Addressing Job Insecurity
With virtually every industry-wide poll indicating that roughly 75% of the nation’s golf course superintendents are feeling insecure about holding their jobs in today’s economy, it is important to put things in perspective. First, it is
necessary to judge where the economy is and where it is going: with the U.S. government spending trillions of dollars beyond it’s ability to pay for the program obligations it is incurring, faith in the economy declines, people spend less and jobs across the country are being lost at the rate of 16,000 a day. Furthermore, the resulting bad economy will get worse, not only because the President has been telling us it will, but because the serious inflation that government over-spending guarantees and the heavy taxation needed to pay for the new government programming loom just over the horizon.
When we add the circumstance that the American achieving class (which includes the nation-wide private club membership community) has been primarily targeted to pay for the government’s extensive spending, it can be fairly anticipated that many private golf clubs and daily fee courses across the country will likely be looking at austerity spending, or close to it – not all at once – but at one time or another through the next several years depending on each club/course’s economic circumstance.
The above commentary is not meant to discourage, but rather to educate to the reality of
the situation because only then will the national superintendents’ community take the necessary affirmative action to ensure their quite-savable jobs. Furthermore. I am not suggesting that the vast majority of the approximate 15,000 superintendents’ jobs across the country could be lost. But, I do intend to suggest that several thousand superintendents’ jobs will likely be placed in jeopardy through the next few years should the economy fail to quickly recover – as is being presently forecast. We have already begun to see a pattern developing in this regard with higher earning superintendents beginning to be replaced by assistants earning from $40,000 to $80,000 less annually. Whatever the final number of superintendents being replaced could be in the coming years, I firmly believe this replacement number can be reduced by 90%if the proper initiatives are undertaken – as profiled later in this commentary.
Recognize The Positive Reality
If you are feeling insecure about your job, or think you might be some time soon, understand that the opportunity for golf course superintendents to demonstrate to their employers that they remain their sole indispensable employee in these bad economic times is “striking.” After all, no one wants to replace an experienced ship’s captain with a second mate in the middle of a treacherous storm.
A tight economy only enhances the indispensability of the golf course superintendent…”
Can there be any doubt that an experienced currently employed superintendent will provide tighter fiscal management and be better able to sustain a shrinking staff’s effectiveness while at the same time minimizing the decline in golf course quality than an assistant? A tight economy only enhances the indispensability of the golf course superintendent. Trying to justify the replacement of an experienced superintendent solely on the grounds of the salary that can be saved by hiring the less experienced is ludicrous because an experienced hand will save this salary differential many times over during the course of each calendar year. This story needs to be told nationwide by the superintendents themselves, all GCSAA chapters and GCSAA, itself.
Take Affirmative Action>
The basic approach that superintendents feeling insecure about their jobs should consider taking now, even before austerity spending becomes a serious consideration (i.e., don’t wait until it is too late), is to establish constructive dialogue with their administrations for the purpose of assuming experienced-based control of their operating and capital budgets in a professional manner that employers will respect and are not likely to be able to do as effectively themselves; i.e.- having to continue to cut on-going spending to keep pace with the economy without undermining the fundamental quality of the golf course.
Using personal diplomacy, superintendents should do what is necessary leadership-wise to reach a mutual
understanding of what reality-driven budget control measures will be needed from year to year to keep pace with a declining economy; then, once this objective has been realized, commit to flawlessly delivering these budgets on time and in place – as no one else can. Of course, superintendents who do feel secure in their jobs can add to their job security by using the same recommended approach as less job-secure superintendents to balance budget-cutting measures with course quality.
If and when the reality of austerity budgeting surfaces, superintendents should not hesitate to volunteer to take the same percentage cut in salary as is being mandated for the department’s overall operating budget. Clearly, it is better to have a job at roughly 80% of a former peak salary than have no job at all. Employees, union or otherwise, all across the country consistently agree to salary concessions in tough economic times. How much better will a salary concession be received than when voluntarily given?
Summarizing The Game Plan
Summarizing what has been said here and in previous posts on this subject, superintendents who are worried about their jobs . . .
1. Should: (i) take the personal initiative to assume leadership control of department budgeting in the manner suggested above; (ii) take the learning points from both this blog and my April 9th blog entitled, “Anticipating Austerity” to develop a customized plan of action specifically applicable to their respective club/course circumstances; and (iii) volunteer to take a salary reduction if and when economic conditions dictate.
2. Ask their chapters: (i) to encourage their members to follow this weekly blog presentation at TurfNet.com; (ii) to link this blog message and the earlier April 22nd blog message entitled, “A Thesis On Job Security and Contracts” to their chapter web sites; and (iii) to schedule informal “town hall” meeting forums several times a year where job-concerned chapter members will find the opportunity to discuss and educate each other as employment situations continue to evolve. At this point in time, superintendents are likely to learn more from each other than from outside sources.
3. Continue to encourage GCSAA to get involved (as profiled in earlier blog messages) to support individual member and chapter efforts to sustain job security.
In closing, I remind you that your job destiny lies in your hands if you so choose and to continue believing in yourself because you are an indispensable commodity. Finally remember, once again, that employers do not dismiss employees who help ensure employer survival.
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.

Jim,
It is very disappointing to think that you feel that an Assistant could not “run the show” as good if not better than an experienced Superintendent. As you are probably well aware, the majority of today’s Assistants (at least in the my area of the country) have 5+ years of experience under their belt these days along with much more management responsibilites than years ago. There have been many success stories of Assistants replacing more experienced Supers throughout the country. To write “After all, no one wants to replace an experienced ship’s captain with a second mate in the middle of a treacherous storm” is in my opinion an awfully damaging and negative statement about Assistants. And then to follow it with “Can there be any doubt that an experienced currently employed superintendent will provide tighter fiscal management etc…than an assistant”, is a completely irresponsible and FALSE statement.
[Reply]
Jim McLoughlin Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
CHRIS:
I respect the confidence you have in yourself and your skills. Your support for the quality of work assistants can deliver is commendable and quite credible. Furthermore, I have no problem accepting the premise that a good number of assistants across the country can perform effectively now at a superintendent’s level – given the chance – with more continuing to qualify as time passes. But I will stand by my blog comments because they were intended to address a profession-wide situation and not individual assistant’s qualifications.
We are looking at the possibility of several thousand superintendents being replaced in the coming year or two due to the bad economy – based solely on the concept of a salary differential. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast vast majority of these potentially replaceable superintendents would perform their jobs better than lower-salaried less experienced replacements – especially when we consider that many employers would be looking to save as much salary as possible; i.e.- not looking to hire the best assistant available.
I do not believe my blog comments are damaging to assistants, certainly they were not intended to be; rather, they are intended to respect the time-honored tradition of one professional replacing another based on the concepts of merit and need and not economic expediency.
[Reply]
Chris Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Jim,
While I fully understand your concern for the several thousands of superintendents that may or may not lose their jobs due to the economy, my concern is for the several thousand assistants that have already left the profession over the last five years due to not being able to advance upward. As I am sure you are aware, years ago individuals were hired as superintendents after just a year or two of being assistants who graduated with just a certificate or winter school! These “young” superintendents eventually when on to become very well respected professionals. In today’s world most graduates have 4 year degrees from highly accredited schools and intern at some of the most high end courses around the country. After their internsips, the must become assistants for at least five years before they are even considered for an interview for a supers job. What I am getting at is that most assistants are extremely qualified to step into the role of superintendent. Your blog basically says that if you hire an assistant to replace your experienced superintendent, the course conditions will suffer and money will be spent irresponsibly. In my opinion that crosses the line a bit. Thanks for responding and I guess we shall just agree to disagree!
[Reply]
Jim McLoughlin Reply:
June 12th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
CHRIS:
It is not a matter of “agreeing to disagree” because we are not on the same page to start with. I am not saying UNIVERSALLY that “if you hire an assistant to replace your experienced superintendent, that course conditions will suffer and money will be spent irresponsibly.” I am saying this would happen more times than not – because experience does mean something. And, again, what assurance is there that a cost-conscious employer would hire the best assistant available when another is available for dollars less? Yes, assistants have longer waits today before gaining access to a superintendent’s job and, therefore, become better qualified, but this does not alter the premise that there are well qualified superintendents who deserve on merit to hold their jobs. Do well.