Do Leaders need to Follow?

[Zahnada]

Whew!

 

I never expected that I would have to explain my intent when starting this topic. But things have started to get a little tense around here.

 

There's no denying that this topic came from another thread. I mentioned that in the initial post. When someone stated the "leaders need to be followers" quote, Bob White asked what that quote means. At the time I thought it was an honest question. Since then I've decided the question was purely for argumentative reasons or rhetorical reasons at best. Anyway, I sent Bob a private message explaining my take on the quote. We had a brief conversation back and forth.

 

The conversation left me unfulfilled because the dialogue was overshadowed by animosity between Bob White and the original poster. I wanted to start the topic off fresh so I posted it in its own thread.

 

And here we are.

 

Some good has come from this topic though. Everyone seems to agree that the term "follower" has a negative connotation. There's also agreement that it shouldn't be that way. Just be reminded of this before you throw out words like "follower" and "leader" to a group of scouts. Telling Tim, "Follow Bill" may be a negative experience for Tim. Be careful with wording.

 

However, there are some other questions that this topic has raised. How do we teach leadership to boys? We all agree that experience is important as are leadership tools/skills. To what extent do they rely on each other? Is one boy in a patrol a leader or is he an elevated team member? Where does Setting the Example fit into this if following is not necessary.

 

I guess the real question is: Do we need a balance between seeing and doing when teaching boys leadership?

[evmori]

Bob,

You follow the BSA program, right? I think you even posted you did. That makes you a follower. You want others to follow the BSA program so you want them to follow the way you do things. This isn't rocket science! And no one ever said this is the only way a person can be a good leader. It is one way a preson can be a good leader coupled with others. I would say all good leaders were good followers but not all good followers are good leaders. There is more to leadership than that.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Bob White]

No Ed, I have no wish for them to follow me, I want them to follow the scouting program. And Ed... "If not all good followers make good leaders", as you now say, then that kind of blows your whole theory that you have to be a good follower before you can be a good leader, doesn't it?!

[evmori]

You don't follow the BSA program, Bob?

 

And no it doesn't blow my whole theory. When I was in college many noon ago I took some criminology courses. One fact we were taught was all adult offenders were juvenile offenders but not all juvenile offenders become adult offenders. Same theory allies. All good leaders were good followers but not all good followers become good leaders. In fact, they might never become leaders at all!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Fat Old Guy]

" One fact we were taught was all adult offenders were juvenile offenders but not all juvenile offenders become adult offenders"

 

Sorry, I don't buy that. I know a fellow, an Eagle Scout, who never did a thing wrong until he was 25 when he nearly went to jail for fraud.

[evmori]

Fat Old Guy,

LIke I said, That was a fact when I was in college many moon ago. It probably still holds true for crimes like Robbery, murder, etc. I don't think fraud was as popular then as it is now.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Rooster7]

"No Ed, I have no wish for them to follow me..."

 

I hate to pile on, but I have to ask you Bob -

 

Isn't a good Scoutmaster suppose to be a mentor? In fact, are not all adult Scout leaders suppose to be mentors? A mentor is someone who not only teaches (i.e., leadership skills, good character, etc.), but he is also someone that teaches and leads by example. The whole premise of a mentor relationship is to encourage the "student" (for a lack of a better term) to follow the example of the mentor. You should be encouraging the boys to follow you - at least figuratively if not literally speaking. Where do we part ways in this line of logic?

 

If this is being done properly, at some point, after a boy has been trained and mentored, he should progress to a leadership role and become a mentor himself - for the younger/more inexperience boys. So, when a Scout is young and experience, he learns what it is like to be a follower. As a follower, he learns by his leaders' successes and failures, enabling him to become a better leader - later after he's acquired the necessary skills and training. From what I've heard and understand, this is the natural process that Scouting encourages.

[NJCubScouter]

One fact we were taught was all adult offenders were juvenile offenders but not all juvenile offenders become adult offenders.

 

Not to send yet another trend off on yet another tangent, but...

 

One thing I have been taught is to be very careful of words like "all." (Or "none," or "never.") In this case, "all" clearly is not correct and I suspect that "almost all" would not be correct either. It probably depends on the type of crime. If, say, a 21-year-old man commits a "street crime" (for example, theft or drugs), then yes, chances are probably pretty good that he had a juvenile record as well. If a middle-aged person decides to kill their cheating spouse or to embezzle money from their employer, or to commit securities fraud, then the correlation with juvenile crime is probably pretty low. Martha Stewart's juvenile record is probably pretty clean.

 

On the other hand, you are correct that not all juvenile offenders go on to commit crimes as adults. In other words, sometimes the "juvenile justice system" actually works, and has the intended effect of persuading the youthful offender that that is not the way to go in the future.

[KoreaScouter]

In an organization as large as ours, you can find anecdotal evidence to prove any assertion, even if it's just a "sample of one".

 

Following the program often means following an individual...his example, his direction, his intent, etc. In fact, as far as program delivery/direct contact is concerned, I can think of two methods, Adult Association and the Uniform, that primarily rely on Scouts "following" our example for their success.

 

When my District or Council leadership expects me to be somewhere or do something (be a follower), it by no means diminishes my position as the SM in my unit or creates a negative connotation -- unless I carp about it openly in front of others, or publicly defy my leadership.

 

Let's not fall into the trap of assuming that leading and following are mutually exclusive, or like opposite poles on a switch. I assert as I did in my previous post that we are all both simultaneously. While a PL is following his SPL's instructions, he's directing the activities of his patrol -- doing one does not take away from the other.

 

While being a good follower is not necessarily a dogmatic prerequisite to being a good leader, practical experience tells us several things. First, in any field of endeavor, the "rookies" take more direction than they give -- Scouting's no exception. Getting people beyond the rookie phase is the challenge, and maybe the bone of contention. Second, the people who take direction the best (the good followers) also happen to learn the most, generally don't have chips on their shoulders, are paying attention, aren't overly self-absorbed, and tend to work well with others. Guess what? Those are some of the traits we value in leaders. Good leaders are normally good followers. Not a coincidence. Third, regarding leaders who can't or won't follow at the same time, there's not a lot of history out there, because those guys generally don't last long enough as leaders to accumulate data points.

 

KS

[Eamonn]

Let me start by saying that while Bob and I may agree on a lot of things. I in no way go out of my way to be agreeable.

Now that I have that out of the way.

For a very long time Scouting has been teaching Leadership. Along with Leadership Skills.

I would hope that we all can agree that Leadership can be taught.

Those of us who have been around for a while may remember the old Wood Badge course where at the end of each session we wrote "I will use the skill of whatever to better my troop by...."

In the new course we have Team development models and other sessions that help drive home what Leadership is all about.

While it is possible that we can use past experiance and our own history to help make us/me a better Leader. I don't think that it is a prerequisite.

When we look at our youth leaders.

Again we have to agree that Leadership can be taught.

As Scout Leaders we pass on the training that we have had to our youth leaders.

As with most skills some people will take to it like a duck to water. Some will have a hard time. We as adults are there to pass on skills such as planning, representing the group and so on.

I suppose that there are a few Scout Leaders who have never given Leadership skills a second thought. They are busy running and planning the activities. But is this really Scouting?

If we look at the job of a Leader as someone who leads the group till they are empowered team members. It might be safe to say that when it becomes their turn to be the team leader, that they are better prepared.

It might be said that these team members are not "Followers" But are team members who are participating.

Yes there will be times when something will come along that will challenge their willingness to participate. This is when the Leader will use some of the skills that have been learnt.

I'm thinking of the "Dealing with conflict" session in the new course.

Of course not everything will always work out or go as may have been wished. But even when this happens we use this as a learning opportunity.

Will the young Patrol Leader need more help then the older one?

Yes sure he will.

But isn't that help being available part of the real leadership that is the role of the Scoutmaster? As is knowing when to step in and when not to?

One good thing about this thread is that it is making us take a closer look at how we do things.

As we do whatever we do in Scouting, most of us will never be "By The Book" Leaders, in fact most of the leaders that I know are about half way. Most are doing their best to become better leaders.

I'm not sure who they might follow.

I do know that the BSA has a lot of good stuff out there. If you read it and give it some thought.

Eamonn

 

 

[Bob White]

Hi Rooster,

Good question and I would like to respond to it.

As a mentor I do not lead the scouts to follow "me". For instance I lead the Scout to be religious but I do not lead him to follow my religion. I lead him to make ethical decisions, but to make his own decisions based on his own value base, not to do what he thinks I would do. I train scouts to follow Scouting not to follow Scouters.

 

Boys need to make decisions on actions and behaviors based on internal controls not external controllers.

 

I have no interest in a Scout wanting to be like me, I want him to be like himself, and have him base his character on the principles of scouting.

 

As a Scout Leader, my goal is to create more leaders, not more followers. I do not see this as a unique attitude among Scouters.

 

I hope this clarifies things,

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[scoutingagain]

Last year a group of scouts in our troop pursued the Theater Merit Badge. One of the requirements is to write a one act play.

 

To demonstrate a one act play the MBC came in a performed a one person play he had written titled, "Lead, Follow or Get out of the Way".

 

I don't recall the specifics, but one of the points he made in the play was that it was OK to be a follower, and that just because one was a follower didn't mean that followers didn't make decisions or ask questions. In fact he made a good point in that one of the most important decisions a follower must make is who they choose as a leader.

 

While we do teach leadership, I think it is also important that we teach good followership, which might be better said as good citizenship.

 

SA

[evmori]

Let's try this. Billy Boy Scout is a member of a patrol. Billy never does what his PL leads him to do. Now Bill has been elected PL. And he his patrol won't do what he leads them to. Billy doesn't understand why! One patrol member tells him " You didn't do what the PL led us to do when you were a patrol member so why should we do what you lead us to do?" Kid's got a good point.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

"Everyone seems to agree that the term "follower" has a negative connotation."

 

I really didn't want to get back into this topic, but this is the kind of misleading stuff that drives me nuts. Show us any evidence as to the validity of that statement. I find few if any posters in this thread who have even hinted that "follower" is negative. So where do you come up with everyone?

 

My own stand has been that it is neither positive or negative as a term, just that it is unrelated to whether or not a boy can be taught how to lead.

 

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Bob White]

"Kid's got a good point."

 

No he doesn't Ed!

 

What the kid has is a Scoutmaster who A)Isn't doing the job of training leaders. B)Doesn't understand the leadership skills of scouting. C)Isn't paying attention to the needs and characteristics of the Scouts.

 

What the Kids have is a SM not getting the job done.

1)Why wasn't Billy's Patrol Leader taught how to use the skills of leadership to get Billy to participate as a team memeber?

 

2)Why wasn't Billy trained how to use leadership skills to mend his relationship with his patrol?

 

3)Why wasn't the patrol counseled prior to the election about the role of the PL, and the responsibility of voting wisely.

 

What you describe is not a problem caused by scouts but one caused by the lack of leadership skills used by the Scoutmaster. But that is a whole other thread of discussion.