Inheriting the Future
Observations on the evolving role of middle management within the Australian gaming industry; a paper co-authored by Michael Ferris and Andrew MacDonald.
By Andrew MacDonald, Senior Executive Casino Operations
and Michael Ferris
Adelaide Casino, 1995
Introduction and Terminology | Pit Boss – Caretaker or Policeman | Mental Models | “If It Isn’t Broken – Don’t Fix It” | Pioneers Versus Settlers | The Challenge of Change | Bridging the Gulf between the Theoretical and the Practical | From Personal Realm to Professional Sphere | Means of Selection for Promotion | The Formation of Particular Management Structures | The Impact of Promotion upon Candidates Themselves | The Criteria for Selection | Unified Professional Ethic | Pit Boss Job Description | Code Of Ethics (Noblesse Oblige) | The Company Mission Statement | Empowerment of Staff | Implementing Change | The Human Consequences of Change | Walking Backwards into the Future | Bibliography |
Traditionally, a Pit Boss has relied upon three things. Firstly, technical knowledge. Secondly, organisational ability. Thirdly, an unspoken but assumed Built-in-Respect factor for a hierarchical position based upon accrued experience. The first two are “givens”, as without technical expertise and the ability to roster staff effectively, a Pit Boss is hard-pressed to function. What of the third factor – experience? Expertise acquired during years spent on the Gaming Floor should never be denied, nor dismissed, nor undervalued. Generally, however, a comparatively low emphasis has been placed upon developing people skills or communication techniques.
Many Pit Bosses see little need to examine the fabric of their jobs at anything but a superficial level. They are reluctant to delve too deeply into what constitutes the job itself. A grasp of basic management theories is often deemed unnecessary or irrelevant. Education and formalised training is often scorned or spurned.
In the absence of formal qualifications or prerequisites for management positions, literacy and numeracy levels may vary enormously between individuals. A lack in confidence in either area may manifest itself as indignant resentment towards academic theories and a resistance or reluctance to embrace such concepts. Some find the prospect of “formal training” quite disconcerting. We must bear this in mind when designing in-house education programmes.
Traditionally, most of us have come up through the ranks, reliant upon a vicarious learning process. Knowledge and promotion were gained by serving your time, and not through any formal training scheme or progression. This haphazard learning experience, dependent entirely upon the quality of an individual’s particular mentors, is now reflected in the wide divergence of views and ideas with regards to the concept of professionalism. As a result, we lack a unified professional ethic.
Given the patchwork basis of their professional education and experience, whilst most Pit Bosses perform creditably at the level of pit maintenance, they are generally ineffective in their broader managerial roles. They tend to fall back all too heavily and readily on what they know (their pit education), on their position (their professional pedigree) and on their practical experience (which they normally have in abundance). Not surprisingly, practical experience is the key determinant in the decision making process whilst theoretical knowledge is often either downgraded or ignored.
This situation can lead to “skilled incompetence”. Typically, it results in a technically top-heavy Pit Boss lacking the people skills needed to implement this expertise effectively. Like an inverted iceberg, nine-tenths of the Pit Boss is visible in terms of technical duties and image. The remaining one-tenth, concerning people skills, remains hidden beneath the surface. Such a structure requires only a relatively minor disturbance to destabilise this managerial style and cause it to capsize within a Pit; revealing a very personal and unprofessional underside.
As a counter to change, organisational defences are often thrown up. A lack of professional cohesion can lead to a rather disjointed and fragmented management style. “The team may function quite well with routine issues but when they confront complex issues that may be embarrassing or threatening, the teamness goes to pot.”_ In-fighting between the departments of the casino accounts for a great deal of energy expenditure. Usually, under adverse conditions, the company’s greatest learning disability becomes communication. Personal agendas begin to be pursued rather than a unified, collective agenda. Esprit de Corps unravels.
The “I am my position” mentality poses dangers to the self development of the individual practising it. “Respect my Position – even if you don’t respect me” could best summarise this attitude. Promotion to Pit Boss is often accompanied by a mental sigh of relief, with the individual having reached a professional plateau upon which they may now rest in terms of performance. In essence, it’s a case of “I’ve done my time – now it’s my turn in the sun.” In certain cases, a rather cherished sense of being exempt may be detected. The Pit Boss position may be associated with having joined an exclusive club or fraternity which affords the individual the luxury of practising a “Do as I Say – Not as I Do” style of management. As a result of these attitudes, a few may slip into the habit of “borrowing” from their position. If an individual feels that they are entitled to respect (irrespective of their performance or professional development), then neither growth, development nor self improvement will be encouraged.
An almost feudalistic undertone can emerge in the worst of these management cultures, with management casually bestowing favours or venting their displeasure at will. The emphasis is on position as privilege rather than a responsibility. This model may thrive within a smaller casino where such a regime may be enforced more cohesively due to lower staff ratios, but it seems inappropriate and impractical within larger scale operations.
One key indicator of this management style is a dismissive attitude towards the views and suggestions of staff. If we take the image of the work relationship as a ship and accept that damage can be inflicted to that relationship “below the waterline” in terms of respect, recognition and reward, then this dismissive approach could be likened to a torpedo. Its effects can be devastating but these repercussions are generally muffled by distance (the effects are often delayed and manifest themselves over a long time period). A dismissive environment languishes and it defeats enthusiasm.
A myth of mutual insignificance can develop within the pit as a result of this type of dismissive approach, with staff and pit bosses ceasing to regard each other as relevant in a real sense where communication is concerned. This is the exact opposite of the regime of mutual respect that we should seek to establish within the workplace.
