Stosh

Gee LeCastor, I love to hijack your posts, but do you realize that JFK was a scout for only 2 years making him the first scout to be president, Clinton was a Cub Scout, not much leadership training there, whereas Ford was Eagle. Sorry boys but in this "illustrious" rogue's gallery, only Ford gets my vote. Oh, and as long as this is under issues and politics, Ford was the only Republican... We don't live that far apart, and if we ever meet up with each other I'm thinking I'm going to have hell to pay. Stosh

If the district is too big, why don't they drag their little map out and draw a line on it and make two districts and have, just for example, one DE per district. I can't imagine it being all the difficult, but I haven't worked in a council office for many years. Maybe it is getting more difficult to figure these things out. Stosh

I kinda thought so, but sometimes the management verbiage creeps in and confuses things. Tying knots is a management task, PL chose to do it himself (he could have managerially assigned it to someone else, but didn't (he chose Servant Leadership for himself) once the task was done and most of the boys had done what was expected, management was over, but PL went beyond management into full blown Servant Leadership mode. What can I do to help? Top-down managers NEVER say these words! It's the first thing off the lips of a Servant Leader. As I have mentioned. Management is okay for tasks, but don't confuse the issue by saying just because you finished the task it makes you a good leader. It doesn't it only makes you a good manager. Top down manager styles in the troop seem to create a ton of problems down the road. I hear people posting all the time the problems with this approach. And I shake my head because for some reason I very seldom run into any of the problems described. I credit this to an emphasis on Servant Leadership emanating from the bottom up rather than the top down management. Stosh

Yep, that's what the book said and if one is going to go by the book, one has no choice. Of course feel free to add or eliminate the parts one doesn't like along the way. People do it all the time, no big deal. Once a year our troop does a winter cabin "camp". It is designed to take the potential new Webelos boy out just before their February Blue Gold as their AOL requirement. The meals are generally pretty basic because the goal is not to spend a lot of time cooking but to get outside and sled, ski, hike, fish or have a fire building competition, or throw snowballs, or do something fun with the Webelos boys. After all, there are 11 other monthly activities that one can work on advancement. By the way, the "rustic cabin" has a thermostatically controlled furnace and the boys cook on electric stoves/ovens and this past year heated up their hot water for cocoa in the microwave oven. So I stand by my statement: "I do not count winter cabin "camping" as camping." Stosh

Also Sentinal, The training, developing, and empowering are not dynamics of Servant Leadership. Our schools are loaded with people who train, develop and occasional empower the students, but the students must comply 100% to the management tasks to be successful. Flunk your final exam and see how that works out for you. The PL that teaches his patrol to tie the square knot is a teacher. No problem. 7 of the 8 boys do well, but one boy just doesn't seem to get it. The PL sticks around and says. "Task too hard, what can I do to help you be successful?" The PL works with the boy until the boy is successful. So now we have 7 boys who know how to tie square knots, but one of them thinks the PL is the best in the world because he cared enough to be there for me. It really doesn't pay in the long run to teach our boys bossy management skills when it is far easier and far more productive to go with the Servant Leadership model. Remember that the next time you tell your SPL he needs to step up and take charge. I have never said that to any of my boys. Of course I have offered them the opportunity to "take lead" on a number of projects the troop is considering doing. Stosh

Sentinel947: I'm a disciple of Robert Greenleaf's definition of Servant Leadership as it was presented back in the 1970's. In the past 45 years there have been many redefintions along the way and attempts to torque the concept into various management styles. If one were to go back to the original writings of Greenleaf, there is an explicit example that says Servant Leadership IS NOT A TOP DOWN PROCESS. And until people get over the notion that top down processes are management and Servant Leadership is a bottom up support process, they will never understand what Greenleaf was getting at. The two are not mutually exclusive which further complicates the understanding. I'm the Boss and I need a job (task) done. I pick out one of my subordinates and tell them what the job is and set them a deadline to finish. I then come back around to check on the status of progress and the subordinate completes the job on time. No problem. This is good management. But if the subordinate doesn't finish on time and it becomes a pattern, that person is fired and someone else is assigned the task. On the other hand I'm the Boss and I need a job (task) done. I pick out one of my subordinates and tell them what the job is and set them a deadline to finish. But now I tell them that if they run into any snags, let me know so I can help out. Periodically I check in and find out the status of the project and offer my help again. If the job is going along nicely, No problem, I still offer my support. If the job is not going smoothly, I ask what help is needed and then roll up my sleeves to help out. Between the two of us we get the job done on time. No evaluation necessary. Servant Leadership #2 - My subordinate comes to me and says he has a problem with some task he is doing. I offer help, roll up my sleeves and get to work to insure that subordinate has help. The problem goes away. It doesn't make any difference the direction the task is coming from, a top down task or a bottom up problem, both are handled the same way. The leader and subordinate work together to get the results both want. So now you have the SPL at a PLC meeting and the older boy patrol says they aren't going to summer camp but are doing high adventure instead. The PLC votes and high adventure idea is nixed. Older boys don't show up for summer camp, too busy, and SM and SPL are sitting there scratching their heads on how they are going to punish the older boys when it comes time for Scout Spirit advancement. Had the SPL said, Okay older boys, let's get the leadership resources for you to get your high adventure it. 2-Deep, finances, and travel are all worked out. Surprisingly the SPL is a hero and the older boys are inclined to be more helpful to the SPL in the future because of what he did. Real Servant Leadership is a very powerful dynamic to have around as long as one know what it really is and how to apply it appropriately. Stosh

To me a camp is a temporary shelter for a short duration. If there is a cabin involved it implies a longer duration than just a camp. Council camps tend to have sites of a temporary nature that for the majority of time are just open areas. Summer camp is kinda an exception to the camping requirements, but BSA is quick to point out that for the Camping MB, only one week is allowed. Some summer camps have cabins, but because they are council camps, they count. To me camping involves a temporary encampment of self-erected shelter for a brief period of time. I do not count winter cabin "camping" as camping. Stosh

MattR, nice job. Once one gets beyond the requirements of advancement jobs, then one can start to reap the benefits of real leadership. "For the Patrol" meant what does this job have to do with people. Now you have successfully shifted from management of tasks to leading of people! The really creepy thing about it, it works and works well. This is why I am so "anti-"management. It does not lift the dynamics into world of people. If it is my job to help other people at all time, wouldn't it seem reasonable to be able to focus on what those other people need/want when it comes to help? Other than Do a Good Turn Daily, what other metrics are there that exemplifies helping other people at ALL times? To me this little phrase in the Oath is a mandate for leadership, not management. Stosh

Having a POR is like having one's name on a duty roster. It is a job assigned to you. How one "manages" to get the job done is up to the individual and this is as far as POR's go when it comes to advancement. It's measurable as the metrics dictate. He did it or he didn't do it. End of discussion. While it is good that each scout have some responsibility to help out, the assignment is something they follow, not lead.. Here's the job, do it. So someone is directing the overall task. It works rather well in a lot of troops, but as we notice on the forum, it often doesn't. So where's the rub? The glue that holds POR's together is what is known to me as Leadership. Yes, I am doing my job so 1) I get it done and no one will yell at me, 2) I get advancement credit for it or 3) because my buddies need me to do it to help them out. Of the three 2 are narcissistic and the third is what BSA refers to as Servant Leadership when it speaks of it infrequently. When I do anything "for others" I may be removing obstacles, barriers and things keeping my buddies from struggling and maybe even helping them succeed. FOR OTHER implies my actions are related to people, not just a job. I can't be a leader unless I make an effort to relate it to people. They tell me that the QM job means I have to keep the Dutch ovens clean and stored and handed out when asked. Okay. That's a job I can do. But when lift the covers on each of the returned DO"s do I look at say, "It's good enough for me.", "Good enough for government work." or do I seriously take into consideration what the next borrower will want/need? Yes, every POR can be fulfilled with managerial skill and personal determination, but when one looks at it from a "help other people at all time" perspective, it requires a modicum of leadership. If everyone is happy with the way I do a job, who does everyone look to when it needs to get done right? Who will they go to and thus follow? I did have one scout that questioned me about doing Dutch ovens. I always asked him to do them. Finally he asked why "he always got stuck doing the Dutch Ovens?" I told him it wasn't an issue of getting stuck, it was an issue of putting my best scout on the task because I knew when he did it it was always done right. He never said a word and always took the Dutch ovens and cleaned them. He got so good at it, he was always done with after meal chores first. So, is he showing leadership? Of course he is. He has taken his managerial chore that is personally assigned to hm and made sure the ripple effect of what he was doing was not just for himself, but for the welfare of others. This is why I stress leadership in everything I do in the troop. No one is an island and everyone, regardless of whether or not they have a POR patch, need to be working for someone other than themselves or they are going to end up nothing more than Parlor Scouts or Paper Eagle in the long run. One nice side-effect of this leadership focus is that when everyone is looking out for each other, teamwork really has a chance to blossom as well. After all, isn't this taking care of others nothing more than the Buddy System on a grander scale? Stosh

I think some leadership skills to augment the POR goes a long way to making it easier. A PL with only managerial skill may get the job done, but with a bit of leadership skill he will become a more respected PL that the boys would want to have as PL. But like Sentinel947 says, it's a position of responsibility and should be evaluated as such. Did he do the job? End of discussion. Did the boys think he's a great PL? Not an issue. Doesn't count. If he got the job done, he gets advancement credit. Stosh

...because people are judging boys as leaders when it is a position of responsibility not leadership. They are adding to the requirements when they do so. The discussion then evolved into how to tell the difference. Nice discussion, it is interesting to see how others see the subject. Stosh

It all boils down to who fears what. Kids may fear being alone in the woods. Parents may fear them being there, but then they might fear Social Services i.e. government, stepping in and arresting them for neglect, or some busybody neighbor by the name of Gladys who's just doing her best to interfere. It's pretty much impossible to figure out who's on what side of any issue and who's going to press the button that allows all Hell to break loose on a particular situation. Like the article that Sydney points out, the facts don't always match up very well with the paranoia. Are we now to all be held accountable/a prisoner to a handful of paranoid individuals? Just like sharks can sense blood in the water, the legal profession starts circling when the sirens go off. Stosh

And had you been in blue jeans and a flannel shirt, the subject of Scouting would never have come up.... You all could have been a group from the YMCA or Girls and Boys Club or maybe one of the local churches. Being in uniform, answers all those questions. In your case, it was nice to see the boys SHOWING what Scouting means rather than just trying to explain it to someone. Stosh

SMMatthew, Okay, now we are getting close. "A good Quartermaster shouldn't be measured on how clean the Dutch ovens are... he should be measured on his leadership (having clean Dutch ovens and simply completing the task single-handedly is not the goal... exercising leadership is)." In the real world, yes, you are correct, but holding a Position of Responsibility within the troop for advancement IS NOT measuring leadership only responsibility! That's the rub. You are correct in that for the most part, the better scouts somehow juggle a balance between management skills and leadership skills. Obviously the POR's run the full gamete in varying degrees of balance. An SPL should be 100% leadership. To me his only responsibility is to support the PL's in their duties. He should be doing nothing else to detract him from that "responsibility". The first words out of his mouth at every PLC meeting is "Okay, PL's what can I do to help you succeed this next month?" He goes from there. He does the opening flags, dismisses the patrols down into activity groups, and then wanders from patrol to patrol observing where he might be able to offer some suggestions to the PL next PLC to make his job a bit easier or effective. He then convenes the closing flag ceremony. Next would be the PL's who are probably a 80/20 leadership vs. managment balance. He is constantly teaching, helping, suggesting to each of the other leaders in his patrol as they step up and do their thing. As coordinator of everyone he of course manages them. There are certain duties that need to be done and he can either direct the boys or in some cases do the heavy lifting himself to help out. Directing the boys would tend to be more managerial and doing the heavy lifting would fall more towards the servant leadership side. His call at that moment. Chaplain Aide? probably a 50/50 with a bit more on the servant leadership of helping out directly on camp chores as needed. Historian/Librarian? 10/90 depending on the boy. 90% of his time is task oriented doing this thing for the troop, but the boys might take him a bit more serious if he were to be a more consistent helping hand in camp. It has nothing to do with his "job" as Historian, but if he needs a bit of help some day, the boys will be happy to return the favor and cooperate a bit with him. Whereas our Oath states ..."help other people at all times..." it is also rooted in the Golden Rule. Once boys figure out these dynamics within the patrol, taking one's responsibility becomes a piece of cake and as an added dynamic, their leadership skills improve proportionally as well. It is a tradition in our troop that the personal camp setup is done first. That means that everyone sets up their tents and stows their gear. Then the patrol gear gets set up. For many troops this is the opposite of what they do. But my boys realize that once their stuff is taken care of, it frees their time to help with other new boys struggling with gear and getting the patrol stuff set up, i.e. help the Grubmaster set up the kitchen/cooking area. put up the dining fly, etc. Eventually a culture of everyone watching everyone else's back starts taking over. At that point one realizes they are well on their way to a Servant Leadership troop. By the way other than the SPL, the DC is about the only other POR that is 100% leadership. TG comes close, but he is also focused on the managerial task of organizing the new boys. Fehler: Yes, the QM is mostly a managerial position, not a leadership one, but that doesn't mean the QM can't be a leader as well. If each patrol has a QM and the troop QM is working with them to help deliver the necessary equipment and makes sure the patrol QM's are successful, he is providing leadership to that small group. Same for the patrol QM, he is working to make sure the Activitymaster, Grubmaster, PL and others are successful by having the right equipment show up at the right time in the right place. A lot of times the QM acts beyond the requisite duties of fulfilling a list of equipment needs and works to insure the needs of the people he is tending to. It is obviously easier to teach management because it addresses issues that can be responded to with the "head", whereas leadership addresses issues that can only be responded to with the "heart". A crisis of leadership would be, "I know what I'm supposed to be doing, but I just don't want or care to." The only way this person is going to accomplish anything is by coercion, which SM's seem to be doing all the time to their boys who really don't want to be doing the POR they are assigned, or are doing the minimal just to get "credit" for advancement. Stosh

How can it be defined as inclusiveness when it divides, fragments and alienates? Gottal love the hypocrisy of the liberals...say one thing and do the opposite. It's kinda like the scandal riddled administration we currently have that touts transparency... Reminds me of the Emperor's new clothes.... Stosh

In my lifetime it is really amazing how much one's freedom has been replaced with fear. While people make fun of the conspiracy, aluminum foil people, they are in fact just as emotionally crippled. This is something I learned about back in college in the 1970's and it has consistently gone downhill from there. Nice article, now to get people to read it and then to actually believe it. Stosh

There's hope for our young people after all! I would think that inclusiveness could be better promoted by putting all nationalities' flags in the lobby of the students at UC-Irvine.That message speaks louder than bannin the reality of the student's backgrounds. Kinda like the UN does outside it's office building in NY. It's kinda impressive. At least more impressive than a entryway of nothing. Stosh

It'll make it a great mantel piece. The ammunition is going to be like .22 rounds, if the WH gets its way. You can keep your guns, it's just that there won't be any ammunition available. That's the new strategy for politicians to take away our constitutional right to bear arms. You can own any number of guns you wish, you just won't have any ammunition to go with them. Even if you make your own gunpowder, the sporting goods stores don't have percussion caps anymore. It might be quite interesting to see the US second Revolution being fought with the old reliable Brown Bess. Stosh

Do you have to buy them individually or can you order by the crate? Stosh

We have a phone tree system so all the numbers are known to all. We also provide email addresses so the boys can communicate that way as well. I don't see what the big deal is, they are in contact with each other on a regular basis face-to-face, on the phone, email, and social media anyway per the limits imposed by the parents. If an important message has to get out, the PL can relay the message to all the scouts even if the phone number the family provided is the cell phone of one of the parents. We find the parents do fairly well relaying the message to the boys. Stosh By the way, why would anyone be uncomfortable about making sure everyone knows what's going on? I see making those phone calls as a good thing and excellent leadership technique.

Okay, we know the circus is in town and the elephants are running all over the place, but who's keeping track of the clowns? Stosh

Makes it sound like their new space meets the qualifications for solitary confinement. Go for it guys! Nice picture, they don't even know how to respectfully fold the flag, it must be a new experience for them. Keep it in mind, this is California, they have not really wanted to be part of the US for some time now. It's not that I dislike people from California, it's just that I lived there for some time and understand where they're coming from. Where they think they're going is quite a different story, but where they're coming from is obvious. Stosh

Sorry Scoutergipper, but I'm going to challenge you a bit on the introvert vs. "bossy" as which would make the better servant leader. First I would like to modify the word "bossy" because that for me seems to fit more into the definition of Theory X management. I had two boys in my troop, both working on Eagle at the same time, one was quiet and introverted and the other confident and charismatic. They were actually very close friends. BOTH boys came into servant leadership with the same amount of intensity. The charismatic scout would be an example of the dynamic, rah-rah, "Follow me, boys!" kind of leader. No one ever questioned his leadership ability. He seemed to pull others along in his wake and it worked really well. He was the first one there to give a hand and made sure everyone was having a good time, etc. No one would not define him as a leader. The introvert was quiet and reserved. He was a PL for a while and eventually the TG for the new boys. He would work diligently with each boy helping them all to work through orientation to the troop and organizing as a patrol and helped them with TF-FC advancement. The boys loved him and he genuinely like the boys. They all wanted to make him their PL, but he quietly declined because he said the next group of new scouts would be needing him for their first year. The first boy seemed like Captain America and the second one like a mother hen. Which boy was the "better" leader? Every boy has the potential for leadership, and it has nothing to do with their "personality". The only requirement they need to fulfill is a genuine desire to want to help others. If hat be the case, they will have no problem gathering a following.. Stosh

And this is how many justify the misunderstanding of the two by attempting to blend them together into one. I for one see a clear line of distinction between the two and while they can on occasion work hand-in-hand with each other, they can also work independently of each other. And this is a classic example of how the two are attempted to be blended. The word "organizes" is 100% a management word, not a leadership word. Organizing a group of people is a task and "achieving a common goal." is also a task. What this definition is demonstrates what a manager (management) would do. He could also do this by force and intimidation and the only reason the people are organized is because they are too afraid not to. That would accomplish the task but not require any leadership. It is what was once referred to as Theory X of management. Either you do your job or you're fired! It works, but it doesn't empower the person to really want to "follow" this person as a leader. Again, "manage", "guide", "direct" are all words from the world of management, not leadership. "Interact and manage other members"? The definition of leadership being proposed is riddled with management verbiage. He is not leading anyone from his bedroom. But what he is doing is fulfilling a simple communication task for the troop. His work pretty much is troop PR for the rest of the people to see, kinda like a modern electronic newspaper or newsletter. I for one have no idea who 99% of the newsletter compilers may be, but it basically I react to the information of interest regardless of who wrote it. There is no leadership personality involved. If Activity X looks good and might be fun, I really don't care who wrote the article. Now if PL Johnny is going to be running the activity, and I llke PL Johnny because he makes activities fun, then I'll go. And now you have a leadership component involved but it has nothing to do with Webmaster Freddie. Yes! you are correct that these are excellent leadership dynamics and if they are in the newsletter from Webmaster Freddie, they should be duplicates of what PL Johnny should have already done. That's why his responsibility is to be Patrol LEADER. If he isn't taking care of his boys he is not leading. If he is getting the job done (tasks) but not taking care of the boys he is being a good manager but not a leader. SMMatthew, here is where we differ. All these things the Scribe is doing is taking care of tasks, taking care of business and doing paperwork. It simply can be done in a vacuum without anyone around. Yes, somewhere down the road someone's life is a bit easier because he did his job, but doing one's job is not leading. Look at it this way. Position of Responsibility - A position which requires the ability to respond.(respond-ability) It is reactionary to the needed tasks at hand. If we need equipment, the QM is in a position where he is able to respond to the need of equipment. Only after the task has been defined (We need 2 Dutch ovens) is the QM able to respond. He MANAGES these tasks that meet the needs of the present time. Remember management is after the problem has been identified, it's reactionary and his focus is on the task of getting 2 Dutch Oven ready. He is simply responding to a task, not to people directly. If QM shows up with 2 Dutch ovens at a defined place, it makes no difference who shows up to receive them. Position of Leadership - a position of leading. Now, in no way is this placement behind any identified issues or tasks. No, a leader is someone out front of a problem, not reacting to a problem. And a leader also has an even more important component involved. It's not leading tasks (management) but it is more specifically leading people. Others need to be at hand and choosing to follow before the title leader can be bestowed. If a leader is expected to take care of his boys, this simple lesson is what leadership is all about. No one in this world is going to not follow someone they know and trust that will take care of them. If PL Johnny isn't motivated to take care of me, why in the world would I follow, he's not a leader and more importantly he is not MY leader. Leadership is not assigned, but it is bestowed by those who will follow a particular person. This is why putting a PL patch on a boy doesn't make him a Patrol Leader in any sense of the definition other than as a title. It's not even an issue of liking the person. People will follow a leader they trust whether they like them or not. Does one have to know what the task is that the group is reacting to (management) as long as they trust their leader is going to take care of them in the process? (leadership) One can see this most evident with military examples. If the leader is someone the soldiers trust to take care of them the best he can, they will follow him anywhere regardless of the mission. Leadership is not tangible, is out front of problems and people, and is bestowed by the followers. Management is tangibly definable, is reactionary to the task and may nor may not involve the necessity of other people. Even then the task could be filled through directives, assignments and delegations. I hope this helps to understand how I see the differences. Stosh