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 |
The third factor is the actual criteria for selection. This may be broken into two parts:
– the cogent question of experience; and
– the issue of character.
A promotion by default mentality may sometimes be discerned amongst those who firmly believe that years of service within the industry should solely determine how appropriate one is for promotion. Experience is assumed to be the prime criteria for advancement. In the past, these people might have received a “tap on the shoulder” and the job would have fallen into their lap simply due to the length of their service.
Several questions must be answered however. Is an Inspector with four years experience automatically better suited for promotion than an Inspector with two years on the Floor? Are they twice as good? How does one weight length of service? Does this take into account differences in personality, maturity, motivation, commitment and technical expertise? Indeed from another point of view, there exists an argument which says that ten years experience in the same position is really just the first two years repeated five times over due to the repetitive nature of the core duties.
Under the previous system, the fate of many experienced staff was decided behind closed doors by a relatively small number of managers. Staff members played no active role in the entire process at any stage. They had no right of appeal under this regime and given the absence of meaningful feedback, it was often impossible to even determine why they had been unsuccessful. Staff were left completely in the dark as to what exactly they had done wrong.
Whilst experience and loyalty to the company are valuable and prized assets, it would seem sheer folly for a company to promote along these lines alone. Perhaps the weight which should be attached to experience lies somewhere between the two extremes above. Like a goalkeeper in soccer, staff are not called into extraordinary action all the time but when they are, then they must perform well and they acquire invaluable expertise in the process.
So, perhaps 95% of the time, a staff member may adequately perform the same automatic duties over and over again. However, 5% of the time, they are called upon to act in unusual or demanding circumstances and it is this condensed experience which should be considered when choosing between two candidates of equal merit. Thus, in conclusion although length of service does not equate exactly with expertise, it does represent a probable degree of condensed expertise which should be recognised.
Competence and character should both feature in the selection process. Poor promotions in the past may perhaps be traced back to a complete disregard of an applicant’s character and a concentration exclusively upon their level of technical competence. This lack of emphasis upon character is unfortunate, as character is often the vehicle by which competence is conveyed to others. Competence may be built upon, but one would be hard pressed to alter character. In order to identify those leaders capable of performing principle-centred leadership, the Casino has investigated qualities such as integrity, maturity and mental abundance through the active use of staff feedback processes and the conducting of formal interviews for new positions.
The Casino has paid particular heed to the people skills of each candidate, for they must function effectively within a people industry. This is no revelation. The sole casino management text in publication, written in 1974, to their credit identifies the fact that “Although it is rarely stressed in most casinos, executives should be responsible for creating high employee morale and good customer relations. The three most important qualities for casino employees are knowledge of games, administrative ability and skill in handling people. Casinos should carefully recruit employees who rank high in all three traits.”
Over twenty years later, few inroads have been made into putting safeguards and mechanisms in place to ensure that a candidate’s personality and character are well suited to working effectively through other people. The Casino has made this a primary objective in the following processes.
Assigning the best person to the position is the Adelaide Casino’s firm commitment. To this end, it seeks to compile a broad information base on each candidate in order to form a rounded picture of the applicant upon which it may confidently make sound decisions. In keeping with the principle of “you have to be able to measure it in order to manage it” the Casino has introduced formal, technical questionnaires and a series of benchmarks for each position.
The promotion process features a four-part selection system incorporating:
– a PEER GROUP RATING (customary appraisals from peers and superiors);
– a formal INTERVIEW (conducted by representatives from Gaming and HR);
– a formal QUESTIONNAIRE (exploring grasp of technical and managerial concepts); and
– a 360 DEGREE EVALUATION (confidential ratings drawn from random pool of staff).
Each component is scored out of 100%. Each candidate must score at least 50 percent in every component in order to proceed further. These four categories are equally weighted and are combined to determine an overall score. The following overall benchmarks must then be attained for each position:
| Dealer/ Inspector | 55% |
| Full Inspector | 60% |
| Acting Pit Boss | 65% |
| Pit Boss | 70% |
| Acting Games Shift Manager | 75% |
| Games Shift Manager | 80% |
Positions are then ascribed to those with the highest overall scores. Regard is paid to the number of positions available, but generally a position will be left vacant if these benchmarks are not reached. Selection for interview must be based upon at least two of the above components. Specific feedback is supplied to unsuccessful candidates by either the Games Shift Manager or the Human Resources representative that jointly conducted their interview.
The questionnaire is posted afterwards to ensure that all staff are aware of the correct responses. Any applicant who achieved less than 50% for any component and who therefore is automatically disqualified for selection is counselled and offered appropriate training.
A great deal of care must be taken when designing the criteria and marking scheme for both the Peer Group and the 360 Degree appraisals. These criteria vary for each position but as an example, applicants for Pit Boss positions have been assessed on the following six areas:
– pit administrative abilities;
– interpersonal ability in patron disputes and general public relations;
– ability to discipline in an effective manner and yet still motivate staff;
– rapport with gaming staff;
– rapport with pit bosses and GSM’s in a teamwork context; and
– level of knowledge of rules and gaming procedures.
A five point grading scale is employed ranging from a score of 1 for Below Average to 5 for Outstanding. To eliminate or reduce bias, the top and bottom marks for each candidate are discounted. The resulting data is processed by staff with statistical expertise to ensure that correct statistical weighting is achieved and graphical illustrations of these findings are prepared for each candidate to facilitate meaningful analysis and feedback.
Staff acceptance of the questionnaire process has been extremely encouraging. The purpose and the content areas of the questionnaires were well publicised in advance which lessened staff apprehension at “suddenly being tested”, and served to sharpen their interest in matters relating to the floor (such as procedural irregularities and familiarity with table game rules and procedures). Most staff recognised the value of being able to accurately divine their actual levels of technical prowess. A small minority of the most experienced staff expressed the opinion that, after so many years on the floor, this technical knowledge could or should be assumed. When it was put to them that assumed knowledge is a dangerous concept upon which to promote and that questionnaires play an established role in most modern professions nowadays, this resistance was dispelled and indeed most went on to excel in the questionnaire component of the process.
The introduction of 360 Degree evaluations caused two initial qualms to be voiced. The first concern related to the lengthening of the selection process. Acquiring this type of feedback does involve additional time and effort. However, the majority of staff soon came to appreciate that a few additional days work is clearly worthwhile when sound promotional choices are the probable outcome. The second reservation involved possible pay-backs on the part of either employees or management as a result of subordinates assessing their superiors. Staff fears of reprisals within a pit by management and also managers’ fears that their career prospects could be sabotaged by staff as revenge for disciplinary actions in the past were legitimate issues for consideration. By reassuring staff that the strictest confidentiality would be maintained at all times (names are not required on evaluation sheets), by carefully selecting precise criteria which leave little room for personal interpretation, and by discarding the top and bottom marks to eliminate extremes, these fears were successfully allayed.
At the inception of the scheme, a heavy emphasis was placed upon the fact that if staff behaved responsibly in these duties, then the additional dimension of reliable feedback could contribute to a higher calibre of managerial personnel. To date, there has been no evidence of professional retaliation of any description and in truth the staff and management have responded magnificently.
Most agree and acknowledge that this four-part process is a more sophisticated tool with which to capture a vivid three-dimensional image of a potential manager – offering a glimpse of competence and character from above and below. It is widely believed that this evaluation from below provides a powerful safeguard against the classic Suck and Duck path to promotion, where an individual goes to great pains to ingratiate themselves with their superiors whilst avoiding any association with mistakes or problems involving staff. Such individuals cannot avoid the fact that other staff are highly perceptive to this practice. A person may be able to project a certain image to their superiors, but they can never escape the scrutiny of the staff in their care.
