Golf
Working with the Greens Committee
Golf clubs create income, estimated to be in the region of £5.5 billion in the UK and Ireland alone, and over four million people play golf on a regular basis. Yet, many clubs are run by Greens Committees. Declan Branigan details their role and how they and the turfcare professionals need to work together
G
olf courses, especially the stunning Links of the UK and Ireland, attract visitors from overseas, particularly Americans, and these visitors are hugely important to the economy of
small towns and villages by way of creating demand for food, beverages and accommodation that would not otherwise arise. Given that there are in excess of 3,400 golf clubs in the British Isles, the combined impact of these on the economy is considerable. In most cases, these important businesses are member owned and run, but are managed in a totally different way than most other businesses - by the committee system. As these committees are elected on a yearly
basis, problems with continuity are bound to arise. Yet the system appears to work reasonably well in that the vast majority of the clubs have remained solvent, if somewhat weakened, through all of the recessions and crises that society has experienced over recent years. Of course, some golf clubs have bitten the
dust over the past few years, but the survival rate has been far better than most other sectors of the business world. This might appear surprising given the bad press that committees in general receive, yet closer scrutiny suggests that the system is not all that far removed from successful business management.
Greens committees have been around since
the advent of golf, usually as a pastime for the privileged, when golf courses were maintained by staff with little qualifications to carry out the work. During these times, the greens committee was an autocratic structure that practised an adversarial approach in its dealings with the course staff. They experienced not a scintilla of doubt when instructing staff on various aspects of the work, despite the fact that no member of the committee would be seen to be qualified to issue such instructions. If these instructions were not carried out to the letter, a dismissal soon followed. Strangely enough, staff had few difficulties in accepting instructions from lay people with little knowledge of the specifics. After all, they were little more than lay people themselves and often welcomed interference as being a way to shift responsibility on to somebody else and, in this way, they protected their jobs. Maybe they were cuter than people gave them credit for. As times have changed, course managers have
benefitted from training courses and become well educated in their chosen profession. With education came an increase in confidence that encouraged staff to be more vocal when dealing with their superiors. This new confidence irked many of the older brigade and, rather than welcoming the new breed of head greenkeeper, they chose to cling to the old adversarial system that was forged in bygone times. The adversarial system is based on the
following and also fails to be effective because of it:
- Most golfers volunteer for the greens committee simply because they have an axe to grind and see being part of the committee as being the easiest way to have their preferences attended to.
They attend the first meeting with a list of demands for change, such as lower heights of cut on greens, higher heights on fairways or more or less sand in bunkers. A favourite demand would be for the head greenkeeper to present receptive greens, even during prolonged dry spells. All requests will be related to theirs, or their regular playing partners, preferences for certain playing conditions. The head greenkeeper will attempt to explain why such requests should or should not be entertained, and this will most likely be viewed as insubordination or an unwillingness to accept instruction, which is the start of a bad relationship
- Quite often, the Greens Convenor is selected 32 I PC DECEMBER/JANUARY 2015
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140