[Dunlop_White]

Looking for literature anywhere -- book chapters, articles, or even a discussion here -- on the advantages of preserving club structures that embrace golf chairmen acting as benevolent dictators? Seemingly, many older golf clubs and many smaller golf clubs have been successful operating under this political structure where superintendents report to a benevolent golf chair rather than a GM or rotating golf committees. A wrong person at the controls can be a disaster, I know. But I'm looking for successes stories and benefits here. Thanks!

[Bill Brightly]

I think it worked at National.
.



.




When C.B. Macdonald was golf chairman....

[Phil_the_Author]

Augusta

[Lynn_Shackelford]

I have "Pine Valley Golf Club, A Chronicle" from 1982.  It has a chapter on Management Finance Members.  The focus is on the 52 year rule of John Arthur Brown.
Would you like me to copy the pages and mail them?
I think it gives you the wording and historical evidence for which you are looking.

[TEPaul]

Dunlop:

Do you mean Green Chairmen?

Golf chairmen generally concentrate on such things as a club's tournament schedule, handicaps, the professionals and pro shop services and such. Green Chairmen are always responsible for the maintenance of the golf course even if under the old traditional structure, probably somewhat inherited from abroad, the authority flow generally comes from the Golf Committee to the Green Committee.

Lynn:

PVGC is pretty unusual in both how it's always been structured and run. The club has never really had any committee chairmen (or committees). Everything has always been run by the president of the club of which there have only been five in the club's almost 100 year history.

[Dunlop_White]

TP,

I mean one person in charge of all affairs golf related, whether that means green chair, golf chair, or President?

[TEPaul]

Dunlop:

I see.

In my opinion, PV almost doesn't count because so few clubs are actually structured the way it is.

One club that's structured sort of normally that has had some great "One Man sort of controls it all" is Seminole. That would include over the years Dunphy, Ryan and George Coleman, and the current president looks real strong from all I've heard.

If anyone wants to know more about the life and times of George Coleman they should pick up and read this new book just out called "The Match" (Ward and Venturi (amateurs) vs Nelson and Hogan).

[TEPaul]

Dunlop:

I think you deserve more answers and better answers than this thread has provided you with so far.

Maybe most of the registrants and contributors to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com just aren't all that aware of club structures and club politics in a general way.

I wonder why you ask as well. Are you thinking of your own club? If so, it certainly sounds like it has a ton of continuity and longevity of committee and board people. Obviously that kind of structure can cut both ways.

But even with that the pendulum generally swings and maybe with the longtime structure your club has your time has now come.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dunlop,

That communist-socialist TEPaul will never admit it, but, that's the correct business model, dictatorships or oligarchies.

I believe that both Ross and AWT endorsed that arrangement.
I believe it can be found in their writings.
I would imagine that CBM agreed.

Shinnecock Hills, Seminole, ANGC, PV and many other Icons of American golf have preserved their architecture while presenting a representative challenge for decades upon decades with that model in place.

Why would you give someone who's a member for all of three weeks that same say that you would give a member of 35 or more years.

Whatever you do, don't listen to TEPaul on this issue.

And, the chairman doesn't have to be so benovolent, since that's a subjective determination.  He has to protect the best interests of the golf course.

As to the wrong Chairman ascending to the Chair, that rarely happens because they're groomed for the job over many years, and if and when it did, they'd be removed from office in short order.

How do you think TEPaul got his nickname, B.S. Paul.
He's a Bolshevik Supporter, that's how.

TEPaul,

The current Major Domo at Seminole is a terrific fellow.
He and his predecessors understood their mission and that's one of the reasons that Seminole remains such a great golf course with so few alterations over the last 80 years.

[JMEvensky]

Dunlop,if it matters,I came to the Mucci/Paul fork in the road regarding club management "style".I followed Mucci's philosophy which, I too believe, is the best way to run a club's golf side.

If you'd like,I can post pictures of me being hung in effigy.

[Dunlop_White]

Tommy.....thanks for bringing this to the top again. It really doesn't have anything to do with my club as we have operated in this fashion since our inception.

Pat Mucci: more more!!

Whatever happened to dictatorships at most larger country clubs across the country? Why have they only survived and prospered at historic golf clubs and/or small exclusive clubs? I can't imagine a structure where a super or architect first reports to the GM. Don't prove I'm wrong....just help me justify my thinking!

[herrstein]

I belong to three clubs: Lookout Mountain, The Honors, and Black Creek Club.
The Honors is a modern (1983) club with a benevolent dictator. Beautifully run.
Black Creek is also under such a structure, but with outside management (Troon).
Lookout Mountain is run by rotating committees.
I prefer the dictatorships.

[Phil Benedict]

Dunlop,

Shinnecock Hills, Seminole, ANGC, PV and many other Icons of American golf have preserved their architecture while presenting a representative challenge for decades upon decades with that model in place.

Patrick,

I think you'd get a lot of argument here that Augusta National under Hootie Johnson ran roughshod over the original architectural intent of the course.

[Dunlop_White]

Ok Pat, to be more specific.....has Brewer been "grooming" Davis at PV? Will Davis now live at PV? If not, could you make a case for everyone to report to Manager/pro Raudenbush, since he'll be there more? I'm just using this as an example for discussion......still looking for advantages of club structures that empower dictators to manage?

[Tony Ristola]

The Making of the Master's is a book filled with info about the challenging early years of Augusta and Clifford Robert's guidance. I don't know if it has any commentary about advantages directly, but the entire book illustrates the value of having one committed leader, able to not only craft a vision for what they had but prevent it all from going down the tubes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci: more more!!

Whatever happened to dictatorships at most larger country clubs across the country? Why have they only survived and prospered at historic golf clubs and/or small exclusive clubs?

I think the reason relates to two factors.
The rise of "democracy" within clubs and an air of entitlement that emerged as initiations and dues climbed.

When members began to pay substantial sums to belong, they felt that they were entitled to an equal say in the running of the club.

Clubs changed as the "generations" changed.
They went through a cultural metapmorphosis reflective of society.

If you look at pictures of members taken 30-50 years ago, and then look at pictures from today I think you'll see the difference,.

I also think that clubs are more prone to change when financial pressures begin to build.

If a club takes in five members a year, those members will yield to the culture of the club.  But, a financially stressed club that takes in 30 members a year, will have its culture changed in a VERY short time.

With a base of 250 members, the club that takes in 5 members a year only has 10 % of the membership that are new after 5 years, whereas, the other club would have 60 % of the membership as new members, and THEY will change the culture of the club in that short period of time.[/color]

I can't imagine a structure where a super or architect first reports to the GM.

Don't prove I'm wrong....just help me justify my thinking!

I agree, although there are exceptions.

When you work with charitable organizations, volunteer organizations or country/golf clubs a unique management dynamic occurs.

Those organizations are dependent upon professional managers since the members/volunteers don't want to get involved in the daily nitty gritty.  They do that in their own business and don't want to spend their time, meant for relaxation, up to their ass in aligators and problems, hence, they tend to choose an OVERSIGHT function rather than a HANDS ON function.

IF, and it's a BIG IF, If someone was committed to being at the club 24/7, their business/profession would suffer, unless, they were independently wealthy, or had a super business that ran itself with minimal hands on involvement.

I think that was the case at some of the old line clubs.
I think they had well to do leaders who could afford to devote the time and effort to run the club to the members satisfaction.

As those fellows died off (generationally), fewer and fewer members rushed to fill the void, and thus, the culture of the club began to change from a member run institution to a member managed institution.

Since ONE man no longer did everything, the division of labor became the rule, with boards, committees and hired help functioning as management.

I'm a big believer in the theory of "fewer moving parts'.
Fewer decision makers, fewer committees, etc., etc..

Tell TEPaul that there's a reason for the expression, "too many cooks spoil the broth" [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dunlop,

Shinnecock Hills, Seminole, ANGC, PV and many other Icons of American golf have preserved their architecture while presenting a representative challenge for decades upon decades with that model in place.

Patrick,

I think you'd get a lot of argument here that Augusta National under Hootie Johnson ran roughshod over the original architectural intent of the course.


That's absolutely untrue.

Would you cite, with specifics, what original architecture Hootie ran roughshod over ?
[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ok Pat, to be more specific.....has Brewer been "grooming" Davis at PV? Will Davis now live at PV? If not, could you make a case for everyone to report to Manager/pro Raudenbush, since he'll be there more? I'm just using this as an example for discussion......still looking for advantages of club structures that empower dictators to manage?

Dunlop,

I believe that good dictators groom their successors.

I don't believe that either Gordon, or the club, is planning to hand the governing reigns of the club over to an employee.  It would be counter to the culture of the club.

The advantage of a dictator is: simplicity, expedience and the elimination of disruptive factions vying for power.

To serve a club, or any organization I think three things need to exist.

1   A love of the entity.
2   The time required to serve properly
3   Intelligence/wisdom

The dictators seem to have all three.

If you look at the history of some of the clubs that have existed under a successive dictators, you rarely see a palace coup.  Why ?   Because each successor is chosen and groomed for the position, AND, the culture of the club accepts that method of govnernance.

Having said the above, I CAN'T picture a democratically run club reverting to a dictatorship.

I think they should, but, I don't see it happening.

I hope that helps.[/color]

[J_ Crisham]

The Honors Course has a Benevolent golf guru in Mr. Lupton. It would  appear here that this is actually a very good thing. In my first and only visit here this past October,Ifound a very engaging membership and staff. The course was in great shape,the caddies topnotch.What a retreat! He also has the financial ability to make needed architectural changes as they complete the remodel on #10. Didn't see a thing here I'd change!

[Ray Richard]

I think the concept can work if you develop a code of ethics that deal with issues like staffing selection and purchasing.

 I had a negative experience working with a self described “golf operations dictator” who had some mighty ulterior motives. He was constantly pushing services that his company offered, at inflated prices, and he would increase the pressure when I resisted. In addition, he was placing friends and relatives in support positions throughout the club.

 I don’t miss those days!

[Bob_Huntley]

I think the concept can work if you develop a code of ethics that deal with issues like staffing selection and purchasing.

 I had a negative experience working with a self described “golf operations dictator” who had some mighty ulterior motives. He was constantly pushing services that his company offered, at inflated prices, and he would increase the pressure when I resisted. In addition, he was placing friends and relatives in support positions throughout the club.

 I don’t miss those days!

Ray,

I daresay he was only "benevolent" to his friends and corrupt business co-horts.

Bob

[Lester George]

Dunlop,

I think Vinny Giles at Kinloch has been an excellent Benevolent Dictator.  On opening day he told the membership "If you don't like this course, you might as well go home".  So far, no one has.

Lester

[Jason Tetterton]

I believe Jackie Burke Jr.'s book, "It's Only a Game : Words of Wisdom from a Lifetime in Golf", has a chapter concerning the benevolent dictatorship method used at Champions.

[Kirk Gill]

Clubs changed as the "generations" changed.
They went through a cultural metapmorphosis reflective of society.

If you look at pictures of members taken 30-50 years ago, and then look at pictures from today I think you'll see the difference,.

Is this because the old pictures were in black and white (or just white), and the pictures from today are in color? Could you expound on this idea?

[Phil Benedict]

Dunlop,

Shinnecock Hills, Seminole, ANGC, PV and many other Icons of American golf have preserved their architecture while presenting a representative challenge for decades upon decades with that model in place.

Patrick,

I think you'd get a lot of argument here that Augusta National under Hootie Johnson ran roughshod over the original architectural intent of the course.


That's absolutely untrue.

Would you cite, with specifics, what original architecture Hootie ran roughshod over ?
[/color]

I have only seen the course on TV so I am paraphrasing arguments I have heard/read from others (eg Matt Ward, Ran), who argue that in the age of Hootie the club significantly reduced the width of the playing corridors and eliminated angles of attack by adding a fairway bunker on 1 and planting trees on 7, 11, 15 and 17.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()