- Email: [email protected]
Success factors in private clubs
in
the show a remarkable level of agreement in their assessment successful.
byJames Singerling, Robert C. nods, Jack Ninemeier, and Joe Perdue
Le
:d :y
provide approximately 750,000 seasonal and full-time jobs and generate millions of dollars to the economies of their local communities. Most private clubs in the United States have a common organiza-
~d James Singerling, CCM, CEC, is
executive vicepresident of the Club Managers Association of America (CMAA). Robert Woods, Ph.D., is an 9associateprofessorandJack Ninemeier, Ly. Ph.D., is a professorat Michigan State University's School of Hospitality Business.Joe Perdue is vicepresident of CMAA. This article is drawnfrom a wide-ranging study addressing industry perceptions aboutprivate clubs operated by contract-managementcompanies. © 1997,CornellUniversity
74
~ ] R ~ [ HOTELAND RESTAURA~
CLUB
tional style by which the club is owned by some or all of the members and managed by personnel hired by the club's board of directors. A variant of this approach is becoming increasingly popular, in which the club is operated by a contract-management company (CMC). Whether a C M C - r u n club is owned by its members or an operating company, its management is controlled by the CMC, rather than by the club's directors. Regardless of management arrangements, the fact is that each year some clubs will fail, while new clubs will be organized. In spite of the size of the industry, its economic impact, the number of members, and the obvious turnover of clubs, little research has been completed on why some clubs fail while others survive and thrive. Although our study was wider ranging than the topic of this article, part of our present research project was designed to determine the most important factors that lead to success or failure in the club industry. Knowing which factors are most important to success--and which can lead to failure--should assist club managers, boards, and members in making their clubs successful. In this article we discuss those success factors.
Previous Research on Private Clubs Clubs have not been totally ignored by hospitality researchers, but the volume of recently published research is low. A review by Clayton Barrows of the club literature published through 1994 found only 12 articles in scholarly hospitality journals? O f the 12 articles, one pertained to students' perceptions of 2Clayton W. Barrows, "A Decade of Research in Club Management: A Review of the Literature in Academic Journals,"Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1994), pp. 7391. (A majority of the studies appeared in the Cornell Quarterly.)
M A N A G E M E N T
clubs, 3 two to membership surveys, 4 two to sex discrimination issues, 5 two to managerial style and development concerns, 6 four to marketing 7 and one to an overview of how
Ig
Civil-Rights Admission Laws: Sex Discrimination versus the Right of Private Association," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,Vol. 33, No. 6 (December 1992), pp. 16-17; and M.Yim, "Sex Discrimination: The Changing Status of Private Clubs," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,Vol. 23, No. 4 (February 1983), pp. 23-27. 6j.M. McBeth and R.W. Mondy, "Why Club Managers Leave," Comell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,Vol. 25, No. 4 (February 1985), pp. 12-14; and D.L.Whitney, "Managerial Style: Molding the Club Environment," Cornell Hotel and Restaumnt Administration Quarterly,Vol. 28, No. 4 (February 1988), pp. 23-27. 7E Goffe, "Replacing Place in Marketing-Mix Strategy for Hospitality Services," FlU Hospitality Review, Vol. 4 (1986), pp. 24-37; R. Lowes,"The Club Industry Market," Club Management, Vol. 71 (1992), pp. 30-34; W.H. Kaven and M.Allardyce, "Dalmahoy Golf and Country Club," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administmtion Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 2 (April 1993), pp. 24-29; and J.L. Pellissier,"Remarketing: One Club's Response to a Changing Market," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,Vol. 34, No. 4 (August 1993), pp. 53-58. 8L.J. Perdue and W.E. Kent,"Club Management:A Unique Career Choice," in Hospitality Management:An Introduction to the Industry, ed. R.A. Brymer (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1994), pp. 343-350. 9Kluge, p. 93.
October 1997 ,, 7'5
usually were based on the fear that responses might send the "wrong message" or that the information obtained might be counterproductive to their goals. 1° The result was oped and ternso
~ered. 11
a .an-
~.to d m-
:veys t
rl-
six Y some 35 general managers and ten board members of various U.S. private clubs. Officials of the Club Managers Association of America (CMAA) also participated. The focus-group participants identified what they thought were key issues in the success of private clubs. These issues were then analyzed by members of the CMAA board of directors, by seven other CMAA members designated as Master Club Managers (MCM), and (for completeness) by association staff members. The resulting survey comprised a total of 38 questions about success factors. Questions were structured to allow the respondents to rate each factor on a five-point Likerttype scale (1 = "very unimportant" and 5 = "very important"). 1°Barrows, p. 83. 11Mondy and Hollingsworth, p. 78.
76
10R~ELIHOTELANDRESTAURANTADMINISTRATIONQUARTERLY
We randomly selected approximately 500 general managers who were members of CMAA to participate in the project. Since CMAA members typically represent independent clubs, we also asked presidents and secretaries of CMAA local chapters to participate in the survey and to nominate for participation general managers from clubs with past or present affiliation with contract-management companies. Additionally, we made direct contact with two large C M C organizations to solicit participation in the project. Our efforts to include CMCs were unsuccessful, as both C M C organizations declined to participate. O f the 34 contract-company personnel identified, only nine general managers, two board members, and three club members returned surveys. Because of the minimal size of this response, we were forced to exclude all of these from subsequent data analysis. Consequently, we reoriented the study to focus on perceptions of general managers, board members, and club members about success factors for traditional clubs. To encourage response, the elected president of CMAA and its executive vice president sent each prospective survey respondent a letter endorsing the project, requesting the participant's cooperation, offering to provide additional information and results, and confirming the anonymity of all participants. The survey packet sent to each general manager consisted of a total of eight surveys: one for the general manager, two for board members, and five for club members. General managers were asked to distribute the surveys to a diverse sampling ("perhaps to both relatively new and longstanding members, to golf and social members, and to active and relatively inactive members, etc."). Although it could be interesting to conduct a study to determine whether "old" and "newer" club
C L U B
Exhibit 1
Ratings of success factors Success factors
General
Board
Club
managers N=137
members N=202
members N=235
4:83
4 76
4 69
4 56
Club committed t0 help the club attain 4.86 its g0als, The boaid allows managers to make day-to,day 4:84 decisionS, Ciub management must represent the i!best interestg' of 4183 the ciub: Club managers sh0uld provide operational continuity, 4 81 Club managers shou!d make members fee important a n d 4:80 special Service quality must be emphasized. 4.79 Managers must have the flexibility needed to meet the 4.74 members' changing needs. Members should perceive the club to be "their" club. 4.72 Product quality should be emphasized. 4.72 Service (attention to members' needs) must be excellent. 4.72 417i The eiub must meet its fiscai responsibilities and have no 4 89 serious ,'money pmbiems? The club must haVe a reasonabie dues structure. 461 The ipersonaii~; 0f the ciub shouid be maintained. 4160 Club membership is full 4,59 Product and activity charges are reasonable. The club should meet the members' changing needs. Management of the club is entrusted to professional managers rather than committees. Board members represent the "best interests" of the club. The club's physical facility is in excellent condition.
4 71 4 86 4;65
4:65 4:65
4.66 4.52
4.57 4.49
4.80 4.60 4.67 4:69 4,74
4.73 4.47 4.63 4171 4:61
4.38 4i52 4.40
4 40 4.47 4:26
4,56 4.51 4.51
4.37 4.41 4.00
4.34 4.35 4.06
4.49 4.45
4.76 4.41
4.56 4.48
4.22 4.08
4:23 4 22
Initiation fees are reasonab!e. . . . 4.44 ManagementmakesdecisionsreiatVeioattaJn n g a 4:44 !ong!te~m piani yield good member& 4143
4,43
4:45
4:37
4:18
4.21
The b0ard adequateiy iefiects the views of the membership: . . . . Membeiship they want the club t0 bel
4:3t
4:45
4;3i
4.30
4,09
4.00
The club has a mission statement and long-range plan and is moving toward its accomplishment. The long-term needs of the club as perceived by the board a re the same as those perceived by the members. The club has low member turnover. The club emphasizes member satisfaction rather than financial success.
4.29
4.36
4.27
4.26
4.32
4.32
4.18 4,10
4.20 4.09
4.14 4.08
4.09 4,09
3.89 3,30
3183 3:5i
4:04
3,99
3.gl
A high percentage 0f members are activeiy inV0iVedinthe 3:90 ciu& Diversity in membership refieCtsthe demographics of the 3.61 club!s Ioeation, The club seeks revenue sources from outs de the 3144 membeiship. The club has reciprocity with many other clubs. 2.84 The club serves as a vehicle for selling real estate. 1.75
3.96
3,89
3.t8
3:66
3.01
3.34
3.12 1.34
3.39 1.67
The ~!ub "changes with the times:" Membership increases in vaiue:
M A N A G E M E N T
members or members by "type" held different perceptions, that was not the focus of this study. Club GMs could return the surveys either individually, collectively (a batch), or by facsimile. Three packets of surveys came back in a batch, and one survey was returned by facsimile. All others were returned in the individual pre-addressed and postagepaid envelopes that we provided. Survey data were coded and entered for processing on a PC-based Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program. Two-tailed >tests, which measure the probability that one could see a difference in either direction--one mean higher or the other mean lower--were used to measure significance. Demographic Profile
The 137 general managers participating in the study averaged 40 years of age and had been general managers for approximately 12 years, the last 6.4 years with the club for which they currently worked. Seventy-seven percent of the managers managed country clubs, 7 percent managed city clubs, and the remaining 16 percent managed other types of clubs (e.g., yacht, faculty, tennis). This closely compares to the typical makeup of CMAA clubs (77 percent country, 11 percent city, 12 percent other). The 235 dub members participating in the study had been members of their club for an average of 18.1 years. Eighty-five percent were members of country clubs, 5 percent were members of city clubs, and 10 percent were connected with other types of clubs. The 202 board members participating in the survey averaged 4.1 years of board membership and 17.2 years of membership in their clubs. Board participants represented country clubs (79 percent), city clubs (7 percent), and other types of dubs (14 percent). O f the total, 45 percent held leadership positions, as
October1997 ° 77
Exhibit 2 Fifteen agreed-upon success factors Overall rank1
Success factor
11 14 17
Low turnover of club managers is desired. The "personality" of the club should be maintained. The club should meet the members' changing needs.
25 28
The board adequately reflects the views of the membership. The long-term needs of the club as perceived by the board are the same as those perceived by the members. The club has low member turnover. The Club emphasizes member satisfaction rather than financial success~
29 30
1Based on general managers' rankings. 2All groups agree that this factor was not important. ~No group believed that this factor was critical to success.
follows: 20.9 percent, presidents; 8.0 percent, vice presidents; 7.5 percent, treasurers; and 8.6 percent, chairs of the house committee (typically responsible for oversight of the clubhouse operations). Our assessment is that these respondents are unlikely to be the type of people whose survey answers would be influenced by someone else. Therefore, we believe the members' survey responses were not influenced by managers' perspectives.
Results Perhaps the most striking aspect of the table in Exhibit 1, which gives the success-factor ratings by all participants, is the astonishing level of agreement on the factors. In many instances ratings were virtually the same from one group to the next. While the factors are listed in descending order of importance from the perspective of the general managers, the sequence would be nearly the same if the factors were listed according to either of the other two
7e
groups' ratings. We should also point out that most factors are identified as important by all participants. For example, if one assigned a "cut-off point" of 4.0 ("important"), 30 of the 38 factors are rated as important by all participant groups. This result was predictable, since the 38 factors were initially generated through focus-group discussions with managers, board members, and others w h o m we thought were knowledgeable about the club segment. In this sense, then, survey results confirm most of the perceptions of the focus-group participants. Disparities. Despite the apparent general agreement among participants about the importance of the success factors, the t-test analyses revealed significant differences of opinion among the groups about the perceived importance of some of the factors. The disparity did not, however, include the 15 success factors shown in Exhibit 2 that drew agreement from all three groups.
IflRNELLHOTEL AND RESTAURANT ADMINISTRATIONQUARTERLY
We identified significant differences of opinion about the importance of the remaining 23 success factors. These differences of opinion do not necessarily diminish the importance of any single factor, even if all three groups don't give that factor the same importance rating. For instance, all three groups gave a high rating to the factor "The board allows managers to make dayto-day decisions" (mean of 4.84 for managers, 4.69 for board members, and 4.56 for club members). Even though all three groups believe this to be an important factor in club success, those fractional differences in the mean ratings are significant. One reason is simply that the sample sizes are fairly large, and only dight differences in ratings by large samples can be significant. The most important 17 of the 23 factors on which participating groups failed to agree are given in Exhibit 3 (i.e., the factors scoring above 4.0 for all groups). Some of these factors were considered of essentially the same importance by two of the groups (with the third giving a significantly different rating), while others showed significantly different importance assessments by all three groups.
SharingSuccess Our study is the first that we know of to compare opinions of club managers, board members, and club members regarding the success factors for private clubs. Most existing research analyzes information from managers only. By combining the opinions of these three groups one begins to see for the first time the similarities and differences in perceptions held by each. Perhaps the most obvious and notable result of this research is that club managers, board members, and club members appear to hold reasonably similar opinions about what is and what is not important to a
C L U B
club's success. While we did find some statistical differences of opinion among the three groups (and it might be tempting to harp on that fact), the differences are less important than the similarities. In particular, the fact that each of the 38 factors held nearly the same ranking for each group is worth repeating. Instead of finding an environment that is dominated by disagreements among the three participant groups, we find a strong sense of harmony. While our findings certainly do not reveal clubs as nirvana, there appears to be considerable agreement among potentially competitive groups regarding what makes their clubs successful. We would not anticipate finding such agreement among stakeholders in other industry segments. Results from this research address many issues about what general managers or board members can do to move toward an optimally successful club. By examining the exhibits, club managers might find useful data that we have failed to discuss at length. For instance, it seems that every club is concerned with constantly increasing the level of participation by members. Yet our research finds that this factor is actually rated quite low (34 out of 38) among the success factors. This might convince some managers to spend less time worrying about this issue and more time on other, more important factors. Our research suggests the factors that the key players in private clubs consider to be most important to success. While substantial in number, the 30 factors which attained ratings of 4.0 or greater by each of the three groups represent the important elements in d u b success. Therefore, those interested in private-dub management might use these factors to evaluate the extent to which their clubs are likely to succeed.
M A N A G E M E N T
Exhibit 3
Important factors showing differences of opinion Success Factor
Managers vs. board members
l'he board must allow managers t0 m a k e managers! day~teiday deoisi0nsi must represent the '!best managers' interests, of the club: Ctub managers should provide operational managers2 continuitY. Club managers should make members feel managers 2 important and special. Service quality must be emphasized. X Managers must have the flexibility needed to managers 2 meet the members' changing needs. Product quality should be emphasized, managers! The club must meet its fiscal responsibilities X and have no serious "money probiems2 The club must have a reasonabiedues managers2 struCturel Club membership is full. managers' Product and activity charges are reasonable. X Management of the club is entrusted to managers 2 professional managers rather than committees. Board members represent the "best interests" board2 of the clubl Initiation fees are reasonable: managers! Management makes decisions relative t o managers' attaining a long'term p l a n : Membership is cohesive and knows what managers' they want the club to be. The club has a mission statement and managers ~ long-range plan and is moving toward its accomplishment.
Membersvs. boardmembers
Managersvs. members
board'
managers 2
X
managers i
X
managers2
X
managers 2
X X
managers2 managers 2
board' board!
managers 2 managers'
X
managers2
X X X
managers 2 managers 2 managers2
board2
X
X X
managers 1 managers 1
X
managers2
X
X
Notes: These factors were rated as important by all three groups, but there were significant differences about how important each was. An "X" denotes agreement between groups (or, more accurateJy, an absence of significant disagreement), tn instances in which there was significant disagreement, the group believing the factor to be more important is identified. differences between the means of at least .05 2 differences between the means of at least .01
Finally, this project should be viewed as preliminary. Like most research, it raises additional questions, and we encourage others to expand on the many opportunities for research that it uncovers. Among the obvious are topics such as quantifying the extent to which clubs achieve some or all of the success factors identified in this study. Other issues include the extent to which clubs allow their managers to make day-to-day decisions, the extent to which clubs emphasize service qual-
ity, and the degree to which all participants believe that managers are truly committed to helping clubs attain their goals. Because the club segment has been mostly neglected by researchers, it is ripe for discovery. One of our purposes was to conduct research that might yield useful results for dub-industry participants. We also want to encourage additional work by other researchers to help to raise overall awareness of the club segment. CQ
October1997 • 79
the show a remarkable level of agreement in their assessment successful.
byJames Singerling, Robert C. nods, Jack Ninemeier, and Joe Perdue
Le
:d :y
provide approximately 750,000 seasonal and full-time jobs and generate millions of dollars to the economies of their local communities. Most private clubs in the United States have a common organiza-
~d James Singerling, CCM, CEC, is
executive vicepresident of the Club Managers Association of America (CMAA). Robert Woods, Ph.D., is an 9associateprofessorandJack Ninemeier, Ly. Ph.D., is a professorat Michigan State University's School of Hospitality Business.Joe Perdue is vicepresident of CMAA. This article is drawnfrom a wide-ranging study addressing industry perceptions aboutprivate clubs operated by contract-managementcompanies. © 1997,CornellUniversity
74
~ ] R ~ [ HOTELAND RESTAURA~
CLUB
tional style by which the club is owned by some or all of the members and managed by personnel hired by the club's board of directors. A variant of this approach is becoming increasingly popular, in which the club is operated by a contract-management company (CMC). Whether a C M C - r u n club is owned by its members or an operating company, its management is controlled by the CMC, rather than by the club's directors. Regardless of management arrangements, the fact is that each year some clubs will fail, while new clubs will be organized. In spite of the size of the industry, its economic impact, the number of members, and the obvious turnover of clubs, little research has been completed on why some clubs fail while others survive and thrive. Although our study was wider ranging than the topic of this article, part of our present research project was designed to determine the most important factors that lead to success or failure in the club industry. Knowing which factors are most important to success--and which can lead to failure--should assist club managers, boards, and members in making their clubs successful. In this article we discuss those success factors.
Previous Research on Private Clubs Clubs have not been totally ignored by hospitality researchers, but the volume of recently published research is low. A review by Clayton Barrows of the club literature published through 1994 found only 12 articles in scholarly hospitality journals? O f the 12 articles, one pertained to students' perceptions of 2Clayton W. Barrows, "A Decade of Research in Club Management: A Review of the Literature in Academic Journals,"Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 4 (1994), pp. 7391. (A majority of the studies appeared in the Cornell Quarterly.)
M A N A G E M E N T
clubs, 3 two to membership surveys, 4 two to sex discrimination issues, 5 two to managerial style and development concerns, 6 four to marketing 7 and one to an overview of how
Ig
Civil-Rights Admission Laws: Sex Discrimination versus the Right of Private Association," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,Vol. 33, No. 6 (December 1992), pp. 16-17; and M.Yim, "Sex Discrimination: The Changing Status of Private Clubs," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,Vol. 23, No. 4 (February 1983), pp. 23-27. 6j.M. McBeth and R.W. Mondy, "Why Club Managers Leave," Comell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,Vol. 25, No. 4 (February 1985), pp. 12-14; and D.L.Whitney, "Managerial Style: Molding the Club Environment," Cornell Hotel and Restaumnt Administration Quarterly,Vol. 28, No. 4 (February 1988), pp. 23-27. 7E Goffe, "Replacing Place in Marketing-Mix Strategy for Hospitality Services," FlU Hospitality Review, Vol. 4 (1986), pp. 24-37; R. Lowes,"The Club Industry Market," Club Management, Vol. 71 (1992), pp. 30-34; W.H. Kaven and M.Allardyce, "Dalmahoy Golf and Country Club," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administmtion Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 2 (April 1993), pp. 24-29; and J.L. Pellissier,"Remarketing: One Club's Response to a Changing Market," Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,Vol. 34, No. 4 (August 1993), pp. 53-58. 8L.J. Perdue and W.E. Kent,"Club Management:A Unique Career Choice," in Hospitality Management:An Introduction to the Industry, ed. R.A. Brymer (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1994), pp. 343-350. 9Kluge, p. 93.
October 1997 ,, 7'5
usually were based on the fear that responses might send the "wrong message" or that the information obtained might be counterproductive to their goals. 1° The result was oped and ternso
~ered. 11
a .an-
~.to d m-
:veys t
rl-
six Y some 35 general managers and ten board members of various U.S. private clubs. Officials of the Club Managers Association of America (CMAA) also participated. The focus-group participants identified what they thought were key issues in the success of private clubs. These issues were then analyzed by members of the CMAA board of directors, by seven other CMAA members designated as Master Club Managers (MCM), and (for completeness) by association staff members. The resulting survey comprised a total of 38 questions about success factors. Questions were structured to allow the respondents to rate each factor on a five-point Likerttype scale (1 = "very unimportant" and 5 = "very important"). 1°Barrows, p. 83. 11Mondy and Hollingsworth, p. 78.
76
10R~ELIHOTELANDRESTAURANTADMINISTRATIONQUARTERLY
We randomly selected approximately 500 general managers who were members of CMAA to participate in the project. Since CMAA members typically represent independent clubs, we also asked presidents and secretaries of CMAA local chapters to participate in the survey and to nominate for participation general managers from clubs with past or present affiliation with contract-management companies. Additionally, we made direct contact with two large C M C organizations to solicit participation in the project. Our efforts to include CMCs were unsuccessful, as both C M C organizations declined to participate. O f the 34 contract-company personnel identified, only nine general managers, two board members, and three club members returned surveys. Because of the minimal size of this response, we were forced to exclude all of these from subsequent data analysis. Consequently, we reoriented the study to focus on perceptions of general managers, board members, and club members about success factors for traditional clubs. To encourage response, the elected president of CMAA and its executive vice president sent each prospective survey respondent a letter endorsing the project, requesting the participant's cooperation, offering to provide additional information and results, and confirming the anonymity of all participants. The survey packet sent to each general manager consisted of a total of eight surveys: one for the general manager, two for board members, and five for club members. General managers were asked to distribute the surveys to a diverse sampling ("perhaps to both relatively new and longstanding members, to golf and social members, and to active and relatively inactive members, etc."). Although it could be interesting to conduct a study to determine whether "old" and "newer" club
C L U B
Exhibit 1
Ratings of success factors Success factors
General
Board
Club
managers N=137
members N=202
members N=235
4:83
4 76
4 69
4 56
Club committed t0 help the club attain 4.86 its g0als, The boaid allows managers to make day-to,day 4:84 decisionS, Ciub management must represent the i!best interestg' of 4183 the ciub: Club managers sh0uld provide operational continuity, 4 81 Club managers shou!d make members fee important a n d 4:80 special Service quality must be emphasized. 4.79 Managers must have the flexibility needed to meet the 4.74 members' changing needs. Members should perceive the club to be "their" club. 4.72 Product quality should be emphasized. 4.72 Service (attention to members' needs) must be excellent. 4.72 417i The eiub must meet its fiscai responsibilities and have no 4 89 serious ,'money pmbiems? The club must haVe a reasonabie dues structure. 461 The ipersonaii~; 0f the ciub shouid be maintained. 4160 Club membership is full 4,59 Product and activity charges are reasonable. The club should meet the members' changing needs. Management of the club is entrusted to professional managers rather than committees. Board members represent the "best interests" of the club. The club's physical facility is in excellent condition.
4 71 4 86 4;65
4:65 4:65
4.66 4.52
4.57 4.49
4.80 4.60 4.67 4:69 4,74
4.73 4.47 4.63 4171 4:61
4.38 4i52 4.40
4 40 4.47 4:26
4,56 4.51 4.51
4.37 4.41 4.00
4.34 4.35 4.06
4.49 4.45
4.76 4.41
4.56 4.48
4.22 4.08
4:23 4 22
Initiation fees are reasonab!e. . . . 4.44 ManagementmakesdecisionsreiatVeioattaJn n g a 4:44 !ong!te~m piani yield good member& 4143
4,43
4:45
4:37
4:18
4.21
The b0ard adequateiy iefiects the views of the membership: . . . . Membeiship they want the club t0 bel
4:3t
4:45
4;3i
4.30
4,09
4.00
The club has a mission statement and long-range plan and is moving toward its accomplishment. The long-term needs of the club as perceived by the board a re the same as those perceived by the members. The club has low member turnover. The club emphasizes member satisfaction rather than financial success.
4.29
4.36
4.27
4.26
4.32
4.32
4.18 4,10
4.20 4.09
4.14 4.08
4.09 4,09
3.89 3,30
3183 3:5i
4:04
3,99
3.gl
A high percentage 0f members are activeiy inV0iVedinthe 3:90 ciu& Diversity in membership refieCtsthe demographics of the 3.61 club!s Ioeation, The club seeks revenue sources from outs de the 3144 membeiship. The club has reciprocity with many other clubs. 2.84 The club serves as a vehicle for selling real estate. 1.75
3.96
3,89
3.t8
3:66
3.01
3.34
3.12 1.34
3.39 1.67
The ~!ub "changes with the times:" Membership increases in vaiue:
M A N A G E M E N T
members or members by "type" held different perceptions, that was not the focus of this study. Club GMs could return the surveys either individually, collectively (a batch), or by facsimile. Three packets of surveys came back in a batch, and one survey was returned by facsimile. All others were returned in the individual pre-addressed and postagepaid envelopes that we provided. Survey data were coded and entered for processing on a PC-based Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) program. Two-tailed >tests, which measure the probability that one could see a difference in either direction--one mean higher or the other mean lower--were used to measure significance. Demographic Profile
The 137 general managers participating in the study averaged 40 years of age and had been general managers for approximately 12 years, the last 6.4 years with the club for which they currently worked. Seventy-seven percent of the managers managed country clubs, 7 percent managed city clubs, and the remaining 16 percent managed other types of clubs (e.g., yacht, faculty, tennis). This closely compares to the typical makeup of CMAA clubs (77 percent country, 11 percent city, 12 percent other). The 235 dub members participating in the study had been members of their club for an average of 18.1 years. Eighty-five percent were members of country clubs, 5 percent were members of city clubs, and 10 percent were connected with other types of clubs. The 202 board members participating in the survey averaged 4.1 years of board membership and 17.2 years of membership in their clubs. Board participants represented country clubs (79 percent), city clubs (7 percent), and other types of dubs (14 percent). O f the total, 45 percent held leadership positions, as
October1997 ° 77
Exhibit 2 Fifteen agreed-upon success factors Overall rank1
Success factor
11 14 17
Low turnover of club managers is desired. The "personality" of the club should be maintained. The club should meet the members' changing needs.
25 28
The board adequately reflects the views of the membership. The long-term needs of the club as perceived by the board are the same as those perceived by the members. The club has low member turnover. The Club emphasizes member satisfaction rather than financial success~
29 30
1Based on general managers' rankings. 2All groups agree that this factor was not important. ~No group believed that this factor was critical to success.
follows: 20.9 percent, presidents; 8.0 percent, vice presidents; 7.5 percent, treasurers; and 8.6 percent, chairs of the house committee (typically responsible for oversight of the clubhouse operations). Our assessment is that these respondents are unlikely to be the type of people whose survey answers would be influenced by someone else. Therefore, we believe the members' survey responses were not influenced by managers' perspectives.
Results Perhaps the most striking aspect of the table in Exhibit 1, which gives the success-factor ratings by all participants, is the astonishing level of agreement on the factors. In many instances ratings were virtually the same from one group to the next. While the factors are listed in descending order of importance from the perspective of the general managers, the sequence would be nearly the same if the factors were listed according to either of the other two
7e
groups' ratings. We should also point out that most factors are identified as important by all participants. For example, if one assigned a "cut-off point" of 4.0 ("important"), 30 of the 38 factors are rated as important by all participant groups. This result was predictable, since the 38 factors were initially generated through focus-group discussions with managers, board members, and others w h o m we thought were knowledgeable about the club segment. In this sense, then, survey results confirm most of the perceptions of the focus-group participants. Disparities. Despite the apparent general agreement among participants about the importance of the success factors, the t-test analyses revealed significant differences of opinion among the groups about the perceived importance of some of the factors. The disparity did not, however, include the 15 success factors shown in Exhibit 2 that drew agreement from all three groups.
IflRNELLHOTEL AND RESTAURANT ADMINISTRATIONQUARTERLY
We identified significant differences of opinion about the importance of the remaining 23 success factors. These differences of opinion do not necessarily diminish the importance of any single factor, even if all three groups don't give that factor the same importance rating. For instance, all three groups gave a high rating to the factor "The board allows managers to make dayto-day decisions" (mean of 4.84 for managers, 4.69 for board members, and 4.56 for club members). Even though all three groups believe this to be an important factor in club success, those fractional differences in the mean ratings are significant. One reason is simply that the sample sizes are fairly large, and only dight differences in ratings by large samples can be significant. The most important 17 of the 23 factors on which participating groups failed to agree are given in Exhibit 3 (i.e., the factors scoring above 4.0 for all groups). Some of these factors were considered of essentially the same importance by two of the groups (with the third giving a significantly different rating), while others showed significantly different importance assessments by all three groups.
SharingSuccess Our study is the first that we know of to compare opinions of club managers, board members, and club members regarding the success factors for private clubs. Most existing research analyzes information from managers only. By combining the opinions of these three groups one begins to see for the first time the similarities and differences in perceptions held by each. Perhaps the most obvious and notable result of this research is that club managers, board members, and club members appear to hold reasonably similar opinions about what is and what is not important to a
C L U B
club's success. While we did find some statistical differences of opinion among the three groups (and it might be tempting to harp on that fact), the differences are less important than the similarities. In particular, the fact that each of the 38 factors held nearly the same ranking for each group is worth repeating. Instead of finding an environment that is dominated by disagreements among the three participant groups, we find a strong sense of harmony. While our findings certainly do not reveal clubs as nirvana, there appears to be considerable agreement among potentially competitive groups regarding what makes their clubs successful. We would not anticipate finding such agreement among stakeholders in other industry segments. Results from this research address many issues about what general managers or board members can do to move toward an optimally successful club. By examining the exhibits, club managers might find useful data that we have failed to discuss at length. For instance, it seems that every club is concerned with constantly increasing the level of participation by members. Yet our research finds that this factor is actually rated quite low (34 out of 38) among the success factors. This might convince some managers to spend less time worrying about this issue and more time on other, more important factors. Our research suggests the factors that the key players in private clubs consider to be most important to success. While substantial in number, the 30 factors which attained ratings of 4.0 or greater by each of the three groups represent the important elements in d u b success. Therefore, those interested in private-dub management might use these factors to evaluate the extent to which their clubs are likely to succeed.
M A N A G E M E N T
Exhibit 3
Important factors showing differences of opinion Success Factor
Managers vs. board members
l'he board must allow managers t0 m a k e managers! day~teiday deoisi0nsi must represent the '!best managers' interests, of the club: Ctub managers should provide operational managers2 continuitY. Club managers should make members feel managers 2 important and special. Service quality must be emphasized. X Managers must have the flexibility needed to managers 2 meet the members' changing needs. Product quality should be emphasized, managers! The club must meet its fiscal responsibilities X and have no serious "money probiems2 The club must have a reasonabiedues managers2 struCturel Club membership is full. managers' Product and activity charges are reasonable. X Management of the club is entrusted to managers 2 professional managers rather than committees. Board members represent the "best interests" board2 of the clubl Initiation fees are reasonable: managers! Management makes decisions relative t o managers' attaining a long'term p l a n : Membership is cohesive and knows what managers' they want the club to be. The club has a mission statement and managers ~ long-range plan and is moving toward its accomplishment.
Membersvs. boardmembers
Managersvs. members
board'
managers 2
X
managers i
X
managers2
X
managers 2
X X
managers2 managers 2
board' board!
managers 2 managers'
X
managers2
X X X
managers 2 managers 2 managers2
board2
X
X X
managers 1 managers 1
X
managers2
X
X
Notes: These factors were rated as important by all three groups, but there were significant differences about how important each was. An "X" denotes agreement between groups (or, more accurateJy, an absence of significant disagreement), tn instances in which there was significant disagreement, the group believing the factor to be more important is identified. differences between the means of at least .05 2 differences between the means of at least .01
Finally, this project should be viewed as preliminary. Like most research, it raises additional questions, and we encourage others to expand on the many opportunities for research that it uncovers. Among the obvious are topics such as quantifying the extent to which clubs achieve some or all of the success factors identified in this study. Other issues include the extent to which clubs allow their managers to make day-to-day decisions, the extent to which clubs emphasize service qual-
ity, and the degree to which all participants believe that managers are truly committed to helping clubs attain their goals. Because the club segment has been mostly neglected by researchers, it is ripe for discovery. One of our purposes was to conduct research that might yield useful results for dub-industry participants. We also want to encourage additional work by other researchers to help to raise overall awareness of the club segment. CQ
October1997 • 79