Stosh

I have no problem with what you are saying. But I believe you indicated that every patrol had an ASM assigned to it???? Why? If the PL has a problem who does he turn to: the ASM patrol advisor or the SPL? If the PL turns first to the ASM then why have an SPL? If he turns to the SPL, then what's the sense in having an ASM patrol advisor? The boys seem to be doing fine without him/her. If the program is youth led, couldn't a TG be assigned by the SPL for every NSP and the other patrols all have access to a contact ASPL? if the troop is large? Would they not function as a youth mini-SM and the adults just drink coffee? Yes one of the ASPL's should "PL" the Troop Officers on outings. And if the patrols are all 300' away and the SPL gets called to a patrol because of something a PL needs, why can't an ASPL step in as SPL until he gets back? The SPL doesn't need to not completely show up before an ASPL is needed, especially in a big troop. If a huge troop has 3 NSP's and the TG's are a bit overwhelmed with trying to teach a new PL and get camp set up? Maybe an ASPL or two could jump in to get them through the tight spots rather than an adult patrol advisor. Never do as an adult what a boy can do. I stick to that principle and it works really slick regardless of what Kool-Aid flavor one drinks. Stosh

Because I speak often from a differing viewpoint does not mean that what I'm doing or saying has any judgmental reflection on anyone else. I hear people speak of problems that for some reason I don't seem to have in my troop so I explain what I'm doing in the hope that something I say might elevate the problems for others. I learned a long time ago never to assume anything. But sometimes 1 + 1 really does equal 2. I'm sure a lot of people think of me as a very judgmental person. Believe me, I'm not. I have enough on my plate that I don't have to worry about what someone else is doing whether it be right or wrong. After all, seriously? It's not my problem, it's there's. If something I say helps, then okay. If it doesn't, then okay. I have spent 40+ years working with kids and to help them grow I only offer non-binding suggestions that if they wish to incorporate, fine, if not fine. But I surely don't lose any sleep over it, but always remember, they are non-binding suggestions. Yep, whereas I was using it as an allegory example, you were using as literal. As I have mentioned, the actual definition of the job is irrelevant to me. So I normally just rely on what the boy thinks the job to be, lays it out and measures himself against his definition. So far to-date, no scout has ever said he thought the job was to screw around for 6 months and get credit. Therefore I have never really had a boy not give it his best as he sees the position. My boys do, however, understand leadership and the tend to apply that dynamic to the functional management of the POR when they define the work. Let's go with Librarian. Boy # 1 - organize the MB books in the troop closet just in case a boy needs one. If he does, which he never will because they are all outdated, he can check it out and return it and I just keep track of that on a piece of paper on the inside of the troop closet door. At the end of the 6 months make sure I get credit for doing the POR. Boy # 2 - First, go and toss all the MB books that have a printing date older than 20 years. That's about half of them. Then start with web searches for articles and items that will assist the boys in the TF through FC requirements. They might come from Boys Life, Scouting, Internet or other sources such as American Red Cross, and a military pamphlet/manual on map and compass work. I will then make sure there's a file system where all these articles are easily retrieved by the Instructor or individual scouts so that they have some resources to use to teach. Then I would work closely with the Instructors on acquiring specific materials to assist them as needed. Then I would collect of resources from the community of potential projects that could be considered for service projects and/or Eagle projects. Names, addresses and phone numbers of contacts of people that might have some good ideas for these service projects. Then..... Do I need to go on? But if one looks closely at Boy # 1 He's doing what most Librarians do in a troop and it gets the job done. But boy #2 is looking to take care of his boys, their needs and make himself useful to their needs. He gets the job done, but for the most part, BSA has never identified the process described above. The only place I have seen it was created from the mind of one of my scouts. So even if he does half of what he sets out to do, he's going to get credit for the POR. I would never question the training and experience of another scouter. Their skills, talents and interests are different than mine Even how they define things is different than mine. Who's to say whose idea will work best in any one situation. I can only speak from a position of what has worked for me as I have dealt with 3 different units and been unit commissioner for a number of years and worked with other troops with less of an impact. I'm not going to mislead anyone by having them try what hasn't worked for me. I only promote what has worked. But then it may not work for someone else. But if they want they could try or they could reject, I only offer non-binding suggestions. 20 years old???? OH NO!!! You're one of THEM! Don't worry about being able to from time to time manipulate adults as a youth would if you never grow up. Heck, it still works and I'm 64 years old. Yep, you and I differ on this one because all I ever tell my boys at the beginning of a POR is "Take care of your boys!" In the 30+ years of working with scouts, I have NEVER had to drop the hammer on any scout. I have seen other SM's do it, but I've never done it. I never had had any reason to. As a matter of fact, about half the time, I'm surprised by the work the boys do in their self-defined POR responsibilities. I even had an ADHD boy who was not on meds (and should have been) run the entire Popcorn fundraiser one year. It was the most successful fundraiser the troop ever had. One of the "problems" of ADHD is the fact that the person intensely focuses on just one thing and becomes almost infatuated with it. Well if that one things is selling popcorn, then he's your man! I have no problem with any leader that knows they are too adult led and makes the effort to move towards letting the boys have ownership and leadership of their program. From what you have been saying in your posts, it is obvious that your #1 concern is "Taking care of your boys." and how can I ever find fault with that? Stosh

First of all, welcome to the forum and posting. I have no idea how long you may have been lurking, but it's good to see some fresh blood in the fray. First of all a lot of legalese wording going on with BSA and a lot of it rather vague. 4.2.3.4.5 When Responsibilities are not met.... Who determines that? The boys, the SM, the BOR, parents, some unit rule book? That needs to be better defined. Unit leader's responsibility? Okay, is that the IH, the COR, CC, SM, ASM, SPL or PL? They are all unit leaders and in my case of boy led, patrol method, the PL is the highest ranking operational officer. There are no rules in a boy led, patrol method unit except those the boys have created for themselves. If a PL isn't doing his job, the patrol can elect a new PL at any time. It kinda cuts to the chase and excludes a lot of legalese language. Of course if he's doing a good job, he could in fact lose the position when he ages out, too. I'm thinking that if the PL is working with the patrol and they seem happy with his performance, who's to say he's not fulfilling his responsibility? If the SPL isn't doing his job, the PL's can oust him as well. If the QM never has equipment ready, the PL's can oust him and or SPL simply select a new QM. The "leadership training" and basic guideline for "job" performance in the unit is: "Take care of your boys." If for some reason they don't think they're being taken care of, they're going to say so IMMEDIATELY! Kinda like instant feedback and probably in your face feedback. So that solves the problem of monitoring the performance of the POR, any POR. SM doesn't even need to step in unless it's to referee. So if the boys are handling all of this, what's left for the SM and/or other adults to do? Probably nothing... This system kind changes peer pressure into pure pressure in a heartbeat. I for one have some pretty motivated boys, or they become motivated after joining and I don't seem to have any performance problems that I have had to resolve, before, during or after. Mostly after is just a review of their efforts and what might be done to be more effective on the next go-around with a POR and that's handled during the SMC before the BOR for rank. Stosh

So then the SPL is undermined instead. Got it! I would rather see an ASPL assigned to each patrol as a mini-SM instead of an adult. Just my boy-led thingy I guess. Like I said, too many boy leaders is not a bad thing! If the SM needs to delegate it means he's directing and controlling the situation. Kinda like what happens in an adult-led program. But if anyone is delegating, the SPL can call up any number of ASPL's to help him with a larger troop. And by the way, an adult as a mini-SM for each patrol is grossly over dominated by adults IMHO. Stosh

Most adult leaders probably don't. But there are a few who do. And if one is capable of actually trusting their boys, will learn without any adult intervention. Why should they do a job if they know if they sit on their hands long enough some adult will come along and intervene eventually? Every kid whether they are a scout or not, know how that process works. That's how young people manipulate the world of adults without getting yelled at too much. Sure, they'll take a bit of a tongue lashing if they get the adult to do the work in the end it's worth it. If the boy knows no adult is going to step in and interfere with getting the job done, they'll figure it out. No, our approach needs to be youth oriented and youth directed and youth initiated. And yes, like a light switch either one is letting the boys lead or they are not. Subtle nuanced and flexible interference is not letting the boys lead the program. It means they are expected to run it at the subtle nuanced directives of the adults. I have found over the years that if the boys run into problems they can't handle they will ask for help. Until then if they are to grow and develop they're going to need the adults step back, get out of the way and let them figure it out on their own. If they can't, then they'll ask. Yet, after they have worked themselves through an issue, to sit down and assist the boy in evaluating how they did, what they did, and how they felt about the outcome is fine. That is not leading, it is following-up and there's a big difference between the two. This is why the test analogy is very valid. 90% of the time I'm their cheerleader, the another 5% I'm offering up non-binding suggestions they might want to consider as a possible solution to their predicament AFTER they have asked for those suggestions, and the last 5% I'm yelling at them for safety issues, consoling them because they're home-sick, etc. The standard non-program types of life things that go along with young boys. Stosh

It's not fair to them to give them all the answers to the test at the beginning either. If one gives them all the answers, it takes away their opportunity to learn. Stosh

But it can be after the fact. If the SM spends some time reviewing the "work" of the boy having completed his POR, reviews his definition of the role, finds out how he feel about what he did or didn't do, evaluates what he could do better next time, identifies areas where he needs to focus for improvement, etc. etc. Then corrective action after the fact is a VERY important part of the process. Of course it doesn't have to be after the fact if the boy approaches someone for help mid-stream. He is interested in doing something but the boys are resisting it and he doesn't know what to do, he's 2 months into his POR and is starting to get frustrated. He turns for help and SPL, SM and whoever he seeks out for guidance is there to walk him through some other processes/options to consider. And then it can also happen before the fact. "Mr. SM, what does a Librarian do?????" "Danged if I know, what do you think would be good for you to be doing?" "Let's keep track of all the old out-dated MB books that should be thrown away, but we've got a shelf of them in the storage closet that no one has ever wanted." "No, maybe you should do something a bit more productive.... Why don't you think about it for a week and see what you can come up with, we'll meet again next week and I'll see if I can come up with some ideas too for you to consider, too." Each opportunity set before a boy is an opportunity to learn and grow. He doesn't need a pigeon-hole to be stuffed into. If he has a leadership style he is working on, his round peg style just isn't going to fit into the square slot the SM thinks he should fit into. His POR is a vague outline of possibilities set before him for his consideration and through a series of options, opinions, epiphanies, examples etc. he just might find where he fits in and does a nice job at it. If not, next POR we try Plan B. Although each POR is nothing more than a management task, I think they are useful tools for determining character and integrity in the boys and offer them an opportunity to try out their leadership as well as management skills. My #1 consideration is: Is he doing what he's doing so he gets rank advancement credit or is he doing it for the benefit of his buddies in the patrol/troop? Both will get him credit for a POR, but option #2 lets me know who's getting in line for PL/SPL down the road. And yes, I have left the boy knowing that the POR he just finished up was a slip-shod job. He gets credit for it, but if it comes down to him and another boy vying for a position, he may get passed over and advancement delayed as a consequence of his actions. I don't have to punish him for a poor job, there are those out there that notice stuff as much as I do. Stosh

Unfortunately that is the slippery slope I talked about. Once a troop shifts over to adult-led, it is a real bear to shift it back. I hope SM Bob, that's not your troop! Stosh

A PL in charge of 8 boys in a small troop is no different than a PL in charge of 8 boys in a huge troop. So that dynamic doesn't change with the size of a troop. So with a huge troop, maybe the SPL needs more ASPL's to handle the overload. An ASPL to be the PL to the troop officers and maybe another ASPL to help with PL concerns coming their way. I think the only difference between what you are saying and what I'm saying is that I would be quick to add more youth support and you would feel more comfortable with adding more adult support. I really don't see the need to have an adult ASM patrol advisor for every patrol. This to me offers up a slippery slope that could very easily undermine the position of the PL. Yes there should be adult association but association has nothing to do with the operational functioning of the patrols and troop. If the patrol wishes to purchase a new patrol camp stove, the patrol QM goes to the troop QM and the QM puts in a purchase requisition to the Committee Treasurer. So the flow of association and more importantly help flows from a request from a patrol, not the other way around. Unless I see a boy breaking one of the 3 troop rules, I do not interact with the boys all that much if at all. If a boy needs a SMC he talks it over with this PL who talks to me about finding time with the boy directly. I do this at the directive of the PL. He's responsible for taking care of the boys and if I step in and do that without his knowledge I am undermining his authority to run his patrol. We as SM's wouldn't like a former SM to come in and do all kinds of chit/chat, how's it going and the boys making it clear that Good Cop/Bad Cop or Good SM/Bad SM dynamics don't seem to appear out of nowhere and without knowing it, might be undermining the current SM? I try to keep the authoritative dynamics completely on the boy level. Because of this I VERY seldom have to say to the boy, "You need to be talking to your PL about this." If boys keep coming to me, I know the PL's authority has been replaced by mine. If someone needs something done, they go to the perceived leader. If that's not the PL then the PL isn't really leading his patrol, the one the boys turn to for help is really running it. If it's an adult, then I would seriously wonder if the troop was truly boy-led. To me BSA is a leadership development program and that leadership development is NOT for the adults, it's for the boys. Having too many boy leaders is not a bad thing, having too many adult leaders is. Stosh

Duck Wars. Everyone goes out into the woods and finds a 2' stick about 2" in diameter. Once that's done select up sides or stay as patrols and have 4-5 - 10 "sides" it doesn't make any difference. 1) Every boy holds stick behind their knees. 2) Squat down locking stick behind knees. 3) Reach with both arms behind stick as far as elbows 4) Interlock fingers in front of shins. 5) You are now armed and dangerous. Object of the game is to knock over or cause your opponent to release their hand grip. Once they do that they are "Dead Ducks" and out of the game. Last Duck standing wins. In my troops, there's no such thing as game over. There's only a truce until next time. Caution: Never play adults against the boys. You will lose! Stosh

Yep, as well as it should be. Stosh

DUCK WARS! Stosh

Unless one is running a totally boy-led program. Then there seems to be far less mentoring and coaching going on. If the boy hits a snag, they turn to others for help. Patrol members turn to PL PL's turn to SPL SPL turns SM If it is determined that more help is needed or that an ASM should work with the SPL (at the SPL's request obviously), then that can be set up as well. Having monthly "mentoring" sessions with every scout really smacks of helicopter hovering by adults and really don't have any place in my troop. We have enough of that with parents, I don't need my ASM's doing it, too. Because my PL's tend to be very well trained in "Taking care of your boys", I see very few problems getting to the SPL level. If it does and he needs help, then the SM gets involved. 99% of what needs to be addressed get worked out at the SM/SPL level, but that 99% is maybe 5-10% of all issues in the troop. I often say that I personally don't see much of the problems mentioned on this forum as being something I have had to deal with. The reason for it, the boys usually figure out solutions to the problem and so seldom escalate to the SM level. The whole patrol is in one tent and the talked all night long! OMG! - Well, they're 300' away so I don't have a problem with it. They overslept and didn't get breakfast! OMG! - Well, they're 300' away so I don't have a problem with it. See a pattern here? They get to a solution to their problems a lot faster if adults are 300' away. Stosh

"What one man's garbage is another man's treasure." Look at the requirement in the Boy Scout Handbook. That is the ultimate determination of advancement. One does not sign off on the GTA for a scout, they sign off on the verbiage of the Scout Handbook. Whereas showing up and backing up the SPL means nothing to one person, it means a lot to me. He is doing something. While his hands may not be flailing all over the place, he is demonstrating, trustworthy, loyalty, dependability, and leadership in that at a moment's notice he can step up and take over. Which one of those dynamics is one ready to say, "Doesn't count" because your hands and feet aren't moving? For those ASPL's (and even APL's) standing around as backup, that are bored, I do suggest they find other options to keep busy. One of my old ASPL's did take on being the "PL" of the troop officers, QM, Scribe, TG, etc. but with the high caliber of scouts in that group, even then he didn't have much to do. By the time the troop officers reached that level, they were pretty much trained so that expectation would have been a total waste of time for the ASPL. He did enjoy being the GrubMaster for the troop officer "patrol". If the QM needed help he would help there, but that's not really his "job" according to the GTA, neither is GrubMaster, but he kept himself busy anyway doing things for others in the troop (serving) while waiting to see if the SPL didn't show up and he'd have to take over. So, in that case looking at it from another man's point of view this ASPL did not fulfill the POR. He never served as SPL pro-tem, never did any training for highly trained scouts, so by the book he was useless and shouldn't get credit for his 6 month tenure. Well, I thought he did a really nice job for an ASPL, more than I would have expected (he was bored easily), so I gladly gave him credit for the POR. As far as "Meeting Unit Expectations", I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that 99.9% of those "expectations" are some stupid rules someone along the way got a wild hair about and pressed their issue though some troop by-laws that no one knew where the current copy of it was. See the thread on Tent Rules.... I run a boy-led program so "Meeting Unit Expectations" means, if the boy's aren't complaining about the scout, he must be meeting expectations.... I'm thinking most boys don't really care unless he's really doing something really bad like selling drugs on the side.... maybe. Stosh

While it's nice to have a campout, it is not required for AOL. Any outdoor activity will do. Just a hike. Well, we rent a cabin at the local council camp for the weekend, invite the Webelos boys and then hike over to the sledding hill, etc. throughout the weekend and sleep/cook in the cabin. It works well for a lot of the Webelos boys that haven't slept in a tent and mid-October isn't the best time to try it out. Stosh

Every boy has an opinion as to what it means to serve in any of the POR's. Their opinions of what that means are no less valid than what I think it means. So their "proof" is explaining to me what their opinion is for that POR and then working and serving as they define it. Either they can let me know up front what that is or they can explain it afterwards. But afterwards had better be pretty convincing. Not many boys wait until the end to see if what they did was sufficient. They usually pad their POR with all kinds of useful endeavors to make sure there's no questions at the end. The #1 question I always use is: "Did the boys you served think you did a good job?" If they can't answer that question, I always wonder if the boys were served. If one is serving someone shouldn't they know whether or not they have been effective at it? Stosh

Yep, but the requirement doesn't state that and one must not add or subtract from the requirement, and therein lies the problem. And seriously? How does someone "help the troop move forward"? Can it be any less vague? When discussing the POR evaluation, an ASPL that shows up regularly is in fact helping the troop move forward. I've had these discussions with youth for 30+ years. If one looks totally objectively at this requirement, the boys can justify just about anything to gain credit for serving in a POR. Why? because "serving" is just as vague as "helping the troop move forward!" Those who try and direct pre-service duties will find they have no BSA backing for their opinions on what it means to serve. The boy's opinions are just as valid. If one doesn't like what they see, it's not their call to make mid-course corrections. The boys being served, how do they feel about it and shouldn't they have some say-so in any mid-course corrections? What if they really don't care what the ASPL is doing? This is why I like the boys to journal/evaluate their work on the requirement. It helps me determine where the boys are at with what they think is serving. Any mid-course corrections/improvements can be handled between POR's. If there are hundreds of different styles of leadership, there are hundreds of definitions of what serving means as well. Every boy has to figure that combination out for themselves. Stosh

A roll of twine, a few sticks and let them make rope. One doesn't need a fancy gadget to wind rope, it can be done by hand. Don't do "classes". All instruction is to be done one-on-one so that troop boys get to know the Webs personally. Making rope is a two person operation, perfect for this type of gathering. Lots of activity games. There's no such thing as too many games. Kid fun food. Make sure it's something new. Hobo dinners are a bit worn out by the time they get to Boy Scouts. Dutch oven is good, not many packs have them. Stews, cobblers, kinds of meals are good and easy to make, Cubs could help out with the prep. Again, one-on-one. If one is a patrol method troop, break the troop into half patrols with the other half Webelos and work/camp as patrols. Have separate "fun" activities for the adults if one has a boy-led program. Try and make it as reflective of what one normally does in the Troop as possible so that one doesn't put on their best show of the year only to disappoint the boys when they finally join when it's not what was advertised. Stosh

"While a First Class Scout, serve actively in your unit for four months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility (or carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the unit): ..." Serve actively in your unit in a position of responsibility.... Now that can pretty much mean just about anything someone wants it to be. What's there to judge? There are no "rules" to follow so it looks like one just makes them up as they go. So if the boy journals his service as he defines it, shouldn't that count as much as the service as defined by someone else, like the SM? If it's boy-led, shouldn't the boys be defining the service? With the requirement being totally subjective, what's there to judge? As far as I'm concerned the boys can all pick their POR patches and go from there. The requirement is of no real value as stated in the book. Yep, then go with the Scoutmaster-assigned leadership projects.... Sure, that's explicit. In an attempt to get a boy geared up for future Eagle leadership projects, shouldn't he be selecting his own project? Giving credit to this requirement is basically like trying to nail Jello to the wall. How do I measure success? Oh! the boy has a journal. He thinks that doing this is appropriate way to fulfill this POR. Who am I to argue with him? Well he's put in 16 weeks (Star Requirement) of thinking about serving the troop in some fashion and this is what he's done. Yep. Looks good to me. But it also gives me insight into the attitude, character and motivation of the scout. That is probably more important than my pencil whipping the advancement record. Of course the boy doesn't need to journal his work, but most boys will need to keep records on a number of MB's and other tasks for scouting, he might as well start with his POR's. Otherwise, if he can't remember all that he's done, how can he discuss it with me and how can I give him credit for it? So here's the journal for the ASPL: week 1 - 26 - SPL showed up (perfect attendance) and I had nothing to do than to show up and make sure he was there (he had perfect attendance, too). Yep, he served. He was there to back up the SPL if needed. Just because he was never needed does not mean he didn't serve. By definition of BSA instructions on advancement, he has fulfilled his responsibility and the advancement gets checked off. Stosh

I guess I don't understand what is meant by different understandings of labels. If one simply goes by definition it is easy to distinguish between the two. Quite simply they are apples and oranges and have very little to do with each other. The goal of management is go get the task done using people. This is what your SM taught. "Keep your patrol together and get the job done." Eisenhower wasn't much better with getting people to do the task with encouragement and motivation, maybe even trickery to a certain extent. But leadership basically has nothing to do with the focus of people getting tasks done. It's focus is on whether one person follows another person and the dynamics of why they would want to do that. Take a look at the statement: "I'm a leader in this company, I get the job done!" So what? He can do it himself and get the job done. And when the smoke has settled, who has he led? No one. So, then why would anyone follow someone else? I follow my PL because he gives me all kinds of camp chores/tasks to do. Yeah, right! My PL takes care of me. He makes sure I have a tent, food, and that I have a good time. He makes sure I get lessons to make my life easier. He makes sure I am successful in rank attainment. He goes to bat for me when others pick on me. He really listens when I'm upset. He makes sure I'm not lonely. He takes an interest in me. He never says anything bad about me to other people. He thinks I'm a nice kid but can't always do everything that needs to be done. ...... No where in that paragraph does it say I follow my PL because he is having me do anything nor he takes care of me because what I can do, but instead because of who I am. Because of that I like him and will do my best to do anything he thinks will help me to be a better person. He gives me a sense of wanting to belong and be near him because I feel comfortable around him. He's my PL, but he's also my friend, I can count on him. Management is what you do. I can learn the knowledge and skill to become a successful manager. Leadership is what you are. I need to change my attitude and focus towards others to become a successful leader. Apples and oranges... Stosh

Patrol method? Why would patrols check out equipment? Shouldn't the patrol boxes belong to the patrols? Same for tents and other equipment. Let the patrols live with their abuse and/or care of the equipment assigned to the patrol. If all I needed to do is turn in a bad tent and figure I'd be lucky to get a different tent next time, I won't worry about the poor sap who gets stuck with a tent that the zipper doesn't work. Stosh

My point exactly!!!!! Neither is any other kind of "leadership"! All they need do is walk through the motions and voila, you have completed your POR! Stosh

The problem lies in the issue of management. Management is nothing but a series of tasks that need to be done. That is easily documented by the boy. Take a notebook, put a date at the top of the page, write down all you did for that POR. I coach them to have at least one entry per week so that it adds up to 26 weeks. So as a minimum they need to do 26 things a week apart and they have earned their POR. If they miss a week in there, then add another page to the notebook and you've earned your POR. Of course, it has nothing to do with whether or not it was done well, just done. On the other hand, I focus more on leadership so this POR stuff is just a formality that needs to be done for advancement and it's no big deal to document the work done. So I have a Scout - he's a PL He comes every week and does his patrol leader thingy. At the end of the 6 months if he has perfect attendance, he gets credit for the POR. Of course, while he's doing that, he's working on making sure all his boys are being successful and having fun in scouting, coordinating instructors to come in and teach rank advancement to the boys, make sure the QM has the right equipment for his boys on the campout, and suggests to the GrubMaster the boys have a shot at a new recipe he found that sounded good. All of which is not part of his POR, but goes a long way in developing his character and leadership skills. Taking care of your boys is not listed in the POR management training for PL's. When you accepted the position of patrol leader, you agreed to provide service and leadership to your patrol and troop. No doubt you will take this responsibility seriously, but you will also find it fun and rewarding. As a patrol leader, you are expected to do the following: Plan and lead patrol meetings and activities. Keep patrol members informed. Assign each patrol member a specific duty. Represent your patrol at all patrol leaders' council meetings and the annual program planning conference. Prepare the patrol to participate in all troop activities. Work with other troop leaders to make the troop run well. Know the abilities of each patrol member. Set a good example. Wear the Scout uniform correctly. Live by the Scout Oath and Law. Show and develop patrol spirit. Quote from Scouting.org Which one of the bullet points are leadership and which are management tasks?.... Which one of those bullet points emphasizes the PL is to take care of his patrol members and help them be successful? Yeah, that's right, there's no leadership requirements involved in the POR. But ask yourself... If the PL is taking care of his boys, which one of the bullet points will NOT be taken care of automatically? Once my boys have that mindset established in their routine, they can take on any POR and be pretty successful at it. Stosh

"BSA has made it very clear that the lack of performance needs to be addressed..." Performance is a management issue I don't worry too much about. "When responsibilities are not met...." Again management issues. Expectations are measurements of management. If POR's are assigned within the context of leadership, these management issues seem to disappear. At least I don't have to deal with them as SM. And as a tag line.... "In this case, he must be given credit for the time." I don't give credit, the boy earns credit. I have had boys journal their work at a variety of different POR's over a 6 month period to have submitted on their work to both me for review in the SMC as well as available to the BOR members. No one has ever expressed any concern on the process. It fulfills the management portion of the POR. Document the tasks done. Stosh

As I have mentioned I draw a strong distinction between Leadership and Management. In today's world the focus is on "getting the job done." and that involves such things as performance evaluations and accountability. Those issues are all Management concepts, not leadership. Unfortunately that is why a lot of boys struggle with POR's and leadership because they get trained in Management which is often miss-named as "Leadership". NYLT is mostly demonstrations of skills and tasks that need to be done. That's management. Management styles such as Theory X and Theory Y where one demands compliance out of those doing the work (Theory X) or coerces compliance out of those doing the work (Theory Y) both assume that the task is more important than the people doing it. The "One Minute Manager" that came out many years ago, basically does the same thing, but at least recognizes the value of the people doing it and respects that. So now we have the scout trained in Management getting the nod for SPL. He has before him a responsibility task of "running the troop". It is spelled out as Lead the PLC, MC COH's, and a whole variety of different tasks. So with a burst of energy he approaches those tasks with the demeanor of a traffic cop. Sure traffic flows smoothly as long as everyone does what he says. But the moment anyone does not do what is expected to accomplish the task, things fall apart. It's a tenuous position for most people to be in, let alone a fledgling new SPL. I see train wrecks in these boys' futures. So then we have the Servant Leadership people coming foward in the early 1970's with a new concept on Leadership instead of management. It's focus is not on getting the task done, but instead of leading people who want to follow and thus the tasks will get done. As part of my SM minute last week, I asked the boys what Tenderfoot Requirement #9 was. Two piped up, "Take care of your buddy!" I then asked, why was that important, and they answered, "Because it's the first step in being a good leader." Yes, I could have a classroom setting of teaching leadership, but it isn't really conducive to videos and flip-charts. Instead for every service project the boys do, is it ever questioned why they are doing it? For those that say they are doing it to get credit for advancement, they are really focused only on themselves and their own success. They are managing their performance and their success. People really don't "follow" people like that because they make very poor leaders. On the other hand the boy that does it because it helps other people, is getting a lesson in true leadership. "Help other people at all times!" is what leadership is all about. What are the management tasks of helping other people at all times? Who cares!! The tasks aren't important, the people are! A good manager will point out what is necessary for the worker to do to accomplish a task. The worker is just a cog in the machinery necessary for getting the job/task done. Life is good as long as the worker follows directions correctly. A good leader will draw people to him that want to help. Not to help the leader, but have the leader lead them into the tasks knowing he has their back and will do everything he can to help them be successful. A patrol leader that constantly is making sure each of his boys is successful, will he himself be successful! The focus is on those who are trusting him to look out for them, i.e. servant to them. When they look good, he looks good! Once everyone has mastered this concept of serving others (helping other people at all times) they will have mastered teamwork because there isn't just one leader on a team, they are all leaders. Sometimes they lead, sometimes they follow, but they all have the same goal of everyone else's success. I can watch my buddy's back, because he's watching mine. With that concept in mind, the boys can handle any task that comes along. How does one scout learn to lead? HE DOESN"T! He has to have followers to be a leader. How does one garner up followers? Now that's what leadership training is all about. The SPL that complains to the SM that none of the boys will listen to him and do what he says, is letting the SM know he is no leader whatsoever! My one and only lesson for PL training is: "Take care of your boys." Those that do that tend to figure out leadership very quickly and do a really nice job. That's a daunting task, but if they keep the welfare of others foremost, those tasks will quickly resolve themselves as the boy develops his leadership style. Stosh