Stosh

Welcome to the forum, it's nice to see interest from scout aged people here and not just the old guys. If you stay around this forum for very long you should get a good look at the different ways scouting is applied around the world. Most US people here, but some really great people from UK too that post regularly. Well worth the effort to be here.

The units I have served as direct leader (2 Cub (DL), 2 Boy (SM), 1 Venturing (CA)) have all had the same rules. 1) Safety First, 2) Look and act like a Scout, and 3) Have fun. Adults can and are expected to step in and stop behaviors contrary to these rules. That is not guidance, it is immediate Cease and Desist only. This of course has nothing to do with "guidance" or "mentoring" or even bumping the boys in some adult determined direction. It's a stop what you're doing, now. And that's where the adult involvement ends. But I'm sure that there are those who feel it necessary to "instruct" the boys properly, make sure they are learning processes the adults have defined as proper and use methods of measurement to qualify the adult expectations for POR requirement fulfillment. It's a kind of "in their best interest" approach to an adult led operation. My involvement with the boys generally is peer-to-peer association, I ask questions, I pull my own weight, I offer opportunities when asked, and on rare occasions I have offered suggestions, normally 2-3 at the same time, for them to consider multiple options to choose from. The evaluation of their efforts (POR's) are self-evaluated. Rarely do I find it necessary to invoke discipline on a Scout, the PL's are expected to handle it as they take care of their boys. Any concerns I have about any scout is directed to his PL. I do not get involved in patrol operations unless the PL requests it. If I catch a boy doing something good, that, too, is shared with the PL to deal with as he sees fit. The less I as SM get involved in the operation, guidance, mentoring, instructing, etc. etc. or whatever word one makes up for adult interference the less time I have for SMC's, fireside chats, homesickness drama, and getting to know each boy personally, his likes, his dislikes, who's it going at school?, etc. I have also noticed that whenever an adult does get involved in such interference, it will undermine the operation of the patrol and the alter the authority of who's really calling the shots around here, the adult or the PL. Once an adult steals that authority from a PL, it will take some time to reestablish it in the patrol. Usually what happens is the PL steps down. Why listen to your PL when one knows the real authority is with the adults? In my units the responsibility of leadership is given to the boys and along with it is the authority to do it. It's a package deal that most adults find difficult to trust to kids. I don't. I do it all the time.

Gotta talk to the Mrs. She's the ones that makes them. My ASM makes the loops. She buys the wide ribbon and cranks them out as needed. The boys make the neckers. Those that would like, I teach the Turk's Head and they make them out of para-cord of various colors. Also, our neckers are patrol specific so a mass order is not going to work. She makes 8 of them and we don't sell them to the boys, the boy borrow them from us. It will be the tradition of the troop some day that when a boy Eagles he writes his name on the necker and turns it back in when he ages out. That way some new patrol member will have a unique necker and will be less likely to lose it.

Our neckers, slides and red loops are all made by the unit.

Okay, I'm 65 years old and I seriously have no idea what steampunk is. Yes, I looked it up on the internet and I still have no idea what steampunk is. I'm gonna have to stick with "Take care of your boys." for now.

Gee, I thought my expedition hat ("Indiana Jones" hat) was in bad condition. I'm thinking a little soap may wash out it's character. I have the Philmont brands burned into the brim along with the Centennial Jamboree brand along side. Well I was in Philmont in 2000 so I know it to be at least 16 years old... except one of the reason I figured it was okay to brand at Philmont was because it was already old at that time. I'm thinking that hat to be 20+ years old and I'm still wearing it regularly to meetings. Those hats are fantastic! Whereas I don't like baseball style hats, it could very well be the hat I bought with my original uniform back in 1992.

Krampus, you have my permission to staple your next temporary patch to your forehead. Wear it proudly.

Gee, I remember back in the 1950's when I was a Cub Scout My neighbor lady was my first DL her name was Mrs. Nielson. I then remember we moved and my new DL was Mrs. Holtzmiller, her husband ran the candy store in town. We didn't do much touring, but I do remember touring the local newspaper and watched them set print with a lithograph machine. We all got a chunk a print that we got to keep. It must have been about the same time we were learning to print stuff because I remember making a layer of some gel in the bottom of a 9" x 13" cake pan then writing in it and then laying paper on top and the ink from the gel got on the paper and we made copies of stuff like an old ditto machine. I remember we had to write backwards to make it work. I remember very vividly my last Cub Scout event where I went on a 10 mile trek with the Boy Scouts and had to make a fire and cook my own mess kit meal. Either we did a lot more memorable things back then or I just happen to have a pretty good memory for an old guy. Yes, I do remember going down to the J.C.Penny's store and picking up a full uniform to wear. I remember wearing it to school on den meeting days, and I remember doing a lot of fun things at the pack meetings, too.

I think that might be more the problem with how the program was run than it has to do with the concept to begin with. My son is now in his 30's but I bet if I were to ask him if he remembers some of the activities he did as a Tiger he would remember. I remember them! Back then the program had no DL. Each parent of their Tiger planned one activity for the boys to do. Some went on a hike, another had a field trip to a place that rehabilitated injured birds of prey, we toured the library, we toured the airport including going up into the control tower and watched the luggage get handled behind the scenes, we visited the police and fire stations, TV station, and pretty much had a blast, both Cub and parent. This was back in the day when the Tigers wore orange t-shirts and there wasn't any big hoopla about program structure. I don't even remember if the Tigers even went to the Pack meetings and I know they didn't get any bling to hang on their t-shirts. I'm thinking my son and I were extremely fortunate to get in early enough in the program to miss out on what it has become. Oooh, oooh, I forgot one. One of the parents took us to the university and we got a private program just for first grade boys at the school's planetarium. How I could have forgotten that one is beyond me. Must be my old age and it was 30+ years ago.

[fair] noun 1. an exhibition, usually competitive, of farm products, livestock, etc., often combined in the U.S. with entertainment and held annually by a county or state. 2. a periodic gathering of buyers and sellers in an appointed place. 3. an exposition in which different exhibitors participate, sometimes with the purpose of buying or selling: a science fair. 4. an exhibition and sale of articles to raise money, often for some charitable purpose. I don't see BSA using their MB schools/universities/gatherings as a fair as it is defined. The closest I see it getting is an opportunity for the boys to come and experience the possibilities of the various MB's they might want to consider for the coming year. I do think it would be okay to have the contact information for the various counselors available and maybe even have the topic booth manned by counselors who could connect with boys who are interested enough to go get their SM's signature on their blue cards. Don't call it a MB fair and then run it as a MB school.

Scouting is for the boys so I wasn't talking about the boys burning out. The adult burn out issue is irrelevant. If some adult has a bad experience with scouting and the organization failed to support them properly, that's not the fault of the boys. The unit just needs to focus on a major adult recruitment push at say the Wolf/Bear break or Bear/Webelos break. Maybe if the adults were supported properly the whole issue would simply go away regardless of how long the program lasts. I also said the pack that took out the Tiger program would not produce an inequality with the boys in the unit. They all miss out equally is not the same as some did and some didn't. I hope this adds clarity to the comments made or at least helps get everyone on the same page a bit.

Eagle scouts are many moons separated from showing up for Cub Scouts with your brand new scout shirt and the guy next to you has patches and bling dripping all over it and there's a story of adventure behind each one and all you have is the council strip and troop number on yours. Just sayin' ....

I like @'s idea, a true fair where the boys can come and see what the MB is all about and then decide whether THEY want to make an appointment to do the MB with the MBC's present at the booth. I would support such a fair with my boys.

I know it's hard on adults with the Tiger/Lion addition, but what about the boys? How does the impact of some of the boys being Tiger/Lions and others not? Do they feel they have missed out on something along the way? I guess I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but I can appreciate the fact that the expectations of adults in this new format might be different than the results experienced by the boys involved. Sure if the pack offers no Tiger/Lions, then everyone misses out and the boys are none the wiser, but if offered and some held their boys back and others didn't, how are the boys themselves going to react to having maybe been left out?

And so the adventure begins!

My boys find that the servant leadership role taken by the older boys is quickly recognized and the leader's popularity rises quickly for positive common benefit reasons, not personal gain, political reasons. Boys quickly recognize this and peer pressure usually settles these issues far better than adult intervention. At times adult intervention might become necessary, but as one has pointed out, once the culture has been established and the social norms of helping others at all times becomes established, adult intervention becomes obsolete. A well versed TG will always make sure the NSP knows, that there are certain things we as a troop don't do. We aren't an Eagle mill, we watch out for each other, we run the show well enough that the adults don't have an excuse to interfere, and if you really want to get your Eagle, your buddies will all work together to make it happen for you.

We can't be held responsible for the deeds of others, but I'm glad the boys that did show leadership were appropriately recognized for it. Not being in the driver's seat on issues like this can be difficult. When I was an ASM in an adult-driven troop I had to play the game a lot differently than I do now as SM. I had 4" pieces of different colored lanyard that I used to "reward" the various boys. I let them know that those lanyards BELONGED TO ME, not them. If I caught a boy doing something nice for someone else, I would give them say a white lanyard piece to loop through the button hole on their right pocket. If they were "caught" again and they had white, I would take that off and put on red, etc. this went on up the "scale" and it was remarkable how quickly they learned what each color meant. It was so successful that I continued the practice when I went on to become a SM. What happened was that usually on Saturday night at 10:00 pm, it was bedtime for the boys, but those with say Yellow (highest) were to toss on a log and stay up longer if they wished. Nothing of major achievement, nothing to do with rank or advancement, nothing but what it meant between the boys and me. The ironic part was when the boys had made a real mess with a burnt cobbler in a DO and it was pretty bad. I turned to one of the boys with the yellow lanyard and asked him to clean it up. He did it without saying a word. Then when we were cleaning up the site to leave, I asked him to clean out the fire pit and get it ready for the next group. Then when we were getting ready to leave he confronted me and and asked why I was picking on him by giving him the worst jobs in camp. I told him I only asked him to do those jobs, it wasn't my job to dictate who does what job, but I knew the job was the worst one to do, but if I wanted the job done quickly, done right, and I wouldn't have to worry about it being done, I would need to ask my most trusted scout to do it. While I no longer use the lanyard technique, I still hear on occasion my PL's saying that the reason a certain scout got the dirty job is because he needed his best scout on the job. Is that management or is that leadership?

I'm thinking what is mentioned as leadership styles might be what I define as management styles. Those processes are easily defined and produce processes of efficiency for troop and patrol operations. This is extremely important especially in larger troops if they are ever going to achieve organizational sanity. There are a ton of management books out there describing how to approach different projects, assignments and tasks. Some involve people resources and those are the ones that may need the most attention so as to effectively use those people resources to accomplish what is needed for the job. Of course these management skills are necessary for the boys to be organized and effective. Under a PL with limited leadership skills, these management skills can really help. Using meeting agendas, duty rosters, keeping track of attendance, insuring financial solvency of an activity all go a long ways to make the operation run smoothly. But here is where my definition of leadership diverges from what I define as management. A good manager can be running a tight ship in his patrol, things get done, it all looks good, everyone is impressed on how efficient he is, etc. The adults will love him for his efforts! He will get a whole boat load of praise, because the adults will not need to manage that person's job expectations. He's got it covered. But what do the boys think? Are they happy? Are they excited about how things are going? Or are they voting with their feet, displaying discipline problems, needing to be told multiple times to step up and work with the group. The #1 test I use in this situation is: Do the boys listen to the PL? or in other words, are they wanting to follow him and his leadership? One can be a fantastic manager, but are the people really following? That's the definition of leadership I focus in on. I have had many PL's come to me and complain that their boys don't listen to what he tells them. My first response to that would be to assume it's the patrol member's fault, when in reality the problem lies with the PL. They don't listen because he doesn't lead. I had a classic example demonstrated right in front of my eyes many years ago that was burned into my memory. A PL was "yelling" at one of the patrol members for not getting the water for cleaning dishes as was clearly marked on the posted duty roster. No question the boy had fallen down on the job and the PL was making an example of it. Right in the middle of the PL's sentence, another boy jumped up, grabbed the boy being yelled at in one hand and the empty water can in the other and said, "We got this!" and off they went. The water got collected and the boy being yelled at got a reprieve from the tirade, and the PL went back to doing what he was doing, not realizing that although the job got done, the real leadership was stripped away from him without him even noticing. These are the kinds of things I draw out whenever I do a SMC with a scout advancing in rank. To me this is scout leadership, the helping other people at all times. Does it make any difference what the job/task is or how well he did it? Or is the helping part really what's important to be drawn out of the boy as he takes on more leadership in his next step in his scouting career? I for one can't imagine anyone being in the scout program for any length of time and not see this kind of thing going on all around them all the time. But to stay focused only on the management and efficient running of the program to the exclusion of the leadership is concerning to me. As I have mentioned in previous posts, a bag of cookies, a 9 year old Webelos II AOL candidate that is capable of surprising me after all these years, and I have a excellent subject for a SM Minute standing right there in front of me. This is why I come back every week excited about what I'm going to find next! I would have quit years ago if the only thing of value was doing the SM job week after week. But my boys take care of me as much as I take care of them. I had a patrol once made up of boys that would have frustrated the management style SM to no end. They didn't turn in their reports on time, if at all. They never had duty rosters. The PL showed up totally "unprepared" for their meetings, and my ASM hounded me weekly about my letting the boys get away with it. But the boys were having fun, the work somehow got done, they were always showing up for everything, they might have had a few more pop-tarts and hot dogs than I would have like to have had, but they all hung together and in the end every one of them Eagled. The "magic" that I learned from that patrol was that they were all minimal managers, just enough to get by, but they were ALL leaders! They all cared for each other, they all watched out for each other, etc. One might have been tempted to say they worked together as a team (management), but I personally would have identified it more as working together more as a family, they truly cared about each other (leadership). Yes, it takes management to keep things pulled together and keep the wheels rolling. But the leadership and the myriad of styles that go with that gives the energy to make things exciting and worthwhile. The manager posts the duty roster so that everyone knows their job. The leader doesn't post a duty roster because he trusts his buddies to make sure everyone is taken care of and the roster is useless. If one has been in scouting for any length of time, they will know what I'm talking about because they will always be able to say they saw such things, but they will also admit that they can't explain it nor can they recreate it for anyone else. It's always unique to just those particular boys at that particular time. It is really quite fascinating to see and experience.

@@Sentinel947, I will go along with the Serial Volunteers, idea because these people are the ones that are the only ones that really take seriously taking care of other people at all times. I, too, am involved as a serial volunteer. I am a UC, I am a SM, I'm looking into working once again as a CA, I am signed on as an adult leader in my local church youth program, I volunteer weekly for the American Red Cross, I donate blood on a regular basis and I ring bells every year for the Salvation Army. and I don't burn out. According to my definition of leadership and the principles of the Scout Oath, none of the other people are leaders. What's the motivation for the drive-by Sniper? the Boss, the for-show Helper or the Observer? Are any of these people interested in anything other than themselves, their image or their small world in which they live? These people are not part of the Scouting program. And when it comes down to the bottom line, does one really want them as volunteers? One of the reasons why I prefer people who have had scouting backgrounds is many of them understand what helping other people at all times really means and they have applied those long ago dynamics to the way they live their lives. It could have been generated and nurtured through other programs such as 4-H, church, school and community programs, but they all have a genuine love of taking care of others besides themselves. In our Me-Generation people and the modern millenials, the focus is on oneself, one's own success, one's own career path, or what's best for their situation. If those are the people that make up the 90% out there, I would prefer they stay out there. I can do more with 10% of true leaders than running around begging the 90% others out there to care.. When I go looking for volunteers the #1 requirement is not whether or not they can do the job, but whether or not they care about what they are doing for others. The job can be taught, caring can't.

And thus you, too, have learned a valuable lesson about jobs and helping other people at all times. @@MattR is correct, I would seriously warn the SPL that mandates "from on high don't always help other people at all times." Sure the doctor gives out medicine that one doesn't want to take but it is good for them. Is that him mandating or is he taking care of the patient. The question I would have posed to the SPL is: "For whose benefit is the change?" Is it his way that becomes the focus? And if all the PL's think the more efficient way is stupid, is he really taking care of them? Maybe he should have asked his PL's their advice before implementing changes that directly affected them. After all, is efficiency or having the patrol members taken care of more important? I think the answer to MattR and @@Krampus likes in the fact that leadership training doesn't happen until later when the new Webelos II crossover boys have had a chance to mystically absorb the mentoring of the older boys. (??) Really? I start out with TF #9 - The Buddy System where one boy is responsible for taking care of his buddy.i..e. someone other than just themselves! (Leadership lesson #1) I see this process postponed until some day they are tossed under the bus by giving them a POR patch and expecting them to perform a miracle. Krampus, I wouldn't be furious, I would be having a SMC with the boy who took only his pack about Scout Spirit and helping other people at all times. Yes, it is your job and yes, while you are on this outing you are everyone's Mom, and (in my troop, Rule #2, act like a scout, i.e. Mom) if you can't get your head wrapped around that, I will find it difficult to mark the successful completion of the Scout Spirit requirement. It's not a threat, it is letting the boy know he's making things difficult for you to be honest with signing off when he's doing things that are obvious working against it. I would also make public mention to all the PL's that they had better be stepping up their game, some strong competition is coming up through the ranks, and mention this boy and what he did for all to hear and how much you appreciate his efforts to show Scout Spirit (taking care of others) so early in his scouting career. Do the negative lessons in private, but the positive lessons in public.

I was hoping that by starting a thread of it''s own on burn out, this topic would not be hijacked. But alas,'twas but wishful thinking. No, people don't burn out because they are among the 10% that volunteer. They burn out because expectations keep growing until the tipping point says enough is enough and then everything, even the things they totally enjoy doing are discarded. Is it not true that once we have a willing volunteer, they become the go-to person when something else needs doing? They are the caring ones that wish to make things go well for others and thus become easy prey to pounce on when more work is needed to be done. Sure, it would be easy for them to say NO, but we all know that they won't, because they are.... wait for it.... the caring ones. They are taken advantage of by authoritarian managers who's only goal is to get the job done and who have no idea what taking care of their people is all about, nor are they interested in helping people at all time. So we just have these people hang in there doing the best they can, feeling guilty that everything's not getting done, the program is being harmed and they feel guilty for that too and when they can't take it anymore, they quit. Do I have that about right?

If one's boys can't wrap their heads around the leadership concept of "Take care of your boys", one might want to simply focus on "help other people at all times" and "Do a Good Turn Daily, maybe two or three if one would like to improve from the last rank advancement. I'm thinking one will garner the same results. One can always tie it to the Scout Spirit requirement for rank, too. Leadership cannot be boiled down to doing something in a certain way, or some bullet point in a class curriculum. Everyone has to find it from within themselves how they are going to take care of their people and/or help other people at all times. Given the various skill sets, talents, motivations, interests and self-expectations, leadership will take on many diverse forms within the unit. Out of the thousands of boy and girls that have passed through my life, they are all like snowflakes when it comes to leadership, no two have ever been the same. If I could figure out how to teach it, I could package it up in a seminar presentation and make a fortune. Until then I just go with "Take care of your boys." It works.

I'm just impressed that @@howarthe was able to put "awesome" and "MB Fair" in the same sentence and keep a straight face.