How much?

[Stosh]

I looked at the ladder thing and it brings up some questions. For the top level it says the adults won't step in unless it's a safety issue. When it comes to bad decisions that's fine as long the the result of the bad decision is timely. Forget food? Hunger. But what about decisions that aren't very timely. Let's say the scouts decide no new Webelos this year? Or maybe a decision just goes against the grain of scouting, such as not camping anymore, or not helping the younger scouts, or the flag ceremonies have become a joke. Or maybe just a PL being a butt. What's the feedback that addresses those issues? Some of those cases could be handled by scouts that think something is wrong. What's the mechanism to do that?. But there are also things that maybe only the SM sees. I agree with Barry that the SM is the keeper of the flame, so they ultimately do have say in decisions. So can any troop ever get to that top level? Or am I just reading this wrong?

No, you're not reading it wrong. As I looked over the ladder, it amazed me at the one item left off. Boy leadership. The ladder assumes the adults vs. youth leadership and youth leadership is only allowed in part at the highest levels. Nothing in there addresses the issue of maybe the NSP being taught, directed, coached by OLDER scouts!

 

It had been tradition in my former unit that once a scout reached Eagle he was automatically given a JASM and no responsibilities. Basically the boy sits out his scouting career until he aged out. Instead of giving my earned Eagle scout his JASM, I handed him a TG patch. He looked bewildered for a moment, then smiled. He understood completely what that meant. His job now was to not simply be a adjunct, second-class ASM, he was to roll up his sleeves and continue the work of guiding the younger boys. So often we spend an enormous amount of time trying to get the older boys to lead/teach the younger ones, and for the most part effort is put into T-FC training. That is the job of the Instructors, not the TG or any other older boy.

 

As far as the ladder is concerned, only the #1 run has any true youth leadership involved. Adult directive and Scout leadership simply is not leadership, it's only management as Kudu points out. If I'm told what to do, I do not take leadership, I only follow directions and how I MANAGE those responsibilities is not leadership.

 

There comes a time when one has to take the leash off the boy and let him lead. #2 on the ladder explicitly says the leash is still there. What the "ladder" is really saying is the adults run it until everyone in the troop is at the top, and then maybe they can actually run the show on their own.

 

As soon as I or anyone else proposes this, the knee-jerk reaction is that the boys will immediately line up a paintball/laser-tag activity and all hell breaks loose. A good leader knows the rules and if not, the boy is not ready to lead, he needs more coaching.

 

So, as others have mentioned, it is not the responsibility of the scouts to recharter, for example. They can sit and watch someone else do it. Riiiiight! As mentioned, they're going to be totally bored watching someone else do it. Heck, so would I! Instead, here's the packet, you as Scribe need to do the recartering for the troop. Then the adult sits and watch them do it if they aren't too bored in the process. Read the material, follow directions, and turn in the paperwork. This is not rocket science and most boys at that level should be able to read. If not, you have more problems with this boy than simply teaching him leadership and responsibility.

 

If I were to draw this ladder correctly to boy-led there would be only two rungs. Boys-lead on the first run and adults-lead (with some limited/leased leading by the boys) on the second.

 

Matt, to answer your concerns about the boys being a butt, no new recruits, etc. a dialog is necessary to ask questions by the adults as to why the boys think that is a good idea. Listen carefully, they might have a few good points. Also, do they really have to serve 6 months of being a butt before being replaced or can the patrol decide that John Butt has to go and Peter Niceguy is replacing him as of right now. True leadership is given under the idea that if someone is giving responsibility to do something, they also have the authority to fulfill that responsibility without others interfering. If the boys feel John Butt is not fulfilling his responsibilities, they according the Scout Law, have a right to properly and in an orderly manner make things change. That's all part of leadership as well. One doesn't need a patch to lead.

 

As far as no new Webelos this year, there has to be at least one scout that might want to be PL or needs a PL POR that would step up and take on the NSP. End of discussion. A good SM knows his boys and can very easily make opportunities for the boys in the form of gentle directives/suggestions that would/could inspire lesser leaders to step up to the next level. Yep, to a certain degree, through coaching, teaching, guiding, even the SM can lead at times by creating such opportunities/suggestions to the boys. Once the boy grabs onto the opportunity, the SM can settle back into his supportive role. Again it is a SUPPORTIVE role, not an abandonment role. No one should be kicking anyone out of the nest just because they think they can fly.

 

Stosh

[MattR]

I looked at the ladder thing and it brings up some questions. For the top level it says the adults won't step in unless it's a safety issue. When it comes to bad decisions that's fine as long the the result of the bad decision is timely. Forget food? Hunger. But what about decisions that aren't very timely. Let's say the scouts decide no new Webelos this year? Or maybe a decision just goes against the grain of scouting, such as not camping anymore, or not helping the younger scouts, or the flag ceremonies have become a joke. Or maybe just a PL being a butt. What's the feedback that addresses those issues? Some of those cases could be handled by scouts that think something is wrong. What's the mechanism to do that?. But there are also things that maybe only the SM sees. I agree with Barry that the SM is the keeper of the flame, so they ultimately do have say in decisions. So can any troop ever get to that top level? Or am I just reading this wrong?

So I think what you're saying, or maybe what I want to hear, is that at the pinnacle of scout leadership, the SM is coaching and asking questions and only very rarely needs to make a decision. This seems very dependent on good scouts that want to do a good job.

 

I talked to a few PLs last night and started asking them why we do things the way we do (why elections every 6 mo, why adults collecting permission slips, etc) and a lot of light bulbs turned on. I asked them could the scouts handle these things and how would they do it differently. That was a good discussion.

 

I looked closer at the ladder graphic and it doesn't really help me. I like the idea of showing everyone where we are but this doesn't really help. I chucked it and started over. First of all, there are lots of parts to the program. New scouts, older scouts, campouts, high adventure, service projects, meetings, gear, patrol leadership, advancement, ... one ladder is not enough. Next, I like Stosh's idea of either you manage or you lead, but I broke each in 2. So four levels.

 

Level 4) The scouts are merely participating or have no clue this is part of the troop. At most they get to decide from a small set of choices given them. Adults do most of it, or at least make all the decisions.

 

Level 3) Scouts manage a task for an extended time frame. Decisions are constrained and adults have to approve. It's open loop so if things go wrong, an adult will step in or the problem will likely repeat the next time. Scouts need to participate.

 

Level 2) Scouts lead a task for an extended time frame. They care about the result and the people involved. They recognize when they're in trouble and ask for help. Adults ask lots of questions and keep the scouts focused. Scouts need to care. Adults need to bite their tongues.

 

Level 1) Scouts look at the big picture. They train others. They will identify problems and come up with solutions on their own. Adults rarely step in. Scouts need to be self motivated.

 

So when I look at this for my troop, we're all between level 2 and 4. When it comes to picking patrol leaders and patrols and dealing with troublesome scouts, they're at 2. QM is between 3 and 4, depending on the adult working with them. The SPL is so close to level 1. The calendar and campouts are a 3, but recently a 2. Advancement is between 2 and 4, depending on what adults are around.

 

Sorry about blathering on, but this helps me.

[Stosh]

I looked at the ladder thing and it brings up some questions. For the top level it says the adults won't step in unless it's a safety issue. When it comes to bad decisions that's fine as long the the result of the bad decision is timely. Forget food? Hunger. But what about decisions that aren't very timely. Let's say the scouts decide no new Webelos this year? Or maybe a decision just goes against the grain of scouting, such as not camping anymore, or not helping the younger scouts, or the flag ceremonies have become a joke. Or maybe just a PL being a butt. What's the feedback that addresses those issues? Some of those cases could be handled by scouts that think something is wrong. What's the mechanism to do that?. But there are also things that maybe only the SM sees. I agree with Barry that the SM is the keeper of the flame, so they ultimately do have say in decisions. So can any troop ever get to that top level? Or am I just reading this wrong?

Kinda scary to have the light bulbs turning on, especially after talking directly with the boys. One has to name the problem before they can solve it.

 

I like your ladder a lot more.

 

Well done.

 

Stosh

[Sentinel947]

I looked at the ladder thing and it brings up some questions. For the top level it says the adults won't step in unless it's a safety issue. When it comes to bad decisions that's fine as long the the result of the bad decision is timely. Forget food? Hunger. But what about decisions that aren't very timely. Let's say the scouts decide no new Webelos this year? Or maybe a decision just goes against the grain of scouting, such as not camping anymore, or not helping the younger scouts, or the flag ceremonies have become a joke. Or maybe just a PL being a butt. What's the feedback that addresses those issues? Some of those cases could be handled by scouts that think something is wrong. What's the mechanism to do that?. But there are also things that maybe only the SM sees. I agree with Barry that the SM is the keeper of the flame, so they ultimately do have say in decisions. So can any troop ever get to that top level? Or am I just reading this wrong?

The infographic isn't perfect. I like the system you put together Matt. I posted the infographic from Scoutmastercg.com because it illustrates the point I wanted to make, that Boy Leadership isn't a on/off switch, and it's a progression that both the Scouts and the Adults have to make together.

 

 

 

In your system the unit I serve is somewhere between step 3 and step 2.

 

 

 

But I agree with the infographic that I posted in many regards, some troops really do operate where adults make the decisions and the Scouts are just along for the ride.

 

 

 

Sentinel947

[Tampa Turtle]

I hate when some boys screw up or are lazy and it impacts the whole Troop with a bad experience. On the other hand when the boys do it and things go smoothly it is easy to forget "hey they got it taken care of!".

Stosh you NAILED it. Just came back from a campout with many key leadership POR's AWOL. Some of them rarely show up on campout and when you discuss how they may not get their needed POR some of their parents are pushy monsters. A few of them are old Eagle Dad's who push their sons to Eagle and have NEVER helped out as ASM, MBC, or CC. Our SM refused to sign off on scout spirit for one boy and the Dad threatened to go over his head to the Council exec to get it signed off like he did "at the other Troop".

[Tampa Turtle]

I think it is interesting in looking at the Ladder how our Patrols are different. They each have had consistent cultures that seem to 'stick' even with changes of membership over the years. People are funny that way.

[Stosh]

I think it is interesting in looking at the Ladder how our Patrols are different. They each have had consistent cultures that seem to 'stick' even with changes of membership over the years. People are funny that way.

Once you understand group dynamics and how it affects the individuals (mob mentality) you can see why there are differences in the patrols. If everyone in the patrol is gung-ho on scouting, pick any scout and toss him into the mix, he'll take on those characteristics. And if one has a slacker patrol, take your best scout toss him into the mix and he'll get tired of beating his head against the wall and become a slacker, too.

 

One also has to be careful with definitions when it comes to this issue. A certain amount of fuzzy logic can be applied to give a false reading on what shade of gray we're dealing with. To assume that a troop is boy-led or adult-led is pretty black and white and for the most part all troops fall somewhere in the gray area in between, probably neither as the dynamics change. In some respect the troop may be boy-led and in other respects adult-led. The thread was designed to evaluate where in the gray area someone's troop may fall.

 

Stosh

[Tampa Turtle]

Back to the thread. I think we are a mix, Trying to move toward a boy led--sure not an even journey. We found the boys liked planning the program but not the work of running the program. So parts of it fall apart and other boys vote with their feet.

[MattR]

The ladder idea is good in that it can help the troop see where it is and figure out how to move forward. Tampa makes a good point in that changing too much at once will cause so much failure that scouts will walk. And that's why adults jump in and rescue the scouts. "They aren't advancing, they don't have paper towels, I'll just fix the problem for them." Then we're back to square one. Maybe rather than fix the problem the adults should just note the problem and talk to the PLC.

 

I'm going to take my set of ladders and give it to the SPL and ask him to define the responsibilities of the scouts and adults. I'll encourage him to bite off more responsibility for the scouts. I'll let him decide how much change he can handle at a time.

[Stosh]

The ladder idea is good in that it can help the troop see where it is and figure out how to move forward. Tampa makes a good point in that changing too much at once will cause so much failure that scouts will walk. And that's why adults jump in and rescue the scouts. "They aren't advancing, they don't have paper towels, I'll just fix the problem for them." Then we're back to square one. Maybe rather than fix the problem the adults should just note the problem and talk to the PLC.

 

I'm going to take my set of ladders and give it to the SPL and ask him to define the responsibilities of the scouts and adults. I'll encourage him to bite off more responsibility for the scouts. I'll let him decide how much change he can handle at a time.

As I mentioned and as Barry referred to, it depends heavily on the maturity/beliefs of the adults. Are they willing to help the boys move from light grey to dark grey. I don't think it is a measurable status in any one troop, but a journey of which direction the troop is trying to head. With Barry's point, the real stickler may be the adults and not the boys and all the problems they have to face. It's one thing for them to take on more leadership and yet another to have the adults step back and let them. What is really sad is when the boy are struggling more with the adults than they are on developing a good program for themselves. I learned early on, that if given the opportunity, many youth will literally surprise you with what they are willing and wanting to do.

 

Sounds like you are on the right path and best of luck with your efforts and be sure to congratulate the boys every positive step they make. Ignore most of the stumbles, they are expected and needed to grow. Don't tell them, but you can be a welcomed safety-net for them when they need it. But remember, when they end up in the net, they have to crawl back out and head up again on their own. The net only saves them, it doesn't correct the problem. That's up to them.

 

Stosh

[Kudu]

Clarke Green writes:

 

""We could return to the same campsite ten times a year and do ten different things, or the same thing each time, but in the end applying the patrol system is all that really matters... Some Scoutmasters complain if patrol leaders choose the same activities from year to year, there are a few that require they don’t repeat anything from one year to the next. I don’t see any appreciable difference between a camping trip to a local park where patrols are functioning at a high level, cooking, hiking, playing games, and a ... big exciting activity or challenging adventure..."

http://www.scoutmastercg.com/what-do-scouts-decide/

 

I don't see any appreciable difference either. Troop camping in a manicured park, and most "High Adventure" activities are Troop events.

 

It was BSA camping in local parks that inspired Baden-Powell to coin the term "Parlour Scouting."

 

Now leadership skills have brought us full circle.

 

 

What makes me sad is that leadership enthusiasts like Clark Green have begun to use Baden-Powell's term "Patrol System" to refer to the leadership skills "Troop Method."

 

As most of you know Baden-Powell's Patrol System is run by the Patrol Leaders. There are no "Boards of Review" or "Scoutmaster Conferences," and the Troop committee is not indoor moms and dads, but the Patrol Leaders themselves. When "Patrol System" Patrols camp as a Troop, they camp at least 300 feet apart, but the real business of the Patrol System's Patrol Leader is to lead his Patrol into the woods without other Patrols.

 

The purpose of a Patrol is to go out on patrol.

 

 

Period.

 

Because Troop Method Patrols are not trained to patrol, Troop campouts become the Troop Method's big event, the place to "gain very advanced leadership skills with independent authority to determine direction."

 

The irony here is that in Baden-Powell's "Patrol System," Troop campouts are a place where Patrol Leaders relax a bit, set the theme for the weekend, but can delegate the details to the Scouters including (believe it or not) the menu!

 

In Bruce Tuckman's Wood Badge, Scouting in its highest form is doing the same thing year after year if it means "youth leaders" (ugh) "gain very advanced leadership skills with independent authority to determine direction" (ugh).

 

But Scouters' training in the real Patrol System is all about Baden-Powell's Wood Badge. The idea here is that Troop campouts provide the opportunity for Patrol Leaders to learn from the Scouters' example.

 

See, for instance, John Thurman's "fly on the ceiling" account of a Patrol Leaders meeting in the real "Patrol System:"

 

PL Woodpeckers: We talked this over in the Patrol and we suggest that one meal should be Backwoods Cooking, preferably Saturday night's supper.

　

SPL: All right, what do you others think of that?

　

PL Cuckoos: I think it's a rotten idea. Last time we tried it I didn't get any supper at all.

　

SPL: Ron, what do you think?

　

PL Pigeons: I'm all for it: I'm not too sure about the Patrol though, but I'll ask them.

　

SPL: Who's going to arrange it? I wonder if the ASM could have the right sort of food available?

　

ASM: Yes, I can do that. Will you just leave it to me or does anybody want to suggest anything in particular?

　

PL Owls: I'd only say that it is a rotten time of the year for eating rabbits and I hope they won't be on the menu.

　

ASM: All right, Tom; duly noted. It will probably be hedgehog instead.

 

 

(John Thurman)

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/court_honor/coh_session.htm