News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Dave_Wilber

  • Karma: +0/-0
Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« on: January 13, 2002, 03:57:47 PM »
I’ve got something to say about the future of Greenkeeping and indeed the future of Golf itself and it is centered on my frustration regarding recent events as well as events of the past. Forgive the long posts. Worth reading, I think.

I haven’t posted much at all on GCA for a long time. I haven’t lurked much either. Mostly I’ve been busy and trying to stay focused on working and doing good things. I also fully realize that nearly every time I post here, there are interesting implications both from the usual suspects and from those who choose to lurk (hello Big Brother!). But my hat has always been off to the Chronicles here and those who produce the words within them. Good for The Golf. Some of you always want more information. Since my only product is information, I’m sometimes limited in the scope of what I can afford to give away. However, giving information about the business of Golf, the real inner-workings, is a good thing when possible.

The profession of Greenkeeping has gotten interesting in the last few years. Several factors are responsible for this, but today the issue burning a hole in my head and my heart is the issue of the hiring, selection process and compensation of today’s golf course superintendent.

Obviously, I can’t name names or places in my rant here, but some of you are smart people and you will probably recognize certain circumstances. But the point I’m here to make is not one of specifics. And we aren’t dealing with the reputation of a dead (or living) architect’s legacy when we talk about the livelihood and operational aspects of an individual facility or person. I abhor ambulance chasing but I’m frustrated.

Recently (and mostly against my will, because I am, after all, an agronomist first) I’ve been involved in several selection processes as a club chooses (for whatever reason) the person who will be the bottom line for keeping their greens. I’m sick at what is happening out there. It’s getting to be absurd.

What makes a Green Committee or a Selection Committee or even whatever version of Manager (be it ex-Sweater Folder or ex-Sandwich Maker or any of the other varieties that come in today’s flavor) think they are qualified to make a decision about who to hire as their golf course superintendent?

Just as committees have ruined countless number of golf courses with well-meant but ill-conceived “improvements”, so they are doing the same with their selection of a keeper of the green. From that comes many things such as: people who are in positions they should never be allowed to have; superintendents who know what needs to be done at a facility, but are afraid to ruffle the feathers of those who hired them; good people who are hoodwinked into taking a job at a battleground that is little better than scorched earth and (to me the worst) courses that fall into a state of need that sometimes no amount of money can repair.

Being a golf course superintendent, and doing it well, is hard work. It is a profession that is hard on bodies and relationships. It is not at all glamorous (much to the chagrin of those who rise to their first super’s job and realize it isn’t so wonderful at the top). It is however, extremely rewarding on many levels. It has never been a job that paid higher than any of the other positions at the facility, but it comes with immense responsibility. Do you know what happens to the bottom line of a club when the golf course is bad? Point made. No one goes to play the great courses we talk about here because they do a nice bowl of soup. Soup helps, but you can’t putt in it.

Is the profession any different than many others in the toll it takes and the ups and downs it provides. Probably not. Indeed, we do stay in our own compartment much of the time in the golf business.

My good friends who are superintendents (as well as myself during my time growing grass) struggle some days to understand why they do what they do. In many cases, they are being asked to work in some of the most desirable places on the planet but can’t afford to live in those places. They rely on a staff to carry out the necessary work on the course, yet know that those people are rarely more skilled than the average kid wrapping burgers at McDonalds (plus lately the McDonalds workers are probably making more money than the staff member who cuts the 18th green). They are being asked to manage a facility created for golfers to enjoy a game of Golf and suddenly find that politics, not Golf, is what really makes the club go round. They are told that having a large event or tournament is a “privilege” and the hair loss and lack of sleep that surrounds the big league is “fun”. At a certain point, there is a simple element of “Show Me the Money” to anything in business.

Ok, so we’ve established that growing grass for a living is hard and that Carl Spackler is not who superintendent’s idolize. Gee. Nothing earth shattering.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
---------
Dave Wilber
Wilber Consulting--Coaching, Writing Broadcasting, Agronomy
davewilber@yahoo.com
twitter: @turfgrasszealot
instagram @turfgrasszeal
"No one goes to play the great courses we talk about here because they do a nice bowl of soup. Soup helps, but you can’t putt in it." --Wilber

Dave_Wilber

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2002, 03:59:57 PM »
Hey...I'm a Newbie !!!!!!!!! NOT ! ;D


The Rant Continues....

Here comes the Search Committee. For whatever reason, they are tasked with finding a new superintendent. Chances are pretty good that none of them have ever been a golf course superintendent. Chances are that many of them have seen their better days in their own work worlds and are on the downslope, where life is getting easier and they aren’t wielding their own swords as much as they used to.

When a club begins to look for a superintendent, they do have some options. There are some solid professional Head-hunters out there who provide an excellent service. For me, it is interesting when I get a call from a professional search firm looking for a candidate. It just tells me that they are getting paid for having my name and a list of other “insiders” in their Rolodex. The going rate, anywhere from 10%-20% of the total package. Not a bad number for having some good contacts. But I do believe that clubs who get the help of a professional are following a good line of thinking and to a candidate, it may be that a telling sign is the club’s willingness to hire some professional help. Headhunting superintendents is no like headhunting in other professional ranks. A club that uses, hires, asks or deals with a firm that has no golf experience gets a bad package. An example, a search firm executive is on the committee and he has his assistant (who knows nothing about golf) call a list of superintendents to see if they are interested in a nearby position. Superintedents are smart and a tight community and before long they figure out that they are not “special” because they got a phone call, they are just on a list. But that’s OK, because they can still go to their boss and tell them “Big Club in the Sky CC called me, and they want  to know if I am interested in the job---just to let you know”. Bingo, instant raise, thanks to the club searching.

The committee who thinks they can do it all by themselves is the one that places a club in a bad position. And they often handle things badly by talking too much and thinking too little. They played down the road or across the country one day last May and maybe that superintendent might want the job. The call gets made and suddenly a person that no one knows much about has an interview. No one knows about that superintendent’s secret passion for his landscaping business that everyone in the area knows he’s run out of his shop for the last 10 years. Let’s face it, most members don’t know much at all about what is going on at their own club, much less have any ability to know what is happening anywhere else.

The committee may mean well posting the job with the local and national superintendent’s association. Nice idea, but this move will probably earn them a stack of 300 resumes that they have no idea how to read or tell if there is a shred of truth in the words. It amazes me that the GCSAA continues to create all kinds of “career development” opportunities so that superintendents can look for better jobs. I’m pretty sure that if clubs really knew what was being talked about in those sessions, they wouldn’t spend their money on this kind of “education”. Don’t bother jamming on me about taking a shot at GCSAA. Big Brother needs an arrow fired at them now and then. Professional Job Switching is probably going to turn out to be career suicide for bunches of people “educated” in how to get work.

So the 300 resumes have come in. The so-called screening has been done and now we think we have a list of “great people” to interview. Clue: People who are good at their work and are doing it well at their current place of business probably aren’t reading and responding to job postings. The committee or sub-committee for Resume Screening has met and by some bizarre method they have created their stacks of Yes, No and Maybe. I’ve sat in on some of these sessions. It is hard to watch. Sets of criteria are debated about and established, such as “must be from the area”, “must be educated at a certain turf school”, “must currently be a superintendent”, “needs to know how to grow our kind of grass” and all kinds of currently illegal stuff like “needs to be young”, “needs to be stable and married” and stuff like that.

Interview time is amazing. Most committees do all they can do to make this hard. By whatever process, there are usually a couple of interviews, maybe even a phone interview, sometimes one-on-one meetings with individual committee members. The questions asked? Think of the silly questions people ask superintendents all the time and then imagine them being asked in a situation where someone decides right or wrong. Mind boggling.

In the end and often the biggest source of frustration is money. Committee members don’t read “Job Interview Tactics that Work” and they don’t hesitate to break all the rules of human resource management types that tell us how to survive interviews. A professional HR person knows the rules and the limits. Club members usually don’t. Questions about how much the candidate currently makes usually come out early on. Questions about how much the prospect would like to make at the new job are usually on the tongue tip. Thus the bidding begins.

Let me back up a bit for a moment. For sure, at this point there has been extensive discussion about the salary of the new superintendent. Some members of the committee will undoubtedly think the previous position holder was making far too much money and seek to hire below whatever that numbers is. Some members may have done their own study of area salaries by asking whomever they can about what so and so is making at such and such a club. As if they’ll get any information that is even remotely correct. General Manager types sometime really spill the milk here, because often they have a study of some sort of area salaries that is usually never correct or comes close to comparing apples to apples of different compensation packages. Asking a superintendent what they make usually gains one an answer that may include a number that the head person wishes they are making. The facts are that lots of talk may float around about money, but most of it is either inflated or deflated to suit the needs and wishes of the individuals at hand.

So finally there are two or three candidates that the club wishes to look at and maybe make an offer to. In some cases they have one person who stands out, but when they make an offer to that person, they forget that they are probably pitching to the best-employed person who really has nothing to loose. In fact, that person may not at all want the new job, but would like to see what they are worth. When they return home with an offer from the new club, their old club is more than likely to counter offer very quickly.

All of this is again, not big news. But what I am having a hard time understanding is the representations that members make during salary negotiations. Time and time again, I see clubs that are well known in the industry as wasters of money thinking that they are pulling the wool over a candidate’s eyes by telling them that they can’t afford a sensible number. Really? You just pissed off 8 figures on a club house. You just paid a restaurant consultant six figures to tell you that you have to raise the price of a bowl of soup. You settled with Mrs. Slipslide for six figures when she slipped on her soft-spikes down a slope where most people know better than to walk down. On and on. But suddenly they are trying to tell their new superintendent that he or she is not important enough to compensate to the level of letting them live within a 15 min drive of the club. They are saying that they need an expert budget manager who will “save them money” and not offer up any compensation for doing such a task.

By the time the dust settles in this kind of debacle, the good candidates are long gone. Probably they weren’t in the picture in the first place, but if they progressed, what they probably learned is that they don’t want to work for this club.

How is this bad for the Game? To me it seems obvious, but to many, no matter what they hear along those lines, they don’t see the value that competent greenkeeping brings to them. I’m not talking about competency in the form of getting it right for a few days for the Invitational. I’m talking about total professional competency. A steward of the property. A person who knows where the money goes and why. A person who is savvy enough to know to come to the powers that be at the club and tell them what they often do not want to hear. A person who cares how the course plays before they care how it looks and can defend that position. A person incapable of making 5 figure mistakes on projects, because they understand how to build, fix, tear-down and maintain a golf course.

A person who knows how to tell the green chairman from another local club that they are treating their superintendent badly by phoning to get info and second guess their own superintendent.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
---------
Dave Wilber
Wilber Consulting--Coaching, Writing Broadcasting, Agronomy
davewilber@yahoo.com
twitter: @turfgrasszealot
instagram @turfgrasszeal
"No one goes to play the great courses we talk about here because they do a nice bowl of soup. Soup helps, but you can’t putt in it." --Wilber

Dave_Wilber

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2002, 04:02:21 PM »
I’m sad about what I am seeing as a trend. A few highly paid and often talked about superintendents at profile clubs and a ton of people who are very very good at what they do getting very little compensation in light of what they save their facility. All because, just as in architecture, committees are often dreadfully wrong about what their club needs.

What are we heading for here? Marquee Superintendents who are represented by agents and have contracts much like pro team athletes. I doubt it (although I’ve had offers from superintendents to represent them in negotiations with clubs). Are we headed for situations where a club is afraid to deal with a bad personnel problem? I think we are there in some cases. What about the selected person who can’t get the job done? It is very hard for members (and consultants) to justify their mistakes. What we certainly are long past being headed for is a time where many superintendents are more worried about their jobs and their job searching than their own club. Much of this is due to the fact that some clubs simply can’t get the concept down that being cheap with the salary of their outstanding superintendent means that person will probably leave. As one friend put it to me, “I can’t spend the bottle of scotch my boss gave me as a “bonus” on my daughter’s college tuition”.  

I hope those of you who are reading this and believe in the concept of having our courses be the best places for the game to be played can become more active in advocating better compensation and better treatment of superintendents. Along those lines, kindness means shooting the wounded and being honest with someone when they are out of their league. What we have begun to do is to hire superintendents mostly on the weight of what they are making and what they are willing to accept and this means very bad things for both the profession of greenkeeping and The Game. Many make this about age…young vs. old, but the facts are that young people who need a shot will always take that shot. Later in life they may not be able to afford to take such a risk. Interestingly enough it is many of these “younger” superintendents (young in age or experience) that give me job security.

When they are gone, many times I (and we) have much to fix
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
---------
Dave Wilber
Wilber Consulting--Coaching, Writing Broadcasting, Agronomy
davewilber@yahoo.com
twitter: @turfgrasszealot
instagram @turfgrasszeal
"No one goes to play the great courses we talk about here because they do a nice bowl of soup. Soup helps, but you can’t putt in it." --Wilber

Don_Mahaffey

Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2002, 06:00:57 PM »
Hi Dave,
As someone who has looked around a bit, your message hits very close to home. I could have a lot to say on this subject, but unlike you I don't work for myself, so I'll be careful. I just think it would be nice if we could receive consideration on our work and not whether we raked bunkers at Pebble Beach or did an internship at Augusta. Why does a club which has $600,00 to spend maintaining their course and receives 200 applicants narrow it's candidates to five assistants from high profile clubs with triple the budget? Why do clubs hire high profile guys with six figure salaries who specializes in moving around the country screwing up golf courses and getting fired every two-three years. Why do we get graded higher based on the amount of money we spend and the amount of staff we have, inferring that the guy who grows good sustainable turf with reasonable inputs can't possibly be as good as the guy who puts down 7 lbs. of calcium nitrate on his 1000#/acre rye in October and November. I don't think having green shoes at the end of a round constitutes good greenskeeping. I could go on and on, but I have come to realize that at age 41 I will probably never get to where I want to go in this business. I don't think my rants will change anything and yours probably wont either, but I'm tired of seeing poor, borderline incompetent, greenkeeping worshiped. In today’s golf world, supers no longer start at a low level club, move up to a mid-level club, and if successful, move into the higher echelon. No, today it's not about what you know or what you can do, it's all about where you've worked. The irrigation tech from a high profile tour course has a better chance landing a position then an experienced guy from a unknown club.  

Glad to see you back on GCA, hope to hear more from you in the future.

Don  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dave_Wilber

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2002, 07:01:50 PM »
Don,

Well said and thanks for the welcome.

When I worked for Mike Kosak (now at Lahontan GC as dir of agronomy) a long time ago he used to tell us that the profession is in trouble when the "New Members" section was larger than the "Reroutings" every month in Golf Course Management magazine.

I do think that in the past there has been so much of what you speak about regarding hiring the underqualified person who just happened to work for a name club or name superintendent. What is really a shame about that problem is that those clubs and those superintendents have a great opportunity to train and teach. Over the years there have been several "farms" that have produced some very good superintendents. The Darwin principle was at work at these places, the goobers were unable to hack it or were identified and sent on their merry way. Many superintendents have begun to realize that they are training people who want their job and will take it for less money so the teaching environment has changed.

You make a perfect point regarding the recognition of your work. Know the problem? Mostly the people who you may be talking to about getting hired don't know a dang thing about evaluating you, your work, your situation that allows you to work and all the other factors. Heck, after 10 years of consulting, I usually have to dig hard to find out all I need to know about someone. An example: I was invited to go look at a potential candidate for a new course position a few years ago with his possible owner. When I wanted to see the shop facility the owner thought I was wasting time. I noticed the superintendent went out of his way NOT to show us his shop. Once we got to that shop what we found was a total disaster zone. Not that the shop was old or broken down, but that things were in a state of chaos. One could tell that there wasn't much going on in the way of organization or stewardship at all. Oh, the super's footjoy's were nicely shined, however. Not to say that the job is all about the shop, but certainly that said much about ability as a manager.

It is interesting that you mention "getting where you want". Many very well meaning people in greenkeeping today are looking too hard at the top 100 list and assessing their value based on getting a "ranked" position. I can tell you that many of the best superintendents I see are at places not on that ranking list. Many of them have very good jobs, are well paid for the job and feel secure. This is rare, but it happens. On the other hand, a good many friends have landed the "dream job" only to learn that a club or course of stature comes with a very big burden on their lives and that the area they move to is not exactly designed to be easy to live in. Many times things are not what they seem and some who make what seems like a dramatic upward move realize that they are in a no-win situation and the job hunt begins all over again. Bad deal for them, their families and ultimately the business as a whole.

Right now, much to the chagrin of some of the clubs out there, I'm becomming more and more about them making better decisions and paying superintendents what they are worth to the organization. It's not agronomy, but it has become a critial mass issue.

Oh and, working for myself means that when I piss people off, I don't get work and therefore don't eat. I'm not sure that's all that different than you  ;) so for god sakes stop censoring yourself !!!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
---------
Dave Wilber
Wilber Consulting--Coaching, Writing Broadcasting, Agronomy
davewilber@yahoo.com
twitter: @turfgrasszealot
instagram @turfgrasszeal
"No one goes to play the great courses we talk about here because they do a nice bowl of soup. Soup helps, but you can’t putt in it." --Wilber

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2002, 07:03:12 PM »
Dave,

I would agree with most of what you say, irrespective of whether the club is looking for a superintendent, Pro or Manager.

But, herein lies some of the problems.

If, at a member owned club of let's say 400 members,
one very knowledgeable member came forward to perform the task on his own.

Before they even began the process, the sniping would start from different factions within the membership, for varying reasons.  Now remember, this well intentioned member is serving in a voluntary capacity, without pay, yet every time he goes to the club to play golf and enjoy himself he is set upon by inconsiderate people, or morons.  He has a terrible time, doesn't enjoy himself, and asks why the hell he ever decided to get involved in the first place.

As a friend of mine used to say, "No good deed shall go unpunished".

So, sometimes, to diffuse dissention, and to provide for participation by the various factions (sometimes at war with one another and the club leadership) within the club,
a Committee is formed.  How does the President or Board comprise this committee.  Well, sometimes, the different factions are represented, many times without regard to the chosen persons ability.  It is only important to each faction that they have representation on this committee.

And as you know the process continues down the road of ineptness or unevenhandedness.

Sometimes, it works out well, perhaps by luck, and a worthy candidate is chosen and hired.

Circumstance also dictates the process.

If I had a longtime, capable Superintendent who was retiring, I would have him find his successor.  If the club fired the Superintendent, or the Superintendent quit, that option isn't available.

I happen to favor DICTATORSHIPS at clubs.
I find that the Dictator can pursue the function himself, or select  a competent individual or small committee to explore the options and select the successor.

I too notice differences today versus 30 years ago.
Today, even the member who joined yesterday, who began to play golf the day before yesterday is an expert in every area of golf, and wants a say in the club's decision making process.

In my business I have to deal with committees.
Where I can, I go to the President or Chairman.
If they accept my proposal, no one can overturn it,
and if they reject it, I've saved all that time going through committees getting approval up the corporate ladder, only to have my proposal rejected at the top.

Add to this, people or committees who hide behind the committe structure, blaming the other guy for the result.

I don't know where this will all end up, but like you,
I sure hate the trend I am observing.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dave_Wilber

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2002, 07:25:00 PM »
Patrick...

Certainly the committee structure and the democratic meanderings of many clubs is an issue that remains in the core of  all of this.

But my point here for the moment is maybe best summarized this way:

1. Who (if anyone) is qualified to "evaluate" a potential candidate for a position?

Seriously, even here in the esteemed GCA, some of you would be that last people I would take on the road to evaluate superintendents. The truth, most golfers don't know, and won't ever know what the job entails.

I remember speaking to an up and coming writer once about my list of great superintendents and at the mention of one particular club's super, the writer bristled. "Oh that place is an architectural nightmare, he said". Yeah? certainly that have issues with trees and badly done committee driven work, but I don't know of too many operations that are better. I'd hate to see the nightmare the place would be if a lesser talent was at the helm. But the blame was laid on the superintendent. What if that writer was "on the committee"? I guess no interview for that person. Geez.

2. Why wouldn't the golf course superintendent be compensated for the job that they do?

Time and time again, I keep hearing about this Grass Ceiling, wherein the superintendent's compensation package couldn't possibly be more than other "department heads" (for lack of a better term) at the facility. When I do go farther down this path, I am perceived as taking shots at Golf Professionals and Club Managers (or clubhouse managers--whatever)---which I very well may be. It's not personal, however, I just am baffled as to the level of responsibility that is laid on the hands of the Head Greenkeeper without matching that commission with compensation that speaks to the level that the facility weights on course conditions.

For years we've been hearing all this mutual admiration society stuff about "image" of golf course supers. How about this....maybe the simple fact is that greenkeeping is what it is, but like diamond cutting, it is an art. An art worth paying for. I see lots of supers who don't want to keep greens and to that sort of "image enhancement" I suggest that someone forgot that creating the necessary playing conditions is what the job really is. Yes, it has advanced technically, but I'm not always sure that some of those advancements have helped the game.

see....now you've got me all worked up  >:(
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
---------
Dave Wilber
Wilber Consulting--Coaching, Writing Broadcasting, Agronomy
davewilber@yahoo.com
twitter: @turfgrasszealot
instagram @turfgrasszeal
"No one goes to play the great courses we talk about here because they do a nice bowl of soup. Soup helps, but you can’t putt in it." --Wilber

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2002, 07:38:50 PM »
Dave,

As I said, if I had my druthers, I'd have the qualified Superintendent find their replacement.

On the issue of compensation, I've had this argument at the Committee and Board level on more than a few occassions.
My typical, simplistic position is:  The members aren't joining for the chicken salad, the Labor day dinner dance, pool or tennis courts.  
They are joining for the golf and golf course.
The golf course is the single most important asset the club has, and that's where the money belongs.

But, some Committee members and Board members don't share my views, so the fight goes on.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

jim__janosik

Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2002, 08:12:58 PM »
Dave,  

I  miss  you man!!!!  You  have my  endorsement to not post
for months if you keep  making  powerful  statements  like that.   You  certianly  "get it".  I hope you are well.

Don.  M.  I know how yu feel!!

More  imortantly  I feel Dave is that  members or  the  management company  involved put more thot into the color of their socks that day than  firing there super.  The  pro
or  GM  seem  more stable.  The facts are  a  pro runs a retail operation  that the  Dept Head of  the local Nordstroms could  
do, except he has a +1  handicap.  The GM  could be replaced
by the  GM at Mortons.  Club Corp  puts all  there managers
through  rigourous testing and  the supers  always score better  than pros or  F&B guys.  Its a fact jack.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Theresa Stotler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2002, 09:37:50 PM »
I would tend to agree that it is time to put the money and emphasis on hiring and keeping good supers, even if it means replacing the pro. Years ago, pros were needed to promote Golf, but we did not need a pro at the club taking extra revenue from cart sales, and providing a weekly Saturday two man best ball tournmanent to win gift certicates in the pro shop.   What would be great if we took the cart revenue and put back into the course or in educating members the maybe there are different types of grasses that would be better for the soil we have and not comparing one super to the other since everyone is on different budgets.I apologize from digressing but I really don't think the super and his crew give the same repect of those selling merchandise in the pro shop.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2002, 10:29:22 PM »
Jim,
Your criticism of other professionals is unfair. I manage a club and have an excellent relationship with the super. We consider each other friends and watch each others backs, where we can. I run interference for him when members complain about the course, and you should know they complain in the pro shop first, and he recently went to bat for me on a compensation issue due to loss of play during construction.

Patrick,
The course is the single most important asset a club has, most definitely, but don't forget that people join clubs, not just courses. How many times have you sat in a grill room where one of the main topics is the quality of the food?

Dave,
You are taking shots at the people in the professions you mentioned by using their rate of compensation to try and justify an increase in yours. It shouldn't even enter the picture.
I don't think that all supers in all places are earning what they should but the compensation figures for your profession are pretty impressive, as a look at the numbers posted on the GCSAA web site show.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2002, 10:50:47 PM »
Dave, great to read your stuff again.  You’ve been missed.

I don’t see a lot of difference regarding your greenkeeper issues and numerous professions I’ve been involved in.  In some professions it is the employers market, in others the employee controls the market. When there is an over-abundance of employees in a chosen profession the employer has the advantage. Employers care less about the difference between the top of their field and the mediocre. Since there is such a large pool to choose from they can keep trying mediocre with the hope that every so often they accidentally get a star. When there is a shortage, they will always put a premium of the best, knowing it will be tough to replace the top even with mediocrity.

When other professions have been stuck with an employers market they have organized to improve conditions.  It hasn’t always answered all of your stated problems (often times it has more concern for the mediocre) but it has leveled the balance of power between employers and employees.

The other answer is that there is a cycle. While greenkeepers are currently treated poorly because there is a glut, as this goes on there is less incentive for others to enter the field. Eventually there will be a shortage and the employees would then hold the power. They will then be treated better, leading to the next glut and the next employers market.

I’m not dissin’ greenkeepers in anyway. I love playing golf with Pete Galea. I’ve learned something new with every round. In a perfect world that wealth of information should hold some high value.

Quote
Organize, organize, babe o' mine,
Organize, organize, babe o' mine.
Well, the boss'll be surprised when he finds us organized,
So we'll just keep organizin', babe o' mine.
 --Woody Guthrie (Babe o' Mine)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dave_Wilber

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2002, 06:57:24 AM »
Jim Janosik....Hello. Email me!!

Jim Kennedy,

In a word....bunk. Let's remember that being a super isn't immediate membership in GCSAA. Those figures, while looking pretty good, don't represent the business as well as many would like. That's not the point. The point is, however that I am not taking shots at people based on their "rate of compensation". Nor would that alone be a reason to increase the rate of pay for supers (btw...I'm not a superintendent anymore, but I'm tired of seeing friends and clients struggle so therefore I rant). Indeed the reason to increase anyone's compensation, be it individual or industry wide is because they deserve it based on performance. The point is, the heroic and difficult job of greenkeeping correctly is worth paying for.

Oh...and before we start the Pro vs. Super battle here...let's not. (you too Jim J) It bores me beyond belief and always makes everyone look bad. Grass Cutters and Sweater Folders must get along. Fact. This means that the Pro and his assistants probably need to stop thowing gas fromt he shop counter on the already burning superintendent now and then. It can happen!

Dan King....
Thanks for the nice welcome back and more importantly, thanks for saying nice things about Pete Galea, a truely wonderful guy!

BINGO....It is, indeed a target rich environment these days. Those doing the hiring, especially at a place or project with a name, know they are going to get a zillion people showing interest in their gig. It's a catch 22 that we in turfgrass have created by supporting things like scholorships and education and University Turf Programs. I'm thinking a change is in the air.

Organizing is happening in small groups. I'm seeing some independent, small-area compensation surveys and things like that. And as I mentioned, many superintendents in an area turned a club's bumbling attempts at headhunting into raises. They also got together and helped a prospective candidate gather some information for his negotiations. When the boyz at the club offered a silly low number, he had some horsepower to show them that they weren't in the ball-park.

The old...we wanna be the best club in the whole area, but we don't wanna pay for it...is gonna get tougher and tougher.



What sucks to high heaven here is that people....hey, it happened above in Jim K's post.....always think that this discussion is always about the money. It's really not. I think I remember seeing a survey a while back where money was like 5th or 6th on a list of 10 things that made for happy employees. I think being appreciated was number one. Superintendents have always had issues with appreciation. Some founded and some absurd. I'll never forget looking around at a staff meeting at my last super's job. I was the go-to guy at my place. Need something done, ask Dave. So I'm sitting there and I realize that I'm the only guy with the college degree of all the dept. heads. I was also the only guy with a marking paint stain on the bottom of my pants (from marking the course for an event because the assistant pro didn't know the rules of golf well enough to define a particular hazard) and a grass stain on my windshirt elbow because I stopped to check a mower just before staff meeting. I was also the lowest paid dept. head, had vacation time booksed that I couldn't take and was  the only dept. head who had balls enough to go to the board and fight for better wages and a couple of good crew parties for my staff.

It shouldn't be about the money...but it is becomming the best way to judge the level of appreciation a club or course has for its head greenkeeper.


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »
---------
Dave Wilber
Wilber Consulting--Coaching, Writing Broadcasting, Agronomy
davewilber@yahoo.com
twitter: @turfgrasszealot
instagram @turfgrasszeal
"No one goes to play the great courses we talk about here because they do a nice bowl of soup. Soup helps, but you can’t putt in it." --Wilber

jim__janosik

Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2002, 09:26:59 AM »
Dave,  I  stand  admonished.  I  will  contact  you  soon.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

W.H. Cosgrove

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2002, 10:15:56 AM »
Mr. Wilber,
I appreciate that you are concerend about the fate of the Superintendents out there.  I am concerned, however, that you rail eloquently about practices followed by courses in hiring new employees but do not make a case for the appropriate way for a Board to pursue qualified and appropriate Superintendents. Nor do you discuss the appropriate relationships between professionals and owner/members.

That said, I have just stepped down from the Presidency of my Private Club.  Fortunately, I consider our Superintendent as extremely qualified and a friend of mine.  It was a part of my job description to manage the relationships between our professionals and our members.

The professional must contend with several hundred 'experts' in each of their fields.  They must also be in a position to manage their respective budgets in a manner that fits the vision of the club that employs them.

The members have both increasing demands for improved quality on the golf course while being faced with a very difficult business environment for mid value clubs.  Dues are reaching a point where families do not see the value of belonging to a private club.  

Solutions to these issues are not going to be easy to find.  The industry must come to grips with these issues or several of the 16,0000+ courses in this country are at risk of being plowed under.  It must be the responsibility of professionals and club leaders to educate the memberships as to the risks we all run by expecting too much of our playgrounds. It is also the responsibility of the Superintendent to manage his/her budget in a way that maximizes the available funds to provide the best possible experience for the player.  

I don't think that budgets should be spent on excessive beautification in an effort to supply fluff to naive members.  The Superintendent should spend the time helping committees/owners seek priorities appropriate for their facility.  And most importantly they should be leading instead of following.  That takes courage on the part of the employee and understanding on the part of the owner/member.

Lets hope we find a solution or the game we love could be in serious trouble!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2002, 01:47:45 PM »
Dave,
You said, in response to my post  ...."The point is, however that I am not taking shots at people based on their "rate of compensation".  What led me to say you were in the first place was when you posted this later remark...."Time and time again, I keep hearing about this Grass Ceiling, wherein the superintendent's compensation package couldn't possibly be more than other "department heads" (for lack of a better term) at the facility. When I do go farther down this path, I am perceived as taking shots at Golf Professionals and Club Managers (or clubhouse managers--whatever)---which I very well may be".
I think it was a reasonable interpretation for me to make after reading your remarks.

I have total respect for our super and educate our members about all that he does every chance I get. If I'm not mistaken much of your post was directed at this issue. I addressed the compensation issue because I am more familiar with it than hiring practices, another area you spoke to.
You did say.... "What sucks to high heaven here is that people, hey, it happened above in Jim K's post, always think that this discussion is always about the money. It's really not".
I don't mean this in any negative way, but if you re-read all your posts you made reference to compensation, money and how it is distibuted to all in the employ of golf courses on numerous occasions. Once again, I think it was a reasonable interpretation on my part to think this issue was an important part of your presentation.

Please don't interpret this post as an attempt to throw your words back in your face. It is not.
I found much substance in what you said and appreciated the fact that it came from someone as knowledgeable about his profession as you are.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Dave_Wilber

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2002, 06:05:22 PM »
Cheers Jim! Thanks for the work telling me what I said  :D

Indeed it is a multi-faceted discussion all of this.

So I'd like to ask you (and any others) a hypothetical question or two.

1. Imagine you are interviewing candidates for a superintendent position at a club where you are the GM. Imagine that one candidate is clearly heads and tails above everyone you've seen, no question the best possible steward for your facility. You've checked him out and he's got all the tools and doesn't even do things like have sex with goats on his free weekends. Problem is, he wants more money than you currently make to come to work for you. What do you do?

2. (and this is again..hypothetical and not directed at your forehead) How is it that any GM can "educate" members about what the superintendent is doing unless that GM has, in his prior work experience, been a superintendent? Or maybe better put as per tact...what is the best way for a GM to really learn what goes into greenkeeping?



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
---------
Dave Wilber
Wilber Consulting--Coaching, Writing Broadcasting, Agronomy
davewilber@yahoo.com
twitter: @turfgrasszealot
instagram @turfgrasszeal
"No one goes to play the great courses we talk about here because they do a nice bowl of soup. Soup helps, but you can’t putt in it." --Wilber

Bob Davis

Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2002, 07:59:57 PM »
Dave, excuse me for butting in. But as someone that is on the BOD of a private club and has recently hired a Super, I find your posts bizzarre. If you haven't figured it out yet, clubs pay what the market demands. If you are disatisfied with your salary, then find a new job.

As a BOD member, if I had contend with your pointless ramblings I might shoot myself. Learn to make a point in 50,000 words or less. Sorry if I'm being a jerk but you might want to consider how odd you sound and how it might impact your income.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dave_Wilber

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2002, 08:48:10 PM »

Quote

As a BOD member, if I had contend with your pointless ramblings I might shoot myself. Learn to make a point in 50,000 words or less. Sorry if I'm being a jerk but you might want to consider how odd you sound and how it might impact your income.

Really? Tell you what---start shooting.

My workload has never been higher, which allows me not to work for anyone who would take good, fun, passionate and admittedly rambling discussions (which are the norm on GCA) and turn them into their own private duck shooting cesspool of personal attacks. I'm an asshole, but certainly not as low handicapped as what I just read. Nicely done. The pathetic attempt at an "I'm sorry" didn't help. But hey, flame away, it's only ACSII and its a free internet.  :D

Here's a clue, in case you haven't figured it out yet, being on the BOD of a club comes with just a bit more call for stewardship of your club than simply telling someone that if they don't like their salary they shouldn't let the door hit them in the ass. Attitudes like that are the ones that I get paid for saving turfgrass from and as a result of. You represent job security. Many thanks.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
---------
Dave Wilber
Wilber Consulting--Coaching, Writing Broadcasting, Agronomy
davewilber@yahoo.com
twitter: @turfgrasszealot
instagram @turfgrasszeal
"No one goes to play the great courses we talk about here because they do a nice bowl of soup. Soup helps, but you can’t putt in it." --Wilber

Bob Davis

Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2002, 09:53:09 PM »
It's not a "take or leave it" proposition. But there are certain realities regarding pay and worth. If an employee thinks he is worth more than we will pay, then there is an impass. If he is disatisfied enough, he should leave.

We treat all of our employees with great repsect personally and for their position. But if my greenskeeper rambled aimlessly and pointlessly like you have done in this thread, he would comand little respect or interest. So rail on about unfair interviewing processes and useless clubhouses. Until you are in the position of running a club, you don't understand all the issues.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2002, 10:05:43 PM »
Dave,
I have no problem with someone making more money than me. If they are that good and as dedicated to their profession as I am to mine then they might be worth it. If the course were mine the decision becomes much easier.
If I had to justify my decision to a board, I would show them that hiring a super who is head and shoulders above the rest would only cost pennies more a round and worh spending over the long term. If I still ran into resistance from the board I might suggest making the premium part of the compensation dependent upon conditions after one year, taking into consideration the vagaries of weather. If the super accepted such a deal then he, I, the head of the BOD and the Green chairperson would tour the course, document the present conditions, relate them to the recent weather and use this info to check performance in one years time.
If the course were mine, I would offer the same deal. If economics wouldn't allow hiring someone who is so much better than the field, the question becomes moot.

As to your second question, I keep abreast of some of what goes on in your field by reading Supt. News, Green section record and checking out Turf and GCSAA websites.
I play my course at least twice a week to see what's happening out there. I question our Super if I see something that stands out to my untrained eye and find out from him what it really is. He never fails to tell me what his trained eye is seeing. Additionally, just the occasional conversation with him about how things are going in his world and listening to his responses helps me understand what he is up against. By keeping myself informed in these ways I don't think I need to do his job to have an understanding of it.

My definition of educating players revolves more around their perception of conditions. I find that I am the first stop for complaints, at least at our course, and when I can give them some valid reasons why things are the way they are it helps defuse potentially harmful situations and reinforces the actions of our Super. I pass the complaints on to him and I pass on the praise also.

I think that all employees should spend at least one day a year in the shoes of their fellow workers. The grass on their side of the fence might start to look as green as the other guys if they did.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

D. Wilber

Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2002, 12:37:44 AM »

Quote

My definition of educating players revolves more around their perception of conditions. I find that I am the first stop for complaints, at least at our course, and when I can give them some valid reasons why things are the way they are it helps defuse potentially harmful situations and reinforces the actions of our Super. I pass the complaints on to him and I pass on the praise also.

I think that all employees should spend at least one day a year in the shoes of their fellow workers. The grass on their side of the fence might start to look as green as the other guys if they did.

Jim....

Very well said. I like the understanding you have of "perception" of conditions. Unfortunately so many times I see the super thrown under the bus rather than actually dealing with the member's lack of understanding. A casual comment such as saying, " Yes, Dr. Greene, you're right,  they're always messing around with the greens", seems harmless unough until Dr. Greene hits the mens grill after shooting 100 and pontificates about how he leaves his yard at home alone and it is doing just fine and even Crawford Nottingham, the golf pro,  says that they should leave the greens alone like all the other clubs around here.

As an assistant superintendent, one of the things I got to participate in was our facility's exchange program where some of us did time being the shop counter, in the starter shack, bagroom and even in the grill. In turn, we had employees working with us on the Green Staff. It wasn't nearly enough time to learn the job, but it certainly did show everyone that our jobs were different, difficult and important. I'd love to see more of that sort of thing.

Thanks for your comments. Certainly of value.


Mr. Davis:
Yes...so we've established that I'm aimless as a writer and clueless about club operations and indeed just a true  diminished capacity turfgrass zealot. Thanks for that. Now, do you have anything of value to say? Or maybe you would grace us with yet another post blueprinting the empty space between my ears?

Seriously, if I am boring you, please, just stop reading my stuff. Or send me email with your words so that the good folks here can be spared the distraction. Please. I've had enough supportive email about this thread to know that I haven't whiffed.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

jonnyt

Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2002, 07:36:28 AM »
Dave,

You certainly have not "whiffed." But, Dan King's point seems lost on you and you continue to ramble about lack of compensation for Supers. Dan hit the nail on the head pointing out that it is simply an economic issue of supply and demand, not lack of understanding or respect for the superintendent.

You pointed as much out yourself saying why clubs hire poorly in an earlier post.

Most "regular" golfers I know have a great deal of regard and respect for golf course Supers, but the fact is if ours leaves, there will be dozens of qualified applicants to replace him.

Live with it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #23 on: January 15, 2002, 11:51:26 AM »
The supply and demand point while important, does not answer the entire question.  An experienced greenkeeper(my preferred term) familiar with a particular property brings added value and is not so easily replaced.  I have been fortunate enough to serve as greens chairman and then President of  Briarwood CC in Deerfield Il.  Our greenkeeper, Paul Voykin joined us in 1960 and has not only done a tremendous job in keeping our course in outstanding playing condition, but he helped lead the trend toward more natural and less maintained areas starting in the mid 1960's.  We have survived unseasonable weather of all types, often in times when courses who have had less continuity have lost greens to heat and disease.  Additionally His tenure has allowed us to keep crew members for extended periods.  This gives us greater efficiency as a smaller more experienced crew gets more done than an inexperienced large crew.  Finally, committing to a talented professional and keeping him on board helps deflect much of the meddling by well intentioned but uninformed members because long successful tenures give added credibility to any employee.  I know that I have spent a significant amount of time educating myself on turf grass issues just to be certain that my comments as chairman would have some basis and so that I could try to keep up.  We have been lucky to retain our greenskeeper for so many years but a portion of that luck is the result of our recognition of the value of the person and his job.  Other clubs would benefit if they adopted a similar attitude if they are in the enviable position of having a talented greenskeeper.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Michael_Stachowicz

Re: Paying for the Future of Greenkeeping
« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2002, 01:29:21 PM »
SL Solow:

Any greenkeeper would be lucky to find  an employer with the same attitude as you.  Yes there are market forces, but there is a personal element that has less to do with compensation and more to do with attitude.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back