Disagree. You don't build leadership without showing the Scout how to lead well. To do that you need to define his tasks, set objectives he can meet, provide a method for measuring those objectives and allow the Scout to self-evaluate and correct.
You have requirements in the POR that highlight what the role entails. Showing a Scout how to match quantifiable objectives to his POR allows the Scout to gauge when he's meeting his POR. These are not merely a measurement of performance, but a real-time guide as to HOW he's doing. If a Scout is missing his own self-made objective then he knows he's off course and needs to correct himself.
George Patton was a great leader. He pissed off half of the Army with his actions, but there's no disputing he was a great leader. We need to recognize not everyone is going to Gandi, Kennedy or Reagan.
@Krampus, here's were the rub comes. I distinguish between management and leadership, the two can run divergent in two different directions or they can run smoothly simultaneously. What I think is being suggested in the post is that building management skills produces good qualitative measurements and of course if a boy is going to be good at that he's going to need a ton of instruction and a whole big bag of tricks to pull it off. Sure the boy can do the velvet glove Theory Y approach to management or they can use the hard core "do it or else" approach of Theory X. Makes no never mind, how the participants in the group IF ANY EVEN EXIST feel is of no consequence. Get the job done your POSITION is to be RESPONSIBLE for getting the work (or task) done. We can measure, yes the task is done or no it isn't.
The problem lies in the people involved in accomplishing the task, or better yet there IS NO task! at the moment. Where is the management requirements then?
Let's look at @qwazse's comment about the size of the troop. It is suggested that with a smaller troop situational leadership can be applied better than the "responsibility (management) emphasis. Sure there is a lot more to organize, but if one is doing situational leadership, each part of that responsibility is held together with more leadership opportunities to keep people in the game and not focus on just one person's management ability.
Huge trail cutting project. Huge troop, one SPL.who decides he's NOT going to "run the troop" on this one. Hasn't the time or energy, so he turns to his PL"s and said, I"m in over my head. Who can mark out the trail for me. PL says, my patrol can do that. Okay I need someone to cut the trail, PL 2 say's he can do that.. I need someone to rake brush together, PL 3 - no problem got that covered. QM says, Hey, I can't handle all the equipment for this project. PL 4 says he'll help QM with the equipment. PL 5 says they'll get his boys together to haul out brush and PL 6 says he'll bundle it up and get it on the truck, PL 7 says, it's going to be a hot day, we'll constantly do water runs and make sure everyone stays on their feet. PL 8 doesn't have a job so he says, He's going to stick with the SPL and be his runners and gofers and do whatever job pops up that needs an extra hand.
SPL goes out to PL 1 to see how they are doing. PL says he's short 2 compasses, PL 8 standing next to SPL says, Two of his boys will find QM and get them. and this keeps up all day long. Now the project gets done, but WHO ran the show? Who lead this project? PL 1 managed a small task of setting the trail, PL 2 and his boys cut brush, etc. PL 7 ran around and made sure everyone was hydrated and healthy. PL 8 ran his boys all over the place to make sure every little putsy job got address.
Sure, they're getting the management job done. Everyone is taking a piece of it on their own and leading it as a part of a greater whole. Even the waterboys and the gofers were important and it boiled down to maybe just one or two boys taking care of someone's empty canteen kept the project rolling alone smoothly.
So what's PL 1 leading? A boy that works the compass who is working with the boy who has the map, who's directing and helping a third boy mark the trail correctly on the right side of the trail, and another boy on the left and another boy making sure they have enough tape to mark it
Did the SPL need to tell Little Johnny where to put the orange markers on the right side of the trail? Or does he rely on the leadership ability of others to work with him and make sure that the sub-leader is getting everything he needs (support) to do his small part of the project. And when one comes right down to it, isn't Little Johnny constantly making decisions and relaying back information to the PL that maybe this 4' diameter tree might be a bit big for the machete crowd and someone needs to address the issue further before proceeding?
At one time or another if everyone is taking care of more than just what they're told to do, the situational leadership develops along the way.
If the goal is just to get the job done in smooth management of one or two people, no one in the rest of the group ever has to figure out how to contribute leadership and will rely on just what to be told to do next. Like I said in other posts, I don't use duty rosters, my boys have evolved beyond that and rely on their leadership skills to handle tasks that come along.
So then the question becomes which comes first Management skill development or Leadership skill development. I happen to believe that if one were to teach real leadership, management will figure itself out along the way. If one were to start with management first and struggle with trying to motivate, discipline, and constantly running around bribing others to do their job, it could take a while to ever get to the end of the project let alone develop any real leadership skills when no one is following.
A little rule of thumb I use: If the job is getting done, it makes for a good manager, but if he ends up doing the job himself because no one will help, he's probably got a leadership problem.
Edited by Stosh, 14 March 2016 - 02:20 PM.