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 |
Most people appreciate a certain degree of change. It provides variety. However, people generally do not welcome rapid change. They certainly do not like having change imposed upon them.
In order to instil a sense of ownership of these new ideas, people must realise that the changes associated with an industry entering a period of consolidation is not the fault of senior management. They are not a fashionable fad dictated by external consultants with no feeling for the company. No manager likes cutting jobs.
Rather, the changes which must occur are an industry, and therefore a job, salvaging operation. Employees must embrace these changes and the subsequent new or revised roles they will be required to undertake in order to rescue these jobs from redundancy. It is therefore necessary to examine the question of utilising more of the potential of the managers themselves, of their staff, of the customer base, and of a company’s financial performance.
Managerial elitism can have serious detrimental effects upon the potential of the middle managers themselves. In an earnest attempt to project a “suitable image”, some managers immerse themselves in a powerful social acid which strips them of all personable qualities and replaces them with a smooth polished “professional” sheen. This is clearly expressed in the classic maxim “If you like me then I’m not doing my job properly”. The resulting professional presents a polished image, but scratch the surface and their true worth in terms of leadership values is revealed.
This persona can have an inhibiting and debilitating effect upon a middle manager. Being professional does not mean denying the personal. Objective and objectionable must not be confused.
A manager must lead from the front and not drive from the rear. They must not view other people as an obstacle to the performance of their duties, but rather as the medium through which they perform their duties. No longer can a Pit Boss’ personal skills be suppressed. No longer must a Pit Boss feel squeezed into a rigid disciplinary role. A Pit Boss will achieve a followership amongst staff by creating an irresistible example. Their role will expand from enforcer to enabler, with a commensurate increase in freedom, responsibility and accountability.
The term “tragedy of the commons” sums up the squandering or destruction of staff potential. This principle states that, taken collectively, the short-term actions of individual managers can have a devastating long-term effect upon staff morale. Staff morale is recognised as a shared resource or a pool of goodwill from which all must draw.
Typically in the past, individuals were often expected to excel despite the system rather than because of it. A lack of praise or positive feedback was noticeable within the workplace. Contact with staff was restricted solely to those occasions when mistakes were made. Severed from satisfaction at work (as a form of occupational therapy), many shift the focus of their lives outside the workplace – the classic “Quit and Stay” syndrome.
The system’s initial response is usually to mask the problem by spraying some convenient term such as attitude about like some industrial air-freshener. The next step is usually to exercise coercive force in order to make the worker comply. Unfortunately, every time this device is used, it strips the worker of a certain amount of self-esteem until eventually they reach a point at which they feel they have nothing left to lose. At this point, they become free, management’s control techniques being exhausted due to their essentially self-defeating nature. In helpless frustration, the system takes consolation by driving these “problem staff” into a work wilderness, branding them with an attitude or work ethic problem. These particular employees may be banished to a professional exile for years in terms of promotion or selection for further training. Many therefore adopt a siege mentality that is largely resistant to reason. They will linger and poison the well with their discontent. Inadvertently, we have managed our way to a problem. Some elements of this scenario are surely familiar to all of us in management positions.
Clearly, this is an oversimplification. The worker’s attitude also factors into this equation. The employee has a responsibility to examine their own behaviour and to change from the Inside-Out if appropriate. The employee must resist the temptation of employing attribution theory to explain away all their misfortunes, blaming everything on everyone and everything else except themselves.
Nevertheless, the work culture is far bigger than any individual. The work environment will impact more upon the individual worker than the worker ever will upon their environment. As the architects of this professional landscape, middle management will be increasingly entrusted with monitoring the state of this system and seeking to create a positive, invigorating atmosphere. They must create a collaborative organisation with an empowered staff capable of responding to the needs of internal and external clients. Only then will the white knuckle grasp of control be replaced by a skilful hand on the rudder. Managers must learn to channel, not control; to steer, rather than row.
The rapid growth of pyramid organisations stems from the fact that “superiors” are judged and rewarded on the performance of those in their charge. A similar sense of stewardship must enter our mental model. A good manager makes their staff look good. A bad manager makes their staff look bad. Middle managers must concentrate upon creating and sustaining a climate that is conducive to others thriving within the workplace. They will be assessed upon their ability to do so.
The Pit Boss’ role will definitely change. It should not contract. Rather, it should expand dramatically. As agents of change, “one of the major responsibilities of middle management is to redefine the boundaries of the team” and to coach the staff in terms of their heads and their hands (in attitude and in technical matters). Rather than striving to get as much out of staff as possible, the challenge for management is now to allow staff to give as much as they can. Rather than having foot soldiers at the front and lieutenants at the back, the goal is to have the lieutenants leading the charge.
Being crippled by concern is one danger we must guard against. Enlightened management policy does not entail taking soft options. Dysfunctional behaviour should not be ignored or endured. The erosion of standards is not acceptable. Standards need not decline with the removal of imposed discipline. Most workers will self-regulate and self-manage admirably when given responsibility coupled with accountability. If you want responsible staff, you must give them responsibility. Mistakes can be expected, and must be corrected in a patient but assertive manner. Most staff will rise to the challenge, and only a small proportion will fail to respond positively to these initiatives.
“The hard part is to confront self-interest and irresponsibility right away. A certain percentage of people will abuse their freedom, take advantage of a loose structure, or be disruptive. There is nothing about stewardship that goes easy on this.” A ruthless compassion is required.
Economic impunity could best describe the attitude of casinos in the past towards the market place. Employees of all levels treated gamblers as though they were incidental to the process of gambling. An endless supply of mug punters was assumed and if a player should take offence then no matter, ” there being plenty more where they came from”. Scorn and, in some instances, open contempt was evident. No onus was placed on pre-dispute contact. Little effort was made to develop recovery systems or to repair the wound in the wake of a dispute. The old management technique did not include the need for such techniques. Therefore, they were not forthcoming.
In the increasingly market-driven and customer service orientated market place of the nineties, most of these old stereotypes have already been dispelled. A shift is evident, with Pit Bosses assuming a public relations role or hosting duties in several Australian casinos. This trend must continue, and must become even more pronounced.
Existing market niches must be identified and filled. New markets must be developed where possible. The Australian Casino industry is being confronted with the harsh economic reality that the manufacturing and production industries have faced for years, a reality which may be summed up as “We don’t have a God-given right to survive even if we have been here for years.” With the opening of several new casino properties in Australia recently, some would argue that this country may be approaching saturation point in terms of the existing entertainment market. This period therefore presents a golden opportunity for middle management to progress beyond micro-managing (and performing only the traditional clerical duties of the pit) to becoming mini-entrepreneurs, with a far more dynamic flair for analysing and identifying business opportunities, cultivating players by earning their confidence, and hence securing their repeat business.
The economic terrain is shifting continually. In today’s market place, the only constant is change. Being willing to embrace change is crucial if a company is to survive and prosper. Companies must become flexible, adaptable and responsive to market forces. No industry can viably remain a backwater. It is no longer enough to know how to play the game for the game has changed and will continue to do so. As such, management can also no longer just go with the flow.
Given Australia’s lack of class-consciousness and its union practices, the model of aristocratic management has never blended or mixed. It remains clearly distinct from the socioeconomic beliefs of the work force. More meaningful industrial relations require a more appropriate model which contains greater safeguards against self-indulgence and clear deterrents against personal excesses. These models discourage managers from projecting their “sensibilities” upon staff and judging staff only on their personal credentials rather than upon their actual performance. These models are uncontaminated by concepts of one’s station, and are not infested by notions of privilege or elitism.
The middle manager as a GARDENER is a healthier and more attractive model. This model nurtures positive concepts and cultivates the enthusiasm which new staff usually bring to the industry. The middle manager must also seek to cut back the negative attitudes that are often associated with long serving staff, and alternatively provide fresh professional nourishment in the form of training and or responsibility so as to encourage and motivate these employees.
Noblesse oblige – rank imposes obligations. Some middle managers will read the earlier sections of this article and be indignant. The purpose of this article is not to denigrate or criticise, but to draw attention to the existence of these mental devices or paradigms. Each of us must examine our managerial styles and ask ourselves “Can I detect any trace of these tendencies in the way I conduct my duties? What is my mental model of sound management?”
As stated earlier, the first step to a solution is to identify and recognise the source of the problem. Our mental models are “deeply ingrained assumptions, generalisations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action. Very often, we are not conscious of our mental models or the effects they have upon our behaviour mental models of what can or cannot be done in different management settings are deeply entrenched”.
Most middle managers willingly embrace a more rewarding model and adopt it once their attention has been drawn to the actual mechanism and the short-comings of the present models. The mental model of a pit boss as a Gardener is simply a suggested framework which emphasises their role as an agent for growth and development. Additionally, the model promises a far more fulfilling, satisfying and challenging role for the pit boss themselves. The Gardener model seeks to harness staff potential through a high-trust management culture. It promises the development of far greater market potential through the process of actively hosting customers. All this must reflect, ultimately, in the bottom line of a company.
INHERITING THE FUTURE, the title of this paper, is intended to depict the notion that our industry is facing a period of discontinuous change, where the past does not necessarily prepare it for the future. It suggests that a company and its management must turn to the future rather than the past as a source of wisdom and inspiration.
This transition has been expressed as jumping the curve in which progress may be depicted as an S-shaped curve that is broken in the middle. The gap between the two halves means that one cannot progress from the old to the new curve by proceeding along the same road – the top of the lower half simply becomes congested. There is no direct link between the two halves. To reach the higher section of the curve, the gap must be jumped. A conceptual leap is necessary.
The title of this paper expresses the concept which lies at the core of this article, a concept which essentially calls for an exercise in mental hygiene. Thus, the process of change requires a professional flossing of the ideas and concepts which once were forms of nourishment, but which now lie lodged and decaying in invisible crevices and which are extremely difficult to reach. Strong, clear lines of thought must be applied in the hope of avoiding more drastic surgical measures at some later date. However, no blame or shame must be attached to these old ideas for they served their purpose in the past. A management mythology was created long ago and through this paper, I only wish to explore and examine the current relevance of some of these managerial myths. We must learn from our past mistakes but not lean upon our past successes. This does not mean that we should jettison every valuable lesson of the past. We cannot sacrifice basic skills but, by the same token, we cannot remain blind to the trends of the future.
