By Michael Herd, Head of International Search & Consulting
KOPPLIN KUEBLER & WALLACE
There is one question I am being asked more and more frequently by candidates when discussing senior opportunities in the club industry:
“What’s the Board like?”
It sounds like a relatively simple question, but I think it says quite a lot about how the priorities of senior candidates are changing.
Go back a few years and, when discussing a new opportunity, the first questions were much more likely to be about the club itself.
How good is the golf course? What are the facilities like? How many members does it have? What’s its reputation? Where does it sit amongst its peers?
The perceived quality and prestige of the club mattered enormously. For an ambitious club professional, moving to a bigger, better-known or more highly regarded club was an obvious form of career progression.
That hasn’t disappeared. Good people still want to work for good clubs.
But increasingly, the name above the door isn’t enough.
Today, some of the first questions I get are around governance.
What’s the Board culture like? How does it operate? How often does it change? What is the relationship between the Chair and General Manager? What authority does the General Manager actually have? Why did the previous club leader leave? How involved are committees? How are decisions made?
In other words, candidates aren’t simply assessing the opportunity anymore. They’re assessing whether the governance structure will allow them to be successful in it.
Why has it changed?
Partly, I think, because senior executives are more informed.
They speak to each other. They have experienced different governance models. They’ve seen friends and colleagues take seemingly fantastic jobs at prestigious clubs only to discover that the reality behind the gates is very different.
A great golf course, beautiful clubhouse and strong reputation can only compensate so far for an environment where priorities continually change, decisions are revisited, committees stray into operations, or the executive team doesn’t feel trusted to do the job it was recruited to do.
The role of the General Manager has changed too.
Today’s General Manager is expected to be a strategic business leader, not simply an operator. They need to lead people, develop culture, manage increasingly complex businesses, communicate effectively, and work closely with a volunteer Board.
For that relationship to work, there has to be clarity on both sides.
The Board governs. Management manages. And the two need to have a strong, trusting relationship.
Simple to write. Much harder to maintain.
Governance needs constant attention.
One thing we have learned through advising clubs on governance and spending time with Boards is that good governance is never finished.
We often describe it as something you continually need to “add oil to.”
A club can have excellent governance today, but then a new Chair arrives. Three new Board members are elected. Committee leadership changes. A major project begins. Personalities change. Suddenly, lines that were previously very clear can start to blur.
That’s why governance should be something clubs proactively work on every year rather than something they address when there is a problem.
Taking time away from the normal Board meeting cycle can be particularly valuable. We regularly see the benefit of Boards creating dedicated time to talk about how they operate, rather than simply what they need to decide.
Some of the questions worth asking are relatively straightforward:
- Do we prepare for and facilitate efficient meetings?
- Does the board communicate with members in a transparent manner?
- Does the board think and act strategically?
- Do we respect management boundaries and avoid operational meddling?
- Do we bring a club-wide perspective rather than representing a single faction or amenity?
Clarity beats assumption
One practical exercise I particularly like is a responsibility matrix.
Take the important areas of club business: budgets, capital expenditure, membership, people, communications, operations, policy and so on, and establish who is responsible for what.
What sits with the Board? What sits with the GM? Where does a committee provide input? Where does the Board approve rather than execute?
It sounds basic, but it can generate some fascinating conversations.
Often, the problem isn’t that anyone is deliberately overstepping. It’s that two groups genuinely believe the same decision belongs to them.
Creating that clarity before the difficult decision arrives is far easier than trying to establish it in the middle of one.
The same principle applies to committees. Clubs should periodically ask whether each committee still has a clear purpose, whether its remit is understood and whether it is operating at the appropriate level. A committee structure that worked ten years ago isn’t necessarily the right structure for the club today.
Board succession matters too.
Strong governance isn’t simply about having capable people around the table today. Clubs should think carefully about how future Board members are identified, what skills and perspectives the Board needs, how new members are introduced to their responsibilities and how knowledge passes from one leadership group to the next.
New Board members should understand from day one what their role is, and just as importantly, what it isn’t.
Governance is a process, not a project.
Perhaps this is the most important point.
There isn’t a governance document that can be written, approved and put in a drawer that suddenly makes a club well governed.
Good governance is behavioural.
It’s the relationship between the Chair and General Manager. It’s how Board members challenge without interfering. It’s how disagreements are handled. It’s whether agreed lines of responsibility are respected. It’s how new Board members are brought into the system. It’s how committees understand their charters. And it’s whether everyone can put the long-term interests of the club ahead of individual agendas.
That’s why regular governance reviews, Board education and dedicated governance discussions are valuable, even in clubs where things are working well.
Sometimes the healthiest governance conversation a Board can have is simply asking: “Are we still operating in the way we said we would?”
Candidates notice.
This brings me back to where I started.
When a candidate asks me, “What’s the Board like?”, they’re rarely asking whether the Board members are nice people.
They’re trying to understand the environment they’re potentially walking into.
Is there trust?
Is there clarity?
Will I have the authority to lead?
Will the Board challenge and support me without trying to run the operation?
Can I build and develop my own leadership team?
Will decisions that have been agreed remain agreed?
These questions matter.
Clubs rightly spend considerable time assessing whether somebody is good enough to lead their organisation.
The best candidates are now spending just as much time assessing whether the organization, and its governance, will allow them to be successful.
Having worked with Boards and executives across different club environments, one thing is increasingly clear: governance isn’t simply an internal Board matter. It has a direct impact on a club’s ability to attract, enable and ultimately retain good people.
For clubs, the advice is relatively simple: don’t wait until governance becomes a problem to talk about governance.
Review it regularly. Challenge it. Create time for the Board to discuss how it operates. Look at your responsibility matrix. Review committee structures and terms of reference. Invest in Board orientation and succession. Make sure the Chair and General Manager relationship is working as it should.
Keep adding oil.
Because prestige may still attract someone’s attention.
But increasingly, good governance might be what convinces them to join, and what ultimately makes them stay.
