Stosh

If one is promoting a hybrid Troop/Crew and the boys are dual registered, one is cheating both programs. One cannot be a servant to two masters. The day will come when they have to choose. If they choose the Troop, what's the sense of having a Crew and if they choose the Crew they cut off their best leaders from the Troop. There is nothing in the BSA policy that states that a boy must give preference over their crew to a troop. What about the girls that join? Not allowed? Against BSA policy. Can he keep crew registration and drop troop? NO? Again, against BSA policy. Scouting is open to all. Limiting membership is contrary to the Scout Law and counter productive to the Scouting Movement. Hybrids are discouraged for a reason. One cannot mix two entirely different types of units into an amalgamation of both. Stosh

Ok, let's assume for a moment that all troops must be adult-lead because adult leadership is required at some time or another. That means the average scout answers to the SM,...and the SPL....and the PL....and everyone else with a POR. Hmmmm. Yep, that's a real-world example. Everyone's the boss and no one is left to do the work except some peon on the bottom of the heap. Get serious, I don't find this as a valid real-world example. I also doubt very seriously if this is the model promoted by BSA, US Army, servant leadership style of business, or any other alphabet soup anyone can come up with. I did a quick check with my council and it puts our largest Pack somewhere between 120-130 with a significant number of others over 100. Yet the largest Troop is only 50-60. I still stand on the proven principle of group dynamics that a single leader style (SM adult-led, "top down" leadership) can never handle a group as large as a small group autonomous style group (Cub dens or patrol-method Scouting "bottom up" leadership). Are there exceptions to these "rules" of group dynamics? Yep, but I'm sure the BSA program is not designed for exceptions, it's designed for the most effective use of it's resources. And what better way to build leadership than actually give the boys the reins and let them run with it. They had 4 years of observation and maybe a DL opportunity to try it out. In scouting the boy builds on that observation and grows into a real leader. Just like the post that asked the question if the Troop is going to go to one activity and a patrol wants to do something else, what should he do. NOTHING. The troop can do it's thingy and the patrol with no adult leadership and with the BSA blessings can go off and do their own activity. Why is the SM even involved in this process? It's because we as adults like to run the show and when we do, we cheat our boys out of an opportunity to learn leadership. Plain and simple. I'm looking forward to the day my scouts come up and say, "We're too bored to go out on the camporee for the umpteenth time. We're going geo-cacheing instead that weekend. The other PL's are doing a great job and they are in good hands." My first reaction would be how many ASM's can I convince to go to the camporee so I can go geo-cacheing with the older boys. I'm willing to put it out there for discussion. How many adult leaders out there feel they can actually trust their leaders and if they can, why are they hovering over them watching their every move and critiquing their every decision? If a SM is doing it right, every boy that turns 18 years of age, should be able to take over the troop without missing a beat. If not, the SM is too busy doing what he's not supposed to be doing that he hasn't enough time to do what he should be doing. Stosh

I was surprised to see in the comments the reference to the US Army training material as it relates to BSA program. For a long time I often wondered who borrowed from whom. They are both so closely related with even key phrases copied it was surprising. We have been using both resources for our youth, both on the Scouting and Venturing levels. For those who don't think I follow BSA processes, ask yourself why does the Army promote "An Army of One", if it wasn't to teach leadership from the "bottom up" rather than the "top down"? The do it this way because they know that leadership that leads to teamwork begins at the base level where the real activity of the group is being worked. As other resources, look at the major shifts in leadership dynamics with the Servant Leadership style of business and the One-Minute Manager style of individual empowerment. Surely when you combine all these resources (with BSA has done) and applies them to youth groups, there are great benefits to the changes. Adult-led units tend to be no bigger than about 15-25 scouts because group dynamics have proved that, depending on the leadership of the one individual i.e. SM, that's about all they can handle at one time. I have seen this over and over where a troop of 40 boys on paper has only 20 showing up. Yet on the Cub level where Dens seldom get as big as 20, still have Packs of 100+. The reason? Because it is broken down into small autonomous dens of workable size. If we were to teach our scouts to function like "adult" den leaders (PL's) then troops could easily handle far more boys than they currently do with the leadership focused from the SM to the patrols. The dynamics are there, the reality is not. Ask yourself, how long would a 100+ cub pack last if the CM had to run the show every week instead of relying on his DL's. It wouldn't be very long before a mass exodus got the pack down to a workable 20-25 cubs. For those who say I don't follow BSA processes, I beg to differ. I just watch and observe how and where they work best and use those dynamics in the troop. Show me a troop where there are more than 25 active boys and I'll show you a patrol-method troop, because that's the only formula that can work with a larger group. Now the question remains, are those patrols run by PL's or ASM's? That will tell you whether it is boy-led, patrol-method. Stosh

No Ed. >>Ideally, don't we want the SPL to come to the SM & say Ideally we want the SPL and the SM standing around waiting for a PL having a problem to come and ask for some advice, guidance or assistance. "Mr Scoutmaster, I would like to discuss my plan for breaking camp in the morning." And the SM says, the PL's have already made out a roster and let's just stand here and watch as they work their patrol teams and see if there's anything we might suggest to help them with their patrols next time. >>Once we get to this point, we have succeeded. How we get there will differ from Scout to Scout and unit to unit. Once you get to this point, you have strong PL's with great patrol teamwork and great supporting corps of troop leaders waiting, observing and learning how to help the patrols get even better next outing. And the SM wanders off and gets another cup of coffee knowing his boys are doing a great job being lead by competent PL's. Or maybe he'll have a nice chat with his SPL about how he's doing on his Eagle Project plans. Stosh

Bob, here's where we differ. My apologies for the extensive quoting, but I couldn't think of a better way to explain. >>Here is where we differ I guess jblake. You feel that saying to scout "the fireplace in the cabin we were staying needed to be cleaned out and swept." is less adult directed than asking the SPL what his pl;an is. I don't see how that is possible? No, I'm saying that the SM being involved in initiating the situation by saying anything, no matter how it's said is adult-led. >>I think the SM saying 'somebody ought to do this' is telling them what to do. Rather than talk to the PL or SPL, you went to a scout and he took it like it was suddenly his job. Note the snappy comeback you got. So what does he do now go to another scout and say, Mr Scoutmaster says somebody ought to shovel out the fireplace. I am not sure you are any closer to getting the job done. But your example shows clearly where the authority comes from, even if the authority is couched in a question still comes from the SM who initiates the situation seeking a solution. This is adult-led. >>I went through the organization chart. I work through the SPL, the SPL through the PL, the PL through the scout(s) on the duty roster. And here is exactly where you and I differ. The organization chart you are using is adult-led. You even indicate this by identifying yourself as the first step in the process and all delegation filters downward to the patrols who are to do the task you initiated. All leadership is directed/controled by the initiator, the adult. >>I didn't tell him what he needed to do, I asked him what his plan was. I didn't get the snappy answer. By asking the youth leader "what's next on your plan" he understands that it's still his show and that he's just not doing the things I want to do or doing them when I want them done, he is following his plan. If that is condescending I have never had a scout answer as if it were. Once again, the whole dialog/situation is initiated and controled by an adult. If he was "running the show" he may initiate the conversation with the SM if he had concerns he might have had, but if he didn't have any, there would be no need for any adult interaction. >>It's like... if it looks like rain, I don't tell the scouts to cover their firewood, I go have a chat with the SPL about some non essential stuff, like how's his mom and dad, then I excuse myself because it looks like it might rain and I need to cover my firewood. Once again, the situation is again initiated and directed by an adult. >>Next thing I knew the SPL was standing near a patrol leader saying, I gotta go it might rain and I need to make sure that I cover my firewood. If the patrol leader is on his game he might go back and ask his QM to grab some plastic so they can ...cover their firewood. The SPL did what he was implied to him to do. >>Job done...if they want to do it...no telling. What if they don't do it, well if it rains some folks are going to have a fire in the morning sooner than others. But everybody learns to think about the weather and start to think ahead. >>No telling. Not even saying, "Somebody ought to get this firewood covered". If the SPL says to me "looks like rain", I'd say "I think your right, anything we should be taking care of before it does?" And he'd probably say he'll swing through the patrol sights and make sure the patrol leaders know, I say "that would be nice of you, thanks". Then I'd go make sure my firewood was covered. No telling him what to do, ask him what he thinks should be done. If it looks like rain, the PL's need to be on the ball and get their patrol wood undercover. If they don't they aren't taking care of their people. And why would the SPL be discussing what the PL's need to be doing to the SM? If he's concerned about how his PL's function and they aren't, maybe he ought to be talking to the PL's rather than chatting with the SM. If he is confident in his leadership, he doesn't need to chat it over with the SM unless he feels he needs some assurance from the SM. >>Ask questions, acknowledge good answers, set an example, that is better than telling them what to do. HOW one does it is really not that important, WHAT one does isn't important either, but WHO is directing the activity is, because it identifies who's really leading. Just for fun, take your organizational chart off the easel for a moment, turn it upside down, put in back on the easel and take a serious look at it. At the top of the chart is NOT the SM, but the PATROLS (patrol-method). The PL is the most important position on the chart. These are the leaders that are in primary direct contact with the boys. These are the ones that know their boys, knows what they need, and working with them builds the team. Next under them is the PLC lead by the SPL. He's there to assist whenever possible any support any of the PL's might need. He has a corps of top leaders in the troop to be able to teach, coach, mentor any of the PL's as they work with their boys. Supporting the troop corps are the adults, at the bottom, that react to any and all "911 calls" that arise to support any of the weak links in the chain WHEN ASKED. All activity is initiated at the patrol level by the boys, (Boy-led, Patrol-method) "My patrol needs two Dutch ovens for the campout this weekend." SPL to QM, "Do we have them? are they ready to go? Patrol A needs two of them this weekend." End of discussion, Patrol A is ready and supported. If anyone wishes to know how the cabin fireplace fits into this process. At the PLC meeting where the PL's gather to coordinate their patrol's part in the outing, the roster needs to be made out and Patrol A has taken on the task of making sure the fireplace is cleaned up at the end of the event. They put their name on the roster under Fireplace Cleanup. End of discussion. There is no need for the SM to be talking to the SPL on Saturday night checking up on whether or not something's going to be done. Trust your leaders to do what they say they will do. Boy-led, Patrol-method. You can turn your organizational chart back over now. Stosh (This message has been edited by jblake47)

A leader leads. If the SM & SPL are delegating, directing, etc. they are "pushing". If they say, "Follow me boys, we got work to do," he's leading. If you aren't out in front showing the way, you must be behind pushing. :^) Stosh

Honor: the value of your character relative to the world around you.

Venturing Crews cannot be a living history artillery unit, but they can be a cavalry unit which sports long sabers and handguns, or infantry units which sport large-bore militar assault rifles and 18" bayonets. Go figure. By the way, I have seen more injuries in the cavalry and infantry units than I have in artillery units. In this case, the rule is based on false information. Properly certified, artillery pieces are safer than cavalry and/or infantry because these types of units do not need to be certified in safety. Laser tag? Kids stuff. :^) Stosh

If eating together at a summer camp mess hall causes a breakdown in one's idea of patrol-method, there's something basically wrong with their concept of the patrol-method. Patrol-method scouting is so much more than meal prep and eating together. Two boys from a patrol could knock out breakfast, the second two knock out lunch and the next two supper. The other two could assist in cleaning up at each which will move that process along faster. So it takes an additional 6-8 hours to patrol cook, that is NOT 6-8 hours for each boy! Let's just assume for brevity it takes 2 hrs to prep and .5 to clean up 2.5 x 3 = 7.5 (close enough) That means each boy has a max of 2.5 hrs of prep/cleanup time and the two assisting for the day 1.5 hours of meal cleanup time. A couple of hours a day shouldn't crimp anyone's style. Meal preparation as servant leadership and eating together as a patrol are two different animals. Every FC boy should be able to prep a meal. If he is not FC he should be paired with a FC and they should be able to knock it out and get rank advancement credit for it. Too many boy-led programs are really troop-method anyway and work well with dining halls and doing expedient things that interfere with patrol-method scouting. "From the adults perspective, all information goes from the SM to the SPL and on down to the PLs." It is expeient for adults to have the boys eat in the mess hall than to trust the PL's to actually lead their patrols. Patrol-method scouting does not need pressure-cooker tactics designed by adults to build teamwork. The more I learn about scouting the more I realize I know nothing about boy-led, patrol-method. Yet somehow by doing it all wrong, I seem to be running a successful Troop and Crew. Go figure. Stosh

Sorry Bob, Beavah is right, My apologies if my comments were not very clear. I had evaluated the situation and felt your "style" of giving direction, even if in the form of polite questions, all seemed a little condescending to me. First of all, cleaning this ficticious cabin was not the SPL's responsibility and therefore the SM shouldn't even be discussing it with him. Had the trip been planned out appropriately (Be Prepared), the PLC would have worked out the logistics before they left (duty rosters) and it would have been the PL's responsibility to complete the tasks responsible to his patrol. The SM and SPL have no part in the process except to be available to assist any PL who may be having difficulty fulfilling his patrol's assignment (servant leadership). I guess appropriate preparation is done for outings, negates any necessity to use persuasion, delegation or direction giving along the way. If plans are made prior to the outing and everyone knows their responsibilities, then what direction is needed? What delegation is needed? What persuasion is needed? None. On the other hand if during the outing, someone like the SM begins to question whether or not everyone remembers their assignments, he is in fact making an announcement that he doesn't trust the leadership to fulfill their assignments before they even have been given an opportunity to do so. He is in fact attempting to take control of the situation and lead. I found the comments that were quoted in the dialog between the SM and SPL seemed to have the SM directing the conversation in line to the goals he was expected to be fulfilled. If answered correctly by the SPL, then it was assumed that the SPL would take responsibility to follow through. This is classic adult-led, i.e. adult directed style of leadership. If the SM or ASM are delegating responsibilities, they are in fact taking charge, thus removing an opportunity on the part of some PL to lead his patrol without adult interference. I am a firm believer that the PL is the #1 key leader of any troop. He is responsible for 7 other boys and demonstrates his leadership by teaching, coaching, mentoring them along the way. At the same time he recognizes the fact that his patrol is not the entire community in which he functions and so he also plays a role on the PLC working out the dynamics and responsibilities of larger activities with other PL's. The SPL facilitates this intra-patrol discussion. SM's and ASM's? Well, until someone calls 911, they are just there for their good looks. :^) Stosh

>>> Imitation of United States Army, Navy, or Marine Corps uniforms is prohibited, in accordance with the provisions of the organization's Congressional Charter.

I just recently switched from ASM of one troop to SM of another. I needed a new challenge and I approached the DC to see if there were other opportunities in the district/council. He said there was a troop that was in need of new blood and I should consider it. I first visited with the SM that was already there and reviewed with him the problems, frustrations, etc. he was experiencing with the troop and why he thought it was in the situation it was. Then the SM gathered up the other troop adult leaders and parents for a second "interview" with me to discuss my skills, talents, goals, etc. and how they fit with what they wanted their troop to be. Then I met with the boys and "interviewed" once more. I had a chance to ask them questions and they me. Then one of the boys wanted to visit the troop where I was coming from to see how they ran their program. He and his dad came for a visit. After all this research it was up to everyone to make a decision. Now if the SM called and said it would be good for me to take over, I could take it or leave it. If the parents called, I would have refused, but instead, taking their cue from what had been discussed, the boys selected one from their midst who called me and said they wanted me as their SM. That same boy then relayed that information to the SM and adult leadership who relayed the request on to the CC for official processing. It was not necessarily along any "proper lines" of officialdom with BSA policy, but it was a process that allowed everyone input and the final decision making in the hands of the boys themselves. Everyone is onboard with the results, everyone is already in the loop as to expectations and goals, and everyone has made a lot of changes, both on my part and the boys and things have been steadily improving. The older boys are no longer talking about quitting, the younger boys are exciting about coming on board, parents have repeated commented on how much easier it is to get their kids to scouts, etc. The #1 emphasis throughout the whole process was: No surprises! Everyone was on the same page, everyone knew what was happening and everyone had a voice in the process. After I took over, I immediately turned to all my leaders, including the former SM and said I expected every one of them to stay on as adult leaders. I also went to some of the parents (who had shown up for the interiewing process) and notified them they need to get on board with the "new" troop. Two came forward. My Eagle scout who was just turning 18 but had another year of high school, signed on as an ASM and is working on working with the boys organizing summer camp next summer. Will this process work for everyone? I don't know, but it sure was a smooth transition for my situation.... Well, I thought so at least. :^) Stosh

:^) Rebellion? Immaturity? I don't think so. I have repeatedly told my boys that until they know they're right and feel comfortable with standing toe-to-toe with adults as their peers they have achieved the beginning of leadership. If a patrol was assigned to clean up the kitchen and the SPL is sitting in the car waiting to go and the patrol is not done in the kitchen the SPL is not showing leadership! Where's the lead by example? Where is he supporting the PL in getting his responsibilities done? The first and only question the SPL should have asked the PL of that patrol was, "What do you think we need to do to help the boys knock out this kitchen cleaning?" Here the SPL is leading the PL and encouraging him to lead his boys. This is leadership in action, not the SPL sitting on his butt in a car while someone else does the work. That leadership would mean the patrol should join him in the car and wait for the adults to clean up the kitchen. Rebellion is normal and natural for boys of this age. They know what's going on, they know who's in charge, they know hypocracy when they see it. They are far more savvy to the situation than you think they are. If they rebel then ask them! Find out what's going on and help HIM with achieving what he needs to achieve. That's coaching/counseling/mentoring. There is no polite way to lead by directives. Bullying, "because I said so", and other forms of coersion can never be candied up enough to swallow no matter how polite the dictator might be. "What can I do to help you do your job?" is the only true servant leadership option and that doesn't have to be sugar coated or made polite. It offers leadership in it's purest form. That is what lead by example means and the first people that should be exemplifying this is the adults. I have never heard a scout rebel against that question...ever! Stosh

I just took over a declining troop that has 5 active boys 14-16. I will now receive 10 new Webelos crossovers. (First time in 3 years this has happened.) The last thing on my mind is the difference in ages. Is there something for everyone? (I'm going to an Eagle COH this afternoon for a boy that aged out a couple of months ago.) Another 16 year old is excited he's going to have a nice work crew for his Eagle project he'll start this spring, and the other boys are gearing up for advanced leadership positions that weren't needed when the group was small. 90% of what these few boys were looking for was an opportunity. Now they're getting it big time and the talk amongst the boys has taken on a whole different tone. I'm a firm believer that much of what we as adults think is the problem isn't what's bothering the youth. What the adults need to do is quit leading and start listening. To me that is what a mentor/counselor does. As the boys get older this is even more evident and manditory on the part of the adults. Ever listen to a 16-year-old talk to their parents? "You're not listening!" is the phrase used most often. And believe it or not, they're right! we aren't listening. One of the most critical elements in leadership is the opportunity to actually lead. This is often doled out in little bits and pieces along the way, only under major supervisory circumstances. For many years (11-15 year olds) we make promises and lead discussions on how to lead, when they are old enough to actually do the job, we don't let them, a few turn their attentions on themselves because there is no one else to lead, get their Eagle and then disappear. Otherwise those that are not inclined by rank advancement and honors, just disappear. The reasons for disappearing are numbered in the thousands, but each one has a common tone/theme, something else is more valuable to me than what you are offering... and they're probably right again. Stosh

If one has a boy at SPL level of responsibility, surely this person would have an idea of what goes into cleaning up camp/cabins after an outing. If you have a boy that is so inexperienced that he doesn't know the routine, he surely is not ready for SPL level responsibilities. This appears to be a SM problem, not an SPL problem. What did the SM do to groom the boy and get him ready for the heavy duty support work of an SPL? Surely this boy had PL experience so he would know how to clean up a camp at the end of the event. If the boy plays dumb and gives flippant answers to SM inquiries, then this is not a leadership problem in as much as symptomatic of other problems. "Great examples, Bob! Instead of telling the SPL what to do, you let him tell you what we has going to do. But what if when you ask "what are we doing afetr breakfast in the morning?" the SPL answers "going home". So naturally you respond by saying "sure we are, but what needs to be done before we leave?" and the SPL responds "I guess we have to pack up." and you respond by asking "anything else?" and he says "no"." This example by Ed indicates obvious adult directives and either rebellion or inexperience by the SPL. Being an SPL I would first guess rebellion. Maybe the SPL is giving a negative reaction to the insulting questions the SM is asking him. The SPL knows his responsibility and doesn't need an adult to look over his shoulder, questioning his every move as if he's new scout on his first outing. In this case, the SM got the answers he deserved. Stosh

I guess I'm not that keen on that much pre-directives to the boys, not even the SPL. Too often these directives can be seen as adult-led and I'm constantly working to make it boy-led. Normally I let the boys work through the process of "cleaning the cabin". Then when there's about 75% done, I begin talking with the "leadership" so as to have them review the process and identify correction in the process as it is occuring. It would be at this point that if the fireplace wasn't clean I would ask a few questions about it to the leadership. Maybe the boys didn't know that that was a task that needed to be done. This appoach always gives the boys a chance to make decisions based on what they are observing/doing and then with adult support, evaluate them afterwards. This allows them to make leadership decisions on their own of the activity rather than on previous "recommendations", "mentoring", "delegating" or "guiding" on the part of adult-led dynamics. If I am making pre-decisions, giving guidance, determining outcomes or prodding along the way, then I AM THE LEADER and am taking a leadership opportunity away from the boys. Let the boys lead, but be ready with the safety net to help them out when they make the wrong choices. The boys will learn far more from their mistakes than they do from their successes. One of the most important parts of a SM's responsibilities is to trust the leadership of the boys. No, you do not have to hover over everything to make sure the boys are successful in their activities. By the time the PL is taking his patrol out on an outing, he should be capable, experienced enough to do an adequate job. Trust him. Remember, failure is an event, not a person. It's ok to make mistakes. Always allow your boys an opportunity to fail. If they succeed knowing they could fail is far more exciting than succeeding knowing some adult would not allow them to fail. Stosh

One has to be careful between the definition and leadership style and leadership methods. Basically everyone adopts a particular style and then uses various methods that reflect that style in different situations. A servant leadership style will not use certain methods except maybe in an emergency situation, or a situation where critical time is of the utmost importance. A directive leadership style will not use certain methods except to manipulate and coerce an outcome of their choice. It's kind of like having a toolbox of different methods and the owner will use certain tools more than others, but they're all available if needed. Styles on the other hand are based on the prime core attitude of the leader and that will not change depending on the situation. As an example, on and outing a few years back, I commented to one boy that the fireplace in the cabin we were staying needed to be cleaned out and swept. I didn't tell him he had to do it, I just made an observation and it was up to him to decide the next step. He looked at me and asked why I was always talking to him when the biggest, dirtiest jobs needed to get done. I said it was an important job too, and I reserve them for my best and most reliable scouts to take care of because I know it will be done, done quickly, and done correctly. He was a patrol leader at the time, now he's part of the honors patrol as TG and uses the same leadership style and methods with the new scouts. To date I have never seen him command anyone to do anything, and yet he's one of the most popular and effective boys in the troop. If the day ever comes when he has to directly mandate that something be done, i.e. safety infraction, the boys will comply because they trust his leadership/caring style and therefore don't question his methods. Style vs. methods There is a big difference. Stosh

I think the subject is always a valid topic to discuss. I have read through the leadership development literature of the BSA program and somehow always come to a different conclusion than what is actually being practiced many times and the question asked is exactly that point. Who is the SPL "in charge" of? Nobody, unless you are running an adult-led or boy-led dictatorship. I think the question should be, WHO IS THE SPL RESPONSIBLE FOR? This changes the whole emphasis from a leadership style of tyranical direction givers to leaders who seek to support and mentor others. I think the BSA calls it "servant leadership" and is the only true leadership there is. I'm glad BSA promotes it even if it isn't often applied. If we're talking leadership and teamwork here, one must realize that each scout is part of a group and he is responsible to that group and how he determines his interaction with the group determines his leadership style. When the PL realizes he will be a success only if his patrol is successful then will he fully understand that servant leadership is all about. The SPL will only be successsful if the PL's are supported and assisted and helped to be successful. Only when the SM realizes that he must do all he/she can to guide, mentor and support the PLC officers to be successful, will he/she him/herself be successful. True leadership is generated at the bottom and progresses upward, not sitting at the top directing, mandating and coercing downward. We teach and often demonstrate the bully, intimidating types of direction that we then call leadership, but it produces nothing of any value including resentful followers. But the leader who tries everything within his power to improve and give value to the others will he himself reap the benefits of loyal "followers" that will do anything for their leader. It's call teamwork and the leader that leads by serving will always be successful. Stosh

I have a troop that for many years didn't get any new Webelos scouts. Thus they spent a lot of time recruiting friends. The troop has a number of boys that are older and have fallen away because of a variety of different reasons. However, I have a 15 year old that's working on his Tfoot. 2 Scouts at FC (both at 15) and 2 at Life (one at 14 and one at 15). Those are the 5 core boys. Needless to say we have successfully recruited a Webelos Den and will be tripling our numbers next month. I am not planning to strata anything by age. I have found that in my Venture crew I have 20 year olds hanging out with 14 year olds and every combo inbetween. Adults have created arbitrary age patterns and enforce them regularly in school, church, and other social activities for their kids. I ignore age and when left alone, boys will blend on their own. I have seen it done many times where younger boys gravitate to the older boys and older boys take the younger ones under their wings. Boy-led units will develop this naturally where adult-led units don't often get the chance. Stosh

Step down? Surely you gest! The first year is the honeymoon period where the old guys will cut the new guy a little slack. Make the most of it and don't back off. You have a good vision of what is necessary and you've been able to get it off the ground. The old guys will eventually realize this and get on board, especially when the see the results of sucessful/excited boys. Your problem right now is that you are second guessing yourself. If you are successful, then the others will second guess you as well. Leaders live with their decisions. You will know when things aren't right, change it. If you have boys picking up the slack, leaders getting trained, committee functioning, program improving, I'd say the worst thing you could do is step down or even back off. Remember, however, you may not fully realize the success of your efforts. The troop too many years to deteriorate to the point they were at. Traditions and business-as-usual had become entrenched. Once that mold had been broken, anything's possible! You have your vision of what that might be and only you can instill it into the boys and other leaders. Once they begin to see the value in what you're doing they will change. Now, keep it in mind they may hang you out to dry, blame you for everything wrong with the troop and even global warming, you may be on the ropes and out of the game in an instant, BUT, you have gotten the troop off of their downward spiral, you have given them an option that they didn't know they had. The next CC will be the first to realize the importance of what you are doing. Hang in there you are doing it right. Stosh

Lowering the scouting age from 18 to 15/14? That really puts the challenge on any youth to pull off an Eagle in only 3-4 years time. Talk about a fast-track program! For those who think the difference between Scouting and Venturing is only age and maturity are obviously ill informed of the programs. I am a SM and an VA. The programs are two different animals and only those who try and parallel them find their programs on the ropes. Venturing starts at 14, maybe we ought to Eagle our scouts at 13 so they will be ready to cross over to Venturing? We may have to water down the BS advancement requirements to get them to Eagle in only 3 years. With that being said, it would be a good thing to investigate Venturing and find out that it is not the old Super Scout Exploring General Interest posts anymore. All the hype for High Adventure Crews prove that this dynamic is not the draw for our young people as it once was. I do not have a high adventure crew and we are solid, focused, and very successful. However, the only boys that have Eagled in the crew have been those that have stayed active in their troops. This is a requirement for membership in our crew. I do believe there is still an Exploring program in the BSA which focuses on career activities, i.e. police, fire, medical, business, etc. while Venturing program focuses on hobby/sport/recreational activities. Those that promote advancement amongst the members tend to be only from the recreational crews. I have had a crew for 9 years and not one member has ever fulfilled one Ranger requirement, nor are they interested in doing so. It is a special interest crew, and we focus totally on that interest and that's what keeps our people coming back, including charter members that are now adult leaders. If one sticks with the purpose and directives of Scouting they will do a lot better than those that try the mix-and-match method of borrowing bits and pieces from different programs and try and create a viable hybrid. As a leader I have two entirely different styles of leadership in each of the groups. In BS the program is boy-led, patrol-method where the boys do everything. In the Crew it is basically adult-led. The nature of the beast dictates it has to be that way and it is with National's approval it be done that way. One has to understand the dynamics of Cubbing, Scouting and Venturing in order to make them work. They really do overlap quite a bit and yet are all independent at the same time. Stosh

If it is patrol-method, the SPL is the #1 cheerleader for the PLC. He gets out in front and ... well, leads! He supports the PL's efforts and is the first to make it happen for others. On the other hand if it is troop-method the SPL is the #1 director, the "HE WHO MUST BE OBEYED", and he stands behind everyone and pushes. I don't think pushing is in a leading position to be. The boys need to lead, not push if they are going to be a truly effective leader. I guess it just depends on whether a person's style is to inspire (lead) or direct(push). Stosh

I see the PLC as the "committee" of PL's that relate and coordinate intra-patrol activities. This discussion is facilitated and supported by the SPL. This is the place where decisions are announced by the PL's in regards to what their patrols have decided to do. If all the patrols have decided on attending the spring camporee, they relay this information to the PLC where the details and logistics for such an event are assigned to the various troop-wide POR's, i.e. QM, Chap Aide, scribe, etc. It is up to the SPL to organize his POR people to make the most efficient use of them in their support of the PL's. I see the PLC as the #1 communication tool for the PL's and their support staff of troop-wide POR's. Decisions are made by the patrols and it's up to the PLC to assist in making it happen. Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

It's good to see that there are those out there that understand the concept servant leadership. The PL's run the show in their patrols. The SPL is the #1 supporting player for these PL's He facilitates their discussion and decision making in the PLC, and coordinates and leads intra-patrol (improperly named: Troop-wide) support officers, i.e. TG, Instructor, Bugler, ASPL's, etc. to assist in supporting the PL's work with their patrols. He is the #1 assisting coordinator of intra-patrol activities that will provide for the PL's as needed. He's "in charge of" making sure the QM has equipment as needed by each PL, if there's a problem a PL faces, coordinates a solution between PL and adults if necessary. He's the "Gentleman's Gentleman", the "Man Friday" for the PL's and if the task is too overwhelming, he takes on ASPL's to assist him to make sure the PL's are not burdened with the details as their responsibility is to focus on their patrol members and patrol activities. I would think if the SPL had a NSP that needed more attention/support than he could provide because he had 5 other patrols to worry about, then maybe he would enlist an ASPL to work specifically with that patrol. In a nutshell? He assists/provides the PL's with what they need to run their patrols. He's "in charge of" the resources to make that happen. I like to think of him as the "Radar" O'Reilly of the troop. He was the glue that held everything together and made sure things happened as they were supposed to, yet even in a MASH unit he did nothing medically. Stosh

I agree with you Beavah up to a certain point. Too often these improper notions floating around get passed on from one generation of leaders to the next because there is no "formal" training that someone sat through to correct the notion. Too often I have heard people use the, "that's the way we've always done it", or "the former SM did it that way," etc. At least with some kind of mandatory instruction there's going to be correction being done. After all we do it with Child Protection training, why not with everything else. Yes, there will be those who go through CP by filling a seat and getting a check mark on their records, but somewhere along the line, I think it's still vitally important that they do fill that seat and get the check. Too often the desire to avoid the training alterior motives and not always in the best interest of the scouting program. I taught Webelos Outdoor for many years and people were always complaining that they had to take the extra outdoor part of the Cub Program to get Webelos training. Yet there were a lot of people who showed up, who would one day take a group of boys out into the woods to camp, who on the way to training stopped at the local sporting good store to buy a tent and sleeping bag. Without the training, would you want your child out in the woods overnight with a person who has never even slept in the outdoors before? I quit teaching when the voices of those not wanting to spend the night in the woods prevailed. Stosh