Servant Leadership vs. Rank Advancement

[Stosh]

Ah, I see where you were going. I don't look at advancement as balancing between self and serving others. I look at advancement as actvities for improving skills and character. From the day they joined, our scouts were taught to set small goals to acheive large task. Learn one knot and set a goal and create a plan to learn another. For me it was as much about learning to set goals and create a plan of action as it was to learn the knot. Do that all through the First Class requirements and scouts become very good at assessing large projects and developing a plan to achieve it. Character development also came in through the scouts responsibilities. Typically new scouts were given the task of Cheer Master or Grub Master. From there they were taught self reliance, independence, responsibility, AND service to others through the actions of the job requirements. The task were small, but challenging for the age and maturity of the scout. In fact, I had in my mind a purpose of character and leadership growth for every action a scout performed in the program. Rank was not my responsibility, building citizens of character and leaders of integrity, was my passion. I even told the scouts that if their was something they did that I couldn't justify in developing character, they could take it out of the program. LOL, uniform was the first challenge they threw at me. Kudu and I have compared programs for many years and really the only difference in our basic philosophy is that he thinks the leadership should go to the more natural leaders like Badon Powel did. I build a program of developing leadership skills for all the scouts and let them choose their paths. Otherwise, in my opinion our two programs side by side out in the woods look about the same.

I agree that the T-FC skill requirements do go a long way to build self-confidence in their skill abilities. Yes, setting goals and achieving them is also important, but again focuses around the individual.

 

I always start my SL training with Tenderfoot requirement #9, the buddy system. Whereas it has devolved down to the waterfront, I carry it even further. It's just not hang out with your buddy, but take care of your buddy. If he can't find his necker, help him out. If he is having trouble with his knots, help him out. If he forgets his mess kit, help him out. ... etc. That caring goes a long way to bond people together. If I am having a problem, I have a buddy to help me out and if my buddy is having a problem, it's my responsibility to pitch in and help him.

 

Once I get that routine down, then I move on to helping out more than just my buddy. Maybe I help out the grubmaster even though I'm not on the roster for that meal, I'm the first to volunteer for the group service project, etc. etc. Once people see that initiative, they elect me PL and now I am responsible for 5-7 other boys. I have been working since day one on this process and now I'm up for the challenge. After that I might take on a troop responsibility and do QM and make sure all MY patrols (vs. THE patrols) have the proper equipment. Then I get elected SPL and I have a responsibility of taking care of all my PL's. Yes, I'm learning leadership along the way, but I am also refocusing my attention away from myself towards others. Along the way (I have 7 years to do it), I can get my Eagle, simply by keeping on with what I'm doing.

 

Is there altruistic dynamics going on here as well? Sure, when my boys (the one's I'm looking after) look good, duh!, I look good. When SPL elections roll around, who do my boys think of first? Yep, the guy that's going to help them the most.

 

It always reminds me of another troop in my council that had 1-2 NSP's each year. This one older boy (Eagle) was TG for them. Everywhere they went, they hovered around him like chicks following the mother hen. If he walked into the lake, they would have all followed without questioning it. I asked the SM about it once and he told me that this boy had been that way since he started in the troop. (I wonder if this is what BP meant by natural leader?) He told me he suspected that the lad was making up for the fact that he was an only child. Might have had some truth to that.

 

I had one boy in my troop that when we went off to summer camp they all buddied up. As it ended up one older boy was "stuck" with the odd little scout left over. His parents had basically abandoned him, he was being raised by elderly grandparents. He wet the bed at night, he was on meds and needed them 3 times a day and he was a general handful to say the least. Without batting an eye, the older boy went over and asked him to be his buddy (he really didn't have a choice, but the little guy didn't know it). The older boy got him up ever morning, got his mess cleaned up, got him to the nurse 3 times a day and got him to his MB classes, all while doing his own thing. If that older boy came up and asked me for a recommendation for his Eagle, there would have been no question in my mind. By the way, the older boy thanked me at the end of the week for the opportunity to work with the little guy. When I told the older boy's parents about how great a kid they have, they simply smiled and said, "Yeah, we know."

 

How does one put that on their college application form or resume?

[Eagledad]

Ah, I see where you were going. I don't look at advancement as balancing between self and serving others. I look at advancement as actvities for improving skills and character. From the day they joined, our scouts were taught to set small goals to acheive large task. Learn one knot and set a goal and create a plan to learn another. For me it was as much about learning to set goals and create a plan of action as it was to learn the knot. Do that all through the First Class requirements and scouts become very good at assessing large projects and developing a plan to achieve it. Character development also came in through the scouts responsibilities. Typically new scouts were given the task of Cheer Master or Grub Master. From there they were taught self reliance, independence, responsibility, AND service to others through the actions of the job requirements. The task were small, but challenging for the age and maturity of the scout. In fact, I had in my mind a purpose of character and leadership growth for every action a scout performed in the program. Rank was not my responsibility, building citizens of character and leaders of integrity, was my passion. I even told the scouts that if their was something they did that I couldn't justify in developing character, they could take it out of the program. LOL, uniform was the first challenge they threw at me. Kudu and I have compared programs for many years and really the only difference in our basic philosophy is that he thinks the leadership should go to the more natural leaders like Badon Powel did. I build a program of developing leadership skills for all the scouts and let them choose their paths. Otherwise, in my opinion our two programs side by side out in the woods look about the same.

I'm confused where you are coming from and where you are going. Are your original thoughts a segway of something you want to teach?

[Stosh]

Ah, I see where you were going. I don't look at advancement as balancing between self and serving others. I look at advancement as actvities for improving skills and character. From the day they joined, our scouts were taught to set small goals to acheive large task. Learn one knot and set a goal and create a plan to learn another. For me it was as much about learning to set goals and create a plan of action as it was to learn the knot. Do that all through the First Class requirements and scouts become very good at assessing large projects and developing a plan to achieve it. Character development also came in through the scouts responsibilities. Typically new scouts were given the task of Cheer Master or Grub Master. From there they were taught self reliance, independence, responsibility, AND service to others through the actions of the job requirements. The task were small, but challenging for the age and maturity of the scout. In fact, I had in my mind a purpose of character and leadership growth for every action a scout performed in the program. Rank was not my responsibility, building citizens of character and leaders of integrity, was my passion. I even told the scouts that if their was something they did that I couldn't justify in developing character, they could take it out of the program. LOL, uniform was the first challenge they threw at me. Kudu and I have compared programs for many years and really the only difference in our basic philosophy is that he thinks the leadership should go to the more natural leaders like Badon Powel did. I build a program of developing leadership skills for all the scouts and let them choose their paths. Otherwise, in my opinion our two programs side by side out in the woods look about the same.

Basically, I see troops emphasizing the advancement aspects of personal advancement in the BSA program, i.e. Eagle mills. But, what efforts in that process are they working on to advance leadership and character building? On the other hand, is it proper to spend a ton of time in leadership building/character building i.e. service to others at the expense of advancement?

 

I see these as two entirely different goals, one focus inwardly on individual concerns and the other outwardly on community concerns. How do troops address the balance between two differing objectives.

 

For me, I see to much on individual success and it's not always all that beneficial. There have been a ton of threads on Eagle mills and the problems that are created there and still even more threads on Eagles that have little or no character anymore.

 

So, where do we go from there, is there a bigger picture that needs to be addressed?

[qwazse]

Advancement just starts the first level of servant leadership ...

1. Learn to tie knots. Get a signature in a book.

2. Make sure everyone in your patrol can tie knots.

3. See somebody who is having trouble tying knots, show them how.

4. Walk around with a rope in your pocket, approach a stranger and say, "Hey check out this knot."

5. See something that needs built/repaired with knots, get your "knotty disciples" to build/fix it.

...

x. Make the world a better place using your obsession with knots.

[ScoutNut]

......

x. Make the world a better place using your obsession with knots.

 

Tie up all of the crazy, semi-crazy, and act like they are crazy, politicians. Lash them to a pole. Stage a giant BBQ.

 

Is THAT what you mean by making the world a "better place"?

[MattR]

I don't think it's a tradeoff on advancement mill vs servant leadership, I think it's more the expectation and goals of the SM. If the SM wants every kid to get Eagle then the shortest path is an Eagle mill. If the goal is to have a ton of adventure then there's a different path. If the goal is to have boy led then servant leadership is important.

 

The challenge with the last option is it's difficult to implement. Part of this is the lack of training for adults and part is it just takes time working with kids. This, to me, is the crux of what scouts is about. To be a servant leader, or truly follow the Scout Oath and Law, you just gotta believe that being selfless is important. Getting Eagle has nothing to do with it, and I think this is jblake's comment. How you honestly believe it, as opposed to know you have to do it to advance, is nothing a book or class will cover. You have to see it and practice it. Kids are all over the spectrum on this one. Some get it right away and some are a struggle. It's all art.

[King Ding Dong]

......

x. Make the world a better place using your obsession with knots.

 

Tie up all of the crazy, semi-crazy, and act like they are crazy, politicians. Lash them to a pole. Stage a giant BBQ.

 

Is THAT what you mean by making the world a "better place"?

Head over to the Camp Richard thread and have your BBQ there.

[Stosh]

I don't think it's a tradeoff on advancement mill vs servant leadership, I think it's more the expectation and goals of the SM. If the SM wants every kid to get Eagle then the shortest path is an Eagle mill. If the goal is to have a ton of adventure then there's a different path. If the goal is to have boy led then servant leadership is important.

 

The challenge with the last option is it's difficult to implement. Part of this is the lack of training for adults and part is it just takes time working with kids. This, to me, is the crux of what scouts is about. To be a servant leader, or truly follow the Scout Oath and Law, you just gotta believe that being selfless is important. Getting Eagle has nothing to do with it, and I think this is jblake's comment. How you honestly believe it, as opposed to know you have to do it to advance, is nothing a book or class will cover. You have to see it and practice it. Kids are all over the spectrum on this one. Some get it right away and some are a struggle. It's all art.

So what is BSA doing to promote the leadership part of it as they do the advancement part? Should it not be more balanced? There is a ton of outdoor skills training, and even some organizational training in the patrol-method, etc. but how much time/effort is dedicated to leadership development among the boys? Too often adult-led leads to the lack of youth leadership development. One can't learn to lead if all they ever do is follow.

 

In school the students follow the directions dictated by the teacher.

In home the kids follow the directions dictated by the parents.

In church the kids follow the directions dictated by the clergy.

In sports the kids follow the directions dictated by the coach.

and in the BSA the scouts follow the directions dictated by the SM.

 

Where do they learn to lead? If scouting is just another follow along program, how will scouting ever get the boys interested in just another program one follows. Do this, do that, check the box and voila, you're an Eagle.

 

I really don't think this is the program envisioned by BP. A military "scout" was trained to think on his feet, travel and survive in unknown areas, and be self sufficient because they were not directly connected to the army when they were on a mission. The squad leader was also responsible for the safety and welfare of the other soldiers on that mission. While our scouts are not scoping out the enemy, the dynamics of their activities remain the same.

 

Are we in fact really training scouts?

[Basementdweller]

......

x. Make the world a better place using your obsession with knots.

 

Tie up all of the crazy, semi-crazy, and act like they are crazy, politicians. Lash them to a pole. Stage a giant BBQ.

 

Is THAT what you mean by making the world a "better place"?

Scout camps get sold all the time....

 

Once the pro's decide it is usually too late for the volunteers to do anything.

 

My boyhood camp was sold a couple of years ago and the community reacted and tried to save it much the way the nantucket folks are doing...... Still was sold.

[Eagledad]

I still can't see where you are going jblake, but I'm not sure do either. So, since we agree that a change in culture requires a change in top management (adults in this case), is it reasonable for district to consider a change when when the families are happy with program? If the families are satisfied with a Eagle Mill, should there be any attempt to interfer. If yes, then how?

[Stosh]

While at the lower ranks achievement of skill is important, one would think there would be a change towards leadership emphasis. That is not happening. All there is more of the same. Should there be more emphasis placed on servant leadership and how to do it? Now the boys have something of value to work for besides just getting Eagle. Teaching organizational skills is important but how about leadership? would it not benefit the boys more to know there's more than just a pin waiting down the road?

[Eagledad]

I'm struggling here, arent you the one who in past discussions favored patrols with the single interest of earning Eagle, and feel older scouts should move on to Venturing? For any culture to gain footing in a boy run troop, the younger scouts have to learn it from the older role models, don't you agree? Maybe my misunderstanding is that see a "change torward leadership emphasis". I cant imagine a line drawn in the program for a change. I beieve Scouts need to experience a service type program from the day they join, not just a service or servant style leadership, but a servant style culture. Then there doesn't have to be a place designed (by adults?) to change emphasis. Servant leadership is a natural result of a servant culture. Does that make sense, or am I missing you completely? Barry

[Stosh]

I'm struggling here, arent you the one who in past discussions favored patrols with the single interest of earning Eagle, and feel older scouts should move on to Venturing? For any culture to gain footing in a boy run troop, the younger scouts have to learn it from the older role models, don't you agree? Maybe my misunderstanding is that see a "change torward leadership emphasis". I cant imagine a line drawn in the program for a change. I beieve Scouts need to experience a service type program from the day they join, not just a service or servant style leadership, but a servant style culture. Then there doesn't have to be a place designed (by adults?) to change emphasis. Servant leadership is a natural result of a servant culture. Does that make sense, or am I missing you completely? Barry

As far as favoring patrols with the intent of gaining Eagle? Nope, never my contention. I do, however, "frown" on forced mixed aged groups. For example, the NSP needs either to elect an older boy from the troop to lead them or have a strong TG to assist in developing leadership within their patrol. That involves older scouts working with the younger ones. I am not at all adverse to going with what the patrol members want. If the older boys want to take on younger boys, no problem. My beef with that would be the forcing the younger boys/pals to break up their bonds and go with what some adult said.

 

As I mentioned, the first years might be heavily advancement oriented, with a bit of leadership mixed in, but by the time the older boys have reached FC, their leadership style should be defined, the best resource for them to actually use it would be with the younger boys. That's not to say a good leader can't work with his peers and elders. I'm thinking POR's are supposed to do that, but how many boys get elected to these positions because they know what they're doing and how many spend their 6 months trying to figure it out while being totally useless to those how are needing his leadership? Thus the POR ends up just a check box on the way to Eagle. Heck, we all know, having come through a school system, those teachers (all duly certified) that were there because of a commitment to helping kids and those who were there for the paycheck and summer off. They all sat through the classes and got them checked off and eventually got their credentials (Eagle). Sure they are teachers, but what does that say about the quality of education. Same for the Eagle program.

 

BSA does fairly well with developing organizational and teaching skills necessary for leadership, but I know of no program to develop any true sense of servant leadership or its culture. Sure the boys all go out and do service projects and eagle projects that benefit others but are they doing it to gain advancement or because they want to pitch in and help someone that needs it? You are correct, a culture change is necessary, but what BSA program promotes that? What BSA program teaches that? Are any of our SM's trained to work with the boys on that?

 

EDGE is a teaching skill, but if the boy only teaches because he gains advancement, what's the big deal?

 

A culture change has to happen from the top down. Unless National gets on board with a stronger emphasis on scouting being a true service organization, it's only going to end up a personal achievement organization. The purpose of my thread is to ask the question why isn't it both, why can't scouting have two goals that balance together? Obviously they are aimed in two different directions, one towards self and the other towards others. Can they balance?

[Eagledad]

NSPs aren't forced? LOL. Ok that is a whole different discussion, but with the same answer to this discussion. If two different SMs use the methods differently with equal success, is one program worse than the other? And what if those two different adults went to the same training. I used to have this same discussion with another respected scouter on this forum on our differing opinions of running a boy run troop. He at that time believed there was only one way to run a program to get the BEST results and until everyone was of the same mind (his), they could never achieve his vision of perfection. While I was SM, I guided a servant leadership style program. I know through the years of your post that you did too. But we have a completely different vision as well as completely different program style to reaching are vision. Can you conceive a way to train other adults to use servant leadership without changing their style of using Aims and Methods? Our troop did not put a special focus on advancement and yet we have as many Eagles percentage wise as the Eagle Mill down the sreet that is three times bigger. The only striking difference was the average age of their Eagles was 14, ours was 16. They are known locally as an Eagle Mill, but can we honestly say they don't use servant leadership? How can we measure when a troop uses servant leadership and when they don't? I know a lot of SMs who say they are boy run (including the Eagle Mil troopl) but look nothing like our boy run program. How do I tell them they are doing it wrong? Does anyone reading this thread believe they dont encourage a servant leadership style with teir scouts? I'm not saying National couldn't do a better job encouraging servant leadership, but I do respect the challenge. I'm not really sure you and I agree on the concept and that was how we each ran the troops. Yep, you have to respect the challenge. Barry

[Basementdweller]

The adult unit leaders control this......No debate about it.....

 

How many times have you heard or watch unit dynamics.....you can't trust the boys to do it they will just screw it up.....Yes they will, nobody will starve or get killed so it will be ok.

 

The boys simply can't lead if the adults won't get out of the way. Let them burn the pancakes or set their tents up in the depression

 

Train them

Trust them

Let them led

 

Honestly it would be easier for me to plan events and just do the grocery shopping and training......

 

It is also hard to drop them off at the trail head and watch them disappear over the hill or around the corner. But the simple presence of an adult changes the group dynamic.

 

My unit has about 20 hours of service possible in a month......Most at the CO either in the food pantry or the community meal.... I think the service hours required for rank are to low....what 12 hours will get you to life scout.

 

It takes the adults to guide the PLC and then support what they want to do even if you don't agree with it. I don't like the December lock in.....Don't like the pizza and video game theme.....