This is the fourth blog message within a series of five on the subject of multi-course contract companies.

The Ultimate Dichotomy

If private sector jobs are supposed to be the ‘Mecca’ of superintendent-hood, why do roughly 77% of all superintendents working in the private sector feel insecure in their jobs?

Quite simply because two things happen when superintendents are hired at the better private golf course operations:

1. An “intended” consequence; i.e., they earn more money.
2. An “unintended” consequence; i.e., the higher salaries put these jobs at greater risk (especially in this economy) and, accordingly, careers become vulnerable…

…because internal “politics” often overrides merit and because self-serving general managers look to maximize their own job security at the expense of others – which gives rise to the 77% insecurity factor mentioned above

Having said this, a fundamental question arises, “Where are the better superintendent jobs? To varying degrees, within the following job environments:

FIRST CHOICE (****): Working for an established multi-course maintenance company.

Upside: unparalleled job security and compensation protection; unmatched company agronomic and educational support; post-superintendent corporate job opportunities and more. (See my April 28, 2011 blog for a complete presentation on this subject.)

The multi-course contract setting is the perfect employment environment for golf course superintendents.

Downside: There are too few jobs available; i.e., only 15% of superintendents work for contract companies today – a figure that should about double in the coming years.

When applying for traditional stand-alone jobs, superintendents should . . .

….always parallel apply to get on the waiting list for the better contract company jobs;  i.e., setting the stage for a later employment opportunity.

SECOND CHOICE: (***) Working within a dominant general manager environment.

Upside: The approximate 60% of general managers who put the welfare of their employing clubs/courses and of their employees first; i.e., a nearly perfect traditional employment environment that still falls well short of the benefits that accrue to superintendents working for contract companies.

Downside: The remaining approximate 40% of general managers who will routinely undermine their employees’ job security to advance their own agendas. (See my April 2008 Golf Course Industry column for a complete presentation on this subject.)

Never accept a job without first conducting a complete due diligence examination of the general manager you would be working for; i.e., a potential friend or foe?

THIRD CHOICE: (**) Working within the traditional “Board/Committee” management format.

Upside: Highest salary potential with the most direct access to high profile golf course operations; i.e., two elements that understandably attract the most job applications throughout golf.

Downside: Unruly political atmospheres and constantly turning-over Board and committee rosters that consistently undermine superintendents’ job security – together with a tendency to hire “bottom line” general managers.

Jobs are at the highest risk within the Board/Committee format.

The best “insurance policy” you can have to protect your career is an in-depth knowledge of where the better jobs can be found because “Knowledge is King!

This is the third blog message within a series of four on the subject of multi-course contract companies.

Established multi-course contract companies provide client course maintenance operations with the following benefits:

• A collective purchasing power that will discount the cost of supplies, services and equipment by +/- 10% (roughly an average $150,000 per course) annually.

FYI: These discounts will always exceed the fees paid to contract companies for their services.

• Guaranteed access to experienced contract company “crisis teams” that are dedicated to resolving critical fiscal/budget, safety and operational problems expediently – a vital ”safety net” service that neither the USGA Turf Advisory Service nor consulting companies can match.
• At no further cost, outside agronomic auditing companies will be engaged annually to objectively evaluate and report contract company course management effectiveness directly to client clubs/course administrations.
• Once-stressful golf course management operations will become “stress free.”

Net-Net: golf course operations that affiliate with proven contract companies pay less for a superior maintenance service and get peace of mind as a bonus.

• OSHA and federal/state regulatory safety issues will be constantly monitored by a trained golf course staff and contract company personnel; i.e., negating the possibility of “at fault” adversity and its legal consequences.
• Routine access to much sought after commercial partnerships with the industry’s leading golf course maintenance companies/vendors that invites client courses (and their superintendents) to participate in equipment and turf grass testing programs, dedicated webinars/workshops on contemporary subjects and general program monitoring.
• Clubs/courses will have the option when signing on with contract companies to either retain ownership of their maintenance equipment, or of selling it to the contract company.

In either case, contract companies will maximize preventive maintenance practices – thereby extending equipment replacement cycles.

Through the decisive management practices of today’s established multi-course contract companies . . .

. . . the traditional concept that golf course maintenance is an “art and science” is being replaced today by the fast-growing consensus that it is a “business science.”

A Dilemma:

Factually speaking, the resources that proven multi-course maintenance companies can bring to bare on golf course maintenance programs can not be matched by the  resources that stand-alone course maintenance programs can make available to themselves.

Accordingly, where does the industry go from here?