Stosh

Posted Today, 07:27 AM qwazse, on 29 Jan 2016 - 8:10 PM, said: Stosh, on 29 Jan 2016 - 8:47 PM, said: According to previous threads? A tree or a rock? I seriously think people never wold associate an inanimate object as a source of evolutionary life on earth, nor would they feel akin to any thing of the plant kingdom. My bet would be more in line with pond scum.

Look around you, are there people there looking to you for guidance? Inspiration? help? attention? When they are hurting do they seek you out? when they're frustrated and bummed out do they want to sit next to you and just be close by? Do they need someone to laugh with? Cry with? celebrate with? How many of those things require visions and measurable goals? NONE because each one of those dynamics are leadership. Sure, some things require management. In caring for others, there are organizational things that need to be done, but they aren't as important as why you might be doing it for another person in the first place. In terms of scouting, do you help the old lady across the street because it's a task you need to do as a good turn to be a scout, or do you see someone in need and you take are of it? The sad part of this whole discussion is that there are a lot of people so hung up on it, they miss the beauty of servant leadership and the impact it makes on the lives of both the leader and the person being served. It's not counting coup, it's not keeping score, it's not measuring success, it's simply the joy of helping other people and the smile on their face when they see and trust you as their leader. The real strength in leadership, especially servant leadership is it's perceived weakness. It's not weak at all.

Were does one think the whole concept of servant leadership originates from?

The people being led have found a person they trust enough to entrust their authority to that leader to do what is best for them. If that person doesn't do what's best for them, they will withdraw their authority and seek someone else, i.e. vote with their feet. I trust you and your word to provide the product you are promising me. You did, I'll continue to come. You didn't, I'll go elsewhere to find the product I want.

Here's were I see the process moving away from leadership, i.e. leading people towards management, i.e. accomplishing a task. I'm thinking persuading people to act to accomplish a task is just good management and what I'm seeing as what's being a "natural leader" is just a logically organized mindset that can present a logical argument. Just not seeing it as leading people. Charisma and the desire for people to be around another person is just that, they just desire to be around the other person, there's no task involved and nothing has to be accomplished and no persuasion involved. They just feel drawn to that person. To me that is a "natural Leader" because people want to be around them. A charismatic person really doesn't need to persuade a person to do anything, they react to the situation differently for that person. A manager expects people to do something. a task, a leader only expects the people to follow them for reasons only known to the follower.

Yes, I am often surprised how hard it is to get a handle on it. It's pretty much straight forward and the kids pick up on it and understand far quicker than adults. I had one parent really get "miffed" at me because he came with a smirky smile and "yelled" at me for teaching his boy this process. He said the boy did his homework, did chores around the house, helped when he didn't have to, and generally was a totally different kid before he got into scouts. Then the real rant came when he told me his kid asked for the keys to the car and I didn't have a reason to say no. He flat out said he felt like he had "lost control" of the situation.

Sorry about the confusion on the responsibility/authority issue. They go hand in hand and is one of the major problems in a lot of troops that hold back the boy-led, patrol-method processes. First of all you have been tasked with responsibility to driving a load of straw over the bridge to a farmer on the other side of the river. That's all well and good, but what if you don't have the authority to drive, or authority to use the truck or authority to cross the river? Pretty much screwed right from the git-go. If the authority resides in adults as you allude to, or at least assumed by the boys do so, it's going to be pretty difficult for any youth to do anything. But if the adults give total authority to the boys to fulfill their responsibility, then we're talking a whole new foreign concept to the boys that opens up any and all opportunities for them to work with. This is the big stumbling block for a lot of units that tend to think they are boy led, but with no authority, they can't lead anything at all. I have difficulty with my boys at the beginning because of this assumption that the authority lies with the SM. Once I make it clear that they have the authority and responsibility to run the unit, things change quickly as long as I don't ruin their trust in me by puling the rug out from under them.

A natural leader (yes, I have run into many of them over the years) is one who has figured out how leadership works before they are taught. It appears they have been born that way, but in fact learn it at an early age by parents and teachers who are in fact leaders themselves. Once they emulate these people and receive the desired results of their efforts, they simply tend to repeat the process learned. Once one gets beyond the lip service and negativity of it's improper implementation, one can appreciate that it is far more than just one of many leadership styles. Leadership as been described as those receiving the top accolades and being at the top, winning, setting the example is also a recognition of power, another form of self-acquired importance and narcissism Hitler, and a few of the Caesars fell prey to such "leadership" and were. for the welfare of others, ultimately destroyed for it. They surely weren't in it for the welfare of others, just themselves. True leadership is a result of people willingly giving up authority and responsibility to another. They don't do it because they will be punished if they don't (military, employment). They don't do it because they have been fooled, conned or persuaded (power). They do it because they believe in and trust the person as someone who they have concluded on their own as worth it. True leadership is given by the people following. If the military general all of a sudden realizes his army has abandoned him, he hasn't been much of a leader. If the people conned/persuaded change their minds, the person hasn't been much of a leader. But who's going to quit following someone who's there to take care of them and make them successful in life? That person might not be "defined" by society as a leader, but it's the person everyone wants to follow anyway It was mentioned that the military uses the directive style of leadership but if one were to break it down precisely into it's individual components, one will quickly discover it is really just highly refined and extremely rigid management objectives. The military has a target and all subordinates are forced under penalty of punishment to acquire it's objective/goal. At it's best it is super-refined following, not leadership. One deviates from the directive order, that person will be held accountable and punished if the goal is jeopardized. I see no real leadership where people follow leaders, they only follow orders. So does one follow those they have been told to follow, ordered to follow, conned to follow or do they genuinely follow those they want to follow. I'm going with genuinely want to follow as the best guess.

He drank the Koolaid! Welcome aboard, this is the only leadership I have used for the past 40 years working with kids and I can say with no reservation at all, it works! It has worked in the community youth groups, the school youth groups, the church youth groups and Scouting. I have seen it work in the business world far better with quicker results of change than using the old management techniques employed when I first learned them in my business administration studies. By the way, I have seen this term used in the US Army leadership training manuals, (Lt. Jones is a by the book pain in the butt, but Captain Smith? Well I'd follow him into hell if that's where he needs to go.) I have seen it in print in the BSA literature (Patrol Leaders' Handbook), and I have seen it in the business world both in practice and in multiple versions of books on the market today. My copy I have is being borrowed by my daughter, but it is an original edition of Robert Greenleaf's book "Servant Leadership" from back around 1974. I often sit back on this forum and scratch my head wondering why I don't have all the problems everyone else seems to have. I can only conclude the leadership I teach is different than what others are doing.

Okay, @@Eagledad, here is where we differ in our definitions of leadership and how the flow of authority in your model is different than mine. My daughter and son-in-law are currently in a program of leadership development based on the model you have described. "Leadership is simply the act of persuading others toward change." I think that a lot of people, especially in our culture buy into this model. The flow of authority is top down and it's the leader's vision that is sought as the goal. It's up to the leader then to persuade others to get on board with his vision. I'm thinking the BSA might be using this model because it goes hand-in-hand with and doesn't conflict with management tactics. Both authority and responsibility flow from vision originating "at the top". Marketing is the classic example of this in the business environment. I have a product and it is up to me to persuade you to see what I see as to how good it would be for you to buy it. So according to the definition you provided, the a act of persuading others towards change, but my question always comes up as to change to what? That which benefits the leader or that which the leader believes benefits those being persuaded? Visionary leaders? Who's vision are we talking about here? With the examples of Alexander, Hitler, et al, I'm thinking it's the leader's vision that overrides and controls the persuasion. So, as one who has been accused of being the BSA Gnostic heretic , I see leadership totally different. I order to facilitate my kind of leadership I have turned the BSA business model organizational chart upside down and that causes the flow of authority and responsibility to flow the opposite direction. It is at that point people plug their ears and start saying, "Na, na, na, na,.." over and over again. Let's assume that all authority and responsibility at the top of the chart. BSA model puts that with the adults, with SPL slipped in as the top dog of the lower boy end of the spectrum. It's up to th adults to persuade the SPL to buy into their vision, and then SPL persuades the PL's to buy into that vision, and the PL's are then responsible to persuade the members of his patrol. I may be a bit off, but this is what I'm understanding of how you define leadership. Please clarify if I'm off base. Well, what happens if the members of the patrol don't like that vision? What if the members just want adventure and fun? Maybe they just want to go of in the woods and goof off with their buddies? What if it doesn't fit into the adult vision that I get to stay with my pals that I came here to have fun with? What happens if there is ANY disconnect between the vision prescribed by the adults and what I as a paying member of the group wants? This leads to my upside-down definition. What if all the authority and responsibility flowed from the paying customer, the individual scout? He walks through the door with the vision of fun and adventure with his buddies. Okay a boy walks up to the little group of buddies and simply asks, "So, guys, what do you want to do?" To which he gets the answer, "Well, this brochure says this is where the fun and adventure is supposed to happen." So the scout say, "Who's going to be your leader?" And the boys all laugh and say, "You are because we came to have fun and adventure and if there's any work to be done, you get to do it." To which the boy says, "Great, I can make that happen for you." So now the PL knows the vision of his members, and they have given him full authority to fulfill that vision of theirs. He has to persuade no one to do anything beyond his control, because he only needs to control himself. He has sworn an oath that he's going to do his best to do his duty to God and Country and to help other people at all times. Well, here's his chance to help these 7 boys fulfill their vision. So in terms of retention, who's got the better chance of keeping new boys in the program, the one who has to rely on persuasive skills to win over everyone, or the boy who only has to take care of them getting the vision they have asked for? So as time passes, the boys realize that in order to stay with this program I have to start doing a lot of things that weren't in the brochure that are popping up all over the place. Hoops I have to jump through to get credit for things just like in school. Forget it, I signed on for my dream, not some one else's. But the other boys begin to realize that now I have someone that's going to take care of me while I have fun. It's a lot more fun to sleep outdoors in a tent, and my leader made sure we all had tents, and he made sure we all got fed, and he worked hard on making sure we all had fun.... and he's a really nice guy for doing all those things. He made MY vision work for me. That was neat how he did it and he seemed to really have fun doing it too. What does he know that I don't know about having fun? I wonder what his vision is in all this, maybe we ought to ask. I guess over the past 40 years, that model has worked well for me. Far less complicated, far less training needed, and the satisfaction level (fulfillment of vision) is easier to obtain. It is a concept easily understood by boys without any fancy persuasive techniques and strategies they have to learn. The only management skills a boy would need to know under my definition of leadership is what it would take to make ti work for the boys he is leading. I'm thinking this difference in definitions is the root of where we are coming from when talking about the boy led, patrol method stuff. Knowing your definition really helps in understanding where you're coming from. Thanks for the clarity.

@@blw2 LOL, I pull this stunt on the boys all the time. Last time was when the boys were hosting the Webelos boys at winter camp. We were about 4 miles out from the cabin and I turned to one of the Webelos boys, I picked a little one so as to not be mean, and said, "You just fell and broke your leg. Make sure everyone around here knows it. That way you can get free ride back to the cabin." It's interesting what the boys come up with when they have to. It was at that point that many of them understood my recommendation to use 6' walking sticks and have a full uniform with necker and belt. The best one was the winter hike at a place that the boys had never hiked before. I had and I knew it was a rabbit warren of trails. I let the boys take the lead and they were hiking along and after we got looped back to within a 1/4 mile of the parking lot, I said I was cold and we should be getting back to the parking lot. Did anyone bring a map and compass? No one offered up one. So the boys all realized they would need to back track to the parking lot. There were enough adults so when they headed back, I slipped on over to the parking lot, waited for them and got the cars warmed up. They were a bit miffed but I reminded them that I shouldn't have been the one asking for a compass and map. Had they been the ones asking, I would have shared mine. Instead they all just took off backtracking the trail. The PL's generally carry a compass and other necessary equipment as a routine after that. Controlled failure is a powerful teaching tool.

I wouldn't call your idea a spoof video idea, I see it as a Servant Leadership video, and that I can promise and deliver in my units, because it kinda fits in with the doing one's duty to God and Country and helping other people at all times. If done well, it could BE your real deal video.

Or hike in....

A "well run" boy-led, patrol-method unit means the adults are there to meet G2SS 2-deep leadership and drink coffee. I used to think I was there to enforce safety, etc. but even that has been taken over by the boys. Not so much in my new troop yet, but it's coming along a little bit at a time. About the only time I focus on my experience in an adult-led, troop-method program is to remind myself what NOT to do.

This has been the problem all along and the #1 reason for boys dropping out. Someone promoting adventure and then providing camp chores doesn't hold much credibility in the 2nd or 3rd year of the program. Once the boy matures enough to understand the difference between product promised and product delivered, they leave. Of course we all soothe our egos with the excuses about girls, school, jobs and cars. Maybe the sophistication of false promises is beginning to wear off even back in the Cub Scout years now.

The flashy, dashing, arrogant, narcissistic football star quarterback might be viewed as a natural born leader to some on the team, but charisma is not a skill that I would consider a part of a natural born leader. I have seen too many good leaders who have very little charisma, yet hold enormous amount of leadership ability. I think it might be helpful if one could elaborate on the "know one when you meet them". I have never really found that measurement of character to be true, but I might be misunderstanding what is meant by it.

Totally agree, by the time a boy has 2-3 years in at one POR, he's running smoother than most adults. I had one boy assist 3 new patrols as TG. When he got his Eagle at age 16, I asked him if he wanted to do something else. His answer was a simple, "No". He was TG for 2 more years before he aged out. I'm thinking he is the sole reason why I like the NSP for incoming newbies, he showed me how it can work. I'm thinking any ASM assigned to the NSP to "mentor" it like a Webelos III den could learn a lot from this Scout. I would think any scout going into his 2nd year as PL knows what he's doing, especially in my units because if he doesn't know what he's doing, he can be replaced at any moment. A scout with that kind of longevity under those circumstances has to be doing a great job.

I used to be a minister, I know the drill.

A ScoutMaster Minute that lasts 2 minutes? You sound a bit long winded there, Barry.

First of all welcome to the forums! I'm glad you have spoken up. One of the first things you'll notice on this forum is one guy never learned to play well with others and is always coming up with some really off-the-wall ideas. Someday you'll figure out who that is. So, my suggestion for you is. Have your Patrol Leaders (PL's) come up with things that will be of interest to their patrol members. Then if they come up with something everyone in the patrol thinks is really cool to do, that PL goes to the PLC and lets all the other PL's know what they did to have fun and maybe then the other PL's can try it for their patrol. This way you have an never ending supply of creativity coming your way and all you do is provide a forum (PLC) to air those ideas with the rest of the PL's. Of course if you want to be the hero to your PL's who may not be all that creative, you can suggest what @@KenD500 and @@qwazse suggest and supply them with idea materials to consider. So, the PL's have their information to try, if it works out for their patrol they come back to the PLC and report it, share it and others try it as having proved it fun. Wow and what has the SPL done? Provided support material and a place for the leadership to air their successes and maybe point out the bummer activities too. And so everyone says the SPL really didn't do anything? Well, not much, but he does have time for a cup of hot chocolate and the satisfaction that he has helped his leadership be successful with their patrols. the boys are having fun, PL's are seen as heros and everyone's happy. You're on your way to becoming a good SM that runs a boy-led program.

Yes, I agree, that was my point and that's why it's nice not to have a system in place. It allows an opportunity for the boys to problem solve their situation and come up with a solution without the restrictions of any system. One of the biggest issues I have with the way BSA does business is the short-comings associated with the rank advancement system. Here we have the minimum necessary knowledge necessary to meet a certain basic understanding of skills necessary for the outdoors environment. They are the absolute very minimum and there is no incentive to go beyond that. You get the rank, you move on to the next set of hoops. MB's go beyond that, but they too have a minimum set of requirement to be fulfilled in order to wear the patch. 6 months POR and then the next guy takes over. They have met the minimum requirements and get the credit. To do a full year?, 2 years? 3 years? in the same POR and get good at it? Can't accommodate that because the next kid needs his chance at getting the minimum in. Ever wonder why boy-led programs aren't well-oiled machines? Because none of the leadership ever stays long enough to get beyond the first grade education in the process.

Interesting about the natural leader issue. Any idea about how that 3% have figured out "natural" leader dynamics or is it something one is born with or is it something that can be cultivated in more than just those 3%. I for one am not surprised that the shy disabled boy turned out to be a great leader, it wasn't something he was naturally inclined to do, but figured it out along the way. I had an Eagle scout that was homosexual that did an extremely great job at leadership but again tended to be quiet and reserved. I have my "theories" as to how leadership can be coaxed out of 97% of the people and that it's the 3% who can't be leaders instead. I think we as an organization need to accept the fact that 3% are natural leaders but that's not the end of the story, because I believe that a lot more people can develop leadership skills who didn't come by them naturally.

Unfortunately the main aim/goal of any military operation is the "mission" (task) To me all these qualities may make a good manager, but unless one adds further clarification might apply to leadership. Loyalty to whom or what? Accountability to superiors (management) to subordinates (leadership) Obviously high standards of performance would fall smack dab in the management arena. Look at the US Army leadership manuals, they are quite different.