Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Eagle Project - Who must participate


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21 DuctTape

DuctTape

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 515 posts

Posted 15 April 2017 - 06:20 AM

Too true. I know a scout who was away on a school trip during his planned Eagle project work week. In his absence, he "delegated" the on-site project leadership to his Dad. :blink:
 
IMO, that was another troop service project not an Eagle service project.


When I hear about situations like this it really bothers me. This is a perfect example of using the GTA, and rules to provide an award based on not really being deserving. I would bet good money most of the work preceding the project was also delegated to dad. I have seen it happen in my neck of the woods, a scout eagle project being planned, designed, and executed by adults with the boy holding a clipboard and writing in his workbook. So sad. This is what happens when the badge becomes the goal instead of recognition of something else coupled with the "can't deny a boy who checks off boxes" mentality. I have no problem with adults being led by the boy, but it appears a line was crossed long ago. I partially blame the "construction project" type projects. /rant
  • 0

#22 Back Pack

Back Pack

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 15 April 2017 - 06:28 AM

It's not the projects. It's the adults.

Parents who can't let go. Adults grilling kids and looking for reasons to fail him.
  • 0

#23 fred johnson

fred johnson

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 1427 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 09:39 AM

I know a scout who was away on a school trip during his planned Eagle project work week. In his absence, he "delegated" the on-site project leadership to his Dad. :blink:

 

I've sat on many Eagle BORs now.  I must admit that I'd be very tempted at the EBOR to tell the scout he needs to find another project. He'd have to explain strongly how he setup the project such that his dad could lead it.  Otherwise, I'd assume it's a dad driving the whole project.


  • 0

#24 Stosh

Stosh

    BSA Heretic

  • Members
  • 11746 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 10:44 AM

So the question remains....is the boy leading by delegating out the various tasks to boys and adults alike and then doing a "staff" review afterwards to make sure the task is completed?  Sure, that smacks of good management but is it not always good leadership of taking care of his staff and their success with what they were assigned to do?  The buck stops with the leader.  Is he doing proper task assignments and following through regardless of whether that task is assigned to an adult, or does it only "count" if it's another boy? 

 

As an example, a number of trees need to be cleared off the trail reconstruction process.  No boy is allowed to use a chain saw, so the task is delegated to an adult to run the saw.  The adult knows which trees need cutting up and at his direction, the boys remove the logs from the trail.  Does that make the whole project "run" by the adult?  What if the candidate is off with another team of boys raking off the leaves and sticks while the adult is cutting trees?  He's not present, nor is he doing the work.... but is he leading nonetheless?


  • 0

Stosh

 

There's a reason why I don't always answer the phone, doorbell or comments on forums.  :)


#25 Col. Flagg

Col. Flagg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 745 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 11:13 AM

So the question remains....is the boy leading by delegating out the various tasks to boys and adults alike and then doing a "staff" review afterwards to make sure the task is completed?  Sure, that smacks of good management but is it not always good leadership of taking care of his staff and their success with what they were assigned to do?  The buck stops with the leader.  Is he doing proper task assignments and following through regardless of whether that task is assigned to an adult, or does it only "count" if it's another boy?


IMHO, the Scout shows leadership by delegating and managing the outcome. If an Eagle candidate has a few different workstreams (task areas) for his project, he can certainly delegate by those areas. He assigns the appropriate people, assigns tasks by the tools the Scouts are allowed to use, conducts the safety review for each area, and assigns someone to head the task. HOWEVER, his leadership (and management) does not end there. He must continue to get hands on in each area, making sure that the end result is what he designed/planned. If issues come up he needs to be there to address them. Reviewing after-the-fact is not doing 100% of his job in either leadership or management.


  • 0

#26 Stosh

Stosh

    BSA Heretic

  • Members
  • 11746 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 11:23 AM

"He must continue to get hands on in each area, making sure that the end result is what he designed/planned. If issues come up he needs to be there to address them. Reviewing after-the-fact is not doing 100% of his job in either leadership or management."
 
Being in two or three places at the same time is something I've never been able to manage myself.  I surely wouldn't expect it of any of my Eagle candidates.  Simply standing around watching an adult cut up trees with a chain-saw might not be a very productive leadership and/or management option either.  Sometimes good leadership involves 1) careful explanation of expectations for the task, 2) make sure they are capable of doing the task, 3) occasional observation to make sure things are going smoothly, and 4) follow-up to make sure the task is completed and the person assigned/delegated the task feels they have contributed successfully with the work.
 
Leave any of those things out, and I would question their leadership, not management.  The goal is to have people feel they have contributed something worthwhile to the project and feel good about it.  It's the taking care of others part of leadership over management that I focus on. Col. Flagg, you are correct, one can't leave out any parts of the process to make it a good Eagle project.


  • 0

Stosh

 

There's a reason why I don't always answer the phone, doorbell or comments on forums.  :)


#27 Col. Flagg

Col. Flagg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 745 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 11:36 AM

"He must continue to get hands on in each area, making sure that the end result is what he designed/planned. If issues come up he needs to be there to address them. Reviewing after-the-fact is not doing 100% of his job in either leadership or management."
 
Being in two or three places at the same time is something I've never been able to manage myself.  I surely wouldn't expect it of any of my Eagle candidates.  Simply standing around watching an adult cut up trees with a chain-saw might not be a very productive leadership and/or management option either.  Sometimes good leadership involves 1) careful explanation of expectations for the task, 2) make sure they are capable of doing the task, 3) occasional observation to make sure things are going smoothly, and 4) follow-up to make sure the task is completed and the person assigned/delegated the task feels they have contributed successfully with the work.

 

I am not saying he has to be in two places at the same time, obviously. However, the Scout does need to move around, YET he needs to get "hands on" to show and demonstrate...where he can. He can show good planning by making sure his team leads use phones or radios to contact him if needed. Shows good planning, management and leadership.  ;)


  • 0

#28 Stosh

Stosh

    BSA Heretic

  • Members
  • 11746 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 11:40 AM

Yep, that's #1 and #2.  Having explained and trained, then comes the question of whether or not they are able to do what is expected.  A good leader lays the ground work for success.


  • 0

Stosh

 

There's a reason why I don't always answer the phone, doorbell or comments on forums.  :)


#29 Tampa Turtle

Tampa Turtle

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2458 posts

Posted 17 April 2017 - 12:39 PM

Depends on the boy. I was on a Project recently where the bear of a boy was doing most of the work to avoid telling others what to do. So his folks stepped in. I had to pull them aside to let him lead and then explain to him what he needed to do. After a while he was demonstrating what needed to be done (it was moving and re-aligning headstones) and then letting others do the work; he did a good job--for him it was a stretch-and he was able to have more than 1 party working and Mom and Dad stepped back to taking pictures and fetching food.

 

I have seen other boys really do detailed logistical planning and set themselves up as a 'command post' as parties in different locations. Occasionally they would have to problem solve. 

 

I have also seen almost absent boys let their parents or volunteers figure everything out--I really don't think that demonstrate leadership.


  • 0

#30 gumbymaster

gumbymaster

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 288 posts

Posted 18 April 2017 - 08:30 AM

So the question remains....is the boy leading by delegating out the various tasks to boys and adults alike and then doing a "staff" review afterwards to make sure the task is completed?  Sure, that smacks of good management but is it not always good leadership of taking care of his staff and their success with what they were assigned to do?

 

@Stosh, you have spoken often on your view of the difference between leadership and management; however, I, personally, view 'management' as I understand it from your use of the term, to be just one of the many styles of leadership.  It can exist together with or independent from other styles such as servant leadership or delegation.  I would still consider the effective management of a project to be a demonstration of leadership.

 

I also view, terminology aside, the Eagle project to really intend to mean management of a 'large scale' (relative to the Scout's prior experience) project.  This as a way to prepare them to lead/manage efforts in their future.  The Positions of Responsibility are there to let the Scout find their style of leadership (as I understand you to described it) - taking care of their boys, helping them to learn necessary skills and grow into their own leadership roles.  The project really seems intended to apply those skills to achieve a more external goal.

 

That said, I also would look twice at an Eagle CANDIDATE who delegated the final implementation details of their project to another - in doing this they would lose on all the learning that comes from those 'last minute challenges' that always come up.  While it is true that a 'perfectly' planned project would not have any ... when has anyone seen a perfectly planned project with no need to adapt to circumstances on the fly.


  • 0

#31 Stosh

Stosh

    BSA Heretic

  • Members
  • 11746 posts

Posted 19 April 2017 - 08:23 AM

gumbymaster

 

There is a very fine line between leadership and management.  The rationale I use is the overall intent of the two dynamics.  Management is the process by which tasks, projects, goals, objectives are accomplished.  The "leadership" involved in that can range from servant leadership to downright bossy tyranny.  Whatever it takes to get the job done!  Yes, people are involved in the accomplishment of tasks, projects, goals and objectives.  Are they an integral part of the team which the group is as a whole trying to fulfill, or are they merely just another "resource" needed to get the job done?  One does not need leadership to delegate people around to the various aspects of the project.  As long as the job gets done, one can move people in and out of that responsibility until it is accomplished successfully. 

 

A Position of Responsibility (POR) is designed to center itself around a management task, and the scout's advancement is dependent upon how well he does the job.  Being responsible for the troop's equipment may nor may not involve other people.  Sure, the scout needs the management skill of working with other people, but he doesn't need to lead them in the process.  Little Johnny turns in a request for a Dutch oven from the troop trailer and Sammy makes sure he gets one.  Sammy doesn't lead Little Johnny anywhere, but simply reacts to the task needing to be done.

 

How about the Bugler.  Need someone to play Taps at 10:00 pm?  There's a job to be done.  Bugler leads no one, but simply does the task at hand at 10:00 pm.

 

While there may or may not be times when fulfilling the POR that a person may be "leading" a group of people, it still may not actually be leadership.  Take the Patrol Leader POR for example.  It sounds like leadership, but is it really?  He manages the duty rosters, assigns tenting arrangements, makes sure his boys are progressing through their advancement, attending meetings to make sure the schedule of events is available to them, coordinates a lot of activities, but how many of them does he really lead as a leader and how many of them are mere delegations of a good manager?

 

So this is the rub I run into with the Eagle project.  The requirement explicitly states the candidate is to show leadership.  What muddies the water is the fact that unless leadership is taught all along with the various management tasks, the only recourse the candidate has is to do a large project (task), with plenty of coordination, delegation, and other management of tasks activity to cover up the fact that he might not be able to generate sufficient interest from the other people helping with the management project.

 

Eagle candidate A needs workers to build a fishing dock for the local nursing home.  How many of his friends and other scouters, and people from school, and family members are all clamoring to help out!!!  And how many times have we heard about a boy getting all his ducks in order only to have no one show up on the work day scheduled?  At that point, true leadership becomes obvious!  In the second scenario, no one is following and will only show up if they are forced.  That candidate may have done an outstanding job of managing the project, but absolutely nothing to show leadership.


Edited by Stosh, 19 April 2017 - 08:24 AM.

  • 0

Stosh

 

There's a reason why I don't always answer the phone, doorbell or comments on forums.  :)


#32 qwazse

qwazse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6217 posts

Posted 19 April 2017 - 09:19 AM

 

... I also view, terminology aside, the Eagle project to really intend to mean management of a 'large scale' (relative to the Scout's prior experience) project.  ... The Positions of Responsibility are there to let the Scout find their style of leadership (as I understand you to described it)

I'm gonna pick on this statement just a bit.

 

REQUIREMENT 5. While a Life Scout, plan, develop, and give leadership to others in a service project helpful to any religious institution, any school, or your community. ...

This is scouting for boys -- especially this requirement, which was adopted well after BSA mandated the age limit on rank advancement.

 

If the Eagle project was intended to mean "management," the requirement would have said so.

If it was intended to be of a larger scale than any other projects the boy has done as a scout, it would have said so.

If positions of responsibility were intended to train in "leadership" they would all have the word "leader" on them.

 

I say this, because we routinely expect scouts to plan and implement service projects. The oval on their patch is immaterial. Sometimes the projects they do before Eagle are tougher than their Eagle project (albeit with fewer signatures and reporting requirements and perhaps more for the unit or a camp than for an external beneficiary). So the Eagle project is more like the debutante ball for a seasoned scout.

 

PoR's are simply a way to allocate management responsibilities across the members in the troop. There are jobs that need to be done, boys need to do them.

 

There is a synergy between the two concepts. Some leadership skill is gained while managing ... starting with leading yourself to do your appointed task. Then leading others in contributing to your task, etc ... And every time we lead (or plan, or develop) a project, we pick up some management "nugget" (e.g., task allocation, scheduling, training, after action review, etc ...). But mainly, we learn to lead (form a vision, inspire others, incorporate others, etc ...).

 

That's why when I look at where most leadership opportunities are throughout the advancement method, I find them in the service requirements. And, when I look at where most management opportunities are, I find them in the positions of responsibility. The really fun part, is watching it all come together when the boys work at mastering scout skills. But, IMHO, the First-Class skills are really a yard-stick to help a patrol measure its leadership and management potential.


  • 0

#33 Stosh

Stosh

    BSA Heretic

  • Members
  • 11746 posts

Posted 19 April 2017 - 09:29 AM

Being an effective manager is always easier than being an effective leader.  One has full control over management, but when it comes to leadership, other people have full control over the process.  Either they follow, or they don't.  


  • 0

Stosh

 

There's a reason why I don't always answer the phone, doorbell or comments on forums.  :)


#34 gumbymaster

gumbymaster

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 288 posts

Posted 19 April 2017 - 02:35 PM

I will respect that some on the forum will hold a different view than I do.  I really didn't intend to (re)start an argument, particularly one it seems I may lose (if such things were voted on), I just have a respectful disagreement of the complete separation of management from leadership.

 

Plan and develop can be done all alone by the scout in the comfort of their rooms, so it comes down to "give leadership to others", this would, in my view, necessitate communicating and/or interacting with the others to be led and/or directed (trained if necessary) in the tasks to be accomplished.  A variety of leadership skills are then practiced in the effort to manage the outcome of the planned task(s).

 

If one really wanted to play the semantics game "give leadership to others" could also be interpreted in having others lead various aspects of the project.  Which, incidentally, was something that the troop of my youth encouraged ... "A good eagle project could be divided up into task areas of different scopes providing an opportunity for Life and Star candidates to create sub projects" and all that - not really the way things are done today, which is fine.

 

I will continue to hold the general view that a well managed project was led well and a poorly managed project was poorly led.  I leave open that there are always exceptions.  Just as each boy is different.  Leadership comes in many forms, including those who may not have the extrovert personality of what we commonly call a "natural leader" and replaces that limitation with superior planning and organization skills carried out by a trusted team.

 

addressing the earlier comment...

As for some of the lessor used positions of responsibility (Historian, Bugler, Librarian, etc.); when I have had a voice in determining such things, it has been a pre-position expectation that the position holder would describe how they saw their role and how it would help the leadership of the group.  At then end of their term, I would judge their success at the PoR by how they held to their own standard for the position.  A bugler for example could be a leadership role if they took responsibility to keeping the unit on the planned schedule.  Did they wake up early to do revile on time, do they do calls for assembly when needed, etc. and are they keeping track of the need, or only doing it when told.  Someone who only plays colors for the flag ceremony, while applying a wonderful skill set, in my view, is not applying leadership to the position.


Edited by gumbymaster, 19 April 2017 - 02:37 PM.

  • 0

#35 qwazse

qwazse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 6217 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 08:46 AM

I will respect that some on the forum will hold a different view than I do.  I really didn't intend to (re)start an argument, particularly one it seems I may lose (if such things were voted on), I just have a respectful disagreement of the complete separation of management from leadership.

 

Plan and develop can be done all alone by the scout in the comfort of their rooms, so it comes down to "give leadership to others", this would, in my view, necessitate communicating and/or interacting with the others to be led and/or directed (trained if necessary) in the tasks to be accomplished.  A variety of leadership skills are then practiced in the effort to manage the outcome of the planned task(s).

 

If one really wanted to play the semantics game "give leadership to others" could also be interpreted in having others lead various aspects of the project.  Which, incidentally, was something that the troop of my youth encouraged ... "A good eagle project could be divided up into task areas of different scopes providing an opportunity for Life and Star candidates to create sub projects" and all that - not really the way things are done today, which is fine.

 

I will continue to hold the general view that a well managed project was led well and a poorly managed project was poorly led.  I leave open that there are always exceptions.  Just as each boy is different.  Leadership comes in many forms, including those who may not have the extrovert personality of what we commonly call a "natural leader" and replaces that limitation with superior planning and organization skills carried out by a trusted team.

 

addressing the earlier comment...

As for some of the lessor used positions of responsibility (Historian, Bugler, Librarian, etc.); when I have had a voice in determining such things, it has been a pre-position expectation that the position holder would describe how they saw their role and how it would help the leadership of the group.  At then end of their term, I would judge their success at the PoR by how they held to their own standard for the position.  A bugler for example could be a leadership role if they took responsibility to keeping the unit on the planned schedule.  Did they wake up early to do revile on time, do they do calls for assembly when needed, etc. and are they keeping track of the need, or only doing it when told.  Someone who only plays colors for the flag ceremony, while applying a wonderful skill set, in my view, is not applying leadership to the position.

We're all just one poor beggar telling another where to find food.

 

There is a natural synergy between leadership an management. Doing one often helps develops the other.

 

But, let me harp on PoR's a little more. There are no "lesser" positions in a troop. There are some that count for certain rank advancement, and some that don't. There are some that explicitly demand leadership (hint: look for the word "leader", "guide", or maybe "master") on the patch, and some that demand other skills, not necessarily leadership. Thus our bugler could be a leader, but he could be following the SPL's cues. We won't know until the SPL sleeps in or stays late at cracker barrel. Our historian could be leading, or he could be surrounded by PL's who hand him photos or story lines and requests them to be scrap-booked. Same for the other PoRs ... Flip that around, an SPL/PL could be managing ... posting rosters on time, looking sharp for flag, reading announcements ... but behind him are the scribes, QMs, guides, etc ... pushing the troop along.

 

What this means for the Eagle candidate (especially going back to the OP): if he has a particular project in mind, and the only go-getters the troop are PL's with barely enough time to keep the troop on an even keel, he might rather get his labor force from his band members, sports team, or the guys/gals at the sportsman's club. On the other hand, if he's seen every boy in his troop put heart and soul into their respective PoRs (because the SMs have always expected as much from every PoR), those boys will be his first-choice recruiting pool.

 

Captain's first job: picking a crew.


  • 0

#36 gumbymaster

gumbymaster

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 288 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 12:08 PM

But, let me harp on PoR's a little more. There are no "lesser" positions in a troop. There are some that count for certain rank advancement, and some that don't. There are some that explicitly demand leadership (hint: look for the word "leader", "guide", or maybe "master") on the patch, and some that demand other skills, not necessarily leadership .

 

Lesser was only intended to reflect less used, not intended to reflect less important.

 

I generally agree with your points, and would even allow that a person might even be considered a leader simply by picking out a good team to do the job(s); even if much of the implementation was left to others.


  • 0

#37 Eagle94-A1

Eagle94-A1

    Been there. Done that.

  • Members
  • 1698 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 06:26 PM

I am going to go off on a tangent a bit, so bear with.  I was just asked to be my troop's "Eagle Advisor," helping the Star and Life Scouts get prepared for doing the Eagle service project and the BOR process in my neck of the woods. And part of that job is attending with the Scout the Eagle BOR for the project approval, and attending with the Scout for their EBOR.

 

GREAT SCOT WHAT A MESS WE ADULTS HAVE CAUSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Compared to my project's paperwork back then to  today's paperwork, and it is  P.I.T.B! I can now see why an "Eagle advisor" is needed, because there are so many rules, processes, and ridiculous minutia that the Scouts need to follow. And I blame adults for the problem. I've seen some things that Scouters have done to cause this mess we have today. Hey, I'm the one who had a district advancement chair try and deny my project because HE didn't approve it, his predecessor did. But I also blame parents. I've heard of some of the things parents have done to give their Scout Eagle. Heck we had one mom threaten to sue if her son didn't get an extension because he screwed up his first project so badly, the beneficiary told him and the Scouts to leave. She didn't think it was fair he would not be able to get Eagle because "[beneficiary] changed their mind after he started his project."


  • 2

"Train 'em. Trust 'em. LET THEM LEAD!" William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt


#38 RememberSchiff

RememberSchiff

    Your Friendly Neighborhood ModeratorMan

  • Moderators
  • 2424 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 06:58 PM

I am going to go off on a tangent a bit, so bear with.  I was just asked to be my troop's "Eagle Advisor," helping the Star and Life Scouts get prepared for doing the Eagle service project and the BOR process in my neck of the woods. And part of that job is attending with the Scout the Eagle BOR for the project approval, and attending with the Scout for their EBOR.

 

GREAT SCOT WHAT A MESS WE ADULTS HAVE CAUSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Compared to my project's paperwork back then to  today's paperwork, and it is  P.I.T.B! I can now see why an "Eagle advisor" is needed, because there are so many rules, processes, and ridiculous minutia that the Scouts need to follow. And I blame adults for the problem. I've seen some things that Scouters have done to cause this mess we have today. Hey, I'm the one who had a district advancement chair try and deny my project because HE didn't approve it, his predecessor did. But I also blame parents. I've heard of some of the things parents have done to give their Scout Eagle. Heck we had one mom threaten to sue if her son didn't get an extension because he screwed up his first project so badly, the beneficiary told him and the Scouts to leave. She didn't think it was fair he would not be able to get Eagle because "[beneficiary] changed their mind after he started his project."

 

Agree. Too much process and adult involvement. :( 


  • 0

#39 Stosh

Stosh

    BSA Heretic

  • Members
  • 11746 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 08:35 PM

Following all the rules i the Life to Eagle pamphlet makes the candidate a good follower, not a good leader. the most the adults are involved, the less likely that will ever change.


  • 1

Stosh

 

There's a reason why I don't always answer the phone, doorbell or comments on forums.  :)


#40 Eagle94-A1

Eagle94-A1

    Been there. Done that.

  • Members
  • 1698 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 05:58 AM

Following all the rules i the Life to Eagle pamphlet makes the candidate a good follower, not a good leader. the most the adults are involved, the less likely that will ever change.

 

 

So very true! Additionally the way they are written, in beauracrateese and legalese, it takes time for some adults to understand. Try being a teenager and trying to get through the paperwork.


  • 0

"Train 'em. Trust 'em. LET THEM LEAD!" William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


IPB Skin By Virteq