|
|
|
Ever had the board of directors sticking its nose into the daily management of your private club...where it shouldn't be, and when there's absolutely no reason to do so. Chances are it happens!
So why does the interference...the micromanagement continue? "The board of directors, committees or members feel the need to be in control of day-to-day operations. They don't have a clear, precise understanding of the board's duties and responsibilities in a volunteer organization or an understanding of the manager's job description. This can be caused by a lack of communication between the board and management," expounds Al Kinkle, chief operating officer of Lexington Country Club, Fort Myers, FL. Micromanagement "generally fails to provide the employee or staff members with a condition essential to growth and development: the reasonable freedom to fail," explains Jim Singerling, CEO of the Club Managers Association of America. All of which can create unsavory conditions for club general managers. Norm Spitzig, principal with Master Club Advisors, in a recent issue of BoardRoom raised the suggestion that there's been an increase in the micromanagement of boards, based on his discussions with general managers. "As a group, general managers are a political savvy lot Ð their professional survival, more often than not, depends upon it! So my sense is that this is more than just idle talk, or the desperate and unfounded protestations of those not attuned and/or incompetent," Spitzig said. However, Frank Vain, president of McMahon Associates, St. Louis, MO, understanding the concensus about micromanagement, isn't quite accepting that it's on the rise. "While micromanagement never goes away, I'm not sure I accept the premise that there's been an overall increase in micromanagement in traditional member owned private club governance in recent years. I think clubs have gotten a lot smarter about this issue. Club managers are more highly trained and skilled than ever before. Directors are younger and busier than ever and are willing to work within a system, if there is one. That doesn't mean effective governance is automatic; it's an important practice that must be monitored continuously to avoid backsliding into old habits." Why does the board of directors get so involved? Seems there are myriad reasons. "Much of it is for the justification of their (directors) position on the board," suggests Jack Ruddick, general manager, Wiltwyck Golf Club, Kingston NY. "They're playing to their buddies and it's an ego thing. "I can recall a golf committee purchasing a public address system for the golf pro to make announcements for outside announcements and permanently mounting it in front of the pro shop. Unfortunately, outside groups are queued up about 200 yards from this location. If staff had been involved this wouldn't have happened." Vain considers that micromanagement "means that there's a lack of separation between governance (i.e., direction setting) and management (i.e., operational planning and execution). In most cases, it means the directors or committees are focusing on mundane instead of the strategic issues." Few members set out with micromanagement in mind, but "in general, clubs experience micromanagement because they don't have an organizational structure that precludes it." And Kinkle expounds, "They (the board) have an ancient belief that they need to be in charge." Spitzig's opinion is that the "substantial increase in the number and influence of Baby Boomers in leadership positions" is one reason for an increase in micromanaging. Many Boomers, he suggests, "are a demanding, inquisitive and impatient lot, who as a group are not inclined to serve on a board and committee unless their specific authorities, time commitments, potential liabilities roles and responsibilities are clearly delineated. "Nor are Boomers generally known for their tolerance of mediocrity, so if the club is currently not managed as they think it should be (whatever that might mean!), they're not particularly shy about rolling up their sleeves and getting involved in operations Ð sometimes too involved," Spitzig explained. He senses this to mean that more people than ever, for a variety of reason, are retiring early and therefore have more time Ðbut not necessarily the expertiseÊÐ to help run their club. Ah, the GM's nightmare! But what else drives the board (or its members) to stick fingers in the paid management's pie? "In many cases it's the lack of confidence in the staff members' abilities to perform, what the board member sees as the job the staff member was hired to do," explains Singerling. "This may be caused by the inability of the board member to understand how the business operation of the club functions. The reality that the club is a very successful multi-million dollar small business is not realized. "It's the responsibility of the COO/general manager, through the board orientation experience early in the year, to insure that all of the governing body of the club clearly understand the governing structure. If the club does not have a clearly defined governing structure that assigns responsibility for the running of the business of the club, a strategic planning cycle is desperately needed," Singerling added. Viewing the broader issue, Vain agrees. "They (the board members) fail to use practices that foster good separation between governance and management. This problem begins with the method through which new board members are selected at many clubs and continues through to things like overly large boards, one-year terms for club presidents, the absence of formal orientations for new directors and the lack of structured annual planning. "The nominating committee," Vain suggests "is the most important committee in your club. Unfortunately, the nominating and board election process is flawed in many clubs. It's political instead of strategic. Often the committee does a lackluster job of recruiting qualified candidates to the board. They recruit friends instead of skill sets." Vain sees this as "a natural outgrowth of contested elections (board elections where there are more candidates running than there are available seats). Board members ultimately elected come to the table with more of a narrowly focused agenda than a concept of overall club governance. They may have campaigned or talked with the nominating committee about their big issues and they got elected, so they think they are on the right track. "These 'single agenda' directors are micromanagers waiting to pounce at the start of the new board year. Governance requires thinking about all aspects of the club. Micromanagement is thinking about your pet issues, " he lamented. "Once new board members are elected, many clubs fail to give these new leaders any sort of formal orientation to set expectations on the club's philosophy toward governance, the roles of governors and managers and the rules of engagement. All too often we assume the new directors know what they're doing. This is a mistake. While they are highly educated and successful people, they most likely haven't been on a private club's board previously, which is different than serving on a charitable or business board." Examples tell the story. "I know of a club where the new house committee chairman thought that it was their responsibility to be seated at a table in the dining room that offered a good view of the doors in and out of the kitchen on busy nights so they could monitor and report on the quality of service, " Vain explained. "This was clearly someone who didn't understand the difference between governance and management. The role of the house chairman is to help management identify and understand the types of food and beverage program the members desire to have at the club. It's not to help develop menus, set prices or observe waiters and waitresses going in and out of the kitchen. "Of course, the stories of golf course management by 'expert' board members are legendary," Vain added. Down in the pits, Kinkle feels that the "general manager's inability to take the heat" also provides impetus for the board's mucking around. "They don't have an understanding of the day-to-day operations and believe that in order for something to be done right, they must do it themselves." Ð an age-old argument for many GMs! Kinkle adds, directors "because they're in a familiar environment (i.e. restaurant, golf course, etc.), feel like they understand the operation and can manage it just as well as the professionals." Experience tells us it just isn't necessarily so. "An example? A long-term staff member terminated for cause. Because this staff member is very popular with the membership, an advisory committee questions the decision and decides that the employee should be reinstated. Management refuses to reinstate the employee and the committee takes the matter to the board to try and force the manager's hand. The board needs to trust the manager's judgment and knowledge of the situation and stand behind the manager," Kinkle outlined. "This is why it's so important for a manager to be in charge of the day-to-day operation and all decisions on hiring and firing," he emphasized. Kinkle also suggests "they (board members) don't have confidence in the expertise of their own experts and don't understand the true meaning of empowerment." The fallout from micromanagement can be swift, vast and a morale blaster. And Ruddick says it "creates confusion in the chain of command. It undermines the authority and credibility of the general manager." There's a raft of issues stemming from micromanaging, most very obvious. Kinkle, to the point, explains:
"Since they are offering guidance in an area where they are not proficient and they are paying a GM who is supposed to have these skills already, there is a lot of waste and inefficiency," Vain explained. "As Will Rogers said, 'there is nothing so stupid as the educated man if you get him off the thing he was educated in.' "In short, you have the volunteers meddling in areas where paid expertise exists, and experts spending their time fending off criticism from newly found experts. Meanwhile, no one is focusing on direction setting," a situation that can be damaging in the short term and long term for a club. What's the fallout? Where's the hurt? In many cases with and to the general manager. "It can render the professional manager unfulfilled and unable to achieve success," Singerling opined. "Too often that also translates to the entire staff; in many cases, resulting in a boring, solemn atmosphere, rather than an exciting, positive feeling around the club." The concensus: Micromanaging undermines the GM's authority, leadership credibility causing a loss of focus and productivity. "The manager is constantly looking behind himself and questioning his decisions," Kinkle expounded, all of which can "result in a loss of revenue and profits for the organization and a loss of staff." Another result? Managers becoming frustrated and leaving one club for another as quickly as they can. "That's why some clubs are turning over managers every couple of years and others are able to keep the same leader in place for 10 to 20 years," Vain commented. "If the general manager can't make decisions without running them by the board, or they do things that are overturned, the staff soon tunes them out. Who wants to work in an environment where they are only a puppet for an ever-changing set of leaders," Vain questioned. No matter how righteous boards of directors may profess to be, are general managers threatened by their micromanagers? "Absolutely," Kinkle says. "It can cause a GM to second guess himself and his affects his decision making." For Ruddick, it's "not so much threatened, as annoyed." And time and energy wasted in all the wrong places. "Of course, they're threatened," Vain added. "They spend a lot of their time politicking with other board members or the executive committee to keep the 'micro' group in check. They spend their energy in the wrong areas." Singerling "believes successful operations are threatened by micromanagers. I believe that any professional can find a 'work around' method of existing in a micromanaged situation. Although they may exist in their role as a manager, they cannot achieve their potential or the potential of the club. Leadership takes a backseat whenever micromanagement is accepted." Singerling added, "Specifics (of micromanagement) are difficult to relate unless one has experienced them directly. I 've been fortunate enough to follow a career path that did not need to deal with a micromanager. Part of that is to insure that those who you are working for develop a confidence in ones' leadership qualities. It also means never allowing surprises to embarrass those for whom you work. "As in most cases, success breeds success. The longer a professional manages on the periphery of a micromanagement style, the more pressure there is to maintain that level of confidence. "Successful professionals can never allow themselves to go to sleep on their operation, " Singerling warned.
Publisher's Final Thoughts At least that's the way I see it. BR John G. Fornaro, publisher If you have questions or comments, John can be reached at: johnf@apcd.com |