Managing consultants

SUPERINTENDENTS CAN'T SURVIVE WITHOUT CONSULTANTS, BUT SOMETIMES THE CHALLENGE IS TO SURVIVE WITH THEM

Q What is changing in the area of golf course consulting?

In one respect little has changed. Golf has always involved consultants. We have consultants that specialize in water salinity and testing. We use engineers to resolve drainage issues. We hire architects to improve the design of a course and its play. By definition the golf course superintendent deals with a broad range of issues, and no one can be an expert in every particular area, so we need to call in those who bring the necessary expertise. Our job is to protect the club's assets and to make sure that what we do is correct in the long term. The smart superintendent knows what he doesn't know, but gets the consulting help he needs to keep the course in great condition.

At the same time, golf has become more of a business and that creates opportunities for consultants. Some are very helpful and others are motivated as much by self-interest as service. Superintendents need to understand the role consultants can play, how to work with them, how to manage them, and to be aware of the potential down side.

Q What do you mean by the potential down side?

A number of superintendents have lost their jobs after their clubs hired consultants. The superintendents that seem most prone to this scenario work for private golf courses, are more than 40 years old and have higher salaries. Of course, when a consultant is hired he or she has been positioned to the superintendent as a resource to help them and improve the course. Later, the superintendent was let go.

Q Are there warning signs that the superintendent's job might be at risk?

In all of the cases the superintendents fired had no idea that a consultant was being hired. A number of these superintendents were called to a meeting and found a consultant sitting there. Some have come to work in the morning only to find a consultant sitting in the office waiting for them.

Q Sounds like some golf course are hiring consultants to get rid of their superintendents.

There are a range of possible reasons to explain what's going on. The firings I've heard about have been mostly on private courses, so politics is a possible factor. Some clubs want to make a change at the superintendent position but are not willing to do it themselves, so they hire a consultant to do it for them. The consultant's role might even be to come up with the justification to fire the superintendent.

But there are other possible motives. Budgets are tighter and if a club is told they could replace their superintendent for a big name person - at the same cost or less cost than the superintendent's salary - there's a temptation to do it. The scenario I am describing does not involve replacing the superintendent on a full-time basis, it involves a part-time, ongoing consulting relationship.

Some of the superintendents who have been fired were told that their clubs wanted to take the course to the next level. That is a legitimate objective, but I question if these club owners and managers even understand what the next level is? I also question why so many apparently did not bother to talk to their own on-site consultant first - their superintendent - about the desired changes before turning to an outside resource?

Q Should the superintendent be told if his club is considering hiring a consultant?

Absolutely, for two reasons. First, it's good business. If the desire is to improve the course, or to get ready for a major tournament, then the superintendent and the consultant will need to work together as a team. The consultant may bring special expertise, but the superintendent knows the course better than anyone. So, why would any course not want their superintendent fully involved in this process, even to the point of helping to select the best consultant for the job?

Second, hiring a consultant without talking to the superintendent is unethical. It's not good business or the professional way to conduct a business.

Q That assumes the superintendent is not the problem.

If a course has a problem with their superintendent then they need to confront him or her and work out a solution, even if that means making a change. But being up front about this is the ethical approach.

Q Can a course really get by without a full-time superintendent?

A consultant can make the pitch that he offers greater expertise and experience for less money. The consultant determines the program, then assigns day-to-day operations to an assistant superintendent or to some other person who will be on the course every day. Unfortunately, I have heard that such programs have failed on a number of courses.

A golf course is always best served by having an experienced superintendent on site every day. Course conditions can change rapidly and someone with the necessary experience needs to be on site to make the right decisions regarding what to do and how to allocate people and other resources. No one can understand the weather patterns, equipment, staff, the club and members like the superintendent. None of this is cookie cutter stuff. It takes time and experience to know your soil types, irrigation water and the microclimate on a green that's in the shade on the hill, or on another green that has heavy clay soil. There are so many things that make every course different. Certainly the same principles apply to every course, but no two golf courses are exactly alike. One course I once managed had three different construction types and periods of greens on 18 holes. A consultant, no matter what his expertise, is not going to learn the intricacies ofthat when working part time.