[Bill_McBride]

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

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

That's an excellent article, Ben.   The Army is not unique in this regard.  IBM, Citicorp, any large organization, innovators are often viewed as troublemakers.  

[Ben Sims]

That's an excellent article, Ben.   The Army is not unique in this regard.  IBM, Citicorp, any large organization, innovators are often viewed as troublemakers.  

Bill,

C&C and Tom Doak have the benefit of having their checks signed by the owners, who are then happy/unhappy based on the quality of their work and golfers show their approval by going to play those courses, joining the clubs, rating them high, etc.  It drives innovation and evolution. 

Just think how cool it would be my students and staff wrote my performance reports.  Or how cool it would be if a superintendent had a yearly review of his work given to the board by generic golfers at the course and his staff.

[Bill_McBride]

That's an excellent article, Ben.   The Army is not unique in this regard.  IBM, Citicorp, any large organization, innovators are often viewed as troublemakers.  

Bill,

C&C and Tom Doak have the benefit of having their checks signed by the owners, who are then happy/unhappy based on the quality of their work and golfers show their approval by going to play those courses, joining the clubs, rating them high, etc.  It drives innovation and evolution. 

Just think how cool it would be my students and staff wrote my performance reports.  Or how cool it would be if a superintendent had a yearly review of his work given to the board by generic golfers at the course and his staff.

Some recent articles in the Wall St Journal indicate that peer reviews are a growing part of employee evaluation.   

[Sean_A]

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

More than a few years ago now.  I got out as soon as it was clear that I was interested in making money and not so much about the product (other than I insisted on high quality).  My customers were no longer interested in a win-win situation - they only cared about their short term profit margin.  While I am (still) in the auto supply business (without owning a factory or employing anybody but myself), it wouldn't matter what industry I am in.  Once there is no loyalty in business there is eventually no money in that business.

Ciao

[Stewart Naugler]

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.

 You're going to have to trust me on this one, because I would never give examples of superintendents getting let go. I have heard countless stories of guys going to our national conference and their staffs going to the club manager or pro, and telling them the superintendent is impossible to work for. I'm a third generation superintendent, and I would have to say that the number one thing my Dad and Grandpa taught me was to treat your staff right. When I was at CPC, every single employee was treated with the utmost respect and given an opportunity to advance. If they wanted to learn English, irrigation, and become a certified applicator, they would get a good raise. Now only a few of them did that, but the few that did became unbelievably productive employees. It gave the younger guys a goal to work towards and the older guys respected that, and every single employee respected the superintendent. And it lead to the most organized, productive, and streamlined operation I've seen in having worked at several top 50 clubs. Plus, you have irrigation techs and spray techs stay at a club for 20+ years while your assistants leave every 5 years or so. That's why I think it's valuable to promote from within, rather than hiring a kid right out of college to be a spray tech. Now, I understand everyone doesn't have the budget to do this but even if you do it with one guy, it can pay off big time. I've learned more from English speaking Hispanics that have been crew leaders for years than I have from just about anyone else. They really take pride in what they're doing and their attention to detail is incredible. At CPC every single employee cared about that club like it was their home and you would never hear guys talking bad about management or wasting time on the job, all because of how they were treated. I'm not saying you treat your crew poorly at all; I'm just telling you the benefits I've seen from treating your staff well. In my opinion our staffs do matter, and we do work for them if we want to get the most out of each and every one of them. My Dad still gets countless Christmas cards from his old employees, and that's because he treated his staff the same way he treats his family. Not only does he get great joy from that, but it also had a lot to do with him staying at the same club for over 40 years.

Don't get me wrong, I have worked at places where the superintendent ran his operation based on fear and the operation suffered greatly - very low morale, very low production, and very little work getting done in a timely matter. At least, not nearly as timely as the crews that were treated well.

I believe that you get out of your crew what you put into them - if you take the time to train them properly, treat them properly, and give them a little bit of incentive.

This all coming from the most anal guy you'll ever meet.  

[Adrian_Stiff]

Altitude sickness?

[Mike_Young]

Ben,
I have just brushed over most of these post but I think I get the drift.
Now is the time when we begin to see the business of golf separated from the development of golf communities.  Associations, large equipment companies, architects, superintendents, club manufacturers, golf car companies were all making their money off of RE sales in the majority of the golf being produced.  If you were pursuing a business degree you would be taught how to make a profit.  I don't think that has been taught in turf schools and the equipment companies, chemical companies certainly don't endorse it to the schools they support.  We all developed an unsustainable industry and that is sad.  forget about "peer review" because how do you know your peers.  This business is about to go bck to the individuals and figuring out how to get it done because if it can't justify existence it will not exist.  JMO

[Grant Saunders]

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

Im 33 and I haven't sold out.........yet.

I would like to think that my principles are important to me and this has possibly had a negative impact on my career in some respects. I have missed out on promotion or new positions because I am not a yes man and not afraid to stand up for what I believe.

This approach may have been fine in the past when I havent had any major commitments to uphold. As life progresses, it becomes much more difficult to chase your ideals at the risk of upsetting a regular paycheck and the stability it provides.

I tend to think I posses a fairly good vision for my local industry. Unfortunately, the industry as a whole is slow to accept the inevitable changes coming and many are still operating as though the status quo can be maintained forever. Its hard to try and adopt a new approach while those around are reluctant to re asses their views. It is particularly hard when the first steps involve a decrease in perceived quality.

[Steve Okula]

Ben, if you're going to reduce maintenance expense by reducing mowing then you're necessarily reducing labor costs. You'll have to reduce pay across the board or eliminate positions. This is what I mean by the staff is not the priority.

Peer review depends on personnel being literate in a common language, not to be taken for granted in the world of golf course laborers.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

Over the Christmas holiday, I had dinner at an artist friend's home, and was talking about what I do with three or four artists [sculptors, painters, etc.].  All of these guys create their work from scratch and then hope to sell enough of it to get by; they were all curious about my business and how it worked. 

When I explained about my clients, one of them said, "Oh, what you do is more like working on commission."  Few of them had ever worked that way.  But when I said that one of the keys to my success was being able to find good clients and turning down jobs when I didn't click with the client, they all nodded approvingly.

Years ago, I tried to get Mike Keiser to pay Ken Nice directly, instead of going through the management company ... I thought it would provide clearer instruction for Ken, but Mike was so confident in Kemper that he didn't want to bypass them.  But, wherever I can, I try to get the superintendent to answer to the same guy I did, for the sake of consistency.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ben,
In the case of a Superintendent, reality is you work for whoever signs your check. But, that doesn't mean your a sell out or can't do what you feel is best for the course and the game. While supers receive valuable input from golfers on a regular basis...the greens don't hold, what's wrong-some of the grass is brown, the bunkers are too soft-too hard...if the super has established himself as solid employee who does a good job, he can usually do things as he wants. If you can't convince those who know you and your work best to let you do it your way, it's doubtful you'll be able to do something on a broader scale for the good of the game.

I've never heard a supt say they work for the GCSAA. I was a member for 19 years but did not renew this year. They don't seem to miss me as all I've heard from them is I can still send in my $$$ if I want to keep my status. GCSAA has always thought they were what was good for the super. They've never believed, IMO, that supers were good for them. I guess what concerns me the most about the GCSAA is their extreme reluctance to change the status quo. There is no doubt in my mind the #1 concern for the GCSAA is keeping vendors happy as its the vendors who support the staff at GCSAA.

That idea bleeds over to some GCSAA members as I have witnessed supts who seem more concerned about keeping vendors happy then those they work for. Equipment salesmen are very versed in training superintendents how to overcome objections from GM/Owners when it comes to purchasing new equipment. I visited a course last month after the owner had called and asked for my help. It was in bad shape with deferred maintenance obvious from a parking lot that needed resurfacing, a clubhouse that needed paint inside and out, to a course that was beat down by traffic with numerous freshly dug holes where irrigation heads had been robbed from one spot to be used in another. Yet, the day I was there an 18 wheeled flatbed arrived with brand new pieces of equipment; easily costing 250K+. They couldn't do the most basic maintenance yet they were buying (financing) brand new equipment.

[Peter Pallotta]

Blessed is the man whose personal tastes and beliefs/ideals happen to align with those of the public/marketplace (however large or small), and who can communicate his vision to that troubling/pain in the ass intermediary, the client.  Then he can truly "work for himself" while at the same time earning a living and adding good things to the world.

Peter

[Lou_Duran]

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.

I heard a manufacturer state something very similar to this in response to a business plan I presented (low on headcount, high on productivity, well above market on compensation).  Can you expand on the reasoning (why it is useless)?

"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."  J.C. Jones

Can you develop this a bit?  Why is it predictable?  Do you really mean democratization (instead of capitalism)?

[Steve Okula]

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.

I heard a manufacturer state something very similar to this in response to a business plan I presented (low on headcount, high on productivity, well above market on compensation).  Can you expand on the reasoning (why it is useless)?

Every region has its pay scale on the low end of the ladder. People working down there are perceived as expendable; if they don't like the pay and conditions they can quit, there are plenty more where those came from. People in positions of power don't want to pay above the accepted norms of minimum wage for two main reasons:

1. It upsets the economic model. If you start paying the greenkeeping staff more, even one or two guys,  then you have to also give raises to kitchen staff, cleaning staff, and so forth to keep everybody happy, and this will lead stright to ruination.

2. The bosses don't want to be seen as chumps, suckered in to paying more than necessary like fools. 

For certain capitalists there is a third reason: Giving people money just to spend on themselves is immoral.

[Tim Nugent]

Ben,
In the case of a Superintendent, reality is you work for whoever signs your check. But, that doesn't mean your a sell out or can't do what you feel is best for the course and the game. While supers receive valuable input from golfers on a regular basis...the greens don't hold, what's wrong-some of the grass is brown, the bunkers are too soft-too hard...if the super has established himself as solid employee who does a good job, he can usually do things as he wants. If you can't convince those who know you and your work best to let you do it your way, it's doubtful you'll be able to do something on a broader scale for the good of the game.

I've never heard a supt say they work for the GCSAA. I was a member for 19 years but did not renew this year. They don't seem to miss me as all I've heard from them is I can still send in my $$$ if I want to keep my status. GCSAA has always thought they were what was good for the super. They've never believed, IMO, that supers were good for them. I guess what concerns me the most about the GCSAA is their extreme reluctance to change the status quo. There is no doubt in my mind the #1 concern for the GCSAA is keeping vendors happy as its the vendors who support the staff at GCSAA.

That idea bleeds over to some GCSAA members as I have witnessed supts who seem more concerned about keeping vendors happy then those they work for. Equipment salesmen are very versed in training superintendents how to overcome objections from GM/Owners when it comes to purchasing new equipment. I visited a course last month after the owner had called and asked for my help. It was in bad shape with deferred maintenance obvious from a parking lot that needed resurfacing, a clubhouse that needed paint inside and out, to a course that was beat down by traffic with numerous freshly dug holes where irrigation heads had been robbed from one spot to be used in another. Yet, the day I was there an 18 wheeled flatbed arrived with brand new pieces of equipment; easily costing 250K+. They couldn't do the most basic maintenance yet they were buying (financing) brand new equipment.

Don, nicely summed up.  I hope your eyeballs didn't get whiplash as they rolled to the back of your head upon seeing that truck.  BTW, why on earth does anyone ever buy new equipment? When you can get decent pieces of well maintain equipment from clubs with great mechanics? Heck, you can even buy new cutting units and still be $$$ ahead.

[Ben Sims]

Every region has its pay scale on the low end of the ladder. People working down there are perceived as expendable; if they don't like the pay and conditions they can quit, there are plenty more where those came from. People in positions of power don't want to pay above the accepted norms of minimum wage for two main reasons:

1. It upsets the economic model. If you start paying the greenkeeping staff more, even one or two guys,  then you have to also give raises to kitchen staff, cleaning staff, and so forth to keep everybody happy, and this will lead stright to ruination.

2. The bosses don't want to be seen as chumps, suckered in to paying more than necessary like fools.  

For certain capitalists there is a third reason: Giving people money just to spend on themselves is immoral.

Good grief!  I'd pay good money for a reality show involving printing this on a t-shirt and making you wear it into a diner in Dearborn, Michigan or to an "Occupy..." rally.  Now that would be good entertainment.  

[Mike Nuzzo]

Ben
I work for my client
What is best for the client includes staff safety and well being
It was the same when I worked for Lockheed
I couldn't control wages, but I could control perks ... who came with me to Montreal.

Getting a satellite vibed in the middle of the night is no different than grassing according to the clients schedule
Showing respect for the staff/crew and some fun goes a long way.

[John Gosselin]

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.

How is cutting staff and spraying enormous amounts of expensive chemicals good for golf?

[Lou_Duran]

BTW, why on earth does anyone ever buy new equipment? When you can get decent pieces of well maintain equipment from clubs with great mechanics?

Maybe for similar reasons people buy or lease new cars.  As the current shortage of used cars would suggest, we might be thankful for operators who can justify getting new stuff.

Steve O-  the guy I alluded to found that being "progressive" raised expectations while having a negligible impact on productivity.  And when business was slow and he was losing money, his employees weren't receptive to lower pay or making a greater effort to improve the bottom line.

Mike N- right on!  Are you the one holding the Coke or the guy without a hat?  The guy on the far right appears like he would be more at home rounding cattle than launching sattlelites, but looks can be very deceiving.  

[Ben Sims]

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.

How is cutting staff and spraying enormous amounts of expensive chemicals good for golf?

John,

I'm not going to engage someone of your reputation and skill set on a thesis I haven't fully developed yet.  You'd be shooting fish in a barrel by debating me.  But, conversely, I don't expect a turf manager at a course as well funded as yours to fully appreciate how much $100K could mean to a lot of golf courses out there.  There is NO WAY that waiting out the current financial dilemma that golf faces until we can pay for everything the same way we always have is the right answer.

Based on your experiences, it would help my thesis along quite a bit to get your input on the costs associated with my ideas.  I know I'm new to all of this, but I just don't see how reducing costs, shunning the overbuying of equipment, and reducing turf interaction is a bad thing.  I'm sure Primo Maxx (and all the other PGR's) is expensive, but the costs associated have to balance out in favor of less mowing, less fert, less water.

[John Gosselin]

Ben,

I haven't always worked at well funded golf courses. By working at under funded golf courses and getting results is how I got to the better funded golf courses. I fully understand how to operate with reducing budgets while expectations remain the same.

One thing I have found with plant growth regulators is that as the plant gets used to the regulator you find yourself having to spray higher and higher rates to achieve the same regulation of growth. You still have to pay a very competent person to apply these low dose herbicides and also need a good sprayer.

I am not saying you're not on the right track, just the savings seem a little high unless the course conditions you're going for are dramatically different from before your program. In that case your communication skills will be put to the ultimate test. Golfers are not a forgiving group as a whole.

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

I haven't always worked at well funded golf courses. By working at under funded golf courses and getting results is how I got to the better funded golf courses. I fully understand how to operate with reducing budgets while expectations remain the same.

One thing I have found with plant growth regulators is that as the plant gets used to the regulator you find yourself having to spray higher and higher rates to achieve the same regulation of growth. You still have to pay a very competent person to apply these low dose herbicides and also need a good sprayer.

I am not saying you're not on the right track, just the savings seem a little high unless the course conditions you're going for are dramatically different from before your program. In that case your communication skills will be put to the ultimate test. Golfers are not a forgiving group as a whole.

John,

That's some good gouge and I appreciate it.  I want to emphasize that I am in the early stages of the thesis as whole.  It was primarily formulated on an idea given to me by someone else and I want to expand on it.  PGR's are just part of the equation.  Gang-mowing and accepting whatever differences volume mowing has versus lightweight fairway units is another.  Triplex mowing--and not cleanup cutting every time you cut with a triplex--is another.  Reduced fert and water apps are another.  Reduced power costs and fuel costs are another side affect.  Every variable that changes has an huge impact somewhere else in the budget and on the grass. 

I understand what you're saying about golfers being an unforgiving lot.  There's other ways to manage turf than what we've been led to believe however.  The simple and inescapable fact is that costs MUST come down for 90+% of golf courses in this country.  Aronimink and others like it are going to be fine and I am sure clubs of its ilk are going to do whatever it takes to keep the turf darn near perfect.  Green AND firm on cool season grasses is expensive.  Green and firm on warm season grasses isn't quite as tough, but it's still pricy as well.  I think a paradigm shift in maintenance will happen if golfers realize that their ball is doing the same stuff it did when the grass was lush.

[Mike_Young]

Ben,
I think you have gotten some good comments from some guys that know.  What we will never hear on this site is from the silent majority of the supts out there at over 10-12,000 courses in the U.S. 
I'll let the supts talk to you about PGR's and fertilizers etc but I would like to give you a few questions to answer re the golf business, where it has been and where it is headed.
Does the manufacturer of the green mower or fairway unit price his product at a loss?
Does the chemical manufacturer or fertilizer producer sell his product for less than his cost of materials?
does the average CCFAD sell his round of golf for less than it cost him to produce it?  (excluding any lot sales etc)
What is the revenue of  course that sells 30,000 rounds at $30 per round?
What is the revenue of a course that has 40,000 rounds at $25 per round?
Could either of these courses afford a $650,000 maintenance budget?
Could you operate with a $350,000 maintenance budget on the two courses above?
Would you choose to drive a Porsche or a Camry?
Which would you purchase to drive and would it do the job?
If you were the owner of the two courses mentioned above would you keep a $650,000 maintenance budget?
If you could make a good profit operating one of the two courses above would you tell your competition how you did it?
Just food for thought and BTW..the best golf course owners I know were golf supts not golf pros...

[Stewart Naugler]

When I was at MSU we did an experiment on ways we could reduce mowing frequency by applying different types/rates of PGR's (cost effective). We applied embark, primo, and some products that are not on the market to greens, tees, fairways, and roughs. What we discovered long term is exactly what John said, we had to apply higher rates as time went on to achieve the same amount of regulation. Higher rates= Higher cost, discoloration in some cases, and general turf decline overtime.

I'm a fan of using small amounts of primo to regulate growth on greens and embark or proxy/primo to suppress annual bluegrass seed heads in the spring.

[Lou_Duran]

Architects and Superintendents, who do you work for?

Perhaps we might think a bit more broadly?  Maybe even beyond those in Ran's janissary?  Might it include unsophisticated golf consumers who watch the Golf Channel, shop at Dick's for 15-pack $15 Callaways and Nikes, ride carts, and drink beer while keeping three figure scores during a five hour round?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204632204577128230588463516.html

Or should these gentlemen cater to those of us with more refined tastes and sensitivities?  Though J.C . may have his systems confused, aren't we all fashionable proletarians today?

Eventually it all comes down to human behavior and economics.  Golf is a business.  It will be in turmoil until it balances revenues and costs.  As the article above suggests, volume matters.  Is golf better off as a pastime of a relatively few passionate millions, or as it was projected just 10-15 years ago?   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()