Win All You Can

[ParkMan]

That's what I've found too.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

 

Wood Badge is great - but even in the best courses the staff are not miracle workers.  I know plenty of "my way or the highway" scouters for whom Wood Badge is a waste of time.  I'd like to think you could get them excited about the materials, but it's just not their thing.

 

I'm also a realist enough to know that the Wood Badge content isn't perfect.

Edited April 20, 2017 by ParkMan

[Back Pack]

You can also have open minded and experienced Scouters who have a high degree of advanced education, and been through more than enough corporate team building, visioning, leadership and management training, for which WB is seen as yet another event of the same ilk. And therefore not worth the time.

 

This doesn't mean someone with less training, education or exposure won't find at least one thing to take away.

[TAHAWK]

All true.   My company sent me to Situational Leadership led by Blanchard personally thirteen years before I attended the latest WB.   That experience reduced the "newness" of many of the concepts.  

 

Still, it was a chance to watch the presenters and try to pick up lessons technique (good or less than that) and to try to figure out what was going on co,pared to the first two versions of WB.

 

The debriefing after the Game of Life was new to me and made sense given the difference between Scouting, where we need more adults, and the business world, where companies do not need the hyper competitive who won't be team players. 

[krikkitbot]

I just went through this over the weekend. Holy cow! The emotions that people feel after this game are amazing. Even more interesting than the game itself. 

 

People don't like having a mirror held up to them and seeing something different than what they thought they looked like. 

 

I've been through plenty of leadership trainings so I knew early on what the goal of the exercise was. Even still, I think it was a worthwhile exercise. 

 

It's a very emotionally charged exercise and fully believe that if one is open minded, there is a lot to learn from it. 

[Sentinel947]

All true.   My company sent me to Situational Leadership led by Blanchard personally thirteen years before I attended the latest WB.   That experience reduced the "newness" of many of the concepts.  

 

Still, it was a chance to watch the presenters and try to pick up lessons technique (good or less than that) and to try to figure out what was going on co,pared to the first two versions of WB.

 

The debriefing after the Game of Life was new to me and made sense given the difference between Scouting, where we need more adults, and the business world, where companies do not need the hyper competitive who won't be team players. 

 

I had an interesting take on 21st Century WB. I went to NYLT in 2009 and WB in 2015. I found it useful as it helped me reorient myself from "youth leader" to "adult adviser." I think the single greatest aspect of WB is being around other folks that live and breath Scouting. Those discussions with your Troop Guide or Patrol Members about how your troop does things vs how their troops do things I found very helpful. 

 

The Management theory stuff is kind of hit or miss. If you go to Wood Badge to pick up management theory and have seen it before, it's a waste of time. 

[ParkMan]

We just went through something in the troop where some adults disagreed on a decision. The politicking and back stabbing that ensued reminded me a lot of this game. Very much there was a "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm going to get my way." I so wanted to turn and say "win all you can."

 

People knock the course, but I'm constantly seeing little reminders like this one. Some of my other favorites are around:

- active and empathetic listening

- generations in Scouting

- stages of team development

- leading EDGE

 

None of it's rocket science, but boy does it come back to me pretty regularly.

 

I love the observation about "adult advisor" vs "youth leader". That will stick with me. It brings back memories of the servant leadership concept.

[Laxplr21]

I did not like this game during my WB course.  I really questioned wither I would come back the second weekend.  I know a few did not and it influenced them.  I understand the point of getting through the storming phase, but it wasn't debriefed well to us.  It was one of the factors that ruined my experience with WB.  I just got my ticket done and left it in the past.  I flatly refuse to do this game ever again regardless of it being in scouts or the real world.  I believe this section of the course needs to be readdressed and possibly altered.

[David CO]

2 hours ago, Laxplr21 said:

I did not like this game during my WB course.  I really questioned wither I would come back the second weekend.  I know a few did not and it influenced them.  I understand the point of getting through the storming phase, but it wasn't debriefed well to us.  It was one of the factors that ruined my experience with WB.  I just got my ticket done and left it in the past.  I flatly refuse to do this game ever again regardless of it being in scouts or the real world.  I believe this section of the course needs to be readdressed and possibly altered.

Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

I didn't do WB.  I win.

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by David CO

[David CO]

This game is nothing new. My college did something similar back in the day, and I was required by one of my teachers to attend the 3 hour time-wasting exercise as a part of one of my classes. He would later have cause to regret it.

The game was a little more complicated than WAYC, with a few more embellishments (bells and whistles), but it was basically the same. It was about the distribution of the world's resources, and we were supposed to conclude that everyone would be better off if everyone would just share and share alike.  You can imagine how this went over with me.

In our game, we were divided up into tables (not patrols) which were directed to compete against other tables. After only 20 minutes, everyone at my table figured out what was going to happen, so when we had a pause to consider our next move, we chose to stop playing the game. The people who were running the game got upset and ordered us to continue. We refused.

The four teachers who were having their classes participate in the game came over to our table to ask us why we weren't cooperating. We said that we felt the game was a violation of the school policy which prohibited psychological experimenting with students without their informed consent. We felt like we were being used as unwilling lab rats.

The teachers called for a half hour break, during which time they questioned the game leaders. They concluded that the game did indeed violate school policy, and cancelled it on the spot. A heated argument then ensued between the game people and the teaching staff about whether or not they would be paid their fees for putting on the exercise. They weren't.

Everything turned out pretty well, in the end. The 4 teachers grabbed a couple of their colleagues and set up an impromptu debate, three on three, with the professors debating the issues surrounding the distribution of resources. It was a good debate, and well worth my time. I got an A in the class.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by David CO

[David CO]

Those who like this game might be interested in an article in the June 2018 National Geographic titled, Greed vs. the Common Good.

[WisconsinMomma]

On 5/13/2018 at 10:01 PM, Laxplr21 said:

I did not like this game during my WB course.  I really questioned wither I would come back the second weekend.  I know a few did not and it influenced them.  I understand the point of getting through the storming phase, but it wasn't debriefed well to us.  It was one of the factors that ruined my experience with WB.  I just got my ticket done and left it in the past.  I flatly refuse to do this game ever again regardless of it being in scouts or the real world.  I believe this section of the course needs to be readdressed and possibly altered.

It was a rough  night in our WB course, but, it was also interesting to reflect on.  I think I learned things from the exercise.  Of course, it is a struggle to be set up to be in competition, then have the objective changed to be cooperation.  It's a trick.  I was in competitive mode the whole time, and having a big failure is always a learning experience. We had a cracker barrel afterward and some time to chat.  It was very dramatic for us.  Rough but we moved on and it is not the main feature of WB, or my most vivid memory from the course, we had so many other positive moments that are more significant than Win  All You Can. 

 

My husband is taking Wood Badge this year but I don't think I should warn him, should I? 

[qwazse]

5 minutes ago, WisconsinMomma said:

... My husband is taking Wood Badge this year but I don't think I should warn him, should I? 

Why not? 'fraid he'll get a better score than you?🏁

[cchoat]

"Win all you can" is dropped in the new "Wood Badge" syllabus currently being field tested. 

 

 

[TAHAWK]

I  wish I had the experience.   Having taken the Blanchard course three years previously, I knew to a certain extent what was coming.

 

(Also very different.   "Satan" did an excellent job of controlling emotions and led a thoughtful debrief, including "What just happened? What is 'winning'? in a Scouting context?" The Blanchard staff walked off the stage after announcing the results with no effort to smooth the waters ("You don't want them anyway." Indeed, the  eight young "winners" of Team Velociraptors were all soon gone..   Tricking the Executive VP (and six other VPs) exhibits questionable judgment, at best. )

 

Easy to think you are beyond temptation.  

 

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by TAHAWK

[Chris1]

2 hours ago, cchoat said:

"Win all you can" is dropped in the new "Wood Badge" syllabus currently being field tested. 

I think that is good news.  After the game when I did WB, I questioned several of the senior staff about the negative impact on morale and camaraderie. I also voiced the opinion that it was not scout-like for the staff to act in that manner, or treat participants that way. 

I also stated that it lessened my trust and impression of those involved. And I did not get upset during the game at all, in part because I am not a competitive person and also because I am math nerd and I figured out that it was a zero-sum game and the game theory behind It. 

I am glad to hear it is being reviewed.