diminishment of a product as part of an on-going enterprise.  It is the acquiescence to the false notion that profit (as much as is possible to squeeze from an enterprise) is the alter upon which we should worship, to the exclusion of all other considerations.

Yes, an enterprise must have long term profit prospects to survive.  Sometimes, the short term is bleak, in some temporarily downturned economies.  But, I believe a long term focus on sustainable quality and the value of what the cost of labor and craft adds back into the overall picture, is of greater importance to the overall economic health, in the long run.  And, that doesn't mean that quality and fair wage can't exist if 'all' profit is forgone.  I believe reasonable profit can exist with ethic and due consideration to the value of the craftsman/laborer and long term need to pay that individual a proper amount for them to be significant consumers and participants in the economy at its roots.

I'd also point out that many of these 'management companies' that seem to be pushing long term successful craftsmen/superintendents out to give way to the corporate bean counter model, were management companies that were born or incorporated/founded in "good economies".  Golf management companies for the most part weren't created or incorporated in times when funding-borrowing is or was scarce.  They are an idea for maximizing greater profit from on-going enterprises that have budgets and circumstances that can be exploited.  In many instances, management company models were brought into clubs that were not in dire straights.  They just wanted to squeeze more juice out to the budget to profit, save, lower member costs, or re-purpose the funds to other priorities.  And as I think Dave Wilbur is suggesting, those priorities don't take into consideration the main asset of the clubs - their golf course and its long term health, and quality of maintenance requirements as overseen by a craftsman of long term experience and a successful record of results.

I'd liken this to a 'Walmart mentality' in that the notion of the cheapest crap wins in the world driven to maximize profit without due regard to long term values.  Too many want the cheapest crap they can buy and lots of it, rather than a good item of lasting quality.  Too many want to save a buck, to just waste it on meaningless other crap, or worse to hoard it, rather than seeing the value in keeping that dollar close to the real economy of wages paid to keep floating and re-circulating on the surface of actual consumer spending, which is where most wages go. 

There is a corporate mentality afloat that "in this economy" all laborers need to take a step back, yet not too much willingness of corporate strata wealth wanting to take any hit.  "In this economy" (as the false refrain goes) there seems to me to be too much condescension and patronizing from those who continue to be well off behind the corporate vail, who seek more and more profit to rationalize why others should just be grateful to have anything at all.  For the vast majority of working/laboring people, that mentality represents a race to the bottom of the barrel.

[Mike_Young]

RJ,
That sounds almost pro labor to me. 
I think one critical thing most forget is that the maintenance budgets and conditions that supts. and golfer have become accustomed to were not there for golf but were there to create value for RE sales.  Now the few private clubs are exceptions but not many.  BUT today it comes down to profit.  It's that simple.  The golf course has to spend less than it takes in.  There is a guy at the top who has to make that decision and we can think we can debate that with him on a blog or we can spout it from the fairways but in the end it is about profit.  Most golf is not corporate but is mom and pop and they can't play games with the numbers. 
As far as management companies go; they get paid whether there is a profit or not.  And in so many cases they are just convincing an off site owner they can lose less than he can. 
Cheers

[Don_Mahaffey]

In 1998 I was asked by the owner of my club if I wanted to assume the dual role of GM/Supt. We were a mid level daily fee with revenues in the 2.5M range and ownership felt if they had strong leadership in the Pro Shop, F & B and on the course, then one of the three managers could also assume the dual role. The GM was retiring, and if I turned it down, I'd be working for the Pro as he was next in line. I accepted the job and over the next 5 years learned a ton about the business. I learned that if you are going to have a good F & B operation, it takes an exceptional Chef/Restaurant Manager as it is a very tough business. I learned if you are going to have a well run pro shop that maximized revenues, it takes a dedicated Pro who is willing to put in the time not only manage his staff, but also keep the clientele happy.  Yes, it all starts with the golf course as that is your core asset, but where it really starts is with your golfers. Whenever you start thinking the course, or the pro shop, or the restaurant is the most important thing, you are losing site of your real asset, and that is your golfers.  A poorly run operation will be one where all the top managers are in constant battle for resources. A well run organization will be where all the managers realize each has an important job and each department is critical if you are going to grow your key asset, your golfers.

As a GM I was constantly getting mailers from companies that told me they could do it better. Golf management companies were always telling me they could maintain my course better than I could. They had no idea what I was spending, had never seen my course, yet they were not shy about making outrageous claims. Some of these companies were operated by members of GCSAA. I was a class A member and the #1 no-no in our code of ethics is going after a job that already has a GCSAA member in place. I complained to the GCSAA about these tactics, and received the basic "we can't do anything about them" response. I knew they couldn't stop them, but I thought they could boot them out. But GCSAA is, IMO, not a member driven organization, it is a vendor driven organization and these companies were contributors and sponsors of GCSAA activities, so the rules didn't apply to them.

I received the same sort of mailers about the Pro Shop, F & B, accounting, payroll processing....basically any function we did could be contracted out. The thing to remember when considering contracting out is, in most cases the contractor is not tied to the results. When you contract out your maintenance, they are going to get paid whether they do a good job or a bad job. They are going to keep the rebates they get when they use your money to buy what they tell you they need.  

I don't think it fair to condemn all management companies and I don't mean to do that. Bandon seems to be a very well run organization. In my experience, the customer service there is second to none, the green's staff is obviously outstanding, and they seem to have very little turnover.  It makes more sense to me to use that model, where the management company operates the entire property, then one where you contract out certain departments. I doubt the GM at club XYZ is taking the property-wide approach as that would mean his head is on the chopping block as well.

The situation that Dave Wilber writes about sounds like the GM is going to contract out the maintenance. I certainly do not have any of the details, and am only guessing here, but the super may have just got caught in a union busting move by the club. If they contract out, they will replace the crew as well. I'm amazed that a well run club would ever turn their maintenance over to a contractor, and if they do, I'll wager that in the end it will be viewed as a mistake.

[jeffwarne]

In 1998 I was asked by the owner of my club if I wanted to assume the dual role of GM/Supt. We were a mid level daily fee with revenues in the 2.5M range and ownership felt if they had strong leadership in the Pro Shop, F & B and on the course, then one of the three managers could also assume the dual role. The GM was retiring, and if I turned it down, I'd be working for the Pro as he was next in line. I accepted the job and over the next 5 years learned a ton about the business. I learned that if you are going to have a good F & B operation, it takes an exceptional Chef/Restaurant Manager as it is a very tough business. I learned if you are going to have a well run pro shop that maximized revenues, it takes a dedicated Pro who is willing to put in the time not only manage his staff, but also keep the clientele happy.  Yes, it all starts with the golf course as that is your core asset, but where it really starts is with your golfers. Whenever you start thinking the course, or the pro shop, or the restaurant is the most important thing, you are losing site of your real asset, and that is your golfers.  A poorly run operation will be one where all the top managers are in constant battle for resources. A well run organization will be where all the managers realize each has an important job and each department is critical if you are going to grow your key asset, your golfers.

+1
Every pro, Super, and F&B manager should have that taped to his wall.
and every GM should be made to memorize it.

[Dave_Wilber]

Don,

What an excellent post. What I really love is how it brings to light the "marketing" that is coming at club decision makers. And you are correct, the claims (like in much of today's marketing) were unfounded and designed to get everyone thinking there is a better way. I think that if most supers actually saw all of this stuff, there'd be a much stronger response from GCSAA. As it is, GCSAA is handcuffed and therefore the members are as well. That's a whole different subject and not really one I care to deal with.

Right now in our business there are a number of "Golf Management" consultants that are selling ideas and services to the unsuspecting and unknowledgeable all the while claiming to be from the Turfgrass side of the business. Superintendents are having their backs patted and their pockets picked. I'm sure, as you say, history will show this connection and the resulting management decisions to be bad.

That was a really good post. Required reading. Thank you, as always, for your candor.

[RJ_Daley]

Ditto Donnie, great post.

[Kevin_Reilly]

The situation that Dave Wilber writes about sounds like the GM is going to contract out the maintenance. I certainly do not have any of the details, and am only guessing here, but the super may have just got caught in a union busting move by the club. If they contract out, they will replace the crew as well. I'm amazed that a well run club would ever turn their maintenance over to a contractor, and if they do, I'll wager that in the end it will be viewed as a mistake.

I can't find that in any of DW's post, except for his "rewrite" of the job posting where he (sarcastically) writes that  "We may have to hire one of those golf management companies to help us, as club self-governance hasn’t really worked out so well."

The course fired its superintendent, and has a job listing for a replacement...let's not escalate this to "union busting" in the case of a job listing for a single club employee.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()