Head golf Professional at your club

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,

I am against the role of 'Director of Golf' in relation to the traditional private members club here in the UK. Such roles tend to lead towards running the club more like a business rather than a member's club with the priorities changing towards increased revenue and profit rather than looking after the members best interests.

Jon

No need to limit it to UK clubs--the same thing happens on this side.

Member-owned clubs are funny things;they're businesses,of course,but there's an art to knowing when to make a "business" decision versus making a "club" decision.Fewer and fewer clubs possess that art nowadays.

Our club, with dwindling membership and threat of assessments (or actual assessments) just to cover operations needed to be run more like a business than it was.  

As with anything, one size doesn't fit all.

Andrew,

I find it funny that you seem to suggest that being run like a business means it would be run better. There are many badly run businesses. Maybe what your club needed was to be better run!!!

Jon

[Andrew Buck]

Thomas,

I am against the role of 'Director of Golf' in relation to the traditional private members club here in the UK. Such roles tend to lead towards running the club more like a business rather than a member's club with the priorities changing towards increased revenue and profit rather than looking after the members best interests.

Jon

No need to limit it to UK clubs--the same thing happens on this side.

Member-owned clubs are funny things;they're businesses,of course,but there's an art to knowing when to make a "business" decision versus making a "club" decision.Fewer and fewer clubs possess that art nowadays.

Our club, with dwindling membership and threat of assessments (or actual assessments) just to cover operations needed to be run more like a business than it was.  

As with anything, one size doesn't fit all.

Andrew,

I find it funny that you seem to suggest that being run like a business means it would be run better. There are many badly run businesses. Maybe what your club needed was to be better run!!!

Jon

Jon,

Not trying to debate what "business" means in this context.  Also, because of the size of the club and area, there isn't the place for both a Business/General manager and a head pro.  

Given the situation, having a "director of golf" that is in tune with grown membership and maintaining some level of fiscal understanding/responsibility would be more desirable for that situation than someone who may be a better golfer and more fun for the membership to hang out with.  

My only point is, each club needs different things from their pro, and much of it depends on the other key employees of the club, and the role that the membership needs them to fill.  

[Jon Wiggett]

Andrew,

in a standard members club the pro has nothing to do with the spending of the club. I think we are talking about two different things. In a traditional UK club it is the club committee who decide the budget and would not have a Business/General manager.

Given the situation, having a "Head Pro" that is in tune with grown membership and maintaining some level of fiscal understanding/responsibility would be more desirable for that situation than a 'Director of Golf' who may be a better golfer and more fun for the membership to hang out with.

Given the situation, having a "Club Committee" that is in tune with grown membership and maintaining some level of fiscal understanding/responsibility would be more desirable for that situation than someone who may be a better golfer and more fun for the membership to hang out with.


Given the situation, having a "Pink Elephant" that is in tune with grown membership and maintaining some level of fiscal understanding/responsibility would be more desirable for that situation than Tiger Woods who may be a better golfer and more fun for the membership to hang out with.

It is the ability and not the title that makes the wo/man

Jon

[Bruce Katona]

Keys to the successful golf professional

1. People Skills - Smile, be happy, let the membership know you're enjoying your job.  It goes a very long way.
2. Communicate - The membership must know who is the driving force & go to guy within the golf operation.
3. Business/Merchandising Skills - What does your client base want/need. If you have a younger membership, the merchandise doesn't all need to start with a medium or large size and move up; you need some smalls & maybe an extra small.  Know how to construct and track a budget.
4. Teaching - if you can get your average member (the 15-20 handicap player) to hit 3 good shots/round you have a repeat customer for lessons or equipemnt.
5. Playing Ability - make it a point to player with each member once/year. Guarantee that they'll remember playing their round "with the pro".  It helps if you can play but its really not necessary.

[jeffwarne]

Keys to the successful golf professional

5. Playing Ability - make it a point to player with each member once/year. Guarantee that they'll remember playing their round "with the pro".  It helps if you can play but its really not necessary.

seriously?
Unless they allow twentysomes at your course that's a tall order.

Should go over well with the "run the club like a business" crowd.

Next time I see the owner of my club I'm going to give him a hug................

[Sean_A]

Jeepers, if our pro played with every member every year he wouldn't have time to work.  That scenario definitely wouldn't work at many UK clubs.  Even if there are only 250 members that is 83 member three balls games.  Even based on 12 hour days that is 28 days work!  

Many UK clubs have a match between the Captain and Pro with each side selecting however many players depending on interest.  Many clubs also have scheduled matches against the team of the Captain and Pro.  So if guys are interested they can get a partner and have a go.  This is probably quite enough official social club golf for the club to pay for.  

So far as having a Director of Golf, usually its a hindsight issue if a club elects to over-spend.  It is assumed a DoG could have prevented such a move.  I think these days more and more Secretaries are required to have some knowledge of accounting/book keeping and may have a seat on the Comm to offer advice about finance when a big ticket item is under consideration.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the secretary role moving more and more in that direction of being a defacto club manager regardless of the title.  But of course, there are still many clubs which don't really have funds lying about (nor do they try to accumulate the funds) to need a manager of that sort, but bigger name clubs with aspirations and means to generate revenue will definitely want more out of their Sec than 30 years ago.

Ciao      

[Thomas Dai]

From the perspective of UK private members clubs, you tend to have committee's galore and 'too many fingers in the pie'. The folk on such committee's, who are normally retired and although well intentioned, they generally tend not to have a clue about golf or how to run a golf club, not a damn clue. Donkeys leading lions. The joke "Why do golf clubs always have showers in the lockers rooms?.......Because a Committee cannot run a bath" is not entirely in jest. The strength of the Director of Golf role as I see it is, if the club is set-up correctly, ie with an appropriate set of rules and constitution etc, that a DoG focuses authority and responsibility in one place and reduces the number of fingers in the pie and the impact of well meaning but utterly useless, frequently harmful, committee's.

In addition, traditionally golf club Secretaries tend to be folk from non-golf backgrounds who have retired early and take the role on as a 'fill-in job' until full retirement. They also quite likely have an hidden personal incentive/agenda of free golf for life thereafter as an Honoury club member. A Director of Golf, an ex-pro with business nous and organisational skills on top of his/her professional knowledge of the game and shop skills etc, can reduce the impact of too many fingers in the pie and reduce the impact of too many committee's. Plus, if the DoG oversees the Head Greenkeeper, then someone who knows how to play golf and how a course ought to be set-up will have authority to ensure the course is prepared properly and independently, especially if the head of the maintenance crew, as does happen, is a non-golfer. It also avoids the Chairman of Greens fiddling with the course to suit the golfing ability or tastes of himself and his mates, and this does happen.

All the best.

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,

what you say might be true but it also fundamentally alters the ethos and character of the club. Clubs should be run by the members for the members and so instil the feeling of the club being the member's club. What hiring a DoG does is place someone who supposedly knows better than the members themselves and so break this vital felling/link that the membership has with their club. This is of course okay for the club as a business in the good times but very bad in leaner times. Committees and part time secretaries may not be efficient for the business world but I would take them any day over the all powerful DoG when it comes to holding a membership-club ethos together.

Jon

[Andrew Buck]

I don't think a DoG does away with the needs of member driven budget committees, a board, etc.  it just gives the board an committees a high level employee to manage things, execute vendor bids, etc.

[Jon Wiggett]

I don't think a DoG does away with the needs of member driven budget committees, a board, etc.  it just gives the board an committees a high level employee to manage things, execute vendor bids, etc.

But Andrew,

you still lose the ethos

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

Ethos is indeed vitally important at private members clubs but so is competency.

I've seen too many um, well let's be nice, oversights, by amateurs and committees. Sometimes an amateur doing their well intentioned best just isn't good enough. I've sat on private members golf club main committees in the past and yawned repeatedly as petty discussions are held on whether or not to buy new teapots and seen procrastination about the width of the white lines in the carpark. The sorts of of items that should never have been discussed at any committee meeting, but were. Never much discussion however, on whether or not to buy a new tractor or why the bills for treating fusarium on the greens is so high.

Although I'm not necessarily keen on private members clubs being run exactly like a business we're now in the 21st Century so well intentioned amateurs forgetting to renew the clubs insurance, or applications for new memberships being lost or favouritism being shown to 'friends of friends' or inter-club matches being held without the caterers knowing in advance or the grass on the greens being cut higher than at other clubs in the area because the Chairman of Greens wife doesn't like fast greens is not IMO the best way to operate. And yes I've known all of these examples to happen at private member clubs.

There should be no place for inefficiency, favouritism, downright stupidity etc any any club. Will having a person with long-term experience in the golf business in a DoG role eradicate all the ills of private members golf clubs? No, of course it won't, but IMO it will at least lesson them. Will the appointment of a DoG lesson club ethos? It may a bit, but those members who are not part of the clique of interfering amateurs and committee folk may actually prefer more efficiency and slightly less ethos. As to overseeing the DoG, well that is where a (small) committee of members who are each elected on a short time frame basis, like 2 or 3 years max, has a role to play together with appropriate checks and balances in monetary and operational terms.

IMO a DoG responsible and accountable for all golf related matters including overseeing the pro-shop and being the boss of the head of the course maintenance crew and supported by a (probably) part-time administrator to do the paperwork/finances etc plus someone to be in charge of bar/catering/housekeeping is the best way to go. I've seen private members clubs improve by adopting the DoG approach. But that's just IMO.

All the best.

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,

whilst I understand what you are saying and it makes sense you are missing the point I am making completely. You talk about efficiency and making finances work where as I am talking about the ethos of a members club. You see people used to join a club to be part of a community of people with a common interest. Yes, it might have been inefficient and often slightly misguided but the enjoyment was in the taking part and belonging through the good and bad years. A members club is its members.

But replace the committee with a DoG and reduce the input from the membership to an elite few. Make the club more efficient and sleek running. Yes you have a better business but you no longer have members you just have customers. Customers who pay a fee not to belong but to have a service provided. Customers who when the service is not perfect generally go elsewhere.

I am not saying that you are wrong or that I am right I am just putting my point of view.

Jon

[Sean_A]

I am trying to think of a club with the model Thomas describes that is well priced, well run with a good atmosphere and with a well maintained course.  Do you have any examples Thomas?  There are examples where the club is privately owned and merely has members, but I expect that is not what Thomas is driving at.  Maybe Thomas has had some bad experiences.  I have belonged to four UK clubs and not come across what Thomas describes (gross negligence).  I left two because I either disagreed with a policy or the direction of the club.  In one case, I did feel as though a bunch of amateurs were running the show which is fine for the house side of things, but not for the course. I am not sure what DoG brings to that role anyway as how a course is presented within budget can largely be a matter of opinion. Same goes for changes.  

Ciao  

[Carl Johnson]

. . .

There should be no place for inefficiency, favouritism, downright stupidity etc any any club. Will having a person with long-term experience in the golf business in a DoG role eradicate all the ills of private members golf clubs? No, of course it won't, but IMO it will at least lesson them. Will the appointment of a DoG lesson club ethos? It may a bit, but those members who are not part of the clique of interfering amateurs and committee folk may actually prefer more efficiency and slightly less ethos. As to overseeing the DoG, well that is where a (small) committee of members who are each elected on a short time frame basis, like 2 or 3 years max, has a role to play together with appropriate checks and balances in monetary and operational terms.

IMO a DoG responsible and accountable for all golf related matters including overseeing the pro-shop and being the boss of the head of the course maintenance crew and supported by a (probably) part-time administrator to do the paperwork/finances etc plus someone to be in charge of bar/catering/housekeeping is the best way to go. I've seen private members clubs improve by adopting the DoG approach. But that's just IMO.

All the best.

Thomas: Is there a club general manager in your model?  My club (in the USA) has a general manager, who reports to the board, and to whom the head pro and the superintendent (as well as those runnning our limited food and beverage operation) report.  In our case a Director of Golf would just be a fifth wheel.

[Bruce Katona]

5. Playing with the members - you all assumed "playing" meant 18 holes.....it could be 9 holes (14 days time per someone's calculation) or 6 holes, if the course allows (9 days).

Your call your clubs, on what you prefer you golf professional to do......what do I know.

[Thomas Dai]

Perhaps my wording was not all it could be but I don't think that Jon and I are really that far apart in our positions. I also love the sense of community within private members golf clubs, "it's my club and I'm proud to be a member" etc and I do not wish to see this special feeling diminish. It's really something rather special. However, I cannot abide incompetence and inefficiency. I've known members leave clubs because of incompetence rather than because of a diminishing sense of unity and fellowship. As Sean suggests I've maybe seen too many daft screw-ups in my time, no club names I'm afraid, and maybe this aspect has twisted my thinking but I've been a member of something like a dozen private members clubs since I was a lad (moving clubs due to changing geographical locations not club dissatisfaction) and the clubs that IMO ran the best and where there were less member gripes and moans, but where the club still had that inner community spirit, were the ones where staff experienced in golf ran the show and the fingers of the well meaning amateurs were largely kept out of the pie. In my scenario Carl, the DoG and your GM are probably not that dissimilar although as most 18-hole UK private clubs tend to have maybe circa 10-15 full time staff responsibility for non-golf/clubhouse activities can be overseen in other ways. But not the golf side though, especially if none of the maintenance team, particularly the head man, are golfers, which does occur sometimes.
I guess there's no real answer on this one, each club to there own.
Nice debate though.
All the best.

[JMEvensky]

5. Playing with the members - you all assumed "playing" meant 18 holes.....it could be 9 holes (14 days time per someone's calculation) or 6 holes, if the course allows (9 days).

Your call your clubs, on what you prefer you golf professional to do......what do I know.

I also think this is important.Anytime the Head/Assistant Pro can jump into a game,for any amount of holes,is time well spent--for the member and the Pro.

You can also add walking up and down the range on Saturday/Sunday morning giving small tips to members.Free advice from a Pro is worth a lot sometimes.

[Carl Johnson]

. . . . But not the golf side though, especially if none of the maintenance team, particularly the head man, are golfers, which does occur sometimes.
I guess there's no real answer on this one, each club to there own.
Nice debate though.
All the best.

In my club's situation the general manager (GM), the superintendent (GK) and (obviously) the head pro (HP) are all golfers and play the course frequently enough to know what's happening "on the course for the golfers."  IMHO this is as it should be.