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 |
Turning from general managerial culture let us examine two specific mental models:
A Pit Boss may view their role as either a CARETAKER (fix it if it goes wrong) if they choose a passive approach towards management, or alternatively as a POLICEMAN (the enforcer dutifully patrolling the Pit on the look out for wrong-doers) if they take their job “more seriously” and opt for a more aggressive stance.
Both models are unfortunately negative and reactive in nature. The Policeman may well believe they are behaving in a proactive manner by actively identifying and prosecuting misdemeanours, but this is in fact reactive behaviour in disguise. Such behaviour is invariably a corrective response to something rather than a positive initiative.
With the Policeman-Pit Boss, the Pit Stand can actually radiate negative energy. Hunting or hounding some hapless staff member and tearing them to pieces in discussion may be an amusing diversion, but it serves to unnerve and demoralise the staff. Conversely, in the case of the Caretaker-Pit Boss, nothing much at all is emitted from the Pit Stand. Whilst not apathetic, the caretaker usually strives merely to fill the six hour void between the setting up and the knocking down of a Pit. These individuals advertise their own redundancy by distracting themselves and others in conversation. There is little or no impetus to perform or excel within such a pit. Staff are left to their own devices until something goes wrong.
Before I am accused of drafting a damning indictment of middle management personnel, four important points must be made.
The first step on the road to reform is to drag these managerial spectres out into the open. We all recognise some of the elements outlined above but we choose not to examine them too closely. They represent “the unwritten Rules of the Game.”
Alongside the official managerial roles we know we should play are these parallel rules. These rules remain extremely powerful because they remain unspoken and therefore are resistant to change. Although we are only dimly aware of their presence, their effects are constantly felt or witnessed within the pit. The first step is to acknowledge their existence and confront their presence. Verbalising these beliefs and stimulating dialogue on these issues is crucial. To de-mystify these effects we must establish some verbal tools – a vocabulary with which to handle them.
The majority of Pit Bosses are performing conscientiously to the very best of their abilities. I am the first to recognise this fact. Most Pit Bosses genuinely strive to excel – according to their own belief systems. Therein lies the frustrating paradox. Sterling efforts along inappropriate lines can lead to tragic misunderstandings. A Pit Boss may well defend their own stance vigorously and protest passionately if it is challenged because they are religiously following the professional scriptures of the past and are determined to keep the faith.
One aim of this article is to alert middle managers to the need to scrutinise and question these belief structures. To be aware of their existence is half the battle.
The above examples are clearly exaggerated for the sake of emphasis. They illustrate the worst case scenarios. We are all prone to some of these attitudes from time to time. Most of us can honestly say that we have never thought of it this way, but few of us can honestly say we have never thought this way. These tendencies do not represent deep personal flaws within ourselves. They are not inescapable aspects of human nature. They reflect our mental models, and adopting new paradigms can minimise misuse of power and maximise management potential.
These problems are definitely not confined to the gaming industry. No company or industry has escaped the trauma facing middle management in reinventing its role in order to remain relevant within a turbulent business environment. Our turn has simply come.
