The Board of Directors and the General Manager/Chief Operating ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

66 Chapter 2General Manager Performance Evaluation ProcessCrystal Thomas, MCM MonographMost club managers are passionate about their work. So why is it not uncommon tohear of managers who were surprised by terminations as they thought their performancewas meeting or exceeding expectations? Why is there managerial turnover—especially when managers are often excellent communicators—due to poor communicationwith the board and misunderstanding of how their or the club’s performanceis being measured?Crystal Thomas’s Master Club Manager monograph examined the performanceevaluation process to discover relationships between performance evaluations andmanagerial longevity, performance evaluations and club progress, and performanceevaluations and managerial compensation.Placing importance on the performance evaluation and its processes can help movethe private club industry forward. The results of the monograph study indicate thatappropriate use of performance evaluations and a well-defined performance evaluationprocess reap major benefits for all involved. The major rewards include: increasingthe longevity of a club manager’s tenure; creating a positive effect on the clubthrough well-defined, communicated, and measurable goals; and providing a quantifiablemeans by which bonuses, and possibly salary, can be measured, ultimatelyincreasing the compensation of the general manager.Data shows that the average tenure of a club manager is only 2.5 years (ClubManager Review, 2001). Although causes of employee turnover have been studiedin the club industry, we know very little about the causes of managerial turnover inclubs. One can only speculate about the number of moves made to better positions,the number of moves within the area of employment, or the number that represent asignificant geographic move. However, the average tenure indicates that there is notmuch occupational stability for the individual, and some of this instability can easilynegatively affect a manager and his or her family.Knowing the dedication and passion with which most club managers approach theirpositions, there seems to be a disconnect between the desire managers have toperform well and perceptions that they are performing well, and the perceptions of theboard of directors. Ideally, the performance review process should be providing anavenue for communication between managers and boards on managerial performance.Mr. James Singerling, CCM, CEC, and chief executive officer of the Club ManagersAssociation of America, believes the statistics are changing. He says “the perceptionof club managers as COOs and the acceptance by members and boards thatclubs are businesses with myriad issues that need a professional have led to theincrease in tenure of senior management at clubs. The two- to three-year statistic isa holdover from many years ago when GMs were more disposable and had far lesstraining. Today, they are so well-trained and versatile and not nearly as disposableas they once were.” (Bridget Gorman Wendling, personal communication, Sept. 18,2003) Several of the statistics in the CMAA 2003 Compensation and Benefits Surveyreference the average respondent being with their club for almost seven years, andhaving held their current job titles for more than five years. (2003 Compensation andBenefits Survey)
The Board of Directors and the General Manager/Chief Operating Officer 67Manager turnover is not inherently a bad thing, and as cited above, the reasonspeople leave the clubs are numerous, varied, and mostly unknown. Some managersmay be in junior positions and making progressive moves to further their careers.Others may just not be suited to a particular club and move into something else thatbecomes a win-win for them and their club.In this industry, and virtually all industries that work with volunteer boards, there arechallenges inherent to the relationship between managers and their boards. Therapid turnover of board membership and the inconsistency in board members’ understandingof club operations contributes to the problems of establishing stability withinclub operations. One of the responses to these challenges is the use of a formalperformance evaluation process for club managers.A structured performance evaluation process can ease the transition for a managerthrough changes in the board of directors, as it can provide continuity and establishedguidelines in the midst of change. Club managers will always be faced withchallenges that develop from board politics and the need to work with board memberswho possess inconsistent levels of commitment and knowledge of club operations.However, there are various ways to assess how a club manager is doing, themost objective of these being a formal performance evaluation, a method that leavesa permanent record in the manager’s employment file.In Thomas’s study, she found that most clubs had a performance evaluation process.The most common type of performance evaluation cited was the top-down performanceevaluation. However, the respondents that have a 360-degree performanceevaluation reported the highest level of satisfaction with their type of evaluation.Although most general managers (41%) did have some level of input into theirperformance evaluation, there were 6% that had no input whatsoever. Some of therespondents (30%) reported having an ad hoc discussion of their performance astheir review, and 27% of the managers said that they would like a different style ofperformance evaluation.The majority, 94%, of respondents stated they were allowed to provide feedback atthe end of the evaluation process. Most of the managers, 91%, responded they consideredthe performance evaluation system being used as fair. Furthermore, 84% ofthe respondents reported they were satisfied with the performance evaluation systemused. Finally, 85% of the respondents said their performance evaluation is basedupon a combination of subjective and objective criteria.The study also indicated the lack of an adequate performance evaluation is morelikely to lead to managerial turnover. Respondents indicated this managerial turnovermight be a result of managers being released (51% supported this), and becausegeneral managers would likely choose to leave (41% supported this).Half of the respondents agreed that an excellent performance evaluation motivatesa general manager to stay at their club. There is a 56% level of loyalty of managersto their club in terms of managers stating that they would not look for other jobs justfor receiving a poor performance evaluation. The majority of general managers wouldnot leave their position after receiving a poor performance evaluation nor would their(continued)
Page 15 and 16: Exhibit 8The Board of Directors and
Page 17 and 18: The Board of Directors and the Gene
Page 26 and 27: 68 Chapter 2loyalty diminish if the
Page 28 and 29: 70 Chapter 2Leadership/Legislative
Page 30 and 31: 72 Chapter 2meeting agenda—A tool
Page 32 and 33: 74 Chapter 2his worst suspicions we
Page 34 and 35: 76 Chapter 2that he is to conduct a
Page 36: 78 Chapter 2Kuebler, CCM, Vice Pres

The Board of Directors and the General Manager/Chief Operating ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?