Break Through the Glass Ceiling
March 27th, 2009
It has become increasingly difficult for golf course superintendents to advance vertically within the job market because 1) the somewhat infrequent better job openings routinely attract from 75 to 100+ qualified applicants, 2) as few as five interviews are generally scheduled per job opening, and 3) the better candidates are often not identified through the search process.
Discouraging? Absolutely. We are left to conclude that the same “glass ceiling” that women have fought for years when attempting to climb the corporate job ladder exists today within the golf course superintendent job market. Unfortunately, too many superintendents accept this circumstance and, accordingly, risk job boredom and ultimate job loss. The following four-step action plan is designed to help you address this problem:
Steve Renzetti's career website
Step # 1: Develop an effective personal career web site. Statistics show that while only 15% (a growing percentage) of job applicants reference a personal career web site – roughly 50% of invitations to interview go to candidates with web sites. (See good examples at www.stevenrenzetti.com and www.tavishorton.com, along with Tavis Horton’s web site development guidelines as published in Golf Course Industry magazine, August 2008.)
Step # 2: Add golf course construction jobs to your job seeking radar screen. While standard superintendent job openings constantly attract upwards of 100 applications, construction superintendent job openings routinely attract less than five applicants. (More on this subject in coming weeks.)
Step # 3: Whether an assistant or a superintendent, consistently aim high (i.e., at higher status golf courses than your present job) when seeking a job. A strategically-orchestrated career path commands the respect of search committees and at the same time imparts the weight and credibility of the higher profile club/course to your resume once hired. Job pedigree will always be a primary determinant of whether you will be interviewed or not.
Job pedigree will always be a primary determinant of whether you will be interviewed or not…
Step #4: Out-prepare the competition when applying for a job. Experience indicates that 95% of candidates are less than 50% prepared to effectively compete for jobs. (More on this issue in the coming months.)
While not guaranteeing a job, the above four-step program will virtually assure you of a thorough time “at bat” when applying for the better jobs.
Comments welcome.
Superintendents, want to help your assistant(s) on their career path? Print out these Career Corner posts and responses on an ongoing basis and assemble them in a hard copy binder for your assistants and crew.6 Responses to “Break Through the Glass Ceiling”
Leave a Reply
Loading ...
Jim – Your bullet point #3 in reasons upward mobility is hampered — “the better candidates are often not identified through the search process…” — resonated with me, partly because I had never considered this aspect or possible outcome of the selection process.
Since I doubt too many newly-hired superintendents — even though perhaps “not one of the better candidates” — fall flat on their faces and are terminated/replaced due to readily apparent lack of experience or qualification (i.e. they were hired for a position way over their head), how does one assess or quantify that a better-qualified superintendent was in the applicant pool but was passed over? Are there cases of “search committee remorse” or realization down the road that a new hire isn’t going to work out and that they may have made a mistake? I assume there are, but what would some potential trigger points be? Simply losing grass? Lack of communication? Not including proper oversight authority in decision-making? Management style? Budget management?
How long would you say a typical “honeymoon period” be before this type of realization might set in?
[Reply]
Jim McLoughlin Reply:
March 30th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
PETER:
You ask a good question, “How does one know that a better-qualified superintendent was in the applicant pool but was passed over?” Clearly, no Search Committee knows this, or they would have hired differently.
The most fundamental way we know this is because too frequently Search Committees do not know enough to ask the discerning questions needed to identify the better candidates. Tough fair questioning separates candidates. Bland questioning will not identify the better candidates.
Going on, I must advise that the average industry citizen (or member of a search committee) would not be able to know the caliber of candidates not invited to interview; i.e.- only golf consultants and staff of regional golf associations with a thorough knowledge of a region’s employment profile would know the caliber of candidates over-looked in a search process.
This would be similar to how a recruiting coach for a major football program operates; i.e.- he must be able to identify the best high school players within the state. Accordingly, when I was working in New York for so many years – for the purpose of supporting my firm’s consulting business – I knew the working quality of virtually every golf course superintendent and assistant in the region. With this knowledge, it was always easy for me to judge who was hired and who was not within virtually every job search, etc. I am fortunate that my career path allowed me to gain this insight and share it with the superintendent’s community because it is invaluable information that will prod candidates to better prepare for open jobs; i.e.- get personal web sites developed sooner rather than later.
Next issue: while there are various lesser reasons why a newly employed superintendent’s honeymoon can come to an end, the first time a club hosts a member-guest tournament where the members might be embarrassed by the maintenance quality of the golf course – the superintendent’s job is immediately placed on a very slippery slope. Endangering members’ pride in their club/course is tantamount to committing job suicide.
[Reply]
Jim,
I think a new limiting factor in todays economy is the relocation aspects of our field. I cannot prove it, but would guess when positions become open applicants with less experience or a less impressive resume might get a look if they are in the region the job is open? Do you think the expenses of buying and selling houses, actual moving costs and all those hidden costs are souring potential employers to considering applicants not in the close geographical region to the open position?
[Reply]
Jim McLoughlin Reply:
March 30th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
PAUL:
I do NOT think economic factors will substantially impact who a club hires (except in the sense of limiting future salaries) to fill a vacant superintendent position for three reasons: (i) because there will always be an adequate number of qualified candidates within any region of the country to provide a quality candidate pool for every open job (and this is before consideration is given to hiring any number of qualified assistants working in the region); (ii) because unfortunately, a tight economy will force some clubs to dismiss superintendents with higher salaries thereby, in its own way, increasing the quality of the candidate pool in a region; and (iii) because there has always been an unspoken axiom within the industry which says in effect that employers should be cautious when hiring golf course superintendents willing to travel across the country for a job because more times than not these candidates are running away from a bad situation (that is difficult for a potential employer to see from a distance) where they are presently employed. Traditionally, the sole acceptable reason to justify hiring a candidate from well out of town has been when the candidate and/or his spouse is moving to get closer to family (i.e.- parents, siblings, etc.). JMcL
[Reply]
Gregory Reply:
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I think the biggest mistake clubs make is letting go a long-time superintendent if he is doing a good job. The few thousand saved to replace the veteran with a former assistant is not good economics. The experience with that particular course and its systems and personnel far outweighs any perceived savings a younger/cheaper person will realize the club. One mistep with the irrigation could result in costly repairs and maybe lost greens, etc. What is the cost of that?? Experience with equipment, conflict management, etc. is also a huge factor. It amazes me that clubs will dump a successful superintendent with known qualities for someone it knows nothing about. When this happens I always figure new upper managment has been hired and they don’t feel comfortable managing a veteran superintendent. Sadly, this new manager will probably be gone in 2 years.
[Reply]
Jim McLoughlin Reply:
May 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
GREGORY:
You are not wrong and, clearly, this bad economy is putting more and more pressure on employers to replace superintendents with less expensive people. Two comments:
1. Go to the archive and read my earlier blog entitled, “Anticipating
Austerity,” which suggests one approach to maintaining a job in a bad
economy; then . . .
2. Establish the premise far and wide within your employment environment
(i.e.- with Green Committee, Board, membership, etc.) that veteran
superintendents present a golf course operation with the best
opportunity to function effectively within declining operational
budgets with a minimal lost of quality to the maintenance program.
This sells.
Taking the initiative with both of the above two suggestions will enhance your opportunity to maintain your job. Taking the initiative always helps.