a study of the general manager performance review · pdf filea study of the general manager...

A Study of the General Manager Performance

Evaluation Process

Crystal M. Thomas, CCM, CHE General Manager/Chief Operating Officer

The Athenaeum The California Institute of Technology

551 South Hill Avenue Pasadena, California 91106

A monograph submitted to the Certification Committee

of the Club Managers Association of America

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Master Club Manager (MCM) designation

First Draft Submitted October 1, 2003

Second Draft Submitted January 5, 2004

Final Draft Submitted May 4, 2004

ii

Copyright 2004 by Crystal M. Thomas

All Rights Reserved

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................v

List of Exhibits..................................................................................................... viii

Executive Summary.................................................................................................1

Introduction and Overview of the Research Study..................................................2

Literature Review.....................................................................................................7

Research Design and Methodology .......................................................................17

Analysis of Findings ..............................................................................................25

Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................65

Factual Highlights for the Governing Board …………………………………… 80

Recommendations and Implications for Further Study ………………………… 83

References..............................................................................................................85

Additional Research and Resources ..................................................................... 88

Appendices............................................................................................................ 89

A. Proposal for MCM Monograph ………………………………………… 90

B. MCM Management Advisory Group Members ………………………… 92

C. E-mail to MCM Management Advisory Group ………………………… 93

D. Thank You E-mail to MCM Management Advisory Group ……………. 95

E. Cover Letter for Survey Instrument …………………………………….. 96

F. Survey Instrument ……………………………………………………….. 97

G. Follow-Up Postcard ……………………………………………………. 105

iv

H. Follow-up E-mail …………………………………………………….. 106

I. Survey Instrument Response Frequency Tables ………………………. 107

v

Acknowledgements

I am deeply grateful to many people for giving their time and lending their expertise to this project. With their knowledge, support and absolute sense of urgency, this project was completed. My MCM Monograph Support Group comprised of:

Catherine M. Gustafson, Ph.D., CCM, CHE, Assistant Professor, The University of South Carolina, School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management … for leading my support group, for her ongoing encouragement and years of friendship. William Zwerman, PhD., Associate Professor, Department of Sociology at The University of Calgary … for being the co-academic advisor on this project as well as for his years of friendship and advice. James H. Brewer, MCM, General Manager of The Los Angeles Country Club …for guidance, support and ongoing encouragement. Elizabeth Loftus, Director of Compensation, The California Institute of Technology … for invaluable expertise, guidance, and support.

My MCM Management Advisory Group: Cyrus Afshin Ronald Banaszak, CCM Jennifer Beck, CCM Richard Bruner, CCM Michael Carroll, CCM Claudio Caviglia, CCM Andrew Curtis, CCM Jay DiPietro, CCM Sandra Frappier, CCM Elizabeth Fritz-Grant, CCM Peter Homberg, CCM Michael Leemhuis, CCM Dennis Nighswonger, CCM Gregg Patterson William Rothballer, CCM Rick Sussman, CCM Brent Tartamella, CCM David Voorhees, CCM

vi

Burton Ward, CCM … for sharing their personal performance evaluation information with me, for assisting me in developing some meaningful questions, and for responding in such a timely fashion.

The MCM Academic Council … for their guidance and support throughout the entire MCM process. Terry Williams, BA, MCS, Social Science Research Consultant, of Maze Consulting Inc. … for her solid expertise in formatting the survey instrument, data entry, compilation and assistance with the analysis of the results, as well as for being a very good friend over the years who added a high level of encouragement to this project. Edward A. Merritt, Ph.D., CHA, CCM, FMP, CHE, Associate Professor and Chair, Graduate Studies, The Collins School of Hospitality Management, Cal State University (Cal Poly Pomona) … for getting me started and spending many hours providing initial guidance and direction on this project. The Board of Governors, The House Committee, and the Membership of The Athenaeum … for understanding the importance of continuing education and their ongoing support throughout this project. My Executive Team at The Athenaeum … for being the best that they can be and for being integral in the direction of this monograph. Jean Shin, Marketing Coordinator at The Athenaeum … for her assistance and organization with my Professional Data Profile. Joe Perdue, CCM, CHE, Associate Professor, Tourism and Convention Department at The University of Nevada, Las Vegas … for personal and professional encouragement and support throughout the entire MCM process. Debbie Rodriguez … for administrative assistance and for providing the ongoing encouragement that I needed to get my Professional Data Profile completed. David Levy…for his assistance in editing and review of the final presentation. Keiko Gibson…for her administrative prowess in the final revisions, the final presentation and all of the logistics surrounding this project. Janice Wobbe…for keeping all of the records in order so that it made preparing my Professional Data Profile easier. To all of the people that contributed letters of support for my Professional Data Profile … thanks for taking the time to write these letters so that I could compile this document.

vii

To the 185 respondents to the survey instrument … thanks for taking time to respond to and return the survey in a timely fashion. To the Club Managers Association of Southern California … for their encouragement and support. To The Club Managers Association of America … for their first-rate education programs, for pushing club managers to be their best, and to the team members of CMAA for all of their assistance in this project. To Jim Singerling for his oversight and guidance, to Gordon Welch for his ongoing encouragement and direction throughout the project, to Ron Comfort for technical assistance, to Joe Patrick and Bridget Gorman Wendling for their assistance with my questions. Bridgette Redman, Development Specialist for the Educational Institute of the American Hotel & Lodging Association … for her editorial expertise and all-around good advice. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Shafer … for being my mentors and for their ongoing support and encouragement in general in club management and for sharing management thoughts with me on a daily basis. His guidance is humbling, proving that he has forgotten more about management than I could ever hope to know. To my family … for their ongoing encouragement as I moved toward my long-sought-after goal, but particularly to my daughter, Kendra Thomas, who spent countless hours assisting me. In the beginning, Mom teaches the child…the child learns and then the child teaches the Mom…what a beautiful life experience. And to my cats, Stanley, Odyssey Ritz, and Carly … for being there in the early morning, late in the evenings and on weekends waiting patiently for me as I worked at my computer. There presence was always so calming and with their kitty knowledge, did their part to keep the process moving forward.

viii

List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: About the Respondents .....................................................................................26

Exhibit 2: Annual Gross Base Salary.................................................................................27

Exhibit 3: Annual Bonus Pay Average ..............................................................................28

Exhibit 4: Length of Time Manager Plans to Stay at Current Club...................................28

Exhibit 5: Number of General Managers in Past 20 Years................................................29

Exhibit 6: Other Employees Have the Same Evaluation System ......................................30

Exhibit 7: Performance Evaluation Process is Informal with Reviewer Dropping By for

Ad Hoc Discussion of Performance.......................................................................31

Exhibit 8: Type of Performance Evaluation ......................................................................32

Exhibit 9: Self-Input in Performance Evaluation...............................................................33

Exhibit 10: Person Who Sets Professional Goals For Manager ........................................34

Exhibit 11: Frequency/Recency Performance Evaluation System Has Changed..............36

Exhibit 12: Manager Able to Give Feedback After Completion of Performance

Evaluation ..............................................................................................................37

Exhibit 13: Manager Perceives His or Her Performance Evaluation System as Fair ........37

Exhibit 14: Performance Evaluation is Based Upon Subjective Criteria ..........................38

Exhibit 15: Performance Evaluation is Based Upon Objective Criteria............................39

Exhibit 16: Evaluation is a Combination of Subjective and Objective Criteria ................39

Exhibit 17: Lack of Adequate Process Leads to Turnover Because Board Releases

Manager .................................................................................................................40

Exhibit 18: Lack of Adequate Process Leads to Turnover Because Manager Quits .........41

ix

Exhibit 19: Managers Whose Loyalty to Club Would Be Lost if They Received a Poor

Evaluation ..............................................................................................................42

Exhibit 20: Managers Who Have Voluntarily Left a Position Within Six Months of a

Good Evaluation ....................................................................................................43

Exhibit 21: Managers Who Have Resigned Within Six Months Because of a Poor

Evaluation ..............................................................................................................43

Exhibit 22: Managers Who Have Been Terminated Within Six Months of a Poor

Evaluation ..............................................................................................................43

Exhibit 23: Managers Who Have Been Terminated Within Six Months of a Good

Evaluation ..............................................................................................................43

Exhibit 24: Motivation and Poor Performance Evaluation................................................44

Exhibit 25: Performance Evaluation: Length of Time Planning to Stay at Club Cross

Tab .........................................................................................................................45

Exhibit 26: Performance Evaluation: Length of Time at Present Club Cross

Tab .........................................................................................................................46

Exhibit 27: Length of Time Planning to Stay at Present Club: There is No Performance Evaluation ………………………..………………..…………………………….47

Exhibit 28: Manager Input Into Evaluation: Length of Time Planning to Stay at Current

Club Cross Tab ......................................................................................................48

Exhibit 29: How Long at Current Club: Performance Evaluation Process is Informal.....49

Exhibit 30: Club Has a Strategic Plan................................................................................54

Exhibit 31: Evaluation is Tied to the Success of the Strategic Plan .................................54

Exhibit 32: Use of Goals in Evaluation is Useful in Moving the Club Forward ..............56

x

Exhibit 33: Correlation Between Overall Performance and Salary ...................................59

Exhibit 34: Salary Increases are Arbitrary and Unrelated to Evaluation...........................60

Exhibit 35: Manager is Evaluated on Goals and Salary is Directly Connected to Goal

Achievement ..........................................................................................................60

Exhibit 36: Correlation Between Overall Performance Evaluation and Bonus.................61

Exhibit 37: Arbitrary Bonus System..................................................................................62

Executive Summary

Most club managers are passionate about their work. So why do we frequently learn

about managers who are surprised by terminations because they think their performance

meets or exceeds expectations? Why is there managerial turnover especially when

managers are often excellent communicators? Is it due to poor communication with the

board and/or misunderstandings about how their or the club’s performance is being

measured?

This study examines the performance evaluation process to discover relationships

between performance evaluations and (a) managerial longevity (b) club progress and (c)

managerial compensation. Demographics were collected about club managers and the

clubs they manage. Respondents appeared representative of the membership of the Club

Managers Association of America (CMAA). Logistics of the performance evaluation

process were also examined.

Exploring the performance evaluation process can help move the private club industry

forward. The results of this study indicate that a well-defined performance evaluation

process can yield major benefits for all involved. These include: increasing the longevity

of a club manager's tenure; creating a positive effect on the club through well-defined,

effectively communicated and measurable goals; and providing a quantifiable means by

which bonuses, and possibly salary, can be measured, to ultimately increase the

manager’s compensation.

2

Introduction and Overview of the Research Study

At the CMAA world conferences, managers have been overheard saying that many of

their colleagues “do not attend conferences because they are afraid that they will lose

their job when they return.” The same has been said about managers fearful of taking

their entitled vacation time. There is something inherently wrong with this! What could

account for this? The average tenure of a club manager is only 2.5 years (Club Manager

Review, 2001). We know very little about the causes of managerial turnover in clubs. One

can only speculate about the number of moves made to improve positions, the number of

moves within the industry, or the number that represents a significant geographic move.

However, the average tenure indicates that there is not much occupational stability, and

this can easily cause problems for a manager and his or her family.

Most club managers approach their positions with dedication and passion. There seems

to be a disconnect between the managers’ desire to perform well and their personal

perceptions about performance and the perceptions of the governing body. Ideally, the

performance review process should yield communication between managers and boards

about managerial performance.

A CMAA official believes the turnover statistics are changing. He says “the perception of

club managers as COOs and the acceptance by members and boards that clubs are

businesses with myriad issues that need a professional, have led to the increase in tenure

of senior management at clubs. The two to three-year statistic is a holdover from many

3

years ago when GMs were more disposable and had far less training. Today, they are so

well-trained and versatile and not nearly as disposable as they once were.” (Bridget

Gorman Wendling, personal communication, Sept. 18, 2003) CMAA’s 2003

Compensation and Benefits Survey indicates that the average respondents were employed

by their club for almost seven years, and have held their current job titles for more than

five years. (2003 CMAA Compensation and Benefits Survey)

Manager turnover is not inherently a bad thing and, as cited above, the reasons managers

leave clubs are numerous, varied and mostly unknown. Some managers may be in junior

positions and are making progressive moves to further their careers. Others may not be

suited to a particular club and move to another facility that becomes a win-win for them

and their club. Historically managers who related well socially with the members could

keep their jobs almost indefinitely. In today's club industry, that has changed.

There are challenges inherent in the relationship between managers and their boards. The

rapid turnover of board membership and the inconsistency in board members’

understanding of club operations contributes to the problems of establishing stability

within club operations. One of the responses to these challenges is the use of a formal

performance evaluation process for club managers.

A structured performance evaluation process can ease the transition for a manager

through changes in the Board of Directors, as it can provide continuity and established

4

guidelines in the midst of change. Club managers will always be faced with challenges

that develop from board politics and the need to work with board members who possess

inconsistent levels of commitment and knowledge of club operations. However, there are

various ways to assess how a club manager is doing, the most objective of these being a

formal performance evaluation that leaves a permanent record in the manager’s

employment file.

This research study began with a desire to look at the development of performance

evaluation processes for general managers. There is sufficient resource material available

for clubs to conduct sound performance evaluations. Performance Evaluation

Documents for General Manager/Chief Operating Officer, Department Manager, Non-

management Staff (1997) and Club Manager Review Instruction Manual (Sibbald 2001)

are examples of these.

As stated earlier, manager turnover, while not always a regrettable occurrence, is one that

affects every club manager in this industry. Concern over trends in manager turnover,

coupled with the availability of performance evaluation systems, led to the development

of this research study.

The purpose of this research study is to examine the performance evaluation processes

being used for general managers in private clubs. Surveys were conducted to determine

5

the relationship and degree of effect the performance evaluation process has had on club

managers, and their perceptions of the effect it has had on their club.

There were four primary areas of interest that this research study sought to identify and/or

address. They are as follows:

Logistics of the performance evaluation

Correlation between positive performance evaluations and longevity

Use of performance evaluations and whether the club achieved established goals

Correlation between performance evaluation and club manager’s compensation

These primary areas of interest lent themselves to a formal study of club managers. A few

hypotheses were developed and tested. The researcher developed a survey instrument to

capture the unique issues associated with the private club industry and performance

evaluations. The surveys were self-administered by CMAA club managers selected in a

random sample.

The hypotheses tested by this research study are:

There is direct correlation between having a performance evaluation and

longevity and direct correlation between having a positive performance evaluation

and longevity.

6

There is direct correlation between performance evaluations and the club moving

forward and meeting its goals.

Performance evaluation is positively correlated with managers’ compensation.

For research methodology purposes, these hypotheses stated in the null would be:

There is no correlation between having a performance evaluation and longevity

and no correlation between having a positive performance evaluation and

longevity.

There is no correlation between performance evaluations and the club moving

forward and meeting its goals.

There is no correlation between performance evaluation and managers’

compensation.

7

Literature Review

Although there are literally thousands of articles written on performance evaluation, very

little has been written about the topic of the performance evaluation process and club

management. More specifically, there are no other known studies that examine the

correlation between performance evaluations and longevity or compensation in the

private club industry.

The researcher did a focused bibliographic search using Boolean logic confined to the

following key words: “performance evaluation AND compensation AND tenure”,

“performance-based compensation AND tenure”, “incentive-based compensation AND

tenure”, “incentive-based compensation”, “pay for performance”, “performance AND

tenure”, “club management”, and “Boards AND performance evaluation”. Many articles

were reviewed. As well, the Premier Club Services document on performance evaluation

and the Club Manager Review Instructional Manual written by John Sibbald Associates

Inc. were examined. The researcher also engaged in discussions with executive recruiters

in club management and with Club Managers Association of America team members.

Many of the articles had general relevance and proved good reading background for the

topic. More were moderately relevant and were considered as the monograph was

developed. A few articles were highly relevant, as was the Premier Club Services

document on performance evaluation and the John Sibbald Inc. Club Manager Review

8

Instructional Manual. The literature review will summarize those articles that contributed

to the study by providing background information used in development.

One research project found that the most important factor in private club success is that

“club managers must be committed to help the club attain its goals.” Another success

factor cited was that “low turnover of club managers is desired.” (Singerling, Woods,

Ninemeier, and Perdue, 1997) The importance of management commitment and their

turnover rate substantiated in this study supports the need for further study of

performance evaluation processes. The actual process used in performance evaluations

may impact the assessment of the manager and ultimately his or her turnover.

An article by John G. Fornaro, General Managers: They’re Staying Longer, Here’s Why,

is very relevant to the topic of performance evaluation and discusses the reasons for

increased longevity in general managers. The article discusses research that was done

for all types of clubs and cites reasons why there is more longevity in club manager’s

retention than there was previously. There are different opinions expressed, but all lead

to the fact that there is more longevity, and performance evaluation is discussed as part of

this success.

Two researchers have suggested that the traditional approaches to motivation do not

necessarily apply to the service industry in this country. There are marked differences

between managers and their staff, and these differences appear to be influenced by

demographics and level in the organization. (Meudell and Rodham, 1998) These

9

researchers and others echoed a point made previously by Lee and Lawrence (1985), who

argued that incentive pay schemes produce only temporary compliance and are

ineffective at producing long-term attitudinal and behavioral changes. (Meudell and

Rodham, 1998; Kohn 1993a; 1993b; 1993c) Rewards merely motivate individuals to

seek more rewards. This can undermine intrinsic interest in the job which is then

perceived as being merely a means to an end: an expensive and short-term motivator.

Both employers and academics in the service industries have tended to concur with this

idea. People enter the industry because they like dealing with people not to attain high

salaries.

The CMAA document noted earlier, Performance Evaluation Documents for General

Manager/Chief Operating Officer, Department Manager, Non-management Staff,

thoroughly discusses the logistics of performance evaluations. The basis of this document

is a 360-degree performance evaluation, which means the evaluation is done by the

manager’s superiors, peers, subordinates, and himself or herself. The document provides

examples of an evaluation form that can be completed by a board member, a club

member, a member of management, a member of the staff, and a self-evaluation. An

“evaluation summary” is provided to tie it all together.

The survey instrument is both objective and subjective with opportunity for ranking on a

five-point Likert-type scale where 1= “exceeds expectation” and 5 = “needs

improvement.” There is also a weighting opportunity for each question and an

opportunity to comment in each area. The evaluation is broken into areas specific to the

10

performance of a general manager/chief operating officer (GM/COO). The broad areas

of performance are “operating performance/goal accomplishment”, “skills/knowledge”

and “personal traits/behavior”. There are also sub-categories that relate to the broader

area of performance used for rating. Each of the constituencies returns the evaluation,

and the “evaluation summary” pulls all ratings and comments into one document. The

document also includes a section to review goals for prior period, and set goals for the

next period for both club performance and personal development. There are standards

throughout, so when each person rates the GM/COO it is being done according to the

same guidelines. The performance evaluation is prefaced with a very detailed explanation

of the purpose and the procedures. True to the document’s title, this is laid out and

specific for not only the general manager/chief operating officer, but for the department

manager and non-management staff. All in all, this document is very comprehensive.

Another comprehensive performance review system, which involves both the board and

the manager in the evaluation process, cites benefits of the GM/COO performance

evaluation process:

The “performance review is not a once-a-year, but rather an ongoing

process…performance goals and objectives are specific, achievable, and

measurable…performance reviews become perceived by the board and club

manager as a valid method of improving performance—not just a forms and

numbers process”. (Club Manager Review Instructional Manual, 2001, p. 3)

11

This is an objective approach to the evaluation process because “the accent is on

performance, especially against established and agreed-upon goals—not just personality.”

The concept of mid-term reviews is discussed by G. Scott McNett, (2001), Vice President

of John Sibbald Associates, Inc. He describes the way in which a performance appraisal

should be conducted, and its frequency. McNett provides insight related to a lot of the

“do’s and don’ts” associated with performance evaluation.

The private club industry continually strives to provide high quality to its membership.

The managerial philosophy of total quality is examined by Binney and Charlton (1994).

One factor in any workplace is change. These researchers noted:

That “for any process of change to be effective in the long run requires a shared

understanding of the need for change and shared sense of ownership of the way

the change is taking place…If people change because they have been told to by

management, they will slip back into old ways or become resentful. If people

change because they want to change, they will commit to the change and put

energy into making sure that it works.”

The concept of change is important to the performance review process in that both the

board and manager need a clear understanding of the goals for the club. Since the

implementation of operational change(s) is likely in the attainment of the club’s goals, a

GM/COO must fully understand the dynamics of change. The operation of the club is the

ultimate responsibility of the GM/COO, therefore his or her ability to manage change

12

would appropriately be evaluated in the performance review process. Likewise managers

must believe they are part of these changes to commit to their achievement. As shown by

Binney and Charlton, managers need to be part of the process to commit to the changes.

The survey developed for use in this monograph asks questions which seek to determine

the degree of buy-in a manager has to the club’s goals.

Two articles reviewed discuss performance evaluations in general. They address the

basic managerial issues surrounding performance evaluations. Such topics as the reasons

one does performance evaluations, the common uses of the evaluation process, the

standard elements of the evaluation process, and ethical practices were discussed. One of

the primary ethical issues addressed was the practice of conducting a performance

evaluation only because she or he has to, and therefore it becomes only an exercise in

pushing paper. (Axline, 1996; Queen, 1995)

Mani (2002) examined the performance evaluation process through a case study

approach. Mani reviews how critical an effective performance management system is to

an organization, and the costs associated with having one.

“The cost of failing to develop adequate performance appraisal systems, though

difficult to measure, would surely exceed the benefits of developing and

implementing an effective system. Organizations lacking performance appraisal

systems risk costly litigation when they are unable to support decisions to

terminate or lay off employees.”

13

Ricciardi (1996) examines the challenges associated with measurement in performance

reviews. He also discusses the practice of providing incentives, and the concept of

participation with reviewing data in the measurement of performance. Although there can

be effective incentives, both financial and in recognition, it is imperative that (a)

employees are measured on whether they achieve the standards and (b) if for whatever

reason the standards are not being met, something is done to correct the problem

immediately, so business will not “walk out the door”. These results were paralleled by

McMillan (1993) as he examined this topic. Although these articles are not directed to

private clubs, it provides valuable information for the industry and could be utilized for

benchmarking. Managerial behavior surrounding the performance review process of

others is a crucial factor that could impact the general manager’s overall effectiveness.

Two researchers chose to measure and evaluate any differences in perceptions of

performance appraisal systems based on gender. (Hind and Baruch, 1997) Simple

comparisons showed that women were found (on average) at lower positions in

organizations and had lower salaries than men. The perceptions of women, with regard

to the opportunities open to them for highest organizational position one could reach in a

career, were also lower than those of men. No differences were found in the levels of

education attained within the sample. Consequently, the level of education was not a

factor in the results. Statistical analyses were conducted to control for hierarchy level to

see if salary differences were due to hierarchy level variance, but no change in the results

occurred. Consequently level of hierarchy was not a factor in the results. Similar results

were found by Adams (1999) in a study examine pay equity issues for men and women.

14

It is well known in America that the demographics of society are shifting. Many

members of the baby boomer generation are moving into retirement, and many of them

had fewer children then their parents. For employers, these lower birth rates mean that

the supply of young work force entrants today is shrinking. (Calling Up the Employee

Reserves, 1999) Employers are beginning to review how they pay their people. In the

past businesses often tied pay to age and tenure; however fewer individuals are seeking

lifetime employment with one organization. It would stand to reason that the

performance evaluation review process will become even more crucial in the future as

employers try to manage costs but also to attract and retain key employees.

Emde (1997) examined the concepts of compensation and goal-setting. He states

“Compensation and benefits have less relationship to outstanding performance than we

might want to believe.” Emde reveals that when individuals are responsible for their own

results and those whose results are measured, performance will increase favorably. He

suggests managers should focus on praising and recognizing people’s positive

contributions in areas that impact the organization and not discuss or dwell on the areas

where the employee falls shy of expectations if the task is not really relevant to the job

being done.

Several researchers examined the idea paying for performance and comparable pay for

men and women. Many of these related to the CEO of the company and their obstacles in

15

trying to achieve balance in a compensation package that is fair to all parties. (Leonard,

1994; Brown and Meade, 1997; Jesuthasan, Todd and Barrett, 2000)

Many professionals who work closely with and provide services to the club manager

were contacted for their opinions on longevity in club managers. Two different executive

recruiters and the CEO of the Club Managers Association of America were contacted.

Both of these executive recruiters specialize in club manager placement. Each individual

contacted stated they thought club managers were staying longer in their positions.

Richard M. Kopplin of Kopplin Search Inc. stated that his company has found that

private club boards are taking the hiring process more seriously. In addition, more boards

are seeking the use of executive recruiters. Professional recruiters assist in finding a

‘better fit’ that is so important in developing tenure. (personal communication)

John Sibbald of John Sibbald Associates, Inc. agreed with Kopplin that more clubs are

using recruiters to assist in filling a general manager position vacancy. Sibbald explained

that the executive recruiting firms need to be very selective to ensure a great fit since

some recruiters guarantee each placement. Recruiters work hard to get the proper fit to

begin with which, in turn, helps with longevity; a win-win situation.

John Sibbald made the statement about the average tenure of a club manager being 2.5

years. He explained that a random sampling of 20% of his files (1000 out of 5000) was

conducted. The results were based on a job history review of each of the candidates,

16

using his or her last 10-year employment history and averaging the numbers. This study

was conducted approximately six years ago.

The lack of research in this specific area indicates there is a high likelihood that this study

may contribute significantly to the body of knowledge in the area of performance review

processes. In addition, this study will make a difference to club managers and guide

them in this specific field.

17

Design And Methodology

Overview of the Study Design In the quest to learn more about the performance evaluation process for general

managers, the researcher developed a study to collect and report a wide spectrum of

quantitative data that included:

demographics of the respondents

logistics of the respondents’ current performance evaluations

the relationship of performance to longevity of club managers

the impact that performance evaluations have on the club moving forward and

meeting its goals

the relationship of performance evaluations to compensation.

The primary research tool—a survey of randomly selected managers—is associational in

type; it measures a relationship.

The survey asked club managers to respond to specific questions about themselves and

the performance evaluation process used at their clubs. Data was self-reported, but care

was taken in the design of the survey to clearly define the information being sought. The

managers were also asked demographic information about the type of club, number of

general managers the club has had during the past 20 years, and about themselves. The

findings of this study are based on 167 usable surveys.

18

Sample and Sampling Plan

The source of the sample population was the membership database of the CMAA, the

international professional association of private club managers. The CMAA has a

membership of approximately 6,000.

To better reach those members of CMAA who are active club managers, most likely to be

interested in and/or use a performance evaluation process, surveys were not sent to

“retired,” “faculty,” and “students” members. A randomized sample of 742 club

managers (CMAA members) was identified as potential respondents.

Mailing labels were produced from the membership database that CMAA provided. A

cover letter explaining the study (Appendix E) and the survey instrument (Appendix F)

were mailed to the selected members.

To determine the number of responses needed when conducting survey-based research,

one must receive enough usable responses to produce reliable results, and sample size is

critical. The reliability of results increases with increased sample size because sampling

error decreases as the sample size increases. Two authors have suggested that

“confidence intervals narrow sharply when very small sample sizes … are increased, up

to about 100 respondents” (Alreck & Settle, 1995). They chart a 95 percent confidence

interval by sample size that shows very little gain in confidence after the sample reaches

100 responses. They further state that “contrary to popular belief, the maximum practical

19

size of a sample has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the population if it’s many

times greater than the sample” (p. 62). A varying opinion by another author suggests

that to have a 95% confidence level, on a total population of 6,000 people, you would

need to have 236 usable responses to the survey (Dillman, 2000).

Instrumentation

Prior to developing survey questions the researcher asked a group of managers to serve as

an MCM Management Advisory Group. These were individuals with whom the

researcher had a professional association and a high degree of respect for their

management competence. Appendix C notes some information requested from this group

of highly professional club mangers, and their assistance was very helpful.

The MCM Management Advisory Group offered examples of performance review

documents used in the club industry and provided their concerns about inconsistencies in

the performance review processes. They voiced questions related to longevity of the club

managers in their club, the effect of the performance review process and about

compensation.

The survey was designed to reflect the questions and concerns that many club managers

share. In addition, to gain different perspectives, the subject was further explored with

executive recruiters and other CMAA members.

20

At the final stage, a survey design expert reviewed the survey instrument for validity and

reliability. The survey format was fine-tuned to facilitate ease of answering for the

recipient. In addition, survey questions were more clearly defined.

Validity of the Survey Instrument

The instrument was revised per the recommendations received from each group of

experts: academics, club industry members, and statistical experts. Fraenkel and Wallen

(1996) state that the most common way of obtaining content-related evidence of validity

is through the opinions of competent individuals who are “expected to render an

intelligent judgment about the adequacy of the instrument” (p. 156). They further state:

“[t]he other aspect to content validation has to do with the format of the instrument. This

includes such things as the clarity of printing, size of type, adequacy of workspace (if

needed), appropriateness of language, clarity of directions, and so on.” (p. 155)

In the research study for this monograph, several steps were performed to ensure the

content and construct validity of the survey instrument:

The instrument was created using input from 19 club managers who shared

documentation on performance review processes and affirmed the need for club-

specific research in this area.

A statistical analysis and survey design expert reviewed the instrument.

Closed-response questions were used throughout most of the survey to measure

the constructs. Shuman and Presser (1995) state this questioning format best

21

assures construct-related evidence of validity.

There are no complicated patterns used in the design that could interfere with data

entry.

There are no controversial items asked on the survey that could potentially lead to

answers of social acceptance versus honest answers.

The instrument was constructed at an appropriate reading level. According to the

Flesch-Kincaid model (Microsoft Office 2000), the reading level was grade 12.0.

This seems appropriate given the education level of the respondents.

CMAA assured access to a representative sample of respondents.

The Final Survey Instrument

The final (actual) survey instrument was divided into five parts (Appendix F). Each part

represents an area of concern related to the performance review process. The researcher

identified these areas through personal communication with club managers and an

extensive review of current literature. These five areas are:

Logistics

Longevity

Impact

Compensation

Demographics

22

The survey uses “yes-no” and multiple-choice questions and a five-point Likert-type

scale (where 1 = “strongly agree”; 4 = “strongly disagree”; and 5 = “not applicable.”)

The closed-question format increases the construct validity and assists in data analysis.

Research has shown that 95 percent of all returns will occur within three to four weeks

(Alreck & Settle, 1995). Therefore, it was decided that respondents should be asked to

return the survey within two weeks with some still being returned during the third week.

A reminder post card (Appendix G) was sent out seven days later to boost the response

rate. Knowing that club managers are busy professionals, it was expected that some had

set it aside or possibly had not received the survey at all.

A subsequent electronic mail (Appendix H) was sent out an additional seven days later

(14 days after the initial mailing) to all the managers on the mailing list for which an

accurate e-mail address could be acquired. It requested a prompt return of the survey.

The survey instrument was mailed to all managers identified in the sampling process.

There were 742 potential respondents. The response rate was 25 percent; out of 742, 185

surveys were returned. Not all of the responses could be used for analysis, resulting in a

net response of 22.5 percent because eighteen of the responses came in too late to be

included in the analysis.

Data was input to a program called Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

23

As the surveys were returned, each envelope was marked with a number indicating the

day that it was returned along with a number to indicate which survey of the day it was.

(Example 1-3 means that this was the third survey returned on the first day; 4-30 means

that this is the 30th survey returned on the fourth day). The envelopes were kept in case

there was question as to the validity of the surveys.

Limitations of the Study

The goal of a good survey is for it to be clear and succinct with the end result of receiving

as many valid responses as possible within a limited period of time. Considerable effort

was made to ensure that this goal was met, but there were some unexpected problems that

arose following distribution of the survey. There were two main limitations with the

survey instrument.

Although the survey was designed for general managers, some people in other

subordinate positions completed the survey and this data was utilized. The usable

responses included: general managers, 82%; managers, 7%; clubhouse managers, 6%;

assistant managers, 3%; and others, 2%. A few of these individuals returned the survey

untouched, not completed, identifying themselves as non-general managers. These

returned surveys were not included in the responses.

24

The second limitation relates to the actual survey. Two specific questions may have

unclear or otherwise created challenges for the respondents. The wording of one question

was difficult-to-understand, and a statement in the directions for a different question was

incorrect and consequently difficult for some to understand. The first question (Number 1

in Part 1: Logistics) includes a double negative, so some people may have had difficulty

understanding the question. Technically, the question is correct, but it may have been

difficult for some people to follow. The goal was to get the most accurate response, not

to make people think too hard about whether the correct answer should be ‘yes’ or ‘no’,

based on their circumstances. The second question is also in Part 1: (Number Five) which

read “If you selected (a) in question 3”. It should have read “If you selected (a) in

question 4”. Some people understood the error and answered it as it was meant.

However, the percentage of ‘no response’ on this question was very high (only 44%

responded to the question.) This high percentage suggests that some managers were

unclear as to how to respond and chose to leave it blank.

25

Analysis of Findings

Introduction

To best understand the conclusions, an explanation of the statistical findings is necessary.

This section is organized in five primary segments:

Demographics

Logistics

Longevity

Impact

Compensation

Collapsed categories were used in some statistical analyses for cross-tabulation purposes

to make the results more meaningful. All percentages stated in this section were rounded.

The survey instrument response frequency tables (Appendix I) contains data referred to

throughout the findings. The frequency tables were generated in the same order as that of

the survey questions, Appendix F. Note that analysis was drawn from valid percentages

after all ‘no answers’ and ‘not applicables’ were removed from the calculations.

Demographics Exhibit 1 summarizes the demographics of survey respondents whose input was used for

the analysis.

26

Exhibit 1 About the Respondents Job Title: Age:

General Manager 82% 22-42 years 29% Manager 7% 43-57 years 53% Clubhouse Manager 6% 58-78 years 17%

Assistant Manager 4% Have a written job description:

Other 2% Yes 76%

Gender: No 24%

Male 88% Time of Employment at Present Club:

Female 12% < 2 years 20%

Married Status: 2-4 years 28%

Married 82% 4-10 years 25% Unmarried 18% > 10 years 28%

Location: Number of Years in Club Industry:

Central 20% < 6 years 5% Mountain 6% 6-8 years 6% North 20% 8-10 years 8% South 36% > 10 years 81%

West 16% Club Type:

Other 1% Athletic Clubs 2%

Hours Worked: City Clubs 5%

< 40 hours 1% Country Club 65% 40-49 14% Golf Clubs 15% 50-59 57% Yacht Clubs 6% 60-69 22% Other 7%

>70 hours 6% Number of Members:

Education: <400 21%

High School 3% 400-549 24% Some College Education 31% 550-699 20% Certificates 9% 700-849 9% Bachelor's Degree 39% 850-999 7% Some Graduate Work 5% 1000-1149 4% Master's Degree 6% >1150 15% Other 1%

CMAA Certification:

CCM 46% MCM 1% Not Certified 54% *Rounding Used

27

Annual Gross Base Salary

Salary is a personal issue that many individuals do not like to discuss. The survey

included nine categories from which the manager could indicate his or her annual gross

base salary. The responses were collapsed into four categories as seen in Exhibit 2. The

largest segment, 32% of

the respondents, reported

earning an annual gross

base salary in the

$100,000 to $139,999

range.

Annual Bonus Compensation

The results of the manager's bonus compensation were very closely matched between

segments. The results are shown in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 2Annual Gross Base Salary

24 26

32

17

05

101520253035

$79,999 orless

$80,000 to$99,999

$100,000 to$139,000

$140,000and over

Annual gross base salary--collapsed categories

Per

cen

t

28

Exhibit 3 Annual Bonus Pay Average

34.4 35.1

17.613

05

10152025303540

Less than 10 %of base salary

10 to 14% 15 to 19% 20% or more

Annual bonus pay average

Per

cen

t

Does the Manager Plan to Stay?

Exhibit 4 shows the managers’ plans for their future with 40% planning to stay with their

clubs another six years or more.

Exhibit 4

Length of Time Manager Plans to Stay at Current Club

How much longer do you plan to stay at your present club?

3.0%

39.5%

27.5%

29.9%

Missing

6 yrs or more

between 3 & 6 yrs

less than 3 years

29

Number of General Managers Club has Employed in Past 20 Years

There was a considerable range of responses about the number of general managers

employed in respondents’ clubs over the past 20 years (the respondents were instructed to

include themselves in the calculation.) Exhibit 5 provides the breakdown of responses to

this question. The

most common

response (24%) was

from those whose club

had employed three

general managers

(including themselves)

in the past 20 years.

Logistics

Who Gives the Evaluation and How Often

Most clubs (83%) use a different evaluation system for their employees than they do with

the general manager.

Exhibit 5 Number of General Managers in Past 20 Years

1116

23

1914 13

0

5

10

15

20

25

1(including

self)

2(including

self)

3(including

self)

4(including

self)

5(including

self)

More than5

How many general managers has your club employed in the past 20 years?

Per

cen

t

30

The club president is the primary performance evaluator of the general manager (41% of

clubs.) Performance evaluations are most often delivered one-on-one to the managers

(55%) although 23% of the respondents are evaluated by the executive committee of the

board. Regardless of who delivers the review, 80% of the respondents said that the

executive committee of the board reviews the general manager's performance evaluation

in a formal session.

Ad hoc discussions between the evaluator and the manager’s performance are used in

30% of the clubs. (Note: While the survey does not allow the assumption that the other

70% have a formal process, one hopes this is the case. This is supported by the fact that

64% of the respondents either strongly agree or agree to the statement that their clubs

adhere to formalities during the review process.) The work of the general manager is too

Exhibit 6 Other Employees Have the Same Evaluation System

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Yes 21 12.6 16.8 16.8 No 104 62.3 83.2 100.0 Total 125 74.9 100.0 Missing No answer 42 25.1 Total 167 100.0

31

important to evaluate in an ad hoc discussion. Preparation by the reviewer and the general

manager allow important topics to be discussed with thought and insight.

Exhibit 7 Performance Evaluation Process is Informal with Reviewer Dropping By for Ad Hoc Discussion of Performance


Percent Cumulative


Most managers (94%) either strongly agree or agree that their performance evaluator is

credible. Almost all (95%) had a yearly performance evaluation. Within this group,

63% of the respondents said that their weighted written job description is tied to their

performance evaluation.

Types of Evaluations

As seen in Exhibit 8 the most common type of performance evaluation reported by those

providing information is the top-down performance evaluation. Several specific types of

performance evaluations were listed as possible answers to this question, and an "other"

32

option. Some respondents that chose the ”other” option shared the type of evaluation

used and others did not. The definitions for each are:

360-degree performance evaluation is an evaluation by board, direct reports, staff,

self and, perhaps, members.

Top-down performance evaluation is when the president or equivalent does the

rating.

Peer-to-peer performance evaluation is when the direct reports do the evaluation.

Subordinate performance evaluation is when the direct reports and, perhaps, lower-

level reports do the evaluation.

Self-assessment performance evaluation is when the general manager assesses

him/herself and shares with the board.

Exhibit 8 Type of Performance Evaluation


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid 360-degree 10 6.0 8.0 8.0 Top-down 95 56.9 76.0 84.0 Peer-to-peer 2 1.2 1.6 85.6 Subordinate 1 .6 .8 86.4 Self-assessment 3 1.8 2.4 88.8 Other 14 8.4 11.2 100.0 Total 125 74.9 100.0 Missing No answer 42 25.1

Total 167 100.0

33

The majority (64%) of the respondents report that their evaluations comprise a

combination of closed and open-ended questions (“open-ended” means “narrative-based

with no grading system”, “closed-ended” means “having no opportunity for narrative,

and usually involving a grading system” (as is provided in the survey instrument,

Appendix F).

Managerial Input in Evaluation

While 41% of the respondents have input into their performance evaluations throughout

the process, only 38% are allowed to provide feedback at the end of the reviews. For

some, (6%) there is no opportunity at all for input in the process (see Exhibit 9).

Exhibit 9 Self-Input in Performance Evaluation


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid At the beginning of the

process 20 12.0 16.0 16.0

At the beginning and during the process

51 30.5 40.8 56.8

Only to deliver feedback after the review

47 28.1 37.6 94.4

At no point in the process 7 4.2 5.6 100.0 Total 125 74.9 100.0 Missing No answer 42 25.1

Total 167 100.0

34

Professional Goals

Several questions addressed professional goals and 81% of the respondents say that they

have a goal-setting section within their performance evaluations (see Exhibit 10).

As seen in Exhibit 10, 43% of managers set their goals alone while 45% have their goals

set by other individuals or bodies such as the board or committees in consultation with

the managers. It is interesting that 8% of the general managers have their goals set by

another individual or body such as the board or committees without any of their own

input.

Exhibit 10 Person Who Sets Professional Goals for Manager


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Manager alone 52 31.1 42.6 42.6 Another individual/body 10 6.0 8.2 50.8 An individual/body with

manager’s involvement 55 32.9 45.1 95.9

Other 5 3.0 4.1 100.0 Total 122 73.1 100.0 Missing No answer 45 26.9

Total 167 100.0

35

Extent of Change and Satisfaction with Review Process

Approximately, 40% of respondents say that their performance evaluation systems have

not changed in the past five years; while 28% indicate that their performance evaluation

systems have changed in the past year.

94% of respondents said they either “strongly agree” or “agree” with the statement “at

the completion of my performance evaluation I have the ability to give feedback”, and

91% of the managers responded that they either “strongly agree” or “agree” that they

consider the performance evaluation system being used to be fair (see Exhibit 12 and 13

respectively).

Exhibit 11 Frequency/Recency Performance Evaluation System Has Changed


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Changed in the past year 33 19.8 27.7 27.7 Changed in the past 2

years 18 10.8 15.1 42.9

Changed in the past 3 years

9 5.4 7.6 50.4


7 4.2 5.9 56.3


5 3.0 4.2 60.5

Not changed in over past 5 years

47 28.1 39.5 100.0

Total 119 71.3 100.0 Missing No answer 48 28.7 Total 167 100.0

36

Furthermore, 84% of the respondents either “strongly agree” or “agree” with the

statement that, “I am satisfied with the performance evaluation system used.”

There appears to be a relatively high level of satisfaction with performance evaluations;

only 27% of the managers who “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they would prefer a

different style of performance evaluation to that which is being used currently.

Exhibit 12 Manager Able to Give Feedback After Completion of Performance Evaluation


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 73 43.7 60.8 60.8 Agree 40 24.0 33.3 94.2 Disagree 5 3.0 4.2 98.3 Strongly disagree 2 1.2 1.7 100.0 Total 120 71.9 100.0 Missing No answer 46 27.5 Not applicable 1 .6 Total 47 28.1 Total 167 100.0

Exhibit 13 Manager Perceives His or Her Performance Evaluation System as Fair


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 42 25.1 35.3 35.3 Agree 66 39.5 55.5 90.8 Disagree 11 6.6 9.2 100.0 Total 119 71.3 100.0 Missing No answer 47 28.1 Not applicable 1 .6 Total 48 28.7 Total 167 100.0

37

Approximately 40% of respondents either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their

performance evaluations were based upon subjective factors. This compares with 64%

who “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their performance evaluations were based upon

objective factors, and 85% who “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that their evaluations were

based on both types of factors (see Exhibits 14-16).

Exhibit 14 Performance Evaluation is Based Upon Subjective Criteria


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 9 5.4 8.1 8.1 Agree 36 21.6 32.4 40.5 Disagree 43 25.7 38.7 79.3 Strongly disagree 23 13.8 20.7 100.0 Total 111 66.5 100.0 Missing No answer 48 28.7 Not applicable 8 4.8 Total 56 33.5 Total 167 100.0

38

Note that the definition for “objective” is ‘having actual existence such as counts and

times’ and “subjective” is ‘feelings not backed up by data’.

Exhibit 15 Performance Evaluation is Based Upon Objective Criteria


Percent Cumulative


Exhibit 16 Evaluation is a Combination of Subjective and Objective Criteria


Percent Cumulative


39

Longevity

Longevity, or lack of, known as turnover, is an interesting variable when exploring

performance evaluations; 50% of the respondents agree that an excellent performance

evaluation motivates them to stay at their club; 51% also agreed that the lack of an

adequate performance evaluation process leads to non-voluntary general manager

turnover (see Exhibit 17).

Likewise, 41% of the respondents said that the lack of an adequate performance

evaluation process leads to voluntary general manager turnover.

Exhibit 17 Lack of Adequate Process Leads to Turnover Because Board Releases Manager


Percent Cumulative


40

It appears, then, that an inadequate performance evaluation process leads to frequent

general manager resignation or termination. Conversely, it appears that general managers

are more likely to stay if they have performance evaluations.

Of those respondents who had a process in place, 56% would not start looking for another

position if they received a poor performance evaluation. Further, 67% would not leave

their current position if they received a poor performance evaluation. The distinction is

slight, in that the action of looking for another position is the first step towards actually

leaving the current position. Stating that you would leave or not leave a current position

based on the results of a performance evaluation is independent of having another

position to go to. Also, 90% said they would experience no loss of loyalty to their club if

they received a poor performance evaluation.

Exhibit 18 Lack of Adequate Process Leads to Turnover Because Manager Quits


Percent Cumulative


41

Managerial Responses to Past Evaluations

Respondents were asked about their responses to past evaluations. 43% said that, at some

point in their career, they had received good performance evaluations and still voluntarily

left their positions within six months. This suggests that people do not necessarily stay in

their positions just because of positive performance evaluations. Further, 12% said that,

at some point in their career, they encountered poor performance evaluations that led to

their resignations within six months, and 16% said they had been terminated within six

months of receiving good performance evaluations (see Exhibits 20-23 respectively).

Exhibit 19 Managers Whose Loyalty to Club Would Be Lost if They Received a Poor Evaluation


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 1 .6 .7 .7 Agree 14 8.4 9.7 10.4 Disagree 89 53.3 61.8 72.2 Strongly disagree 40 24.0 27.8 100.0 Total 144 86.2 100.0 Missing No answer 13 7.8 Not applicable 10 6.0 Total 23 13.8 Total 167 100.0

42

Exhibit 20 Managers Who Have Voluntarily Left a Position Within Six Months of a Good Evaluation


Percent Cumulative


Exhibit 21 Managers Who Have Resigned Within Six Months Because of a Poor Evaluation


Percent Cumulative


Exhibit 22 Managers Who Have Been Terminated Within Six Months of a Poor Evaluation


Percent Cumulative


Exhibit 23 Managers Who Have Been Terminated Within Six Months of a Good Evaluation


Percent Cumulative


43

A relatively large percentage (68%) of the respondents agree that poor performance

evaluations motivate them to improve in the areas where they rated negatively.

Exhibit 24 shows the interest of the managers and their ability to accept challenges to

improve and to align their outputs with their superiors’ wishes/needs; 86% of the

respondents either “strongly agree” or “agree” that they would be motivated to improve

in the areas where they rated negatively in performance evaluations.

A cross tab of is there a performance evaluation by how much longer do you plan to stay

at your club was performed using collapsed categories for length of time (see Exhibit 25).

It appears that among those who plan to stay six years or more, 85% have a performance

evaluation at their club.

Exhibit 24 Motivation and Poor Performance Evaluation


Percent Cumulative


44

Exhibit 25 Performance Evaluation: Length of Time Planning to Stay at Club Cross Tab

Is there an evaluation? * How much longer do you plan to stay at your present club? Crosstabulation

14 9 9 32

30.4% 22.5% 14.8% 21.8%

9.5% 6.1% 6.1% 21.8%

32 31 52 115

69.6% 77.5% 85.2% 78.2%

21.8% 21.1% 35.4% 78.2%

46 40 61 147

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

31.3% 27.2% 41.5% 100.0%

Count

% within How muchlonger do you plan to stayat your present club?

% of Total

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

There is no evaluation

There is an evaluation

Is there an evaluation?

Total

less than3 years

between 3years andless than

6 yrs 6 yrs or more

How much longer do you plan to stay atyour present club?

Total

It is possible that managers stayed at their clubs longer if they thought that the person or

body that administered their performance evaluation was credible. If this was the case,

there would be a level of respect for that authority which would positively affect

longevity. Exhibit 26 explores and confirms this suspicion. Of those who have been at

their clubs less than two years, 36% strongly agreed with the credibility statement

compared to those who have been at their clubs between 4 and 10 years (50%) and 10

years or more (49%).

45

Exhibit 26 Performance Evaluator: Length of Time at Present Club Cross Tab

My performance evaluator is credible. * How long have you been at your present club? Crosstabulation

9 13 12 17 51

36.0% 39.4% 50.0% 48.6% 43.6%

7.7% 11.1% 10.3% 14.5% 43.6%

14 18 10 17 59

56.0% 54.5% 41.7% 48.6% 50.4%

12.0% 15.4% 8.5% 14.5% 50.4%

2 2 1 1 6

8.0% 6.1% 4.2% 2.9% 5.1%

1.7% 1.7% .9% .9% 5.1%

0 0 1 0 1

.0% .0% 4.2% .0% .9%

.0% .0% .9% .0% .9%

25 33 24 35 117

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

21.4% 28.2% 20.5% 29.9% 100.0%

Count

% within How longhave you been atyour present club?

% of Total

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

My performanceevaluator iscredible.

Total

less than2 years

between 2and 4 years

between 4and 10 years

10 yearsor more

How long have you been at your present club?

Total

Exhibit 27 indicates that there is a slight relationship between having a performance

evaluation and the length of time managers plan to stay at their clubs; 28.4% plan to stay

10 years or more compared to only 18.8% who do not have an evaluation. According to

this exhibit, for those planning to stay longer, it makes a difference whether there is a

performance evaluation.

46

Exhibit 27 Length of Time Planning to Stay at Present Club: There is No Performance Evaluation

How long have you been at your present club? * Is there an evaluation? Crosstabulation

5 27 32

15.6% 23.3% 21.6%

3.4% 18.2% 21.6%

10 34 44

31.3% 29.3% 29.7%

6.8% 23.0% 29.7%

11 22 33

34.4% 19.0% 22.3%

7.4% 14.9% 22.3%

6 33 39

18.8% 28.4% 26.4%

4.1% 22.3% 26.4%

32 116 148

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

21.6% 78.4% 100.0%

Count

% within Is therean evaluation?

% of Total

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

less than 2 years

between 2 and 4 years


10 years or more

How long haveyou been atyour presentclub?

Total

There is noevaluation

There is anevaluation

Is there an evaluation?

Total

Does input into performance evaluation impact how much longer respondents plan to stay

at the present club? Exhibit 28 indicates that respondents who have no input into their

evaluation at any point plan to stay at their club less time than those who do. Of those

who have an evaluation, 46% have input only to deliver feedback after the review

compared to only 6% of the same group who have no input at any point in the process.

This may show that general managers want to have input into the process and will not

plan to stay any length of time without this.

47

Exhibit 28 Manager Input Into Evaluation: Length of Time Planning to Stay at Current Club Cross Tab

I have input into my performance evaluation. * How much longer do you plan to stay at your present club? Crosstabulation

8 4 8 20

25.0% 11.1% 14.5% 16.3%

6.5% 3.3% 6.5% 16.3%

11 19 19 49

34.4% 52.8% 34.5% 39.8%

8.9% 15.4% 15.4% 39.8%

10 12 25 47

31.3% 33.3% 45.5% 38.2%

8.1% 9.8% 20.3% 38.2%

3 1 3 7

9.4% 2.8% 5.5% 5.7%

2.4% .8% 2.4% 5.7%

32 36 55 123

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

26.0% 29.3% 44.7% 100.0%

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

at the beginning of theprocess

at the beginning andduring the process

only to deliver feedbackafter the review

at no point in the process

I have inputinto myperformanceevaluation.

Total

less than3 years

between 3years andless than

6 yrs 6 yrs or more

How much longer do you plan to stay atyour present club?

Total

The researcher compared the number of club general managers in the past 20 years with

the extent to which an informal evaluation process is used. For those respondents who

have an ad hoc performance discussion, 22% report that they have been their current

club’s only manager in the past 20 years. However, the same percentage was noted in

clubs with five managers so it is not possible to note the impact, if any, on informal

evaluation and the number of club managers.

48

It is also worth noting that in Exhibit 29, a cross tabulation of “how long have you been

at your present club” by “my performance evaluation process is informal with my

reviewer with an ad hoc discussion of my performance,” showed little difference among

those who have been with their club more than 10 years between those who do or do not

have an ad hoc process (32.4% compared to 28.9% respectively). But there is a much

greater difference between them amongst other categories of longevity.

Exhibit 29 How Long at Current Club: Performance Evaluation Process is Informal

How long have you been at your present club? * My performance evaluation process is informal with myreviewer with adhoc discussion of performance Crosstabulation: 1(14) by 5(7)

5 20 25

13.5% 24.1% 20.8%

4.2% 16.7% 20.8%

7 27 34

18.9% 32.5% 28.3%

5.8% 22.5% 28.3%

13 12 25

35.1% 14.5% 20.8%

10.8% 10.0% 20.8%

12 24 36

32.4% 28.9% 30.0%

10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

37 83 120

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

30.8% 69.2% 100.0%

Count

% within My performanceevaluation process isinformal with my reviewerwith adhoc discussion ofperformance

% of Total

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

Count


% of Total

less than 2 years



10 years or more

How long haveyou been atyour presentclub?

Total

yes no

My performanceevaluation process is

informal with myreviewer with adhoc

discussion ofperformance

Total

49

Impact

The formula Power = Stength1 also applies to club management.

Time

Managers moving their clubs forward and having positive impact upon them is the

“power.” To have the “power,” clubs need to have “strength”—strong, vibrant,

energetic, forward-moving, and forward-thinking managers with some “time” under their

belt for momentum and stability. “Time” also refers to the knowledge that general

managers have which is developed only with experience. Managers who can act quickly

and use their knowledge are much more powerful and effective than are those with

knowledge but who are undirected and unable to use it. A win-win performance

evaluation system can keep managers motivated and ensure focus on correct areas.

Incorporating goal setting into performance evaluation is a large part of targeting success

within the overall plan.

Most respondents (90%) “strongly agree” or “agree” that, in general, performance

evaluations assist in moving a general manager’s club career forward. Of the same group,

86% believe that performance evaluation at their club helps them move their personal

career forward; 79% “strongly agree” or “agree” that they have professional goals tied to

their performance evaluation. Amongst those who answered the question, 90% “strongly

agree” or “agree” that the goals that are tied to their performance evaluation are

reasonable; 92% of the managers responding feel that the goals are achievable. It seems

1 Hatfield, F.C. (1989). A Scientific Approach. Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill/Contemporary Books.

50

reasonable that, if managers think their goals are achievable, they also believe them to be

reasonable. The data supports this relationship.

Managers were asked about the importance of an evaluation. Most (92%) felt that a

performance evaluation is important to the overall operation of the club; however only

63% of the respondents believe that the primary goals and objectives of their clubs are

defined. (Only 83% of the respondents either “strongly agree” or “agree” that they know

the primary goals and objective of their clubs.)

Less than three-fourths (69%) of respondents either “strongly agree” or “agree” that their

performance evaluations acknowledge previously defined primary club goals and

objectives. About half (52%) of those who “strongly agree” that they know the primary

goals and objectives of their club also set their club goals alone. Furthermore, amongst

those who strongly disagree with the above statement, none set their own club goals.

The researcher also discovered that 50% of those who “strongly disagree” that they know

the club’s primary goals report having their own professional goals set by another

individual/body. Perhaps when general managers know their club’s primary goals and

objectives, they are able to set their own goals. In the instances where the general

manager doesn’t know the primary goals and objectives, there is a strong likelihood that

either another body is setting goals just because the manager is not, there is weak

51

communication as to the direction of the club, or there are no goals being set by anyone at

the club.

Only 57% of club managers indicate that their clubs have strategic plans, and 47% say

that they either “strongly agree” or “agree” that their performance evaluations are tied to

the success of the strategic plan (see Exhibit 30 and 31).

Exhibit 30 Club Has a Strategic Plan


Percent Cumulative


Exhibit 31 Evaluation is Tied to the Success of the Strategic Plan


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 14 8.4 10.9 10.9 Agree 47 28.1 36.4 47.3 Disagree 53 31.7 41.1 88.4 Strongly disagree 15 9.0 11.6 100.0 Missing Total 129 77.2 100.0 No answer 7 4.2 Not applicable 31 18.6 Total 38 22.8 Total 167 100.0

52

Most (72%) respondents either “strongly agree” or “agree” that their evaluations take into

account the economy and independent factors when assessing the extent to which

managers and the club meet their goals individually and collectively. There are times

and circumstances outside a general manager’s control such as the aftermath of

September 11, 2001, when many clubs could not meet annual budgets. While much of

this was beyond the managers’ control, the response to the situation would have been

within their control. Hopefully they were evaluated on the response not the outcome.

The majority of managers did not believe that performing well in the past created

unrealistic expectations; 74% “disagree” or “strongly disagree” that their previous

success led their performance evaluator to have unrealistically high expectations in their

future evaluations. (There may be, for example, times when a general manager has had

two or three consistently great years when first arriving at the club and he/she works to

improve the club’s performance by taking advantage of all revenue-generating and cost-

saving efficiencies.) The present research supports the possibility that many boards are

taking these factors into account when evaluating their managers and are not expecting

the general manager to sustain the same level of growth or cost reduction each year.

Most (88%) of the responding general managers either “strongly agree” or “agree” that

the use of goals in their performance evaluation is useful in moving their club forward.

(see Exhibit 32). This supports that evaluations based on goals yield a win-win situation.

53

The club is moving forward as the general manager is being evaluated and, hopefully,

being rewarded for achieving pre-determined goals.

Of the responding managers, 88% believe that their own acceptance of club goals is

directly related to the ability of the club to achieve the goals. It makes sense that

managers work hard at and move toward what they believe in and buy into. It seems

more likely that they would achieve something that they accept more than something they

don’t accept.

Use of a performance evaluation seems to impact the turnover of managers because the

process supports the professional growth of the manager. There is also the possibility that

managerial turnover results from an absence of evaluation. The research supports this. In

Exhibit 32 Use of Goals in Evaluation is Useful in Moving the Club Forward


Percent Cumulative


54

clubs that only had one club manager in the past 20 years, 11% of respondents said that

evaluations were not used. By comparison 26% of the respondents said that evaluations

were not used in clubs that had more than five managers in the past 20 years.

One possibility is that managers who work for a club using a goal-setting process as part

of the performance evaluation believe their club will move forward more quickly than its

counterpart that does not incorporate goal-setting. 88% of the respondents believe the

same! Does the use of goals in performance evaluation impact the number of managers

the club has had in the past 20 years? Increased longevity of productive managers should

also move the club forward because, if there is a performance evaluation system in place,

most non-productive managers will be removed from their positions. In fact, 44% of

those who strongly agree” that the use of goals in performance evaluations is useful in

moving the club forward, are working for clubs that have had only two managers in the

past 20 years including themselves.

The researcher also learned that many respondents, regardless of the number of years at

their present club, intend to stay at their present club. Amongst those who had managed

their club for 10 years or more, 48% believed they would remain for 6 years or more.

This intent to stay 6 years or more was the most frequent response provided. (It is

interesting to note that, even where managers had been at the club less than 2 years, 45%

were already planning to stay 6 or more years. This keen interest in maintaining

employment with their present club may show that once “persons have been bitten by the

55

club bug,” they really want to stay with clubs. As noted in the literature review, Meudell

and Rodham discovered that traditional approaches to motivation do not necessarily

apply to the club industry. They observe that both employers and academics in the

service industries tend to concur that people enter the industry because they like

interacting with people more than attaining high salaries.

56

Compensation

Several survey questions explored the relationship between compensation and its effect

on performance as seen in Exhibit 33. 69% of the managers either “agreed” or “strongly

agreed” that there is a relationship between overall performance and their salary.

68% “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” that salary increases are arbitrary and unrelated

to evaluation (see Exhibit 34).

Exhibit 33 Correlation Between Overall Performance and Salary


Percent Cumulative


57

46% of the respondents disagreed that they were evaluated on their goals (either set by

themselves or by someone else) and that their salary is directly correlated to the

achievement of these goals (see Exhibit 35).

Exhibit 34 Salary Increases are Arbitrary and Unrelated to Evaluation


Percent Cumulative


Exhibit 35 Manager is Evaluated on Goals and Salary is Directly Connected to Goal Achievement


Percent Cumulative


58

To examine this relationship further, the researcher analyzed the level of compensation as

it related to the availability of a performance evaluation. Data for respondents indicated

that 54% of those who do have a performance evaluation earn more than $100,000; this

compares to only 29% of those whose clubs do not have an evaluation. This suggests

that, in clubs where the general manager is paid more, there are more controls and ways

to measure performance and the forward club movement, which may result in a win-win

situation for the club and general manager.

The relationship between use of a performance evaluation and a bonus system was also

explored as seen in Exhibit 36. 78% of the respondents either “strongly agree” or “agree”

that there is a relationship between their overall performance evaluation and their bonus.

Exhibit 36 Correlation Between Overall Performance Evaluation and Bonus


Percent Cumulative


59

The researcher asked another survey question related to bonus. “Is the bonus system

completely arbitrary?” and 69% of respondents either “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed”

to this statement. There is a sense that the WIIFM (What’s In It For Me) acronym applies

– that this is a win-win situation for the club as well as for the general manager.

Do general managers receive salary increases and bonuses if club goals are not met?

Data indicates that 62% of the respondents do not think they will get their usual salary

increase if they do not meet their club goals this year. About the same percentage (66%)

do not think they will get their usual bonus if they do not meet their club goals this year.

Approximately 2/3 of the club managers who responded indicated that club goals must be

met to earn both base salary and bonus.

Is there a relationship between average annual bonus pay and annual gross base salary?

The present study found an interesting relationship. The bonus pay percentage of those

Exhibit 37 Arbitrary Bonus System


Percent Cumulative


60

making $140,000 and over is much higher than that of other pay brackets; 28% of

respondents in this salary range receive an average bonus of 20-24%. 32% receive a

bonus of 15-19%. By contrast, 60% of those making less than $80,000, receive an

annualized bonus of less than 10% of base salary. There is an almost direct relationship

between these two variables with the respondents studied; the higher the pay the higher

the bonus.

Approximately 86% of respondents do receive a bonus in their current position, but this

may have little bearing upon issues such as whether they stay. For example, 61% reported

that, at some point in their careers, they had good performance evaluations and left their

clubs for better compensation packages at other clubs. By contrast, only 5% reported that,

at some point in their careers, they had had poor performance evaluations and were

terminated and accepted lower compensation packages at other clubs. Only 4% reported

that, during their career, they voluntarily left their clubs after a poor performance

evaluation and accepted lower compensation packages at another club.

Another question related to compensation addresses the topic of micro-management by

the board to whom the manager reports. Regardless of high compensation packages, 76%

of responding general managers said that they would not tolerate micro-management.

61

Regardless of pay ranges, the majority of respondents in each category either “disagreed”

or “strongly disagreed” with the idea that they would tolerate micro-management. Even

though managers are paid at a certain level now, they do not believe that they would

tolerate more micro-management for more compensation. The researcher has heard

managers say that they are leaving (or left) their club because of micro-management. It is

unlikely that the micro-managing began just before they left their position, and they may

have been unwilling to admit this to themselves or others until they made their decision

to leave or had already left.

62

Summary and Conclusions

This section summarizes the study’s findings. It is organized by the major variables that

were examined: demographics, logistics, longevity, impact, and compensation. The

primary results associated with each of these factors are reviewed and discussion with

conclusions and implications is provided.

This study was designed to measure the performance evaluation process of general

managers in the private club industry. The personal experience of the researcher, a

thorough literature review, and extensive communication with managers, recruiters,

board members, and others confirmed this was an area of interest and need in the club

industry. Although performance evaluations have been extensively researched, few

studies have focused on the process of performance reviews. Additionally, this topic has

not been previously researched in the private club industry.

A randomized sample of 742 active club managers was obtained from the CMAA. Each

of these managers was sent a cover letter, survey, and reply envelope. The researcher

designed the survey instrument to capture the unique variables affecting the performance

evaluation process of general managers in the private club industry. Extreme care was

taken in the design of the survey to ensure high instrument validity and reliability.

63

Follow-up postcards were mai led to each manager in the sample. In addition, a follow-up

electronic mail message was sent to each of these managers. The end result generated a

gross response rate of 25%; 185 surveys were returned, of which 23% of those returned

were usable. Since general managers are very busy at their clubs, this response rate is a

positive indication of their interest in the success of the project. Many surveys included

comments of interest in the project.

Demographics

The majority of the respondents are general managers (82%), male (88%), married

(82%), work between 50-59 hours per week (57%), are 43-57 years of age (53%), have a

written job description (76%), and have been in the club industry more than 10 years

(81%). The majority of respondents manage country clubs (65%) that are member-owned

(85%) with between 400 to 699 members (65%).

Another demographic – general manager turnover - was provided; the number of

managers in the respondents’ clubs in the past 20 years (including themselves) was:

5 or more managers – 28% of clubs


3 or more managers - 24% of clubs

64


1 manager – 12% of clubs

In conclusion, the many demographic variables measured in the research study confirmed

the sample was a very close representation of the population. The responses indicate the

sample was well-balanced in terms of geographic location and their time in the industry,

income, gender, education level, type of club managed and type of club ownership.

Logistics

The existence and type of performance evaluations being used in the club industry were

important aspecta of the development of this research project. There was a higher

percentage of clubs that did have a performance evaluation process (79%) than did not.

The most common type of performance evaluation was the top-down performance

evaluation (76%). However, respondents using a 360-degree performance evaluation

reported the highest level of satisfaction with their type of evaluation. It is possible that

the old-school authoritarian style management and a top-down performance evaluation

would go hand-in-hand, and a more modern interactive management style would go

hand-in-hand with a 360-degree performance evaluation approach.

Although many general managers (41%) had some level of input into their performance

evaluation, surprisingly some (6%) had no input whatsoever. Another interesting result:

65

8% of the general managers have their goals set by another individual or body such as the

board or committees. Some of the respondents (30%) reported having an ad hoc

discussion of their performance as their review, and 27% of the managers said that they

would like a different style of performance evaluation.

The majority (94%) of respondents stated they were allowed to provide feedback at the

end of the evaluation process. Most managers (91%) considered the performance

evaluation system being used as fair, and 84% of the respondents were satisfied with the

performance evaluation system used. Most respondents (94%) reported their

performance evaluator to be credible, and 85% said their performance evaluation is based

upon a combination of subjective and objective factors.

In conclusion, 70% of private clubs are using performance evaluations for their general

managers. However, this study indicates there is room for improvement in several of the

systems. To be most effective, performance evaluations take preparation on both the

reviewer and the general manager’s part. The work of the general manager is too

important to be evaluated without adequate thought and insight. These results indicate

that 42% of respondents have little, if any, opportunity for input before the end of the

process, and approximately a third of the managers receive an ad hoc discussion only.

66

Longevity

One of the questions in this research study considered whether there was a direct

relationship between having a performance evaluation and length of employment at the

same club. As stated earlier, longevity in a club is not always—in itself—necessarily a

good thing. However, if the conditions are right, longevity is very important, especially in

the private club environment.

This study explored the importance of performance evaluations to the longevity of

managers and found that there was some support for this relationship. The results

indicated that the lack of an adequate performance evaluation is more likely to lead to

managerial turnover. Respondents indicated this managerial turnover might be a result of

managers being released (51% supported this), and because general managers would

likely choose to leave (41% supported this).

Members enjoy seeing the same manager over time, and many managers enjoy seeing the

members’ children grow up and then hosting the wedding for that same child at the club.

It is like a big family. This family atmosphere is often what keeps many members coming

to the club. Tradition is the culture in many clubs, and it is the manager with some

longevity that is there to guard and manage according to that tradition for the

membership.

67

The results of this study also showed a strong relationship between having performance

evaluations and the length of time managers were planning to stay in their club. Those

with performance evaluation plans are more likely planning to stay six years or more at

their present club than those without performance evaluations. The existence of a

relationship, however, does not determine causality.

The researcher also studied the relationship between positive performance evaluations

and longevity. In support of this concept, 50% of the respondents agreed that an excellent

performance evaluation motivates general managers to stay at their club. However, 56%

of managers stated that they would not look for other jobs just because they received a

poor performance evaluation nor would their loyalty to the club diminish. In fact, 68%

agree that a poor performance evaluation motivates them to improve in those stated areas.

This study also showed a positive relationship between those managers who thought their

performance evaluator was credible and the length of time they were planning to stay at

their club. This relationship may be deeper than just the credibility of the performance

evaluator. Performance evaluation is just one tool of communication, and the existence of

open and clear lines of communication may assist in making the evaluator credible.

The researcher also learned that two-way communication in the performance evaluation

contributes to longevity. Respondents with no input into the performance evaluation

process were more likely to leave the club sooner then were their counterparts with input.

68

Of the managers planning to stay at their club for six years or more, only 6% had no input

into the process. By contrast 81% of the managers who will have opportunities for input

are planning to stay for six years or more.

There appears to be a direct relationship between having a performance evaluation and

longevity for general managers. Communication is key, and performance evaluation is a

process in which the evaluator “presents the scorecard” for the manager.

In conclusion, the lack of an adequate performance evaluation is more likely to lead to

managerial turnover. As reported, general managers stated they would likely choose to

leave if the performance process were inadequate. In such situations, it would stand to

reason that these managers do not see themselves progressing in their professional careers

and will make a move to realize this important piece of the process.

It was expected that the data would support the existence of a significant relationship

between receiving “good” or “bad” performance evaluations and whether club managers

would stay or leave their clubs, but this was not the case. Although there is some

evidence that an excellent performance evaluation motivates general managers to stay at

their clubs, there is no evidence that a poor performance evaluation prompts them to

leave their club. In fact, the will and determination of club managers was seen in these

results; 86% of respondents stated they would be motivated to improve upon the areas

where they rated negatively in a performance evaluation.

69

Managers are more likely to stay at a club when they believe the performance evaluator is

credible. This indicates a level of trust and communication exists between organizational

levels of the club, and when this is present within the leadership or “top” of the

organization, it likely penetrates all levels of the club. Trust and communication are key

variables that can affect a club’s daily operations.

The results of this study indicate at least 60% of respondents have been employed at their

current club longer than 2.5 years. It is interesting to note that, the longer managers were

at a club, the more likely they were to perceive their evaluator as credible. The existence

of two-way communication in the performance evaluation process is a contributing factor

to how long managers are likely to stay at that club.

The researcher found that there was data to support the first hypothesis: there is a direct

correlation between having a performance evaluation and longevity and a direct

correlation between having a positive performance evaluation and longevity. To state

this using the null hypothesis: there is no correlation between having a performance

evaluation and longevity. Data disproves this hypothesis.

.

70

Impact

How important is performance evaluation to the well-being of the club? Many factors

join to propel a club forward, and many relate to the manager’s experience, knowledge,

leadership and actions.

Hatfield's (1989) relationship of “power” to “strength” and “time” is relevant here. The

desired result (the power) is the achievement of the goal. This is accomplished by having

experience and knowledge to make the decision (the strength) correlated with the focused

ability to execute the action (the time.) Strength in the club can often be seen in the way

the general manager responds to a given situation both in the kind of actions taken and in

the amount of response time required.

Most (79%) of the managers had professional goals tied to their performance evaluations,

and this was considered reasonable by 90% of the respondents. In addition, 92% of the

managers feel that their goals are achievable. It seems reasonable that, if managers think

their goals are achievable, they would also think they are reasonable, and the data

supports this relationship.

71

Turnover is an indicator of employment dissatisfaction. When the results of this study

are examined closely, 44% of managers of clubs that had only had two managers

previously, including the current one, in the past 20 years agree that the use of goals in

the performance evaluation is useful in moving the club forward.

This research explored whether managers who work for a club using a goal-setting

process as part of performance evaluation believe that the club will move forward more

quickly than a club not using goal setting. Most (88%) of respondents believe this to be

true. More longevity in productive managers should move the club forward because, if

there is a performance evaluation system in place, this should remove most non-

productive managers from their positions.

This study showed that the majority of respondents generally agreed that performance

evaluations assist in moving a club forward. More specifically, they believed that their

own performance evaluations help them move their personal careers forward. Further,

most respondents also thought that a performance evaluation system is important to the

overall functioning of the club.

Only 63% of the respondents stated the primary goals and objectives of their clubs were

defined. However, 83% of the respondents stated that they knew the primary goals and

objectives of their club. This could mean that although only 63% of board and managers

72

had actually taken time to formally commit to stated goals and objectives, 83% of

managers may assume that they know what the primary goals and objectives are, without

having gone through the more formal process with the governing body. This may

become very unproductive and frustrating for the manager, as the assumption that the

manager makes as to the priority of certain areas may be different than that of the

governing body.

The study showed enormous variation in the degree of goal setting done by managers

who set goals and the extent to which managers were part of the performance evaluation.

Some managers set their own goals working alone, others have goals set for them by a

board or committee, some managers are allowed to provide input, and other managers are

not.

No relationships were found between the goal-setting process, the knowledge of the

club's goals and objectives by the general manager and the degree of tolerance for micro-

management. Although the majority of club managers stated a very low tolerance of

micro-management, only 52% of the managers that set their goals alone knew the

primary goals and objectives of the club. In addition, only 50% of responding managers

whose goals were defined by another individual or body said they knew the club’s

primary goals and objectives. These results indicate that managers who do not know the

club's goals and objectives are also those individuals who do not set their own goals.

These results indicate there is weak communication about the direction of the club.

73

More than one-third of the clubs represented by the survey respondents did not define

their club's primary goals and objectives. This was slightly less when one considers

general managers who know the goals and objectives, but do not write them down. It is

difficult to know when you have arrived when you don’t know where you are going!

With the inconsistency of setting goals or even knowing the club's primary goals and

objectives, one might ask, “Who is running the club?” Although managers stated they

would not tolerate micro-management, it is likely to be occurring. If managers do not set

their own goals and if they do not know the club's goals, it would seem that there must be

some person, board or committee providing a high level of micro-management.

On the positive side, 88% of the general managers agreed that the use of goals in their

performance evaluations is useful in moving their club forward. This seems like a healthy

win-win situation in which the club manager knows what is expected and is able to

continue to meet the goals and to have this measured and documented through the

performance evaluation process.

The researcher found that there was data to support the second hypothesis: there is a

direct correlation between performance evaluations and the club moving forward and

meeting its goals. To state this using the null hypothesis: there is no correlation between

74

performance evaluations and the club moving forward and meeting its goals. Data

disproved this hypothesis.

Compensation

The study did find evidence that performance evaluation is positively related to

manager’s compensation. As well, there was some interesting salary and bonus

information garnered from this survey.

The study showed that 47% of the managers agree that there is a direct relationship

between overall performance evaluation and salary for the general manager. Also, 78%

of the respondents agree that there is a direct relationship between their overall

performance evaluation and their bonus.

Of those who earn less than $100,000, 47% have a performance evaluation process but

71% do not receive performance evaluations. Of those earning more than $100,000, 53%

have a performance evaluation process and only 29% do not. While causality is not

supported here, the relationship is.

75

The majority (69%) of the respondents reported that a bonus systems is paid only if

earned; and it is not arbitrary. The club managers responding to this study report that if

they do not meet the club goals, they will not get their usual salary increase (78%) or

usual bonus (87%).

It is interesting to learn that, the higher paid the general manager is, the higher the bonus

percentage. For general managers making $140,0000 and over, 28% receive a bonus of

20% to 24% of their base salary, whereas of those making less than $80,000 only 7%

receive a bonus of 20 to 24%. Conversely, for those making $140,000 and over, 12%

receive a bonus of less than 10% and 63% of those making less than $80,000 have a

bonus of less than 10%. Higher-paid managers are in larger clubs with larger budgets.

Perhaps, they have greater responsibilities with bonuses paid accordingly.

Club Board members may increasingly realize that it is necessary to pay for performance.

Hiring a well-qualified and well-paid manager to run the club in a professional manner

and meet the agreed-upon goals that continue to move the club forward creates a win-win

situation for both parties.

The researcher found that there was data to support the third hypothesis: performance

evaluation is positively correlated with managers’ compensation. To state this using the

76

null hypothesis: there is no correlation between performance evaluation and managers’

compensation. Data disproved this hypothesis.

77

Factual Highlights for the Governing Board The researcher has stated some factual highlights from the monograph that you will be

able to share with your governing body. These statements are supported throughout the

monograph.

There is a higher percentage of clubs that have a performance evaluation process

(79%) than not, and 95% of respondents that have a process in place are evaluated

yearly.

The most common type of performance evaluation is the top-down, while

respondents using a 360-degree performance evaluation report the highest level of

satisfaction with their type of evaluation.

94% of respondents have some level of input into their performance evaluation,

while 6% have no input whatsoever.

50% of respondents agree that an excellent performance evaluation motivates

them to stay at their present club.

51% of respondents agree that the lack of an adequate performance evaluation

leads to non-voluntary general manager turnover.

86% of respondents are in agreement that they would be motivated to improve in

areas where they rated negatively in their performance evaluation.

Respondents who have no input into their evaluation at any point plan to stay at

their club less time than those who do.

78

90% of respondents agree that performance evaluation assists in moving a general

manager’s career forward. Furthermore, of the above, 90% agree that their goals

are reasonable and 92% feel that their goals are achievable.

57% of the respondents indicate that their clubs have strategic plans.

47% agree that their performance evaluations are tied to the success of the

strategic plan.

72% agree that their evaluations take into account the economy and independent

factors when assessing the extent to which the manager and the club meets their

goals individually and collectively.

88% agree that the use of goals in their performance evaluation is useful in

moving the club forward.

88% of responding managers believe that their own acceptance of club goals is

directly related to the ability of the club to achieve the goals.

Of those that ‘strongly agree’ that the use of goals in performance evaluations is

useful in moving the club forward, 44% of their clubs have had only 2 managers

in the past 20 years including themselves.

Many respondents intend to stay at their present club – amongst those who had

managed their club for 10 years or more, 48% believed they would remain 6 years

or more.

68% of respondents do not agree that salary increases are arbitrary and unrelated

to evaluation.

54% of those who have a performance evaluation earn more than $100,000,

compared to 29% who do not have an evaluation.

79

78% of respondents agree that there is a relationship between their overall

performance evaluation and their bonus.

69% of respondents do not believe that their bonus system is completely arbitrary.

62% of respondents do not think they will get their usual salary increase if they do

not meet their club goals this year.

66% do not think they will get their usual bonus if they do not meet their club

goals this year.

2/3 of the respondents indicated that club goals must be met to earn both base

salary and bonus.

Bonus pay percentage of those making $140,000 and over is much higher than

that of other pay brackets (28% of respondents in this range receive an average

bonus of 20-24%; 32% receive a bonus of 15-19%).

60% of those making less than $80,000 receive an annualized bonus of less than

10% of base salary.

Regardless of high compensation packages, 75% of responding managers said

they would not tolerate micro-management.

Even though managers are paid in a certain range now, they do not believe they

would tolerate more micro-management for more compensation.

80

Recommendations and Implications for Further Research

There is a lot of useful information captured by this study that will provide valuable

guidance to general managers, boards, committees and recruiters. This study helps to

reveal many factors that today’s general managers must confront. There is new

information and new knowledge as a result of this study. By citing some of the new facts,

and seeing general managers as stable professionals, both managers and governing boards

may be experiencing a paradigm shift related to the value of performance evaluations and

the processes associated with these benchmarks.

By better defining the responsibilities and goals and by improving the degree of input

into the performance evaluation, the club management industry can itself set and achieve

new goals. It is also the hope of the researcher that, through these improved processes, all

club managers will feel comfortable leaving their club for vacations and continuing

education, and return back, feeling refreshed and ready to tackle the goals of the club.

Effective performance evaluations and the processes by which they are administered can

reduce managerial turnover, can enhance communication by providing a format for

addressing the goals of the club and the general manager and can provide a quantifiable

benchmark by which a manager's salary and bonuses can be measured. Performance

evaluations, when based upon a combination of subjective and objective factors that

include goals, managerial input, and open communication, provide enormous

81

opportunities for general managers, for the clubs they manage and for the entire club

industry.

This is the first study conducted on the performance evaluation process for general

managers in the private club industry. This research, although it answered many

questions, also creates new paths for discovery and relationships that need further

exploration. Continued research in this area would be very beneficial to general managers

and the entire club industry.

82

References

Adams, M. (1999). Fair and square. HR Magazine, 44(5), 38-44.

Alreck, P. A., & Settle, R.B. (1995). The Survey Research Handbook (2nd ed.). New

York: New York. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 62.

Axline, L. L. (1996). Viewpoints: The ethics of performance appraisal. S.A.M. Advanced

Management Journal, 61(1), 44-45.

Binney, G. & Charlton, K. (1994). What makes quality work? Managing Service

Quality, 4(1), 43-46.

Brown, R. M., & Meade, N. L. (1997). Nominal group technique for determining CEO

incentive pay. Review of Business, 18(2), 25-30.

Calling Up the Employee Reserves. (1999). Financial Executive, 15(4), 10.

Club Manager Review Instructional Manual. (2001). St. Louis, MO: John Sibbald

Associates, Inc.

CMAA Compensation and Benefits Survey. (2003). Alexandria, VA: Club Managers

Association of America.

Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons,

Inc., 205-207.

Emde, E. (1997). Why go for compliance when you need commitment? The Journal for

Quality and Participation, 20(1), 30-33.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score. (2000). Microsoft Office 2000.

83

Fornaro, J. G. (2003). General Managers: They’re Staying Longer, Here’s Why. The

Boardroom, 56, 12-15.

Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E. (1996). How to Design and Evaluate Research on

Education. (3rd ed.). New York City: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Hatfield, F.C. (1989). A Scientific Approach. Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill/Contemporary

Books.

Hind, P., & Baruch, Y. (1997). Gender variations in perceptions of performance

appraisal. Women in Management Review, 12(7), 276-289.

Jesuthasan, R., Todd, E., & Barrett, A. (2000). The total performance equation. Financial

Executive, 16(4), 41-44.

Kopplin, Richard M. Personal Communication. September 2003.

Leonard, B. (1994). CEO compensation packages tied to performance. HR Magazine,

39(4), 51.

McNett, G. S., (2001). The planning and conduct of effective performance reviews.

Club Leaders Forum, VI(3), 1-2, 7.

Mani, B. G. (2002). Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: A case

study. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 141-159.

McMillan, J. D. (1993). It pays to perform. Financial Executive, 9(6), 48.

Meudell, K. & Rodham, K. (1998). Money isn’t everything… or is it? A preliminary

research study into money as a motivator in the licensed house sector.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(4), 128-132.

84

Performance Evaluation Documents for General Manager/Chief Operating Officer,

Department Manager, Non-Management Staff, a product of the Premier Club

Services Department. (1997). (Available from the Club Managers Association of

America, 1733 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314)

Queen, V. A. (1995). Performance evaluation: Building blocks for credentialing and

career advancement. Nursing Management, 26(9), 52.

Ricciardi, P. (1996). Avoiding the pitfalls of performance measurement. The Journal for

Quality and Participation, 19(1), 66.

Shuman, H. & Presser, S. (1995) Questions and answers in attitude surveys: experiments

on question form, wording, and context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sibbald, John. Personal Communication. September 2003.

Singerling, J., Woods, R.C., Ninemeier, J. & Perdue J. (1997). Success factors in private

clubs. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 74-79.

Wendling, Bridget Gorman. Personal communication. September 18, 2003.

85

Additional Research and Resources

Barkema, H. G., & Pennings, J. M. (1998). Top management pay: Impact of overt and

covert power. Organization Studies, 19(6), 975-1003.

Bloom, M., & Milkovich, G. T. (1998). Relationships among risk, incentive pay, and

organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 283-297.

Chopin, M. C., & Schulman, C. T. (1997). Performance pay as a screening device.

Studies in Economics and Finance, 18(1), 14-19.

Cichy, R. F., & Schmidgall., R. S. (1997). Financial executives in U.S. clubs. Cornell

Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 67-73.

Corsun, D. L., & Enz, C. A. (1999). Predicting psychology empowerment among service

workers: The effect of support-based relationships. Human Relations, 52(2), 205-

224.

Crawford, A. J. (1999). Relative performance evaluation in CEO pay contracts: Evidence

from the commercial banking industry. Managerial Finance, 25(9), 34-54.

Engel, E., Gordon, E. A., Hayes, R. M., & Core, J. E. (2002). The roles of performance

measures and monitoring in annual governance decisions in entrepreneurial

firms/Discussion. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(2), 485-527.

Hermalin, B. E., & Weisbach, M. S. (1991). The Effects of Board Composition and

Direct Incentives on Firm Performance. Financial Management, 20(4), 101-112.

Rapert, M. I., & Babakus, E. (1996). Linking quality and performance. Journal of Health

Care Marketing, 18(1), 94-108.

Sigler, K. J., & Porterfield, R. (2001). CEO compensation: Its link to bank performance.

American Business Review, 19(2), 110-114.

86

Appendices A: Proposal for MCM Monograph B: MCM Management Advisory Group Members C: E-mail to MCM Management Advisory Group D: Thank-you E-mail to MCM Management Advisory Group E: Cover Letter for Survey Instrument F: Survey Instrument G: Follow-up Postcard H: Follow-up E-mail I: Survey Instrument Response Frequency Tables

87

Monograph Proposal for Crystal Thomas, CCM A Study of the General Manager Performance Review Process

July 25, 2003 1. A Statement of the Problem The monograph will address the process of performance review for the General Manager. This is important, because often the General Manager is caught by surprise at review time (or at an impromptu meeting which becomes a defacto review) and finds out that s/he has not been putting focus on the areas that the Board of Governors considers important. It is also important to research and address the relationship between the performance review and compensation. 2. A Brief Review of the Literature A comprehensive review was done. 26 articles were reviewed as well as the Premier Club Services document on performance evaluation. My results are as follows: 7 articles – general relevance and good background reading for my topic

17 articles – moderate relevance – may be able to consider pieces of these articles as I write my monograph

2 articles – high relevance to my topic 1 document – high relevance to my topic The two articles that are highly relevant to my topic are: Success factors in

private clubs Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly; Ithaca; Oct 1997; James Singerling; Robert C Woods; Jack Ninemeier’ Joe Perdue and Money isn’t everything…or is it? A preliminary research study into money as a motivator in the licensed house sector International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management; Bradford; 1998; Karen Meudell; Karen Rodham

The highlyrelevant document is: Performance Evaluation Documents for

General Manager/Chief Operating Officer, Department Manager, Non-management Staff A product of the Premier Club Services Department; 1997; Club Managers Association of America

While little prior research has been done in this area, I was excited by the realization that I will be able to contribute and make a difference to this important area of study. There was a wide array of interesting information about performance evaluation and incentives for CEO’s of publicly traded companies in the general business literature, but not much that related directly to my specific topic.

A fruitful discussion with Mihoko Hosoi, the host line coordinator for the Nestle Library at Cornell University, led to retrieval of exhibits for one of the articles that is particularly related to my topic. I have also reviewed two more specific websites of Cornell

88

University, one which is related to Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly articles and the other which is for all lines to the Hotel School at Cornell. Neither of these searches turned up much specific as it relates to my topic.

I have initiated my consultation with other managers as well as with educators and CMAA executives to do the research necessary to develop my monograph relating to A Study of the General Manager Performance Review Process. 3. Proposed Research Methods The methods used will include a triangulated study. Components of the study will include 1) qualitative methods-focus groups, discussion, and interviews – and 2) quantitative methods – a survey instrument, which will include demographic variables of interest and a questionnaire designed with scalar range response to investigate the problem (the questionnaire will be developed as a normative instrument during the qualitative phase). 4. Results, Discussion and Implications Results will be analyzed using statistical software (such as Excel and SPSS) to evaluate and categorize frequencies and possible relationships that may exist among independent and dependent variables. Experience in the industry and informal discussions with managers over the years suggest that the process of performance review process and its possible relationship to compensation for managers has a direct link to real-world application for any manager. Beyond this ontological hunch, I will investigate the variables from a theoretical perspective (epistemology) to determine what the literature suggests may be the relationships, and then operationalize the variables into a normative survey instrument to be completed by other managers. The analysis phase will examine the data provided by the managers.

89

MCM Management Advisory Group Members

Cyrus Afshin, San Gabriel Country Club, General Manager Ronald Banaszak, CCM, Glendora Country Club, Club Manager Jennifer Beck, CCM, Glen Oak Country Club, Manager Richard Bruner, CCM, University Club of Michigan State University, General Manager Michael Carroll, CCM, Copper River Country Club, General Manager Claudio Caviglia, CCM, Oakwood Club, General Manager Andrew Curtis, CCM, India House, General Manager Jay DiPietro, CCM, Boca West Country Club, President/General Manager Sandra Frappier, CCM, Ft. Wayne Country Club, General Manager Elizabeth Fritz-Grant, CCM, Somerset Hills Country Club, Manager Peter Homberg, CCM, The Penn Club, General Manager Michael Leemhuis, CCM, Congressional Country Club, General Manager/COO Dennis Nighswonger, CCM, Thunderbird Country Club, General Manager Gregg Patterson, The Beach Club, Manager William Rothballer, CCM, University Club of Louisville, General Manager Rick Sussman, CCM, Mission Viejo Country Club, General Manager Brent Tartamella, CCM, Philadelphia Cricket Club, Assistant General Manager David Voorhees, CCM, Big Canyon Country Club, General Manager Burton Ward, CCM, Century Country Club, General Manager

90

E-mail to MCM Management Advisory Group From: Crystal Thomas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 4:32 PM To: Andrew Curtis (E-mail); Bill Rothballer (E-mail); Brent Tartamella (E-mail); Burton Ward (E-mail); Claudio Caviglia (E-mail); Cyrus Afshin (E-mail); David Voorhees (E-mail); Dennis Nighswonger (E-mail); Elizebeth Fritz-Grant (E-mail); Gordon Welch (E-mail); Gregg Patterson (E-mail); Jay Dipietro (E-mail); Jennifer Beck (E-mail); Michael Carroll (E-mail); Michael Leemhuis (E-mail); Peter Homberg (E-mail); Richard Bruner (E-mail); Rick Sussman (E-mail); Ron Banazak (E-mail); Sandra Frappier (E-mail) Cc: Dr. Edward A. Merritt (E-mail) Subject: my Master Club Manager research and monograph Dear Colleague: I am currently preparing a survey, which will be a key instrument in completing my Master Club Manager designation. As a pilot exercise before conducting the full survey, I am requesting your assistance, which will be very valuable in helping ensure that this research is meaningful to our industry. My topic is 'A Study of the General Manager Performance Review Process'. I am interested in how reviews are conducted, who conducts them, the basis for reviews, how closely the performance evaluation ties the evaluation to compensation and bonus, as well as other information. I am requesting your assistance in the following areas: 1) would you please give me 3-5 ideas for questions that you think would be relevant for the survey? 2) would you please give me your opinion as to any related areas that I have not mentioned that you think that I should cover? 3) If your club uses a personal performance evaluation for you, would you please answer these questions to help make sure that I am on the right track?: a) How often is a personal performance evaluation for you conducted? b) Who conducts this performance evaluation? c) Describe whether and how the performance evaluation is tied to your compensation plan. d) Do you participate in an incentive-based (performance) bonus? e) If you answered 'yes' to d), please explain how it is tied. f) Do you use a performance evaluation with your team members? g) if yes to f), do you use the same system with your team members or do you use something different? h) if you use a performance evaluation with your team members, and you use a different system, please explain the system you use. i) will you please provide by attachment or hard copy a copy of the form used for your performance evaluation as well as the one used for your team members?

91

Being a General Manager, I understand the sensitivity of the information that you share with me. Please know that any information that you provide will only be used in aggregate—no individuals or clubs will be identified. The only other person that will see raw data will be Dr. Ed Merritt, my academic advisor. I thank you in advance for your very valuable assistance with this project. I hope to hear from you by Friday, August 1, 2003. You can reach me by return e-mail, by telephone at 626-395-8206, or by snail mail at Crystal Thomas CCM, General Manager, The Athenaeum, California Institute of Technology, 551 S. Hill Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91106. Best regards, Crystal Thomas, CCM, CHE General Manager The Athenaeum The California Institute of Technology 551 South Hill Avenue Pasadena, CA 91106 TELEPHONE: 626-395-8260 CELL: 626-298-3427 FAX: 626-356-0784

92

Thank-you E-mail to MCM Management Advisory Group -----Original Message----- From: Crystal Thomas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 6:00 AM To: Andrew Curtis (E-mail); Bill Rothballer (E-mail); Brent Tartamella (E-mail); Burton Ward (E-mail); Claudio Caviglia (E-mail); Cyrus Afshin (E-mail); David Voorhees (E-mail); Dennis Nighswonger (E-mail); Elizebeth Fritz-Grant (E-mail); Gordon Welch (E-mail); Gregg Patterson (E-mail); Jay Dipietro (E-mail); Jennifer Beck (E-mail); Michael Carroll (E-mail); Michael Leemhuis (E-mail); Peter Homberg (E-mail); Richard Bruner (E-mail); Rick Sussman (E-mail); Ron Banazak (E-mail); Sandra Frappier (E-mail) Cc: Dr. Edward A. Merritt (E-mail) Subject: my survey instrument Good Morning everyone! Thanks for all the great information that I was able to glean from your comments and reviews that you sent me. I wanted you to be the first to see the survey instrument that is being compiled at the printers as I write this. It will be made into a booklet form, saddle bound (stapled) with a cover letter and a return-envelope. I will send a reminder postcard (which I am developing today) in 7-10 days. I don't know whether you will be part of the survey or not. We did a pick of every sixth person in the directory, so that is why I am sending this as you may not actually be part of the survey. Thanks again for all your assistance in getting me to this point. I really appreciate it. Have a super day!! Cheers....crystal Crystal Thomas, CCM, CHE General Manager The Athenaeum The California Institute of Technology 551 South Hill Avenue Pasadena, CA 91106 TELEPHONE: 626-395-8260 CELL: 626-298-3427 FAX: 626-356-0784

93

Cover Letter for Survey Instrument

Crystal Thomas, CCM, CHE General Manager The Athenaeum

California Institute of Technology 551 South Hill Avenue Pasadena, CA 91106

August, 2003 Dear Club Manager: I am conducting research for my Master Club Manager (MCM) monograph and designation. The results of this research will provide managers, CMAA, and industry researchers an opportunity to examine the performance evaluation process for club general managers. Your input is vital to the success of this study. I am soliciting this information from approximately 700 clubs. I am asking for your candid and anonymous responses to the enclosed survey. Individual responses will be strictly confidential. You will need about 30 minutes to complete this survey. Specific instructions are included before each section. Even if you have been employed at the club for a short time, please complete this survey. After completing the survey, please return it in the stamped, self-addressed envelope provided and return it to me as soon as possible (but by August 29 at the latest), as an immediate response is appreciated. Thank you in advance for participating in this valuable and worthwhile project. I will provide summary results at the upcoming CMAA World Conference in Anaheim in February. As a way of saying “thanks,” please include your business card in the return envelope along with your answer sheet to participate in a drawing for a nice gift. Once again, we assure you that the study will not indicate any individual responses. Sincerely, Crystal Thomas, CCM, CHE Note: The survey begins on the next page of this booklet.

94

General Manager Survey Questions

Part 1: Logistics Consider your previous performance evaluations: In general, what are the logistics of your performance evaluation? Please answer the following questions with a (√ ) in the ‘ yes/no’ brackets or, where relevant, circle the appropriate letter. 1. There is no performance evaluation system at my club, nor has there been in the past.

( ) yes ( ) no If yes, move to Part 2 Longevity. 2. At this time there is no performance evaluation system at my club for my position. However there

has been in the past. ( ) yes ( ) no If yes, move to Part 1b ______________________________________________________________________________

3. Other management and hourly employees of my club are evaluated under the same performance

evaluation system as the general manager. ( ) yes ( ) no 4. My performance evaluator is (circle one of the following)

a. the Club President. b. Club House Committee Chair. c. the entire Club Board. d. a representative from the Club Board. e. Other (please specify)

5. If you selected (a) in question 3, does your Club President hold a session with the Executive of the Board to consider your performance evaluation? ( ) yes ( ) no

6. My performance evaluation is (circle one of the following)

a. conducted yearly. b. conducted semi-annually (two times per year). c. conducted three times per year or more. d. Other (please specify)

7. My weighted written job description is tied into my performance evaluation? ( ) yes ( ) no 8. My performance evaluation is delivered (circle one of the following)

a. by my performance evaluator with no others present. b. by the Executive of the Board . c. at full Board meeting with no other staff present. d. at full Board meeting with other staff present. e. Other (please specify)

9. My performance evaluation is (circle one of the following) a. a 360-degree performance evaluation (evaluation by board, direct reports, staff, self, and

perhaps members). b. a top down performance evaluation (president or equivalent rating me). c. a peer-to-peer performance evaluation (direct reports only). d. a subordinate performance evaluation (direct reports and perhaps lower level reports). e. a self-assessment performance evaluation (assess myself and share with board). f. Other (please specify)

10. I have input into my performance evaluation (circle one of the following) a. at the beginning of the process. b. at the beginning and during the process . c. only to deliver feedback after the review. d. at no point in the process.

95

11. My performance evaluation has a section for goal setting. ( ) yes ( ) no 12. My professional goals are set by (circle one of the following)

a. me alone. b. another individual/ body (i.e. board, committee). c. an individual/ body (i.e. board, committee, etc.) with my involvement. d. other (please specify)

13. My performance evaluation process consists of (circle one of the following)

a. closed-ended questions (no opportunity for narrative, usually involving a grading system). b. open-ended questions (narrative based and no grading system). c. a combination of closed-ended questions and open-ended questions.

14. My performance evaluation process is informal with my reviewer dropping by ad hoc to discuss my performance. ( ) yes ( ) no

15. My performance evaluation system has (circle one of the following)

a. changed in the last year. b. changed in the last two years. c. changed in the last three years. d. changed in the last four years. e. changed in the last five years. f. not changed over the past 5 years.

On a scale of 1 – 5, indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.( circle only one number for each question) 1= Strongly agree 2= Agree 3= Disagree 4=Strongly disagree 5=Not Applicable 16. My performance evaluator is credible (capable of being believed and deserves confidence).

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

17. At the completion of my performance evaluation I have the ability to give feedback.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

18. I consider the performance evaluation system for the general manager fair.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

19. I am satisfied with the performance evaluation system used.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

20. I would prefer a different style of performance evaluation than what is used in my club.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

21. My performance evaluation is based upon subjective (feelings not backed up by data) criteria.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

22. My performance evaluation is based upon objective (having actual existence such as counts and times) criteria.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

23. My performance evaluation is a combination of subjective and objective criteria.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

24. Both my reviewer and I adhere to formalities involved in the review process. Formalities are defined as communicated processes with expectations on both sides such as: written performance evaluations and set meeting times for review discussion.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

96

General Manager Survey Questions Part 1b: Clubs that no longer use Performance Evaluation Systems Please use this section if you answered ‘yes’ to Question 2, Part 1: Logistics 1. We used to have a performance evaluation process for the General Manager. The type of evaluation was a:

a) 360-degree performance evaluation (evaluation by board, direct reports, staff, self, and perhaps members)

b) top-down performance evaluation (president or equivalent does the rating) c) peer-to-peer performance evaluation (direct reports only) d) subordinate performance evaluation (direct reports and perhaps lower level reports) e) self-assessment performance evaluation (General Manager assesses self and shares with

board) 2. This was in use:

a) last year b) two years ago c) three years ago d) four years ago e) five years ago or more

Please state why the performance evaluation process is no longer used by your club.

Part 2: Longevity Consider your period of employment as the General Manager at your club. In general, what is the effect of your performance evaluation on your longevity with your club – either past or present experience? On a scale of 1 – 5, indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements (circle only one number for each question). 1= Strongly agree 2= Agree 3= Disagree 4=Strongly disagree 5= Not Applicable 1. An excellent performance evaluation motivates me to stay at my club.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2. The lack of an adequate performance evaluation process leads to general manager turnover

because the board releases the general manager. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

3. The lack of an adequate performance evaluation process leads to general manager turnover because the general manager quits. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

4. A poor performance evaluation motivates me to improve upon the areas where I rated negatively. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

5. If I received a poor performance evaluation I would start to look for another position. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

6. If I received a poor performance evaluation I would leave my position. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

7. If I received a poor performance evaluation I would lose loyalty to my club. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Please answer the following questions with a (√ ) in the ‘yes/no’ brackets. 8. Have you, at some point in your career, had a good performance evaluation and voluntarily left

your position within six months? ( ) yes ( ) no 9. Have you at some point in your career, encountered a poor performance evaluation that led to your

resignation within six months afterward? ( ) yes ( ) no 10. Have you at some point in your career, had a poor performance evaluation and been terminated

within six months afterward? ( ) yes ( ) no 11. Have you, at some point in your career, had a good performance evaluation and been terminated

within six months afterward? ( ) yes ( ) no

97

General Manager Survey Questions Part 3: Impact Consider the changes and accomplishments within your club and the speed at which these have occurred. In general, what is the impact of your performance evaluation on your club, and how does your performance evaluation help your club meet established goals and move your club forward? On a scale of 1 – 5, indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. (choose only one number for each question) 1= Strongly agree 2= Agree 3= Disagree 4=Strongly disagree 5=Not

Applicable 1. In general, I believe that performance evaluations assist in moving a general manager’s club career

forward. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

2. I believe my performance evaluation at my club helps me move my career forward. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

3. I have professional goals tied to my performance evaluation. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

4. I feel the goals tied to my performance evaluation are reasonable. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

5. I feel that the goals tied to my performance evaluation are achievable. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

6. I think a performance evaluation is important to the overall functionality of the club. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

7. The primary goals and objectives of my club are defined. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

8. I know the primary goals and objectives of my club. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

9. My performance evaluation acknowledges the previously defined primary goals and objectives of my club.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 10. Our club has a strategic plan.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 11. My performance evaluation is tied to the success of our strategic plan.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 12. The economy and independent factors are taken into account when assessing the meeting of my goals

and progress of the club in my performance evaluation. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

13. My previous success has led my performance evaluator to have unrealistically high expectations of my future evaluations.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 14. The use of goals in my performance evaluation is useful in moving the club forward.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 15. My acceptance of the club goals directly relate to the ability of the club to achieve those goals.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 16. Whether or not I accept club goals that have been set by someone other than me directly relates to my

performance and ultimately results in the goals not being met. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

98

General Manager Survey Questions Part 4: Compensation Consider your salary, incentives and the total compensation that you receive. In general, what is the effect of your performance evaluation on monetary compensation (i.e. salary and bonus)? On a scale of 1 – 5, indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. (note your answers on the answer sheet – you may choose only one number from the scale for each question) 1= Strongly agree 2= Agree 3= Disagree 4=Strongly disagree 5= Not Applicable 1. There is a direct correlation between my overall performance evaluation and my salary.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 2. Any salary increase I may receive is completely arbitrary with no correlation to my performance

evaluation. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

3. I am evaluated on my goals (or goals that have been set for me) and my salary is directly correlated to me achieving these goals.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 4. There is a direct correlation between my overall performance evaluation and my bonus.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 5. The bonus system that is in place is completely arbitrary with no objective factors as to whether I

deserve a bonus. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

6. The higher my compensation package, the more willing I am to tolerate micro-management from my Board, committees or members.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 7. Even if I do not meet the club goals this year, I know I will get my usual salary increase.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 8. Even if I do not meet the club goals this year, I know I will get my usual bonus.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Please answer the following questions with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on your answer sheet.

9. I receive a bonus in my current situation? ( ) yes ( ) no 10. At some point in my career, I have had a good performance evaluation, but left the club for a

better compensation package at another club. ( ) yes ( ) no 11. At some point in my career, I have had a poor performance evaluation and was terminated. I

accepted a lower compensation package at another club. ( ) yes ( ) no 12. At some point in my career I had a poor performance evaluation and voluntarily left the club. I

accepted a lower compensation package at another club. ( ) yes ( ) no

99

General Manager Survey Questions Part 5: Demographic Information Mark the answer that best describes you or your club on the answer sheet. Circle only one answer in each question. 1. Job title

a. General Manager/ COO b. Manager c. Clubhouse Manager d. Assistant Manager e. Other

2. In which area of the country do you work? a. Central (OK, MO, OH, IN, MI, IL, WI, MN, IA, ND, SD, NE, KS) b. Mountain (NM, CO, AZ, UT, ID, MT, WY) c. North (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DC, DE, MD, WV) d. South (VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, TX, AR, LA, MS, AL, TBN, KY) e. West (NV, CA, OR, WA, HI, AK) f. Other (please specify)

3. Type of club? a. Athletic b. City c. Country d. Golf e. Yacht f. Faculty g. Other (please specify)

4. Marital Status? a. Married, or committed domestic relationship b. Single, never married c. Single, previously married d. Widowed

5. Which statement best describes the ownership of your club? a. A member-owned club b. A corporate-owned, developer-owned or individually-owned club c. Other (please specify)

6. How much longer do you plan to stay at your present club? a. Less than 1 year b. Between 2 and 3 years c. Between 3 and 4 years d. Between 4 and 5 years e. Between 5 and 6 years f. 6 years or more

7. How long have you been at your present club? a. Less than 1 year b. Between 1 and 2 years c. Between 2 and 4 years d. Between 4 and 6 years e. Between 6 and 8 years f. Between 8 and 10 years g. 10 years or more

100

8. Total number of members at your club (all classes)

a. Less than 400 b. 400 to 549 c. 550 to 699 d. 700 to 849 e. 850 to 999 f. 1000 to 1149 g. 1150 or more

9. How many hours a week do you work at the club? a. Less than 40 hours b. 40 to 49 hours c. 50 to 59 hours d. 60 to 69 hours e. 70 hours or more

10. Mark your highest education level: a. Graduated high school b. Some college c. College diploma/certificate d. Bachelor’s degree e. Some graduate work f. Master’s degree g. Other (please specify)

11. Into which generation grouping were you born? a. Generation X: January 1961 to December 1981 (Baby Busters) b. Baby Boomer Generation: 1946 to December 1960 c. The Silent Generation: January 1925 to December 1945 d. Other (please specify)

12. Are you certified by the Club Managers Association of America? a. No b. Yes. I am a CCM. c. Yes. I am an MCM.

13. Gender a. Male b. Female

14. Annualized gross base salary a. Less than $60,000 b. $60,000 to $79,999 c. $80,000 to $99,999

d. $100,000 to $119,999 e. $120,000 to $139,999 f. $140,000 to $159,999 g. $160,000 to $179,999 h. $180,000 to $199,999 i. $200,000 or more

15. Annualized bonus pay average a. There is no bonus plan b. Less than 10 percent of base salary c. 10 to 14 percent of base salary d. 15 to 19 percent of base salary e. 20 to 24 percent of base salary f. 25 to 29 percent of base salary g. 30 percent or more

101

16. How long have you been in the club industry?

a. Less than 1 year b. 1 year to 1 year 11 months c. 2 years to 3 years 11 months d. 4 years to 5 years 11 months e. 6 years to 7 years 11 months f. 8 years to 9 years 11 months g. 10 years or more

17. How many club general managers (or the equivalent) has your club employed in the last twenty years?

a. 1 manager (including yourself) b. 2 managers (including yourself) c. 3 managers (including yourself) d. 4 managers (including yourself) e. 5 managers (including yourself) f. More than 5 managers (including yourself). Please specify how many.

18. I have a written job description a. Yes b. No

19. My job description is weighted (emphasis is given to different duties within your job description, rather than each element being equally important).

a. Yes b. No

Please check to be sure that you answered all of the questions.

Please mail (use the pre-addressed envelope provided) your completed survey now.

Many thanks. Crystal Thomas, CCM, CHE Voice: 1-626-395-8260 The Athenaeum Cell: 1-626-298-3427 General Manager Fax: 1-626-356-0784 551 South Hill Avenue Email: [email protected] Pasadena CA 91106

102

Follow-up Postcard

The Athenaeum

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

PASADENA,CA 91125

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Reminder!

FIRST CLASS MAIL U.S. POSTAGE

PAID Pasadena, Calif. Permit No.583

About 10 days ago, you should have received the “Performance Evaluation Process for Club General Managers" survey that I sent relating to my Master Club Manager (MCM) designation. If you have already returned it, thank you. If you have not yet completed it and sent it back, I would really appreciate if you could do this immediately. Please e-mail me at [email protected] or call me at 1-626-395-8260 if you never received it or have misplaced it and require another copy. Your participation is vital to the success of this research. Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Crystal Thomas, CCM, CHE General Manager The Athenaeum

103

Follow-up E-mail -----Original Message----- From: Susan Cline [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Crystal Thomas (E-mail) Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 7:15 PM To: Crystal Thomas (E-mail) Subject: Second Request for Return of MCM Survey I truly need your help. As a GM of a private club, I know how busy you are taking care of your members. I am actively working on my Master Club Manager designation, and my goal is to present this at the Anaheim conference in February. Consequently, I am respectfully requesting your assistance. My research is on The Performance Evaluation Process for General Managers. This will be a source of information for all of us to use with our boards, and in our operations. A survey was sent to you a couple of weeks ago. If you completed it and returned it, THANK YOU! If you have not yet completed the survey, please consider giving me 15 minutes of your valuable time, to ultimately benefit all general managers in the club industry. The results will be available to you on Clubnet in early 2004. Please print the attached document. Please complete the survey. It truly should only take 15 minutes. Please return to me by fax at either 626-356-0784 or 626-395-8279 by Friday, September 5 by 6:00 p.m. I realize that faxing takes the anonymity out of the process, however, I give you my word that I am only interested in the numbers as a whole. No one else will see any identifying information. I REALLY need your assistance with completing and returning the survey. Fortunately, many of our colleagues have responded, but more information would help immensely. Again, if you have already completed and returned the survey, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. If you have not yet done it, if you could just take a few minutes to complete and fax back, I would be very grateful. Thanks again for your anticipated cooperation and support with this. Crystal Thomas, CCM, CHE General Manager The Athenaeum

104

Survey Instrument Response Frequency Tables Table I1 Performance Evaluation is Absent


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Yes (there is none) 32 19.2 21.3 21.3 No 118 70.7 78.7 100.0 Total 150 89.8 100.0 Missing No answer 17 10.2 Total 167 100.0 Table I2 Performance Evaluations Present in the Past


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Yes 6 3.6 4.8 4.8 No 63 37.7 50.4 55.2 Answered no to

previous question 56 33.5 44.8 100.0

Total 125 74.9 100.0 Missing No answer 42 25.1 Total 167 100.0 Table I3 Other Employees Have the Same Evaluation System


Percent Cumulative


105

Table I4 Title of Performance Evaluator


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Club president 50 29.9 40.7 40.7 Clubhouse committee chair 5 3.0 4.1 44.7 Entire club board 18 10.8 14.6 59.3 Representative from club

board 3 1.8 2.4 61.8

Other 47 28.1 38.2 100.0 Total 123 73.7 100.0 Missing No answer 44 26.3 Total 167 100.0 Table I5 Club President Holds Sessions with Board Executive to Consider Performance Evaluation


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Yes 59 35.3 79.7 79.7 No 15 9.0 20.3 100.0 Total 74 44.3 100.0 Missing No answer 93 55.7 Total 167 100.0 Table I6 Frequency of Performance Evaluation


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Conducted yearly 120 71.9 95.2 95.2 Conducted semi-annually (2

times per year) 6 3.6 4.8 100.0

Total 126 75.4 100.0 Missing No answer 41 24.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I7 Weighted Written Job Description is Tied into Performance Evaluation


Percent Cumulative


106

Table I8 Performance Evaluation Delivery Method


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid By performance evaluator

alone 68 40.7 54.8 54.8

By board executive 29 17.4 23.4 78.2 At full board meeting with

no staff 4 2.4 3.2 81.5

At full board meeting with other staff

1 .6 .8 82.3

Other 22 13.2 17.7 100.0 Total 124 74.3 100.0 Missing No answer 43 25.7 Total 167 100.0 Table I9 Type of Performance Evaluation


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid 360-degree 10 6.0 8.0 8.0 Top-down 95 56.9 76.0 84.0 Peer-to-peer 2 1.2 1.6 85.6 Subordinate 1 .6 .8 86.4 Self-assessment 3 1.8 2.4 88.8 Other 14 8.4 11.2 100.0 Total 125 74.9 100.0 Missing No answer 42 25.1 Total 167 100.0 Table I10 Self-Input in Performance Evaluation


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid At the beginning of the

process 20 12.0 16.0 16.0

At the beginning and during the process

51 30.5 40.8 56.8

Only to deliver feedback after the review

47 28.1 37.6 94.4

At no point in the process 7 4.2 5.6 100.0 Total 125 74.9 100.0 Missing No answer 42 25.1 Total 167 100.0

107

Table I11 Performance Evaluation Contains Goal-Setting Section


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Yes 98 58.7 81.0 81.0 No 23 13.8 19.0 100.0 Total 121 72.5 100.0 Missing No answer 46 27.5 Total 167 100.0 Table I12 Person Who Sets Professional Goals for Manager


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Manager alone 52 31.1 42.6 42.6 Another individual/body 10 6.0 8.2 50.8 An individual/body with

manager’s involvement 55 32.9 45.1 95.9

Other 5 3.0 4.1 100.0 Total 122 73.1 100.0 Missing No answer 45 26.9 Total 167 100.0 Table I13 Type of Performance Evaluation Questions


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Closed-ended questions 13 7.8 11.1 11.1 Open-ended questions 29 17.4 24.8 35.9 Combination of closed and

open-ended questions 75 44.9 64.1 100.0

Total 117 70.1 100.0 Missing No answer 50 29.9 Total 167 100.0 Table I14 Performance Evaluation Process is Informal with Reviewer Dropping By for Ad Hoc Discussion of Performance


Percent Cumulative


108

Table I15 Frequency/Recency Performance Evaluation System Has Changed


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Changed in the past year 33 19.8 27.7 27.7 Changed in the past 2 years 18 10.8 15.1 42.9 Changed in the past 3 years 9 5.4 7.6 50.4 Changed in the past 4 years 7 4.2 5.9 56.3 Changed in the past 5 years 5 3.0 4.2 60.5 Not changed in over past 5

years 47 28.1 39.5 100.0

Total 119 71.3 100.0 Missing No answer 48 28.7 Total 167 100.0 Table I16 Performance Evaluator is Credible


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 51 30.5 43.2 43.2 Agree 60 35.9 50.8 94.1 Disagree 6 3.6 5.1 99.2 Strongly disagree 1 .6 .8 100.0 Total 118 70.7 100.0 Missing No answer 48 28.7 Not applicable 1 .6 Total 49 29.3 Total 167 100.0 Table I17 Manager Able to Give Feedback After Completion of Performance Evaluation


Percent Cumulative


109

Table I18 Manager Perceives His or Her Performance Evaluation System as Fair


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 42 25.1 35.3 35.3 Agree 66 39.5 55.5 90.8 Disagree 11 6.6 9.2 100.0 Total 119 71.3 100.0 Missing No answer 47 28.1 Not applicable 1 .6 Total 48 28.7 Total 167 100.0 Table I19 Manager is Satisfied with the Performance Evaluation System Used


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 38 22.8 31.7 31.7 Agree 63 37.7 52.5 84.2 Disagree 17 10.2 14.2 98.3 Strongly disagree 2 1.2 1.7 100.0 Total 120 71.9 100.0 Missing No answer 47 28.1 Total Total 167 100.0 Table I20 Manager Would Prefer a Different Style of Performance Evaluation


Percent Cumulative


110

Table I21 Performance Evaluation is Based Upon Subjective Criteria


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 9 5.4 8.1 8.1 Agree 36 21.6 32.4 40.5 Disagree 43 25.7 38.7 79.3 Strongly disagree 23 13.8 20.7 100.0 Total 111 66.5 100.0 Missing No answer 48 28.7 Not applicable 8 4.8 Total 56 33.5 Total 167 100.0 Table I22 Performance Evaluation is Based Upon Objective Criteria


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 9 5.4 7.8 7.8 Agree 66 39.5 57.4 65.2 Disagree 30 18.0 26.1 91.3 Strongly disagree 10 6.0 8.7 100.0 Total 115 68.9 100.0 Missing No answer 46 27.5 Not applicable 6 3.6 Total 52 31.1 Total 167 100.0 Table I23 Evaluation is a Combination of Subjective and Objective Criteria


Percent Cumulative


111

Table I24 Both Reviewer and Manager Adhere to Formalities in the Review Process


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 22 13.2 19.1 19.1 Agree 52 31.1 45.2 64.3 Disagree 28 16.8 24.3 88.7 Strongly disagree 13 7.8 11.3 100.0 Total 115 68.9 100.0 Missing No answer 46 27.5 Not applicable 6 3.6 Total 52 31.1 Total 167 100.0 Table I25 Previous Evaluation Type for Managers with No Performance Evaluation System


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Top-down 8 4.8 100.0 100.0 Missing No answer 159 95.2 Total 167 100.0 Table I26 Time Frame in Which Previous Evaluation Type Was in Use


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Last year 3 1.8 50.0 50.0 2 years ago 2 1.2 33.3 83.3 4 years ago 1 .6 16.7 100.0 Total 6 3.6 100.0 Missing No answer 161 96.4 Total 167 100.0 Table I27 Excellent Evaluation System Motivates Manager to Stay at Club


Percent Cumulative


112

Table I28 Lack of Adequate Process Leads to Turnover Because Board Releases Manager


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 15 9.0 10.6 10.6 Agree 72 43.1 51.1 61.7 Disagree 37 22.2 26.2 87.9 Strongly disagree 17 10.2 12.1 100.0 Total 141 84.4 100.0 Missing No answer 17 10.2 Not applicable 9 5.4 Total 26 15.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I29 Lack of Adequate Process Leads to Turnover Because Manager Quits


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 10 6.0 7.0 7.0 Agree 56 33.5 39.2 46.2 Disagree 58 34.7 40.6 86.7 Strongly disagree 19 11.4 13.3 100.0 Total 143 85.6 100.0 Missing No answer 18 10.8 Not applicable 6 3.6 Total 24 14.4 Total 167 100.0 Table I30 Poor Evaluation Motivates Manager to Improve on Negatively Rated Areas


Percent Cumulative


113

Table I31 Managers Who Received a Poor Evaluation Would Start to Look for Another Position


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 13 7.8 8.8 8.8 Agree 33 19.8 22.4 31.3 Disagree 82 49.1 55.8 87.1 Strongly disagree 19 11.4 12.9 100.0 Total 147 88.0 100.0 Missing No answer 13 7.8 Not applicable 7 4.2 Total 20 12.0 Total 167 100.0 Table I32 Managers Who Received a Poor Evaluation Would Leave Their Position


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 3 1.8 2.1 2.1 Agree 8 4.8 5.6 7.7 Disagree 95 56.9 66.9 74.6 Strongly disagree 36 21.6 25.4 100.0 Total 142 85.0 100.0 Missing No answer 15 9.0 Not applicable 10 6.0 Total 25 15.0 Total 167 100.0 Table I33 Managers Whose Loyalty to Club Would Be Lost if They Received a Poor Evaluation


Percent Cumulative


114

Table I34 Managers Who Have Voluntarily Left a Position Within Six Months of a Good Evaluation


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Yes 67 40.1 43.2 43.2 No 88 52.7 56.8 100.0 Total 155 92.8 100.0 Missing No answer 12 7.2 Total 167 100.0 Table I35 Managers Who Have Resigned Within Six Months Because of a Poor Evaluation


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Yes 19 11.4 12.3 12.3 No 136 81.4 87.7 100.0 Total 155 92.8 100.0 Missing No answer 12 7.2 Total 167 100.0 Table I36 Managers Who Have Been Terminated Within Six Months of a Poor Evaluation


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Yes 15 9.0 9.7 9.7 No 140 83.8 90.3 100.0 Total 155 92.8 100.0 Missing No answer 12 7.2 Total 167 100.0 Table I37 Managers Who Have Been Terminated Within Six Months of a Good Evaluation


Percent Cumulative


115

Table I38 Performance Evaluations, in General, Help Move a Manager’s Club Career Forward


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 48 28.7 30.2 30.2 Agree 95 56.9 59.7 89.9 Disagree 11 6.6 6.9 96.9 Strongly disagree 5 3.0 3.1 100.0 Total 159 95.2 100.0 Missing No answer 7 4.2 Not applicable 1 .6 Total 8 4.8 Total 167 100.0 Table I39 Managers Who Believe Performance Evaluations Move Their Careers Forward


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 37 22.2 23.7 23.7 Agree 97 58.1 62.2 85.9 Disagree 20 12.0 12.8 98.7 Strongly disagree 2 1.2 1.3 100.0 Total 156 93.4 100.0 Missing No answer 7 4.2 Not applicable 4 2.4 Total 11 6.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I40 Professional Goals are Tied to Performance Evaluation


Percent Cumulative


116

Table I41 Goals Tied to Performance Evaluation are Reasonable


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 28 16.8 19.6 19.6 Agree 101 60.5 70.6 90.2 Disagree 11 6.6 7.7 97.9 Strongly disagree 3 1.8 2.1 100.0 Total 143 85.6 100.0 Missing No answer 7 4.2 Not applicable 17 10.2 Total 24 14.4 Total 167 100.0 Table I42 Goals Tied to My Evaluation are Achievable


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 28 16.8 19.7 19.7 Agree 102 61.1 71.8 91.5 Disagree 12 7.2 8.5 100.0 Strongly disagree Total 142 85.0 100.0 Missing No answer 8 4.8 Not applicable 17 10.2 Total 25 15.0 Total 167 100.0 Table I43 Evaluation is Important to the Overall Functionality of the Club


Percent Cumulative


117

Table I44 Primary Goals and Objectives of Club are Defined


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 25 15.0 15.8 15.8 Agree 75 44.9 47.5 63.3 Disagree 47 28.1 29.7 93.0 Strongly disagree 11 6.6 7.0 100.0 Total 158 94.6 100.0 Missing No answer 7 4.2 Not applicable 2 1.2 Total 9 5.4 Total 167 100.0 Table I45 Manager Knows the Primary Goals and Objectives of the Club


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 39 23.4 25.0 25.0 Agree 91 54.5 58.3 83.3 Disagree 22 13.2 14.1 97.4 Strongly disagree 4 2.4 2.6 100.0 Total 156 93.4 100.0 Missing No answer 8 4.8 Not applicable 3 1.8 Total 11 6.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I46 Evaluation Acknowledges Previously Defined Primary Goals and Objectives of Club


Percent Cumulative


118

Table I47 Club Has a Strategic Plan


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 24 14.4 16.0 16.0 Agree 61 36.5 40.7 56.7 Disagree 48 28.7 32.0 88.7 Strongly disagree 17 10.2 11.3 100.0 Total 150 89.8 100.0 Missing No answer 8 4.8 Not applicable 9 5.4 Total 17 10.2 Total 167 100.0 Table I48 Evaluation is Tied to the Success of the Strategic Plan


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 14 8.4 10.9 10.9 Agree 47 28.1 36.4 47.3 Disagree 53 31.7 41.1 88.4 Strongly disagree 15 9.0 11.6 100.0 Total 129 77.2 100.0 Missing No answer 7 4.2 Not applicable 31 18.6 Total 38 22.8 Total 167 100.0 Table I49 Economy and Independent Factors Taken Into Account When Assessing Goal Achievement and Club’s Progress


Percent Cumulative


119

Table I50 Manager’s Previous Success Caused Evaluator to Have Unrealistic High Expectations for Future Evaluations


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 6 3.6 4.3 4.3 Agree 31 18.6 22.0 26.2 Disagree 85 50.9 60.3 86.5 Strongly disagree 19 11.4 13.5 100.0 Total 141 84.4 100.0 Missing No answer 8 4.8 Not applicable 18 10.8 Total 26 15.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I51 Use of Goals in Evaluation is Useful in Moving the Club Forward


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 23 13.8 15.4 15.4 Agree 108 64.7 72.5 87.9 Disagree 15 9.0 10.1 98.0 Strongly disagree 3 1.8 2.0 100.0 Total 149 89.2 100.0 Missing No answer 9 5.4 Not applicable 9 5.4 Total 18 10.8 Total 167 100.0 Table I52 Managers’ Acceptance of Goals Directly Relate to Ability of Club to Achieve Goals


Percent Cumulative


120

Table I53 Whether or Not Managers Accept Club Goals Set by Others Directly Relates To Performance and Ultimately Results in Goals Not Being Met


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 12 7.2 8.6 8.6 Agree 50 29.9 35.7 44.3 Disagree 69 41.3 49.3 93.6 Strongly disagree 9 5.4 6.4 100.0 Total 140 83.8 100.0 Missing No answer 11 6.6 Not applicable 16 9.6 Total 27 16.2 Total 167 100.0 Table I54 There is a Direct Correlation Between Overall Performance and Salary


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 33 19.8 21.7 21.7 Agree 72 43.1 47.4 69.1 Disagree 36 21.6 23.7 92.8 Strongly disagree 11 6.6 7.2 100.0 Total 152 91.0 100.0 Missing No answer 6 3.6 Not applicable 9 5.4 Total 15 9.0 Total 167 100.0 Table I55 Salary Increases are Arbitrary and Unrelated to Evaluation


Percent Cumulative


121

Table I56 Manager is Evaluated on Goals and Salary is Directly Connected to Goal Achievement


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 12 7.2 8.1 8.1 Agree 56 33.5 37.6 45.6 Disagree 69 41.3 46.3 91.9 Strongly disagree 12 7.2 8.1 100.0 Total 149 89.2 100.0 Missing No answer 6 3.6 Not applicable 12 7.2 Total 18 10.8 Total 167 100.0 Table I57 There is Direct Correlation Between Overall Evaluation and Bonus


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 47 28.1 33.1 33.1 Agree 64 38.3 45.1 78.2 Disagree 24 14.4 16.9 95.1 Strongly disagree 7 4.2 4.9 100.0 Total 142 85.0 100.0 Missing No answer 9 5.4 Not applicable 16 9.6 Total 25 15.0 Total 167 100.0 Table I58 Bonus System is Completely Arbitrary


Percent Cumulative


122

Table I59 Higher Compensation Translates to Willingness to Tolerate Micromanagement


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 13 7.8 8.6 8.6 Agree 23 13.8 15.2 23.8 Disagree 66 39.5 43.7 67.5 Strongly disagree 49 29.3 32.5 100.0 Total 151 90.4 100.0 Missing No answer 7 4.2 Not applicable 9 5.4 Total 16 9.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I60 Managers Will Get Standard Salary Increase Even if Goals are Not Met


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Strongly agree 7 4.2 4.6 4.6 Agree 27 16.2 17.9 22.5 Disagree 93 55.7 61.6 84.1 Strongly disagree 24 14.4 15.9 100.0 Total 151 90.4 100.0 Missing No answer 6 3.6 Not applicable 10 6.0 Total 16 9.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I61 Managers Will Get Usual Bonus Even If They Don’t Meet Club Goals


Percent Cumulative


123

Table I62 Manager Currently Receives Bonus


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Yes 138 82.6 85.7 85.7 No 23 13.8 14.3 100.0 Total 161 96.4 100.0 Missing No answer 6 3.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I63 Managers Who Had Good Evaluations, But Left for a Better Compensation Package


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Yes 98 58.7 60.9 60.9 No 63 37.7 39.1 100.0 Total 161 96.4 100.0 Missing No answer 6 3.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I64 Managers Terminated Due to Poor Evaluation Who Accepted Lower Compensation


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Yes 8 4.8 5.0 5.0 No 153 91.6 95.0 100.0 Total 161 96.4 100.0 Missing No answer 6 3.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I65 Managers Who Voluntarily Left The Club Due to Poor Evaluation and Accepted Lower Compensation


Percent Cumulative


124

Table I66 Job Title


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid General Manager/COO 133 79.6 81.6 81.6 Manager 11 6.6 6.7 88.3 Clubhouse Manager 10 6.0 6.1 94.5 Assistant Manager 6 3.6 3.7 98.2 Other 3 1.8 1.8 100.0 Total 163 97.6 100.0 Missing No answer 4 2.4 Total 167 100.0 Table I67 Region of the Country Where Manager Works


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Central 33 19.8 20.2 20.2 Mountain 10 6.0 6.1 26.4 North 33 19.8 20.2 46.6 South 59 35.3 36.2 82.8 West 26 15.6 16.0 98.8 Other 2 1.2 1.2 100.0 Total 163 97.6 100.0 Missing No answer 4 2.4 Total 167 100.0 Table I68 Type of Club


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Athletic 3 1.8 1.9 1.9 City 8 4.8 5.0 6.9 Country 103 61.7 64.8 71.7 Golf 24 14.4 15.1 86.8 Yacht 10 6.0 6.3 93.1 Other 11 6.6 6.9 100.0 Total 159 95.2 100.0 Missing No answer 8 4.8 Total 167 100.0

125

Table I69 Marital Status


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Married, or committed

domestic relationship 132 79.0 81.5 81.5

Single, never married 11 6.6 6.8 88.3 Single, previously married 17 10.2 10.5 98.8 Widowed 2 1.2 1.2 100.0 Total 162 97.0 100.0 Missing No answer 5 3.0 Total 167 100.0 Table I70 Club Ownership


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Member-owned 138 82.6 84.7 84.7 Corporate, developer, or

individually-owned 24 14.4 14.7 99.4

Other 1 .6 .6 100.0 Total 163 97.6 100.0 Missing No answer 4 2.4 Total 167 100.0 Table I71 Length of Time Manager Plans to Stay at Present Club


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Less than 1 year 50 29.9 30.9 30.9 Between 2 and 3 years 46 27.5 28.4 59.3 Between 3 and 4 years 66 39.5 40.7 100.0 Total 162 97.0 100.0 Missing No answer 5 3.0 Total 167 100.0

126

Table I72 Length of Time at Current Club


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Less than 1 year 13 7.8 8.0 8.0 Between 1 and 2 years 19 11.4 11.7 19.6 Between 2 and 4 years 45 26.9 27.6 47.2 Between 4 and 6 years 14 8.4 8.6 55.8 Between 6 and 8 years 13 7.8 8.0 63.8 Between 8 and 10 years 13 7.8 8.0 71.8 10 years or more 46 27.5 28.2 100.0 Total 163 97.6 100.0 Missing No answer 4 2.4 Total 167 100.0 Table I73 Number of Members (All Classes) at Club


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Less than 400 34 20.4 21.1 21.1 400-549 38 22.8 23.6 44.7 550-699 32 19.2 19.9 64.6 700-849 15 9.0 9.3 73.9 850-999 11 6.6 6.8 80.7 1000-1149 7 4.2 4.3 85.1 1150 or more 24 14.4 14.9 100.0 Total 161 96.4 100.0 Missing No answer 6 3.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I74 Weekly Working Hours


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Less than 40 2 1.2 1.2 1.2 40-49 23 13.8 14.2 15.4 50-59 92 55.1 56.8 72.2 60-69 35 21.0 21.6 93.8 70 hours or more 10 6.0 6.2 100.0 Total 162 97.0 100.0 Missing No answer 5 3.0 Total 167 100.0

127

Table I75 Highest Education Level Achieved


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Graduated high school 4 2.4 2.5 2.5 Some college 50 29.9 31.1 33.5 College Diploma/certificate 14 8.4 8.7 42.2 Bachelor’s degree 63 37.7 39.1 81.4 Some graduate work 18 10.8 11.2 92.5 Master’s degree 10 6.0 6.2 98.8 Other 2 1.2 1.2 100.0 Total 161 96.4 100.0 Missing No answer 6 3.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I76 Generation Grouping To Which Managers Belong


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Generation X 47 28.1 29.2 29.2 Baby Boomer 86 51.5 53.4 82.6 Silent Generation 28 16.8 17.4 100.0 Total 161 96.4 100.0 Missing No answer 6 3.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I77 Certification of Club Managers


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid No. 87 52.1 53.7 53.7 Yes. I am a CCM. 74 44.3 45.7 99.4 Yes. I am an MCM. 1 .6 .6 100.0 Total 162 97.0 100.0 Missing No answer 5 3.0 Total 167 100.0

128

Table I78 Gender


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Male 143 85.6 88.3 88.3 Female 19 11.4 11.7 100.0 Total 162 97.0 100.0 Missing No answer 5 3.0 Total 167 100.0 Table I79 Annual Gross Base Salary


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Less than $60,000 11 6.6 6.8 6.8 $60,000 to 79,999 28 16.8 17.4 24.2 $80,000 to 99,000 42 25.1 26.1 50.3 $100,000 to 119,999 27 16.2 16.8 67.1 $120,000 to 139,999 25 15.0 15.5 82.6 $140,000 to 159,999 8 4.8 5.0 87.6 $160,000 to 179,999 9 5.4 5.6 93.2 $180,000 to 199,999 8 4.8 5.0 98.1 $200,000 or more 3 1.8 1.9 100.0 Total 161 96.4 100.0 Missing No answer 6 3.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I80 Annual Bonus Pay Average


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Less than 10% of base salary 45 26.9 34.4 34.4 10 to 14% 46 27.5 35.1 69.5 15 to 19% 23 13.8 17.6 87.0 20 to 24% 11 6.6 8.4 95.4 25 to 29% 1 .6 .8 96.2 30% or more of base salary 5 3.0 3.8 100.0 Total 131 78.4 100.0 Missing No answer 8 4.8 No bonus plan 28 16.8 Total 36 21.6 Total 167 100.0

129

Table I81 Length of Time in the Club Industry


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid 2 years to 3 years 11 months 5 3.0 3.1 3.1 4 years to 5 years 11 months 3 1.8 1.9 5.0 6 years to 7 years 11 months 10 6.0 6.3 11.3 8 years to 9 years 11 months 12 7.2 7.5 18.8 10 years or more 130 77.8 81.3 100.0 Total 160 95.8 100.0 Missing No answer 7 4.2 Total 167 100.0 Table I82 Number of General Managers Club Has Had in the Past 20 Years


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid 1 (including self) 19 11.4 11.9 11.9 2 (including self) 26 15.6 16.3 28.1 3 (including self) 39 23.4 24.4 52.5 4 (including self) 31 18.6 19.4 71.9 5 (including self) 24 14.4 15.0 86.9 More than 5 (including self) 21 12.6 13.1 100.0 Total 160 95.8 100.0 Missing No answer 7 4.2 Total 167 100.0 Table I83 If more than 5 in J82, specific number


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid 6 2 1.2 25.0 25.0 7 2 1.2 25.0 50.0 8 1 .6 12.5 62.5 9 2 1.2 25.0 87.5 15 1 .6 12.5 100.0 Total 8 4.8 100.0 Missing No more than 5 159 95.2 Total 167 100.0

130

Table I84 Manager Has Written Job Description


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Yes 122 73.1 75.8 75.8 No 39 23.4 24.2 100.0 Total 161 96.4 100.0 Missing No answer 6 3.6 Total 167 100.0 Table I85 Manager Has Weighted Job Description


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Yes 53 31.7 35.6 35.6 No 96 57.5 64.4 100.0 Total 149 89.2 100.0 Missing No answer 18 10.8 Total 167 100.0 Table I86 Annual Gross Base Salary


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid $79,999 or less 39 23.4 24.2 24.2 Between $80,000 and

$99,999 42 25.1 26.1 50.3

Between $100,000 and $139,999

52 31.1 32.3 82.6

$140,000 and over 28 16.8 17.4 100.0 Total 161 96.4 100.0 Missing No answer 6 3.6 Total 167 100.0 Note. Categories have been collapsed.

131

Table I87 Length of Time at Current Club


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Less than 2 years 32 19.2 19.6 19.6 Between 2 and 4 years 45 26.9 27.6 47.2 Between 4 and 10 years 40 24.0 24.5 71.8 10 years or more 46 27.5 28.2 100.0 Total 163 97.6 100.0 Missing No answer 4 2.4 Total 167 100.0 Note. Categories have been collapsed. Table I88 Years in Club Industry


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Less than 6 years 8 4.8 5.0 5.0 6 years to 7 years 11 months 10 6.0 6.3 11.3 8 years to 9 years 11 months 12 7.2 7.5 18.8 10 years or more 130 77.8 81.3 100.0 Total 160 95.8 100.0 Missing No answer 7 4.2 Total 167 100.0 Note. Categories have been collapsed. Table I89 Length of Time Managers Plan to Stay at Present Club


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Less than 3 years 50 29.9 30.9 30.9 Between 3 years and less

than 6 years 46 27.5 28.4 59.3

6 years or more 66 39.5 40.7 100.0 Total 162 97.0 100.0 Missing No answer 5 3.0 Total 167 100.0 Note. Categories have been collapsed.

132

Table I90 Annual Bonus Pay Average


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid Less than 10 % of base

salary 45 26.9 34.4 34.4

10 to 14% 46 27.5 35.1 69.5 15 to 19% 23 13.8 17.6 87.0 20% or more 17 10.2 13.0 100.0 Total 131 78.4 100.0 Missing No answer 8 4.8 There is no bonus plan 28 16.8 Total 36 21.6 Total 167 100.0 Note. Categories have been collapsed. Table I91 Presence of Evaluation


Percent Cumulative

Percent Valid There is no evaluation 32 19.2 21.3 21.3 There is an evaluation 118 70.7 78.7 100.0 Total 150 89.8 100.0 Missing No answer 17 10.2 Total 167 100.0