[Ben Sims]

Do you work for the golfer or the owner/board?  Do you work for your staff or do you work for a professional organization and your peers (GCSAA, ASGCA)?

I believe that vision as a leader means that you are supremely concerned with the quality of your product and those that produce it.  However, as I become more and more aware of how things really work in our society, I think we pay lip service to this ideal.  More often, those that concern themselves with those above them and following the set status quo will be those that are brought along by the hierarchy and progress to higher levels.  Whereas being more innovative and more concerned with your product (the golfer's enjoyment/challenge) and those that produce it can get you labled as immature or inexperienced and not suitable for higher progression.

So, to get the discussion started, when you're managing conditions on a course or designing a golf course, who are you primarily concerned with?  I understand this isn't black and white and that it should equal the same result.  But in the real world, it isn't.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Membership/Owners sign the checks...thats usually a good direction to follow.

[Steve Okula]

Do you work for the golfer or the owner/board? Yes. I work at a members' equity club so I ultimately work for the golfers who are represented by committee.  

Do you work for your staff or do you work for a professional organization and your peers (GCSAA, ASGCA)? Except for the rare exceptions of people who are directly employed by the GCSAA, I have never met anyone who works for the GCSAA. I have never met anyone who works for their staff.

 I believe that vision as a leader means that you are supremely concerned with the quality of your product and those that produce it.

In this business, concern for the product is paramount. Concern for those that produce it goes only so far as they are useful for the end result. The welfare of staff is not a priority.  

However, as I become more and more aware of how things really work in our society, I think we pay lip service to this ideal.  More often, those that concern themselves with those above them and following the set status quo will be those that are brought along by the hierarchy and progress to higher levels.  Whereas being more innovative and more concerned with your product (the golfer's enjoyment/challenge) and those that produce it can get you labled as immature or inexperienced and not suitable for higher progression.

Golfers have widely varying ideas of what constitutes "enjoyment". The only thing you can be sure of is that on any given day you'll never please them all. 

So, to get the discussion started, when you're managing conditions on a course or designing a golf course, who are you primarily concerned with?  I understand this isn't black and white and that it should equal the same result.  But in the real world, it isn't.

Be most concerned with the people who are first to sign your checks. 

[RDecker]

The one obvious problem with deciding what are the optimum conditions is that they are relative to the individual golfer
in question.  On any given day there are golfers on your course ranging from the scratch/club champ type to juniors and seniors
carrying handicaps in excess of 30 strokes. You have to provide playing conditions for all of those levels.  Some are looking for green and
lush and others are looking for firm and fast.  You are responsible for the experience of all these different players and sort of have to find
the "happy medium" if you can.  Who signs your checks is also a complicating factor for alot of Supers and certainly the overriding
concern for the architect.

[Ben Sims]

Tony and Steve,

I'll be honest with you guys because I really want to discuss what you said.  When you imply that who signs your checks is the only factor and that "I have never met anyone who works for their staff...the welfare of the staff is not a priority," it makes me sad.

My belief is that if you work for solely for the golf course and those that create/maintain it, then check signers and professional societies will recognize the work you're doing.

How can your paramount concern be your product if you don't care about your staff?  How can you be innovative and entrepreneurial in thought when you're trying to make the status quo of the golf business your mode of operation?

[Stewart Naugler]

I know of several superintendents at elite level clubs, that were let go for not being concerned about their staffs.

[Bill_McBride]

Ben,

Would you ignore the desires of those above you in the chain of command because you had different priorities?  It's usually the same wherever you are in the business world.  I'm not talking about ethics, i.e. obeying an unlawful order, I'm talking about varying visions and where you find yourself in the food chain.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ben, I dont fully understand your question but in my world you work for the man that signs the check and his policies. If you dont like it you should have the balls to go work somewhere else. If I had any of my staff working against what I said I would sack them. Healthy debate on certain issues is fine of course but no working against the grain in an underhand manner.

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

Would you ignore the desires of those above you in the chain of command because you had different priorities?  It's usually the same wherever you are in the business world.  I'm not talking about ethics, i.e. obeying an unlawful order, I'm talking about varying visions and where you find yourself in the food chain.

Bill,

There's an underlying issue with your post.  It assumes that what is good for my staff, my students, and my individual development is not good for my boss.  

I feel like we have gotten to a place in our country where following the hierarchy into the abyss is the expected norm.  Innovation and entrepreneurial thought--a least in the government, military and in the business world--is not as valued as the folks that check boxes and don't challenge.  

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Ben:

Tony and Steve are not employees of either the GCSAA or the ASGCA.

Architects are not paid by the ASGCA and the superintendents are not paid by the GCSAA.

Tony and Steve are simply dues paying members  of the GCSAA and did not say they did not respect the employees of the association.

[Tim Martin]

Ben- I can`t imagine that a sense of altruism in the business world(golf or otherwise) is the driving force behind providing a good or service. Should the superintendent challenge the guy that writes his check any more than someone in some other business with a chain of command or organizational structure? That`s all good in theory but not everyone has the luxury of going against the grain(right or wrong) lest they find themselves on the outside looking in which for most is not an option. I`ve heard you say before and I`m paraphrasing that as a pilot for our country you carried out the mission that was delegated to you and I`m wondering why this should be different? I am just trying to understand your position a little better because I really don`t believe that these guys don`t value their employees.

[Ben Sims]

Ben:

Tony and Steve are not employees of either the GCSAA or the ASGCA.

Architects are not paid by the ASGCA and the superintendents are not paid by the GCSAA.

Tony and Steve are simply dues paying members  of the GCSAA and did not say they did not respect the employees of the association.

Dick,

Not talking about an actual paycheck coming from the the organizations.  I'm talking about them working for whatever it takes to please those organizations.

[Steve Okula]

Ben,

If you want to be entrepeneurial and in the golf business, then you can't be a superiintendent working for a salary, the two roles are mutually exclusive. As an entrepeneur in golf, you have only a narrow range of options open to you.

You could own your own golf course. (This would be my first choice, but it requires considerable capital.)

You could be an independent architect, contractor (both tough businesses to break into these days) or a consultant.

You could get into one of the supply businesses, fetilizers, equipment, and the like.

[Stewart Naugler]

The GCSAA works for us by promoting our profession and providing us with information, services, support, etc. We work for our membership by providing them with the playing conditions and expertise they desire. We also work for our staff by providing them with the support needed to do their jobs at a high level.

[Steve Okula]

Ben:

Tony and Steve are not employees of either the GCSAA or the ASGCA.

Architects are not paid by the ASGCA and the superintendents are not paid by the GCSAA.

Tony and Steve are simply dues paying members  of the GCSAA and did not say they did not respect the employees of the association.

Dick,

Not talking about an actual paycheck coming from the the organizations.  I'm talking about them working for whatever it takes to please those organizations.

Ben, I don't know any supers who wake up in the morning, look inthe shaving mirror, and say to themselves, "How will I please the GCSAA today?"

The GCSAA is our organization, we pay for it, and we expect it to work for us, not the other way around.

Including the guys who become involved and hold office in the GCSAA, that's all done for self-promotion. There's nothing wrong with that, and I respect it, but the tail doesn't wag the dog.

[Steve Okula]

I know of several superintendents at elite level clubs, that were let go for not being concerned about their staffs.

I can't speak to that because it's way too vague. We all need to look after our staffs as much as we can. They are usually appreciated more by the super who rubs shoulders with them every day and knows the effort they make than by the golfers/owners/managers who only see them peripherally and view them and their salaries as liabilities to the budget's bottom line.

In my career I have often gone out of my way to help staff members who richly deserved more than they were getting. I learned a long, long, time ago that it's practically useless in this business to put rank and file employees up for any kind of meaningful raise. I have been a super in seven countries on four continents and I am convinced that this principlal is an eternal verity the world over. And forget about bennies and perks.

[Ben Sims]

Ben:

Tony and Steve are not employees of either the GCSAA or the ASGCA.

Architects are not paid by the ASGCA and the superintendents are not paid by the GCSAA.

Tony and Steve are simply dues paying members  of the GCSAA and did not say they did not respect the employees of the association.

Dick,

Not talking about an actual paycheck coming from the the organizations.  I'm talking about them working for whatever it takes to please those organizations.

Ben, I don't know any supers who wake up in the morning, look inthe shaving mirror, and say to themselves, "How will I please the GCSAA today?"

The GCSAA is our organization, we pay for it, and we expect it to work for us, not the other way around.

Including the guys who become involved and hold office in the GCSAA, that's all done for self-promotion. There's nothing wrong with that, and I respect it, but the tail doesn't wag the dog.

Steve,

Caveat, I'm a GCSAA member.   I don't want to make this a discussion about professional organizations.  I just want to investigate the motivations and ambitions of folks in the golf business.  I know what the motivations and catalysts are in my own world and I think they are misguided in how to promote the progression of the best guys.  This is not an indictment.  It's a discussion.  

[Tim Nugent]

Ben, Architects ARE the ASGCA, We have a small staff in Milwaukee that keeps things together for us, plan our Annual Meeting and organize our participation in various industry meetings.  That's about it.  If there is a Bill being formulated in Congress that aversely affects the Golf World, they will get a group together to go to Washington or whatever Statehouse and lobby our view.  That's about it.

When we are hired, we first usually have to have an understanding of what the client's goals are and if we are not comfortable with them, we don't pursue the work.  If they want a vision from us, then they usually have to be on board before hiring us.  It's gnerally not a case of A hiring B and then figuring out what needs to be done.  Imagine what Shadow Creekwould have been if Tom Doak had been hired instead of Tom Fazio.  Often ownerswill seek out prople whom they  believe will be able to carry out their vision.  They aren't many who will just say "hey, I want a golf course, go build me one and tell me where to send the check".

[Anthony_Nysse]

Ben,
  I've just skimmed some of the above comments, as my attention has been to watching MSU beat up on UGA in OT. Im not a fan of the GCSAA.  I think their direction isn't always on and have had some leadership issues the last few years. I think that dues are very high and for what? Access to the website and some literature, at this point? I don't think that being a CGCS makes you a better Supt than a Supt  that doesn't have those letters behind his/her name. The GCSAA needs clubs/Supts and Assts to keep paying the dues-they need us more than we really need them. In fact, MOST folders are more interested by literature from the USGA than GCSAA regarding turfgrass.
  I am loyal to the club that employees me. We take care of our staff with lunches, bonuses, sick pay, donuts, ect...the GCSAA didn't pay for that the club or I did. There is nothing about my day where I go out of my way to please the GCSAA. Our goals of the please the membership, forecast projects and budgets, be available as much as possible, be aware of changing weather conditions, be judicious with our spending, using proper pesticides with proper timing and be environmentally conscience. The GCSAA didn't necessarily teach me that-my father did,  previous bosses, members and the desire to be a steward of the the club and environment.

[Ben Sims]

Tony,

Thanks for the measured response, dig on my Dawgs withstanding (we deserved to lose that game).  My experience as an idealist and a dreamer is negative, surely.  So many people confuse it with immaturity or lack of talent.  I think that so many people have become risk averse and more concerned with self-preservation that they forget what a quality manager or leader really is.  I want to ask a lot of people in the 35-50 age range, "just when DID you sell out?"

For example, I am about to start a thesis project that will be based around reducing maintenance budgets by 25%.  The main focus will be to cut into the primary cost of maintaining golf courses, mowing.  I think that moving back to large volume mowing on all open spaces (away from expensive lightweight units), moving away from walk mowing on the greens (towards triplexes), and much more aggressive use of plant growth regulators (and the reduced fert and irrigation that will accompany) can be a financial windfall for many golf courses.  But how will the established golf regime react to that?  It will fly directly in the face of many of the things I've learned at PSU and will certainly piss off quite a few of the big golf companies.  It will not be popular at big money clubs to accept less than the best, and it will be questioned thoroughly by superintendents who have made their living by asking for more money from clubs.

It should be a common goal to make your product better when you're in a position of leadership.  In my opinion, not to justify your own existence by making your boss happy.  Sometimes that means not following status quo and helping others around you to understand why you think the way you do.  That is, unless, your boss is also a person of vision and innovation and someone that believes in meritocracy.

[Grant Saunders]

Ben

Just curious if you would like to expand on what you would quantify as a reduction in mowing?

Are you talking about lower machinery and labour inputs or actual frequency of cut?

Grant

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

and it will be questioned thoroughly by superintendents who have made their living by asking for more money from clubs.

Please clarify this, how does a superintendent make a living by increasing maintenance budgets or capital outlay for equipment.

[Bill_McBride]

Ben,

Would you ignore the desires of those above you in the chain of command because you had different priorities?  It's usually the same wherever you are in the business world.  I'm not talking about ethics, i.e. obeying an unlawful order, I'm talking about varying visions and where you find yourself in the food chain.

Bill,

There's an underlying issue with your post.  It assumes that what is good for my staff, my students, and my individual development is not good for my boss.  

I feel like we have gotten to a place in our country where following the hierarchy into the abyss is the expected norm.  Innovation and entrepreneurial thought--a least in the government, military and in the business world--is not as valued as the folks that check boxes and don't challenge.  

Agreed, but typically the middle managers don't get to decide what's "good.".     They can recommend what they think is "good" but the brass don't have to take that advice. 

Now if there was a way for junior officers to win, much less make, those arguments.   

[Ben Sims]

Ben

Just curious if you would like to expand on what you would quantify as a reduction in mowing?

Are you talking about lower machinery and labour inputs or actual frequency of cut?

Grant

Grant,

All of the above.  Obviously there would be some quality differences, but nothing drastic.  And the cost difference should/would more than justify it.

Dick,

I'm not trying to be generic, honest.  But I don't think golf would be where it is today if the golf business in general were saying, "hey boss, I can do that for less, and just as good, just give me a shot."  Like I said, risk averse. 

Bill,

The article that started this whole line of thinking this morning before I got into a bad mood about Georgia's performance today.   

http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/why-our-best-officers-are-leaving/8346/3/?single_page=true

[JC Jones]

 I want to ask a lot of people in the 35-50 age range, "just when DID you sell out?"

I'll refrain from any Dawgs comments too...

With respect to your question above, you can widen the range to late-20s to 50 because that's when I sold out.  Status quo and preservation are strong motivators, particularly when one is a single income provider to a house of 5 people.  Some are ok with it, some are not but don't do anything and some of us are, hopefully, trying to rectify it.  I agree with you though, we have lost our ingenuity.  I think a large part of this is the proletarianization of our whole society.  Which is a predictable result of capitalism.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()