ParkMan

Again - I'm sorry to hear that. It's regrettable that we cannot simply let kids be kids. Our society is becoming more aware of the impact of all kinds of forms of discrimination - hopefully people in your area will become increasingly aware of the impact of their behavior.

Thank you for helping me understand that. I'm amazed that your Scouts have been on the receiving end of religious discrimination in Scouting. That's terrible.

There are lots of reasons for a unit to want to be more insular. I'd always gathered @David CO's comments were more focused at district/council/national Scouters who they wanted nothing to do with. I see that in my neck of the woods too. It's not that they are really hiding anything, they just find Scouters from the larger organization a hassle and bother. i.e., you must be visiting with us to ask us for money, to do something, whatever... From a leadership perspective, it seems like we have two choices here. Tell them that they are wrong and have a bad attitude Try and figure out whatever the root concern is and open the lines of communication Let's assume for a minute that the unit is doing good stuff and really doesn't want the headache and distraction of others coming in. Youth face this kind of thing all the time - particularly when they start getting invovled outside the unit in places like OA. Strikes me that in a servant leadership model, the onus is on the leader to reach out to the unit and work to build bridges. No? @David CO - is my assumption behind your statement at all correct?

The question I wonder about is just what is the right structure for councils in large, rural areas? What do you do when there are not enough units to be able to have enough district volunteers for in-person meetings within a reasonable drive? I don't love Zoom calls either, but I'm not sure what else you do. I know that I'm not driving two hours for a district meeting.

Depending on how you come down on this discussion, the unit/council relationship is either one of: units are part of the larger Scouting team that includes national & council units are the customer of the Scouting team that includes national & council In either case, it is important for leaders to cultivate the support of unit leaders. Much of this discussion points out that there is a vocal constituency within the unit leader community that does support national and/or council leadership. If I were a traditional business and a notable portion of my sales channel or my customers were disgruntled, I would be very concerned. It just underscores to me the importance of leaders to getting out there and talking to unit leaders. In those conversations, it's key to be open, honest, and to treat them with respect.

I would think this would be a great position for the right person to make very visible. It could really go a long way towards building confidence in the hearts and minds of volunteers if the BSA was out proactively talking about these things. However, the challenge isn't to come out and talk about all the changes the BSA wants to make - but instead to be out listening to the obstacles volunteers are facing and then working internally to resolve them. Actually, thinking about it some more, I wonder if the leader the BSA needs out talking to people is the National Commissioner. Instead of the CEO (Mosby), should the most visible Scouter be the National Commissioner? Should the BSA make the National Commissioner the Chief Scout?

Agreed. The unit is a separate legal entity from the council which in turn is a separate legal entity from national. Here's how I think the org chart effectively looks. I think that because national has control over the program itself, the CEO or President of the BSA can effectively be considered the "leader" of Scouting. In this case it's not leadership in terms of ownership, but leadership of the program itself. In this discussion of leadership with youth, I would be comfortable distinguishing between ownership and leadership. You don't have to own something to provide leadership.

I guess I'd simply say - I don't blame them for this either. However, the leadership lesson is that leaders who want to better connect with those they lead have to want to connect. That you don't want it is all the more a reason for them to want to hear why. Even if it's not some trumped up photo op, but a discussion about why your unit wants nothing to do with anyone but your own unit.

What I believe this leadership article is implicitly saying is that authentic leaders should work to cultivate a culture of communication and openness. That there are 5 layers in the BSA is fine. There are many organizations with a lot more layers than that which have managed to resolve this kind of problem. Really, just having the senior leaders of the BSA get out there and start visibly talking to unit leaders would be a good first step. A monthly update from the CEO would be a good step. To me, the leadership lesson in all of this is that a leader has to want to be authentic - it requires effort. They have to make this a priority.

This is not a universal truth and does not need to be this way. In a fundamentally hierarchical organization, the views of the people in positions of authority are indeed influenced by the people surrounding the leader. This is why senior leaders need to be out regularly interacting with unit leaders. Senior BSA leaders have to want to understand the issues in the field. Further, senior BSA leaders have to want the unit leaders to know that they want to know the issues. Roundtables, webinars, online meetings, you name it. When was the last time the leaders of the BSA held a town hall answering tough questions from unit leaders? In other corporations this kind of thing happens all the time. It would not be hard for the BSA to begin to remedy this. For example - what if the BSA gave an ACSE the title of "Chief Scout" and put him/her in charge of programming. As part of that person's job, he/she person held monthly town hall meetings around the country. The Chief Scout fielded tough questions from unit volunteers and gave honest answers. The Chief Scout painted the vision of the organization. Sessions are recorded and put online for all to see. What if that person made a statement early on that "we will not sacrifice program quality for membership." Don't sugar coat things, be honest, genuine, and direct - in other words, be an authentic leader. I have a hunch that volunteers would love a person like that. That's just one idea - I'm sure other smart people can come up with 10 more.

Maybe I'm eternally an optimist, but I think that by discussing these issues we can begin to make headway in terms of understanding each other on them. I've learned a lot on this forum from the wide backgrounds we have on the issues we discuss here. In fact, even in these seemingly frustrating discussions we have, I learn a lot about the wide array of perspectives on this activity we call Scouting. I've become a better Scouter for it too. I think this discussion on leadership is a fascinating one and am glad you started it.

Thank you for the good history. But, I have to wonder if we're mixing issues here. When I started in Scouting 10 years ago, it didn't seem that the unit leader liked national any more than they do today. Are the issues that leaders have with national really all about the membership moves? Most of those membership issues were in a very different place when I started than they are today. The issues I seem to hear the most fervently here have to do with what I'd call tone-deaf councils & national leadership. That unit level Scouters think that national is continually putting membership & money ahead of program. Decisions like the seemingly arbitrary changes to YPT rules. The last minute hikes in fees. That unit level Scouters feel pushed around by DEs and council volunteers. In short, is the issue really one of the macro membership issues or one of unit level volunteers feeling neglected and pushed around?

I'm curious if we can leverage some lessons for the Scouts from all of this. Let's go back to the original topic of this discussion - authenticity. I've felt for a very long time that a significant portion of the Scouting volunteers do not respect the BSA national organization nor many of the councils. They find the decisions of the organization difficult to understand. They believe that decisions are made that do not reflect the needs of the Scout or the units. Perhaps in a sense, the BSA leadership themselves are missing the point of authenticity in their own leadership style?

Yep - I think this is true of most parents. I also don't fault the BSA from trying to be a leader in setting this rule. Look at how much more awareness and though this topic gets because of the high bar the BSA set. They have created much discussion on this subject - a good thing.

That's too simplistic. The best leaders I know do not blindly obey every rule and directive - they balance the needs of their team or organization against what is being asked of them. The mark of a strong leader is that they balance the needs of the organization that they are in with the needs of the team that they lead. They then make good decisions as a leader based on that information. I will take a leader with these sort of critical thinking skills any day over someone who simply just blindly obeys a command. Let's remember that obedient is but one point in the Scout Law. There are other places in the BSA's guiding materials talk about developing leaders. Our role as leaders in the program is to interpret these to the best of our own abilities. I looked at these other items and recognized that I have to use some context when interpreting obedient.

You have to put the YTP 24/7 rules into context. A primary goal the BSA at the national level is to reduce issues of child abuse in their membership as low as possible. With that in mind, it makes sense for the BSA to have very aggressive YPT rules. The primary goal of most volunteers is to raise their children. So when this goal of the BSA conflicts with the goal of parent volunteers, parents are going to react in different ways. Again, some will side with the BSA, some will side with their children's needs. It stinks that this creates situations where we have to choose between the BSA and our own children, but it's reality. In this case the BSA chose to prioritize youth protection above the needs of it's volunteer leaders. Does it mean that it was wrong for the BSA to make this choice? In my mind, it does not. Given the obvious history we are all aware of, the BSA taking a very proactive approach makes sense. Does it mean that we all suffer and struggle because of it - yes, it does. But, in my mind the BSA made the right priority call. It is, in a sense, being a leader here. Regardless of the difficulty of that decision, the BSA is putting kids first. Perhaps someday the BSA will realize that this level of protection isn't necessary and will tone it down - but that day is not today.

Leaders need to understand their role as team member as well. A patrol leader leads a patrol. A patrol leader is also a member of the PLC which is led by the SPL. A Scoutmaster leads the Assistant Scoutmasters, but also is a member of the team led by the Committee Chair A Troop Committee Chair leads the volunteer adults of the troop, but also is a member of the team led by the COR. Leaders also need to understand how to balance the goals of the team they lead with the goals of the team they are on: A patrol leader will recognize when the patrol is burning out and have to balance that against the SPL's wish for the Troop to be ready for the morning flag ceremony at 7:00am. A Scoutmaster will want to purchase new tents for the troop, but recognize that the Troop Committee sees the needs to conserve funds in an effort to keep dues down. Leaders will also need to understand how to balance external commitments with the needs of the team A troop is a part of the CO, but has agreed to follow certain Scouting rules per the Chartered Organization Agreement. As a leader grows in their role, they will undoubtedly run into conflicting circumstances to deal with: The troop really needs new tents to keep the Scouts warm and dry in a storm, the Troop Committee has determined there is no money, and the BSA says you cannot solicit donations of new tents. How does the Scoutmaster resolve that? How one deals with these conflicting circumstances defines them as a leader. Some leaders will choose to side with their team. Some leaders will look to guidance and direction from the team they are in. There are lots of factors that influence this. Obey? Myself - I cringe when I hear terms like obey. I have never believed that my role as a leader means I simply do whatever my "leader" tells me to do. My job as a leader is to understand all the different factors and then weigh them in the context of the goals of my team. Often this means I have to go to my "leader" and negotiate. That's part of my job as a leader is to figure out when I follow and when I "negotiate".

I apologize, I went back and looked at the questions. If they are the same ones I have, it is stated that no-one will see your answers except for you. I get the sense you're worrying too much about these questions. This is simply an exercise to help encourage you to think about yourself in this way. Yes, for someone with self confidence issues (I assume you meant that you have lower self confidence), I can see why answering questions about yourself might be uncomfortable. I would encourage you to give yourself the permission to answer these - even if you feel like the answers make you uncomfortable. Just make a promise to yourself never to show them to anyone. It's also really OK if your answers are 20 lines of "I'm not comfortable answering that." I would certainly not back out of the course, and most definitely I would not feel any reason to quit Scouting.

Your definition is better written than mine - but it's what I was thinking. Let's use yours. My core point is that authenticity is focused on how to get people to want to follow you. Authenticity is a very important tool for a leader. Like any tool, a person has to understand it, master it, and know when to apply it. It's one of a number of core tools that a leader should be aware of and draw on in their role as a leader. I would be careful about your statement: There are indeed times and places where you have to be a bully or a dictator as a leader. If you look at a number of the most successful leaders in business and there are many times people would call them exactly that. Being a leader often requires techniques chosen for that specific point in time. Sometimes you have to push. Part of being a leader is knowing when to use which technique. It's also possible to be both authentic and a dictator/bully. I'd call that a passionate, visionary leader.

The pre-course 20 questions? In our course, it wouldn't be a deal breaker - but then again, everyone always does it. Why don't you want to answer them?

I think we'd have to explore this more before we attach a disclaimer. In my decade as a leader, I have never made a statement that I felt was something controlled by the BSA. I also disagree with the BSA on a regular basis. I've always felt very comfortable being able to make a distinction between the two. Even in times when I might make a different rule (wheelbarrows) I have no problems saying "folks, I know that you can use a wheelbarrow at home, brut BSA rules prohibit it." I don't feel that makes me any less authentic as a leader. I know we all have different backgrounds and arrive at our roles with different perspectives. Before I advocated for a disclaimer that assumed leaders cannot be authentic representations of themselves, I'd want to hash out more specifics of how you feel the BSA is controlling your speech and actions.

Ohh. I understand better now. Yes, I would see that it would make it harder for you to be authentic is the organization is doing things in your name and creating a false persona. I'm fortunate that I don't work in an environment that creates that hurdle for me. While I do from time to time have to tow the corporate line, I always try to find a way to do so that is in keeping with my own voice. I think we must Scout in very different councils. I always look at the rules from national as simply "the rules". The rules don't govern too much how I relate as a person to others. So, I really don't feel all the controlled by the BSA. I'm able to find a way to be me and place the rules of the BSA in context. For example, all the G2SS restrictions have changed what we can allow Scouts to do on their own, but they don't change how I relate to them. Perhaps that would be an input of mine to this discussion of authenticity. You have to determine your own voice in all of this. Yes, if the school/church/troop/BSA wants you to say something, you have to find a constructive way to support that request, yet do so in a way that keeps you true to your character. One approach for that is to simply define those things as rules vs. your decisions. i.e., "Scouts, the G2SS scouting rules require us to have two deep adult leadership on your hike this weekend, so make sure you factor that in. Make sure you recognize that the adults are there simply in case something bad happens, so do not expect them to be in charge - this is your hike." vs. "Scouts, I want you to have two deep leadership on your hike this weekend, so make sure your factor that in."

I've come to appreciate that someone's leadership ability is intrinsically linked to their own comfort in leading other people. Many people are simply disinterested in making decisions for others. There are many reasons for that - some easily addressed, some not. One of the biggest factors I find in this is self-confidence. A person who is full of self doubt and not confident in themself is less likely to be confident making decisions for others. Yet, sometimes it's more ingrained than that. For some, they simply enjoy the act of accomplishing tasks more than they do in leading teams. I think this is what I've come to recognize in these sort of situations. When you put 8 kids in a group and say - "Go", those youth who enjoy leading are going to take charge. Those youth who enjoy being a team member are going to be team members. I find that our role as Scouters is to give these kids the opportunity to discern what they enjoy and why they enjoy it. Would they enjoy leading if they had the skills? How do we orchestrate situations for the youth to develop enough self-confidence and learn enough skills for them to determine what they enjoy?

You've hit on the limitation of these kind of analogies and examples. This article is all about how a leader relates to those people he or she intends to lead. Authenticity is a tool to help the leader connect with the people in their team. Authenticity is not the primary point of being a leader. The primary point of being a leader is to accomplish things. Being authentic is simply a technique to help a leader accomplish things more effectively. Regardless of what you do in life, you probably have to accomplish things. Youth, adult, Scouter, businessman, or teacher - in all of those roles you have to accomplish things. Though the article is written from the point of business the lessons are likely applicable to other roles. As a person in business you have to accomplish corporate goals. Perhaps as a teacher the task you have to accomplish is kids learning learning. As a Scouter, it's inspiring youth to grow. We've used the term authentic quite a bit in this topic. In other articles it might be referred to simply by the phrase "connecting with people by being genuine". By connecting with those you need to work with to accomplish things, you end up with a better likelihood of those people energetically working to accomplish those tasks. With the increase in rules in Scouting, I can see your point. Again, being authentic isn't the goal. The goals in Scouting are taking kids camping, helping them to grow, and yes - seeing that they earn badges. Of course many parents couldn't care if you are authentic. Yet, what parents do care about is how successful their kids are in Scouting - are they having fun, are they camping, are they advancing? The more effective you are at leading the team, the more effective you will be at doing those things. Being authentic is simply a way to more effectively connect with and in turn lead that team.

Great article and fully agree. I liked this quote a lot: To me, this quote gets at the heart of one of the core problems in leadership teaching - balancing how to relate to the people you lead vs. how to set and accomplish goals. Too often in the Scouting context - whether in youth or in adults, you find people struggle with that balance. Trends such as: spending so long trying to build credibility with a team that they fail to lead the team. spending so much time trying to mentor the team that they don't lead the team. focusing so much on getting stuff done that they lose sight of the fact that they need to build credibility with the team