[Ben Sims]

This is an 18-lesson series designed to promote discussion amongst golf architecture fans.  The use of Gen (ret.) Colin Powell's Leadership Primer is used only for this discussion and not profit or personal gain.

My apologies to the International Olympic Committee and our friends in Holyoke, but I thought we could start a thread not dealing with the Olympic course and Ballyneal's current financial condition.  We're starting to get into the meat of Gen. Powell's Primer.  Lesson eight verbalizes what I think many people in a hierarchy know, but are afraid to admit.  It is only great people that see the product accelerate down the homestretch.  I like to tell my Lt's sometimes, "people first, mission always."  My opinion is that if you are aligning a group of people in a common direction, with empathy and understanding of their needs and desires, then your mission will always get accomplished.  

In golf architecture it must be no different.  Everyone must be aligned and honed-in on a single target.  A great golf hole.  Even with the best intentions and theories, a great hole will never come together without great people making it so.  

Thoughts?

LESSON EIGHT

Organization doesn't really accomplish anything. Plans don't accomplish anything, either. Theories of management don't much matter. Endeavors succeed or fail because of the people involved. Only by attracting the best people will you accomplish great deeds.

In a brain-based economy, your best assets are people. We've heard this expression so often that it's become trite. But how many leaders really "walk the talk" with this stuff? Too often, people are assumed to be empty chess pieces to be moved around by grand viziers, which may explain why so many top managers immerse their calendar time in deal-making, restructuring and the latest management fad. How many immerse themselves in the goal of creating an environment where the best, the brightest, the most creative are attracted, retained and-most importantly-unleashed?

[Peter Pallotta]

My favourite so far, Ben -- because it's true instead of being conventional wisdom passing as truth. I think you get the best people by asking candidates what their dreams are -- I don't mean their sleeping dreams, I mean their ideals and highest goals and aspirations. If they even think in those terms, I think it's a sign that they are -- or one day can be -- among the best.  And I think you keep those kind of people by not then betraying their trust, by not limiting their ability to realize those ideals, but not creating an organization/plan in which striving for the very highest goals becomes impossible.

I've read stories about some of the young men and women who happily joined/were made part of some of the big and big name firms, who after a few years started bemoaning their fates, e.g. not having a chance to do the best possible work, not having input into the creative process etc.  Only they themselves would know, in their heart of hearts, whether it was the firm/organization that had betrayed them, or whether they had betrayed themselves (or at least, the best part of themselves) right from the start - in the choice they made to put a safe career ahead of the highest ideals. 

Peter  

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

Thanks for a different topic to post on!

You know, of course, that I'm a big believer in this ideal.  I learned it from observation ... when I worked for Mr. Dye, the best work we did was on the projects where we had the most engaged crew.  It's been much the same for my own best courses.  And I'm sure that's why so many talented people have come my way over the years, starting with Gil Hanse who was the first employee of Renaissance Golf Design.

The key word is UNLEASHING people's talent.  Plans are a very short leash.  In some cases I make up for them by micro-managing things, but when I have faith in the talents of my crew I let them loose, knowing that it doesn't cost much time or money to edit things afterward if they do something wrong.  To do great work, you have to be unafraid of making a mistake, which seems a lot easier in my business than it was in yours or General Powell's.  We're only building golf courses, after all.

The other end of it is that there will come a time when some of your people think they know better than you do.  In the Army, that isn't allowed, though I'm sure it still must happen.   In business, that's when someone needs to go out on their own.  It works out better in the long run when they realize it for themselves.

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

I knew lesson eight would be right up your alley.  It is starting to become extremely funny to see how closely many of Renaissance's ideals are meshing with a neo-conservative (I would call Gen Powell "by association" though).  You are a card carrying Republican right?  

It's interesting to try and lead people you know will be (or at least have the aptitude to be) better than you one day.  I've run into that a few times these last few years and I am always surprised at how I react.  The most productive time I've had with subordinates of mine is the fleeting moment just before they realize they are ready to do something on their own.  Then I've lost them.  They're appreciative of their time with me, but they know they've got me beat.  That's where rank helps!

It doesn't surprise me that unleashing was your favorite part of lesson eight.  But expounding on that a bit more, what is the most difficult part of getting someone to the point of being unleashed?  What is the secret behind indoctrination?  I know how we do it in the AF.  What about golf architecture/construction?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I knew lesson eight would be right up your alley.  It is starting to become extremely funny to see how closely many of Renaissance's ideals are meshing with a neo-conservative (I would call Gen Powell "by association" though).  You are a card carrying Republican right?  

It's interesting to try and lead people you know will be (or at least have the aptitude to be) better than you one day.  I've run into that a few times these last few years and I am always surprised at how I react.  The most productive time I've had with subordinates of mine is the fleeting moment just before they realize they are ready to do something on their own.  Then I've lost them.  They're appreciative of their time with me, but they know they've got me beat.  That's where rank helps!

It doesn't surprise me that unleashing was your favorite part of lesson eight.  But expounding on that a bit more, what is the most difficult part of getting someone to the point of being unleashed?  What is the secret behind indoctrination?  I know how we do it in the AF.  What about golf architecture/construction?

Ben:

It is easy in golf architecture / construction because most of the people who have worked in the business for a while are SHOCKED that you would give them any freedom to create.  They are used to architects trying to rein them in, or their bosses (golf course contractors) telling them just to get finished and get on to the next hole and not waste time on embellishments.

Jim Urbina had felt reined in by Perry Dye, as had Eric Iverson, to a degree.  [Eric was stationed overseas so Perry didn't spend much time trying to control him.]  Bruce Hepner felt reined in not so much by Ron Forse, but by the clients they had, who were too sensitive about budgets and didn't even want to pay them to watch the construction process.  Kye Goalby had worked under the restrictions of budgets, and his dad's watchful eye ... Kye's interviews here are the best I've read talking about that aspect of the work.  Brian Slawnik and Brian Schneider were easier, because they didn't work too long with others.  Most of the other good guys we've had [Gil and Mike DeVries and McCartin and Jonathan and Kyle Franz and George Waters and Philippe Binette] were easy, because I was their first employer.

Aside from my own crew, one of the people we unleashed was a guy named Jerame Miller.  When we built Lost Dunes, Bill Kubly asked me if I wanted a shaper who could hit grade stakes or a shaper who worked by feel, and I took the feel guy, who was Jerame.  On a few of the greens I gave him diagrams, and on others none, but those greens turned out as wild as they are (and as good as they are) because it was the first time that Jerame -- an art major who had learned to run a bulldozer -- had ever had a chance "off leash".

When I was asked to collaborate on Sebonack, the guy who convinced me that it would work was Jerame Miller.  He had shaped 2 or 3 courses for Jack after Lost Dunes, and he told me that if we built cool greens, Jack would take them and run with them.  For the most part, he was right about that.  And after we finished Sebonack, and Jack was looking for someone who could build more greens like that, he hired Jerame as a full-time design associate, so it worked out for everyone.

P.S.  Are you sure that General Powell is really a neo-conservative, and not just somebody who had to answer to them?

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

Gen Powell--I think--is only a neo-con because of association or as you say, because he answered to them.  But I'm treading dangerously close to what I said I wouldn't do on this 18-part topic, which is discussing politics online and without a beer in hand.

Thanks for the backstory on indoctrination. 

[Tony Ristola]

I read general Powell's book way back when, and have the powerpoint this quote comes from. I've used it in a recent document. So much of what he writes about leadership is directly applicable to golf architecture. Same with Einstein. Jack Welch. Sam Walton... and on and on.

[Anthony Gray]

  The hard part is keeping the talent that surrounds you.

  Anthony

[Terry Lavin]

For every ten great employee, there's a Curveball. In all organizations, a great leader knows how to empower the ten and get rid of (or disregard) the Curveball.

[Tom_Doak]

  The hard part is keeping the talent that surrounds you.

  Anthony

Not true.  You've just got to pay them and recognize their work.

The hard part is letting them go.

[Tim Nugent]

This begs the question: Is Golf Architecture suited for a hierachial organizational system?

Is there a more suitable system?

[Ben Sims]

Tim,

That's a very good question and one I struggle with, given my background.  I was playing craps with a well known architect in these parts last week and he chided me, "...you want everything in a checklist and in its place.  This is art!"

He had a point.  Checklists and procedures are designed to bring everyone to a mean level of performance.  Now that could be a high level a performance for a given group like a squadron of pilots.  But checklists and procedures do nothing to unleash the talent of an individual.  How does that correlate to golf architecture?  Well, I would think that detailed plans have have a way of bringing everyone to a homogenous and consistent level of performance.  Or in the case of art, a homogenous look and playability.  

So to answer your question, a hierarchy in regards to people isn't such a bad thing in my mind.  But when that hierarchy starts developing procedure that hinders creativity and edginess--speaking of golf architecture and definitely not the military--then the hierarchy has become detrimental.  

[SL_Solow]

Really nice topic Ben.  I think a good part of the puzzle lies in determining the best attributes of the individuals on your team and allowing them to maximize their strengths while disguising their weaknesses.  For example, we have all seen basketball teams with superior individual players lose to less talented teams that play together and have a system that makes them better as a team even though they might lose games of 1 on 1 to the other team's starters.  The trick is to get everyone to buy into their respective roles and then turn them loose within the framework of the project.  I note that the "best" people are only the "best" when their talents mesh.

In my own professional life, I have had the opportunity to help train many associates and to run large parts of firms.  I tried to put younger people iinto cases that fit their particular skill sets and then I would loosen the reins.  When trying to build skills, I placed them in positions where there would be closer supervision so that more direct teaching could occur.  This then allowed them to take a wider variety of matters over time.  The goal was to allow them to function largely indepedently of me, whether they remained in the firm or moved along.

Incidentally, even for those of us who are "in charge", it is imperative to be introspective and honest in determining what are our own strenghts and weaknesses and to seek advice and assistance when we get outside of our own comfort zones.  This can be difficult when one has achieved a level of success, but it is important both for the project and to allow one to continue to grow.

[Peter Pallotta]

"Incidentally, even for those of us who are "in charge", it is imperative to be introspective and honest in determining what are our own strenghts and weaknesses and to seek advice and assistance when we get outside of our own comfort zones.  This can be difficult when one has achieved a level of success, but it is important both for the project and to allow one to continue to grow."

Not to be a suck-up, SL, but I think you are one of the very rare ones, in any leadership position, in any field of endeavour.  Oh, sure, every leader (or would be leader) I've come across uses similar language , but somehow it rarely rings true to me -- there is little authenticity in their voices, and even less a sense that they desire any genuine introspection.  In your case, on the other hand, I sense not one iota of B.S.  Not disagreeing with you or other posts at all - just felt like paying you a sincere compliment...and also note how important (and rare) these achievements in leadership actually are.

Peter  

[SL_Solow]

Thanks Peter , although it could be that i am just a really good BSer, I am a lawyer after all.  Thanks again.

[Kalen Braley]

To play devils advocate,

Even though I agree with this in principle, I don't think the rule always applies.  Especially when you get into larger groups and you have "turn-key" kind of operations with very refined processes and very low profit margins.

For example, for that guy working on the assembly line, whose doing the same thing over and over....I guarnatee if you hire a creative, pro-active, let loose kind of guy, he's either going to be a major headache, or quickly get bored of his job and quit.  And you certainly won't be able to pay him enough given you're tight profit margined environment.  This is the reason why out-sourcing for textile jobs, line jobs, assembly jobs, etc has been so successful overseas. You just fit the parts and pieces together.

And its also why its failed for many tech companies who have tried to out-source engineering jobs where you need that creativity, ability to work alone, and break down large tasks into smaller ones.  I've personally seen this first had as I went to India and set up a test lab over there.  It was a complete failure because we didn't have a full time presence there to manange it and deal with the 1001 question in real time.

So my vote is, it really depends on what the job is/what kind of product you're trying to sell.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()