Stosh

Yes, you are correct with the idea that the PL's were assigned. What had happened was I inherited a declining troop with 6 boys and I had to get them ready to take on 18 new boys overnight. This meant I spent first few months training, dealing with expectations, making adjustments, and psyching the boys up from a "Our troop is going to shut down" attitude to "in a couple of months we're going to be way too big for what we can handle" attitude. We did a leadership type retreat and talked about the new structure of boy-led, patrol-method and what that was going to mean to them and how boy-led really meant boy-led. They listened to what they could expected from me and I listened to what I could expect from them. Basically 3 boys were excited about the "new" troop and 3 weren't. They liked the adults calling the shots and making the plans and doing the work. The time came for the new boys and 2 PL's and the TG were the three boys excited about the new troop, that left the best possibility left over from the "less than enthusiastic" boys. I left it up to the 3 PL's to figure out their patrols each getting about 6 boys. 2 patrols are doing great. The PL's are going way beyond expectations I had for them at this point. Summer camp, in-site cooking, (patrol shopping for the week this Saturday), and new scout program all lined up. The other PL decided scouts wasn't his thing and took the other older scouts with him. The third patrol took a big hit because all three of the older boys were in that patrol. They had an opportunity to step up and help the new boys. Instead they walked away. Well, the remainder of the patrol, sat down, decided on who the new PL would be and is back up and running with just 3 boys (One boy moved out of the area and his best pal didn't come on his own). They're all new scouts so a small number should be ok for them to handle. They have approached me already to ask for first pick at the Webelos crossover so they can get their numbers up next year and that they had a couple of their buddies from school they were going to ask to join in the meantime. I assured them that that would be an excellent course of action for them. Even the new boys can figure these things out on their own. So at the present time I have 2 assigned PL's and 1 elected. I have put the boys on notice that next year when the Webelos crossover happens we expect to take on 40-60 new boys. Boys that do well this first year will be given a chance to have a patrol of new scouts at that time. They will be assigned from the pool of the best scouts. There should be 5-10 patrols coming out of the Blue/Golds. If I'm not off too much on my math, that leaves just a handful of new scouts left over, but our troop should be big enough to handle populating the troop staff positions. My TG and I will discuss and review the boys at that time and he will make those assignments. If by chance there should be enough older boys to form a patrol of their own and they wish to remain together, they can do so and they will of course elect their PL. Once a patrol is formed, no adult needs to be messing with it. Adults can initiate patrols, but that's all the farther the process goes for them. Stosh

"I enjoy reading your posts, but must admit I'm am overwhelmed by your seemingly perfect troop of boys." It's not all perfect, but it's a goal everyone in the unit works towards, both adults and boys. Everyone lays out their expectations, everyone has a say-so in the process and if any weight is given to a person's suggestion, it falls towards the boys rather than the adults. Everyone knows that when all is said and done the SM has final veto. But to-date that veto has never been used, threatened or even suggested. The boys if left alone know what is within reasonable boundaries and don't press the issues. "I marvel at your post that all your boys are caring and committed and take Scouting seriously." I'm constantly amazed by the boys who want to take it seriously and do if given the chance. I learned a long time ago to expect miracles one sometimes gets them every now and then. "Knowing that you may take this next bit as sarcasm, it is not intended to be. You asked if anyone had a specific question to post it. Here are mine. What specifically have you done as far as training and mentoring in your Troop to achieve such success?" First of all I work very hard on relationships and team building on the patrol level. Keep everything positive yet serious. The very first taining my PL's got when they took over the three NSP's this year was: "These are your boys, I expect you to take care of them. If you need help, I'm always around." All three of the boys were quiet and reserved. One FC, one Life and one Scout (older but never progressed in rank at all. I was hoping he would step up to the plate. Unfortunately he didn't and has quit the troop. None were "leadership material". I held more faith in them than they did in themselves. 2 of the three are great PL's, the other quit and the patrol immediately elected a member to take over as PL on their own. If you have ever had difficulty with a Scout getting him to care and take responsibility seriously, what did you do to turn that around? My last older boy was "the reason the troop was going down the tubes". He is the former SM's son, he was the "SPL" of 6 boys and didn't want me as a SM. Taking a hard line of caring for the boy, I wouldn't budge from boy-led, patrol-method and he and I had a number of serious toe-to-toe "discussions" about his "former" role as SPL and why he wasn't running the show anymore. I handed each PL a PL handbook, smiled, and said, "Read it, there'll be a quiz next week." This boy flat out said NO. Yet throughout the whole process I always refered to him as Mr. _____. I never raised my voice and I treated him as any other adult in the troop. After all he was one of only two experienced scouts I had. When PL (highest ranking officers in the troop) assignments were handed out, he was offered one and the option to step down to a supportive role of TG if he so chose. He asked what that meant. I told him it would entail supporting the PL's do their job and that he would have to be working closely with me in doing that. I reemphasized he wouldn't be running the show, but would be helping the PL's run their patrols. When he accepted the TG position, it was the first evidence I had that he really did care about something other than himself and his role in the troop. He has developed into a really great kid. Always list the expecations of what the job required and asked them if they were up to the challenge. If they didn't know what the job entailed, they were trained. Every SM minute is a lesson in caring (servant leadership). I did my first one by standing up in front of the boys and didn't put "sign's up" to get their attention. I just waited. Eventually the PL's put sign's up and the boys quieted down. I told them I never use the sign's up signal with my boys, but it was important for them to know what it meant when they are at other scout events. I then told them I didn't think it was appropriate for me to interrupt their conversation by asking them not to interrupt mine. Now when I get up to address them, they all quiet down and/or hushed by their PL's quietly. Respect given is respect returned. All your boys take Scouting seriously - how did you manage that? I think it's because I take it seriously and lead by example really works. A lot of what kids read in adults is the subtle nuances of relationships that many of us ignore. Kids are super-sensitive to the way adults treat them. I guess it all boils down to the Golden Rule in many respects. I address my boys by Mr. and their last name because I expect them to treat me that way. I never talk down to them, never make demands, listen, listen, listen to what they are really saying and never pass negative jugment on them. Always differentiate between the person and the action. Instead of saying "You're wrong" I always answer, "I guess I would have done it this other way." I critique every event, What went right, what went wrong, how are YOU (PL's) going to make it better? Lead by example, if the SM cares about the boys, they will return in like kind. Every time you see something go right, congratulate the boy, and smile and shrug off their mistakes (unless it's a safety issue then reinforce that you care about him and his safety before you yell at him). Sometime during every event find something each boy does right and tell him. Find something each patrol does right and tell them. Find something the troop does right and tell them. Also, are you really implying if a SM has less than stellar success in turning around a boy who doesn't care or isn't up to the challenges of leadership, or if we have Scouts that don't take their word or responsibilities seriously, that we somehow don't care and aren't taking Scouting seriously ourselves? Not at all. There are a lot of SM's that burn out because they do care, and care too much for the success of their troops. They care so much that in many cases they "take over" so as to insure this success. What happens in this situation is that caring is something that has to be a shared endeavor. If the only one caring is the SM he will burn out. Everyone has to care, everyone has to be encouraged to care, both adult and boy. Once this caring (servant leadership) is being passed around it is as contageous as a negative dynamic going through the group. The basics are taught from day one... take care of your buddy. Once they master that process, then it's take care of your patrol members, etc. etc. etc. until they are in the processes of taking care of their small part of the whole troop. After 29 years of scouting at the end of each meeting, activity, outing or whatever, if I can't sit back and say I had fun and it was worth it then I'm starting to burn out. I've burned out on a number of things in my life, but scouting has never been one of them. I really like my boys and what they get accomplished. I'm heading off to camp with 3 patrols of new boys next week and I'm anticipating it to be the most exciting event I have ever had in scouting thus far. Then after a week off I'm going with my Crew to Gettysburg for the big national Civil War event, and that's going to be the most exciting event I have ever had in scouting. I have always believed that I have been very lucky so as to always have the best kids in the world in my troop/crew. Stosh

But of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, yours included. Now that we've heard from 3 of them the other 1,199,997 can add theirs at any time. After all that's what forums are for sharing ideas and opinions. If I wanted BSA National Policy and Procedures, I'd be on the phone talking with them. Stosh

>>"Stosh, I see your point in that its hard to teach servant leadership to scouts who don't care. But that is not a good reason to throw your hands up and not teach it at all." And where did I indicate that?>> And so I'll ask the same question: where did I indicate that? I can't help it when others find it necessary to jump to conclusions, or read what isn't written, or point out issues that aren't there. It would be safe to assume (hopefully, I'm not jumping to any conclusions here) If it isn't written, I probably didn't write it. Of course that's just an assumption on my part. If it doesn't sound logical, hopefully everyone can cut me some slack. While I dont think you intended it, your words seem to contradict each other over and over. >>> "Seem to" and "do" are two different issues. "Seem to" implies a subjective judgment, "do" is a measurable objective conclusion. They don't seem to to me, but then everyone is entitled to their own opinions and viewpoints. >>Ever notice that if the PL doesn't call his patrol, the adult will cover and make the calls at the last minute? This is call enabling, not teaching.>> But maybe not, I don't think I'm interested in anyone's guesses as to my background. Feel free to ask and then one doesn't have to guess. However, major assumptions and conclusions are being drawn here. Any group dynamics class that says that when bad behavior is covered over with excuses by someone else, doing it for them, etc. are all part of another person's enabling of that bad behavior. If the boys know that if they wait long enough some adult will step in and do it for them, what's the motivation for them to learn? Sorry, but I don't try to assume anything and replace it with observation. One's pop-psychology doesn't work if one doesn't have an understanding of how it all works. One can be assured I didn't get burned on something I understand how it works. But I never see our program in your extreme examples and only occasionally in others. Certainly not enough to suggest a trend. >>> Your milage may vary. Adjust. If my example is more sever than what one's experience, then that's great. If it isn't as sever, one may seek more help than from some guy on the scout forum. Unit Comish's are great for these things. After many of observation, my examples aren't as outlandish as some scouters have unfortunately had to face. I never thought I would ever have to go in and break up a knife fight in a tent. I guess the only thing more sever than that would be if they had guns. While I think your explanation of servant leadership is sound, I dont think you have figured yet how to explain it logically. >>> In other words, it makes sense and is sound, but the reader doesn't understand it. That clarifies it for me too. If you read your post, you repeat the same thing over and over, and yet Im not sure anyone could take your advice (is that what it is?) to their program. >>>> a good speaker = 1) tell them what you're going to tell them, 2) tell them and 3 tell them what you told them. But again, there I go with the assumptions once more. Im a big picture guy and generally when I see discussions get confusing and all boggled up, I ask folks to try and sum it all up in one sentence. >>>> well I'm a really big picture guy who has enough discernment to break down issues into solvable pieces and then work out individual solutions for each piece rather than trying to find a general panecea that will fix everything with one pill. Usually then we shuck the discussion down to the cob and have something we can work with. >>> Unless it's the corn you're after, then the cob really doesn't do you much good. So, then let's cut to the chase. If there is something specific one needs further clarification on, feel free to ask about it. But I find it rather tiresome to have posts picked apart by assumptions that have no validity in reality. Stosh

Gotta love this... "Stosh, I see your point in that its hard to teach servant leadership to scouts who don't care. But that is not a good reason to throw your hands up and not teach it at all." And where did I indicate that? I said that if the purpose of scouting is to teach leadership, the parrot-method works just fine. Go through the motions, pass out the papers and hope for the best. "I have seen one or two scouts in my own troop who I know don't care about the people they lead. This I know by their actions. They are told to call their patrol members to make sure they know about the next campout - only to find out that they didn't and now your are rushing to get the word out. This is the type of poor leader who does not get reelected. So I would think that a true boy-lead troop can self-correct when a non-caring leader gets elected." Boys will recognize this faster than adults will. And yet it all depends on how much the voters care about getting a good leader as well. Maybe they don't care when they vote either. Or how does the boy develop caring for a patrol that elected him as a joke? One has to understand a lot of group dynamics that interplay in the patrols. That in and of itself is a full-time job. Ever notice that if the PL doesn't call his patrol, the adult will cover and make the calls at the last minute? This is call enabling, not teaching. "Scout Oath and Law - Servant Ledership - these are standards that we hold out to the boys in the hopes that they may, by being active scouts, learn to uphold themselves." This view I totally don't agree with. If we hold out standards and then sit back and hope they take hold, we're not fulfilling out role as adults in the troop. These items are teachable! All of them! If a SM isn't going to make the effort to teach a boy to be trustworthy, then there's something seriously wrong with the way the SM is fulfilling his role as an adult leader. (repeat this process 11 more times and then conclude with a lesson on "On my honor") "We don't teach them - we teach the object lesson called scouting. It is the means by which they learn to be responsible people." No, they don't pick this up by osmosis, they are taught it. In my troop we do teach them, with examples, with object lessons, with whatever means we can, but we teach them. "Perhaps we all learn by parroting first, and then we actually apply it to real-life. Scouting is not real-life, but a sandbox of it - I've heard it called a "safe place". Do the boys who don't care realize this? Is it not real enough for them? Or are they so used to having someone else do everything for them that they don't know how to take only any level of responsibility." Maybe if one were to take scouting seriously and not view it as practice, play time in the sandbox, we would develop real leaders out of these boys. My boys have fun, lots of it, but they take their scouting seriously. They take their responsibilities to their fellow scouts seriously. They take their word seriously. Scouting is real-life, a real-life opportunity to try out their leadership skills, to develop their own self-confidence, to have a safe, but "for real" place to do some real good. Maybe as adults we need to take scouting seriously too. As far as the scout that doesn't care? Well, caring can be taught as well, it may take a little longer than the boy who cares naturally, but it can be taught, especially if the SM cares enough to give it a try. Lead by example. Stosh

Sorry, but my definition of servant leadership is not a series of skill sets that can be learned as easily as tying shoes and making beds. Servant leadership is not talent to accomplish a task, it is an attitude one has towards the task that needs to be done. The parent that constantly has to remind their child to say "thank you" will eventually teach it to parrot back the right answer regardless of whether or not that child ever learns to be appreciative. Often times I see the BSA training used in this fashion. "If you do this and that, you will get a measurable result thus." However, simply instilling "leadership" skills in a non-caring person can in fact create a overbearing bully, who previously didn't have the appropriate skill sets to manipulate and dominate over those around him. But, the subtle clues provided by BSA go to the heart of this issue. The Scout Law is not a learned skill set, the Oath is not a learned skill set, citizenship is not a learned skill set. One can go through the motions over and over again and eventually teach our boys to say "thank you" on command, but in no way is Scout Spirit a measurable metric that can be held up against a task and ultimately conclude an objective result. The TG that mother-hens his boys around, getting them to the activities of their first camporee, keeps them on task at summer camp challenges and sits in on their first few BOR's so they don't feel overwhelmed are all leadership skills of servant leadership that can't be put into a curriculum syllabus and handed out at a training event. When the new boys begin to care about their patrol and their program as much as their leaders do, then real servant leadership has a chance to take hold. When a new boy tells his PL that his buddy is not happy about something that happened at camp, one begins to see that this boy is now beginning to focus on taking care of someone other than himself and is beginning to assert himself as a servant leader in his own right. If this plays itself out to watching out for all the buddys in his patrol, then one has the resources for next year's NSP PL or eventual TG. What skills are needed? Not many. If caring comes first the desire to learn skills to help others will fall into place rather quickly. If one doesn't have caring first, maybe one had better stick with the parrot-method of teaching. Stosh

I'm the IH of the CO and Advisor of my crew. If my CC get's out of line, he's history!!! And then on the other hand in the hobby, he outranks me when we're not at a local event, but I outrank him when it's local. Fortunately he's a great guy and so we'll never have to try and figure out who's going to fire whom. Stosh

Exactly, that's why I said my job was to keep other adults from interfering. At my last campout, the adults all sat around MY fire where I could sit and watch the patrols from a distance and the adults up close and I taught all the adults how to tie Turk's Head knots. After that they got instruction on how to bake in a Dutch oven, how to sew on patches and anything else I could think of to keep them occupied enough to leave the boys alone. It worked really nice. As a matter of fact, the process has worked so well that a parent of a new boy called me up a week before the campout and said she appreciated all the information the PL had provided and her boy was very excited about going and was already packed (a week early) and she was just wondering if there were going to be any adults going along! I assured her that there would be two adults on-site at all times to make sure things were safe. I knew I was on the right track if parents have to ask that question. If the program is being run so much by the boys that parents have to ask if adults are going to be around, one knows they have achieved the proper balance. Stosh

And this is why I don't agree with the distorted concept of the more modern management theorists on the subject of servant leadership. Everything everyone talks about revolves around doing tasks. Modern authors have taken a concept and quantified it into chunks of information as to HOW to do servant leadership. A semi-intelligent monkey can be taught to do servant leadership... duh!, it's already being done. Seeing-eye dogs are trained servant leaders. If one goes back to the original model on earlier works before it was quantified and marketed as a way of selling books, one will quickly find that servant leadership what a person IS and not what they DO. A caring person can be taught leadership skills quite easily. But can a leader be taught caring? That's a whole different dynamic not being addressed. So we have Life Scouts working on their Eagles that the only time they show up at meetings is when they need their fellow scouts to help on their project, or when they need something signed off, or when they need, they need, they need... These are not servant leaders they are only interested in getting a resume reference and a check box on their college admission forms. These scouts have had 7 years to figure it out and didn't. One can go through the process of teaching these boys leadership and for the most part it may help groups in some cases, but it also feeds their selfishness and in some cases emboldens them to dominance over others to accomplish this. Explain to me how such teamwork can be accomplished in a situation where the Eagle candidate falls into this type of situation. Stosh

5 years? 18 months? I walked into a floundering troop of 6 boys, announced they were now boy-led, patrol-method and what were THEY going to do about it. After about 4 meetings, and a campout, THEY had it figured out. The unit now has 3 patrols, 23 members doing just fine with a SM that involves himself most often as the means by which other adults are blocked from interfering with the operation of the patrols. I have never issued a directive, I have never suggested anything, but I do answer questions the boys pose to me when they need/ask for help. I guess the closest thing to a mandate I did was when I first announced that the boys would be boy-led, patrol-method. I can't seem to get my mind around all the hassle everyone else seems to impose on themselves for getting a boy-led, patrol-method program operational. I don't see it as big of a deal as everyone seems to make it out to be. Stosh

"Every strong boy run troop goes through these same phase. That is why most experienced leaders who have mature boy run programs will tell you it takes about five years to get to a place where the boys truly take over. They have to come a place where the exceptional departs from the average. That happened here because you showed in true color what you have been saying. NOW, the troop knows your expectations. You are dead serious about this scouting stuff and popularity contest doesnt fit in your program. But it has to seen and felt. It had to hurt and make a scar. We all grow stronger through these struggles and you just pushed the troop forward a long ways." And how is this really a boy-led program when it is nothing more than the boys learning what it takes to follow the SM's directives? Stosh

Hmmm, I guess that's why we don't see eye to eye on the subject. Stosh

Of course a good servant leader is a follower. As I mentioned in the patrol-method model I presented earlier, each group is part of other focus groups. The patrol members are the main focus. The PL works to meet the needs of the members, but at the same time the troop-staff of boys are working to meet the needs of the PL's, and the adults are working to meet the needs of the troop-staff. If it is decided that more leadership training is needed by the members of a patrol, it's up to supporting "leaders" to pass this info up to them. Teaching, mentoring, coaching, supporting, assisting, are all words appropriate to servant leadership. Just remember that I cannot be worrying about someone else unless someone else is worrying about me. :^) This is the beauty of servant leadership and the teamwork it develops, not just within the patrol, but in the troop as well, and in the adult staff, and in the committee, and the CO... everyone looking out for the next guy up the focus chain. Whenever a new PL takes over and I have a SM conference with them individually. I remind them that the patrol members that they have, they are responsible for. If he watches out for their needs, I as SM will cover your back and give you want you need to be a great PL. It does work. People are always ready to surrender their autonomy to a true leader they can trust with it who will take care of them. I had a scout once that complained to me that his PL was always picking on him by giving him all the crumby jobs. The PL and I had discussed this when he was having problems getting things done in the patrol. I told him find his best scout and rely/trust him. After I told the scout this, he never again brought the subject up, but the patrol kitchen was always spotless, the Dutch ovens were immaculate and the PL never again had to tell this scout what his "job" needed to be. And by the way, guess who the boys picked for their next PL? Stosh

Sorry for the two posts in a row, but I was re-reading some of the posts and came across one from Its me that I would like to respond to. First of all Its me includes a link to a negative review by someone on Servant Leadership style. It has no references, no by-line, etc. so it is of very little value and doesn't add much to the discussion. However, it does reference one important issue that may make a difference. This author states that servant leadership won't work when tasks need to be done. Directive leadership will get things done because people are told and they have to do them. In a business setting this always works. "Either you do as I tell you are you're fired." This also emphasizes the point I have made that directive leadership works only if there is an element of fear that goes along with it. On the other hand servant leadership seeks to serve the needs of others rather than accomplish certain tasks? It takes me back to my early years of business management classes where Theory X and Theory Y sytles of management. This is nothing new, been around since the '30's. Theory X is task oriented management and Theory Y is basically people oriented management. In different situations both work well. But is it well taught when each of these styles are best applied? If it is in the best interest of the members of my patrol to have a clean campsite, have the boys divide themselves into cleanup groups (Theory Y) or assign the boys to groups to clean up (Theory X). However, in the long run, are we here to make Eagles or are we here to serve youth? There are units out there who operate under both leadership styles very well. I guess it just depends on which option one would like for their unit. But saying one approach is right and one is wrong is rather counterproductive to the discussion being presented here on the forum. Stosh

I find it rather strange how there seems to be a lot of posts that deal with this whole area of leadership development, loss of membership, discipline problems, etc. when everyone out there is doing such a fine job delivering the BSA program. 1) Either they are not delivering the program or 2) there's something seriously remiss with the BSA program. Now, IF neither of these two dynamics are a problem can anyone explain to me why so many boys drop out of scouts?, why the percentage of boys reaching Eagle is measured in single digits?, all these other activities draw our boys away, the boys become bored, etc. etc. etc. The reason I ask is not to stir the pot, but because I don't seem to have these problems as serously as others seem to experience and the boys I lose are because of moving out of the area, scouting isn't their thing, parents want their boys involved in different areas, they joined because their buddy did and he dropped out, or the parents expected me to continue when I wanted to quit after Cub Scouts, etc., many things that aren't a direct result of the program. I've always been a student of the adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But what if it is? Stosh

Gee, that's strange then that there are so many posts reflecting the problem of people not doing what they're told, older boys won't listen to the younger leaders, SM's telling the kids what to do, PLC's telling peole what to do, etc. etc. etc. Sounds like there are very few units out there then that are using BSA methods and styles of leadership. All of which I find strange because I don't seem to have that problem with the units I am involved with. Stosh

Maybe not the whims and dictates, but it surely requires the leader to constantly consider the needs and welfare of the members. How many of the top-down leadership styles where outside forces dictate what the group will do? Does that in anyway take into consideration the needs of the group? If the patrol's decisions are constantly being overruled by the SM or PLC, I will guarentee that no one in that patrol will develop leadership and will eventually seek out a group that will better meet their needs, whims and dictates, i.e. girls, cars, sports and any one of a hundred other options out there that for some reason the boys always leave scouting for. One would think that eventually someone might want to consider asking why we continue to be source of disappointment for our youth. Ever notice that there seems to be a lot of boys out there that remain in scouting not to serve, but to "get their Eagle"? They really don't care to serve, just to be served and have a significant note on their resume and college application. Sorry, I'm still a fan of group dynamics that work. Call me old fashioned, but I think that the Citizenships, Lifesaving, First Aid, Emergency Prep, MB's are more than just rank advancement, these are skills that BSA teaches for the betterment of someone other than the scout. It might be a bit more helpful to not have to pick apart everything in a post. Sometimes it's even helpful to actually build upon what someone has posted. After all MIT, Dartmouth, Harvard, etc. are all still around doing just fine. I am employed by an international, Fortune 500, multi-billion dollar company that simply went out of existance last Friday. I'm still employed by an international, Fortune 500, multi-billion dollar company. Its the nature of business today and means nothing but a condescending slam to someone's post. Most of the big business companies of 50 years ago have disappeared, but it has nothing to do with the quality of work those companies provided. As a matter of fact the good companies are the one's being bought up. People know better than to buy junk. :^) Stosh (This message has been edited by jblake47)

I have 2 patrols of 7 and 1 patrol of 3. One of the patrols took an unusual attrition drop this past couple of months with boys moving away, if one left, so did another, etc. Attendence at events doesn't determine whether a unit uses a troop focus or a patrol focus. If the patrols are constantly in flux and never really developing any kind of true identity other than a convenience thing for troop organization, then it's really not using the patrol emphasis. We had a patrol of one person win the overall camporee competition this past spring. Of course there were a number of others from other patrols that made up the numbers. Maybe one needs to consider the patrol emphasis is not something one does, it is what one is. Ever notice that everyone who goes through WB identifies themselves as from a certain patrol and for the most part doesn't even consider the fact that that patrol represents Troop 1? Stosh

This is why it is recommended to have only 8 boys in a patrol. That extra one screws up the buddy system and is basically just a fly in the ointment. Stosh

This one's easy: Tom Slade! Stosh

It would be very interesting to know how many of the people talking about servant leadership have actually read anything on the subject or are merely speculating what they think it may mean. It is obvious from the comments that this research/understanding has not occured. Let's start with the basics: Who was the man who has spent most of his life in the field of management research, development and education. Since his retirement as Director of Management Research for A.T. & T, he was very active in teaching and consulting. He was held teaching positions at Dartmouth College and Harvard University. His consultancies include Ohio University, M.I.T, Ford Foundation, R. K. Mellon Foundation, Lilly Endowment, Brookings Instituteion and the American Foundation for Management Research? If one can identify who this man was, understands his approach to leadership management, then feel free to list one's credintials if one still wishes to trash his concepts of servant leadership in the world of business, church, academia and science. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

Of course the only way a group can function effectively is if one of the group takes command, grabs the reins and begins dictating order to other to make sure things happen correctly. Only one who has been trained, tested and shows great command presence can do this. Surely all the other dolts in the group must obediently toe the line and one has a great running patrol. This is a youth moving up the ladder and will become an effective SPL if the other dolts know what's best for them. Surely this is what BSA literature means when it makes reference to an effective boy-led patrol. Of course if your unit is so inept that there are no boys who can step up to the plate and make the call, there are plenty of adults can can coach, coerce, belittle and/or mentor the boys into doing what they want, when they want it and in the way they want it. ... :^) This scenerio is not fantasy, I have seen it happen over and over again in the many years of scouting I have been involved in. Boy-led, patrol-method is in practical terms the real fantasy because when it is put into practice, it is most often a topic of derision. I can't help but chuckle everytime a SM describes HIS patrol-method troop when in fact most often than not he should be describing THE BOY'S patrol-method troop. Stosh

Ozemu has it right. Until we quit thinking of our units as a troop and begin seeing it as a group of patrols, the patrol method will never have a chance. The really strange thing about it is that the program of BSA already teaches, demonstrates, proves it's workable and yet for some reason there are those who think that their troop-method program is a better program. Huge cub program comprising 10-12 dens all gather monthly yet remain autonomous and thrive, serving many more youth than most boy scout units can even imagine. Why when we have a model run by adults, we can't translate that into the same model run by youth? The only reason I can conclude is that traditionally the boys are run differently than cubs for whatever reason. That's why scout troops serve far less youth, run pseudo-leadership training and run around trying to convince people that this is a great thing for boys. The reason there is very little patrol-method used is because it doesn't work with the mindset of most scouters. The patrol method is basically taught, both in Essentials as well as WB, but not practiced by most units. Stosh

The patrol method is taking it's abuses today because there are very few units that demonstrate it. Looking at X amount of troops, they camp, cook, and run under the direction of their SPL. Never have I seen patrols register at camporees, they always register as a troop. Never have I seen PL's invited to the SPL meetings. When they compete at camporees, I have had people running the stations refuse my smaller patrols from competition because they didn't have enough people. They suggested that the boys find another small patrol so they can do the competition. Blending of patrols, and even reorganizing patrols to give a competitive edge during these events have always played themselves out over the years. Everything coming from our districts and council are oriented towards the troop method. Troops tend to be and remain small to accomodate this dynamic. Because of size constraints, they will never grow beyond a certain point. I have resolved myself of being on the outside looking in on this issue many times. When asked if my troop will be coming to camporee, I always answer, there will be X number of patrols showing up. If I'm going to be a promoter of the patrol method, I refuse to discuss it using troop method language. I believe that for the most part BSA literature and WB both teach the patrol method, however, I don't think it's practiced much in the world outside of the curriculum. As far as only some patrols showing up and other patrols doing something else for a certain weekend, well, that will never happen when the PLC dictates that patrols all have to go to the same activities together... Does this sound like troop method? Sure does to me. Can a patrol sign up for summer camp on its own? Nope. Can half the patrols go camping one weekend and the other half go to a museum? Nope. The only explanation I have for these things happending is because the program is troop focused (troop method) rather than patrol focused (patrol method). I wonder what would happen if units began to actually do what the BSA literature states and WB teaches? From what I have seen from the comments of many on the forum, I don't see it happening any time soon. Stosh

Just because someone makes a decision doesn't mean he's going to dictate the next steps. Suppose one person of three makes a decision, the other two agree and they form a consensus that #1 is best at doing part of the task, #2 is good at another and #3 picks up the slack. No one has to direct the other two, the team just knows how to work as one and get the job done. If #1 dictates and #2 and #3 just follow along, they haven't got much of a functional team, they have a leader and a work crew, but no team where everyone participates as a combined unit. It never ceases to amaze me how such chains of command infiltrate every organization and seems to dictate how things have to be done. Surely a one man show can never accomplish as much, nor do it efficiently as a well oiled team of cooperative members. Sorry, I prefer the team approach over the one-man dictation approach. Horse hockey or not, it still works better and everyone has a better time if they feel they are a valid part of a team rather than a member on a work crew. Eventually the people will tire of domination and simply leave. At worse case scenerio, if the leader makes a poor decision and inflicts it on everyone else, he's destined for failure and no one's going to back him. If the decider is a member of a team and makes a poor decision, there's still a strong possibility that the team will correct things before they get out of hand and will rally around the other team member as one of their own rather than cut him loose from the team. Making decisions and then directing others might be leadership to some, but it's also seem as a mild form of bullying to others. Try having a younger SPL try this out on a patrol of older scouts. I've NEVER seen that scenerio succeed unless an adult is nearby to insure it's enforcement. That means nothing more than the SM is the real leader in that situation, i.e. a dictator can only rule from a position of inflicting fear. If no one is going to clean out the fire pit, it doesn't need a leader, all it needs is a taskmaster that will force them to do it. It's not as simple as one would like others to believe. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)