New Chief Executive Announced

[Gone]

I wouldn't expect him to muck about with changes in principle. I would expect him to point out what's working in one part of the country and encourage the rest of us to get on board.

 

What if the other parts of the country don't want to get on board?

[desertrat77]

Skeptic, I'm tracking with you...I'm a skeptic and cynic as well.   Based on what I've read in the thread thus far, I'll put on my "positive" hat for a moment and say that Mr. Surbaugh's selection seems like a good thing.

 

His background and age indicate he was chosen over a large group of more senior execs (who were no doubt groomed/posed for "their turn" as chief exec), who are probably all a) older and b) set in their ways (for good or ill).

 

If this is the case, the selection process showed courage in not selecting several old timers whose careers were all supposed to culminate with a shot at or selection as chief exec.  

Edited May 14, 2015 by desertrat77

[desertrat77]

@@RememberSchiff, thanks for the detail on this guy.

 

So the original post was...

 

 

I'll push the topic with this: Does BSA need a guy who is essentially a home-grown BSA person, spent his life in BSA and has a degree in non-profit management? Or does BSA need someone from the outside with fresh ideas and a proven track record of successful business acumen BUT is deeply knowledgeable about BSA processes, procedures and policies?

 

The former will know more but comes with all the assumed baggage. That latter will not have the internal baggage but may not have the depth of knowledge of the former. Which does BSA need right now?

Bad Wolf, good morning, wish I had read your post above before I posted mine, because you are right.  If the BSA wants a true fresh start, they'd bring an innovator from outside.   Still, I'm moderately impressed that National actually chose a younger exec over the  long list of more senior execs who are probably more entrenched and thought they had a shot at it because "it was their turn."  

[LeCastor]

Declaration of Religious Priniciples

 

 

 

Thanks, Q!

[LeCastor]

Discussion about whether or not to bring in an outsider or stay with an insider is interesting.  The latter has the risk of keeping things insular and perpetuating the "good old boys club" we've heard about recently.  The former runs the risk of having someone who is too unfamiliar with the Movement that they rub people the wrong way.

 

How do you find a middle ground?  Perhaps ya'll are right that a younger CSE is the best route...

 

While I know some here don't advocate for change, I think being progressive and evolving with the times is a necessity.  Isolating the BSA from change is dangerous for future membership; yes, yes, I know some will retort that change will drive existing members away.  We all know that change isn't always easy but, let's be honest, things can't stay the same forever.

Edited May 14, 2015 by LeCastor

[desertrat77]

LeCastor, good points all.   Change is necessary.   But my beef with many of the BSA's changes over the years is that the changes dispensed with traditional, outdoor-oriented, successful aspects of scouting (think '72/ISP, and plenty of stuff like it since), and then adopted uninspiring/indoor/top-heavy programs. 

 

The kicker:   though many of these initiatives didn't work by any objective, measurable standard, the BSA would double-down and kept them anyway (just changing stage scenery a bit)...and then proceeded to move further away from its successful yet timeliness selling points.

 

True, bringing in an outsider is tough.   I'd really like to see it, but given that the BSA is a huge bureaucracy above the unit level, there would be a lot of passive-aggressive foot dragging and sabotage by staffers, just enduring the new guy/gal till his/her tenure was over.   Then back to the old agenda.

 

I hope Mr. Surbaugh can balance it all.

Edited May 14, 2015 by desertrat77

[LeCastor]

 Change is necessary.   But my beef with many of the BSA's changes over the years is that the changes dispensed with traditional, outdoor-oriented, successful aspects of scouting (think '72/ISP, and plenty of stuff like it since), and then adopted uninspiring/indoor/top-heavy programs. 

 

 

 

Desert, absolutely!  I definitely share that beef.  We need a new Green Bar Bill, don't you think??  

[Fehler]

I'd be more concerned by Surbough's insider status if the BSA President was an insider, also.  Otherwise, meh.

[BDPT00]

This is why we have a key-3.  At the district level, the chair can be a community-connected guy with little Scouting experience.  That person runs the district with the executive there to keep things running according to Hoyle.  We have Robert Gates as that person at the national level (even though he has a Scouting background).  Mike is there to carry out the decisions of the executive board.  That's pretty basic, and doesn't address the power of the exec position, but bringing in an outsider wouldn't make much sense to me.  We need a pro with a proven track record.  I think it's a good choice.

[Gone]

LeCastor, good points all.   Change is necessary.   But my beef with many of the BSA's changes over the years is that the changes dispensed with traditional, outdoor-oriented, successful aspects of scouting (think '72/ISP, and plenty of stuff like it since), and then adopted uninspiring/indoor/top-heavy programs. 

 

The kicker:   though many of these initiatives didn't work by any objective, measurable standard, the BSA would double-down and kept them anyway (just changing stage scenery a bit)...and then proceeded to move further away from its successful yet timeliness selling points.

 

 

@@desertrat77 hits the nail on the head. BSA has a track record of making decisions that have not always had a positive impact on the scouting program. They tend to go of fishing expeditions rather than executing a well thought out strategic and tactical plan. They run BSA very much like a non-profit organization...something that anyone with private/corporate management experience AND non-profit experience knows is not a good thing.

 

Mike is there to carry out the decisions of the executive board.  That's pretty basic, and doesn't address the power of the exec position, but bringing in an outsider wouldn't make much sense to me.  We need a pro with a proven track record.  I think it's a good choice.

 

According to what was posted, this position is akin to the CEO role. This is WAY more than simply to "carry out the decisions of the executive board". You're confused with the Chairman of the Board position. The CEO is responsible for the overall health and well-being of the company -- all facets of the company, not merely executing what the board decides; that's only one part of his job. To use the non-profit model, this role is more like the executive director.

 

If you want corporate growth across programs, an outsider would help a great deal with that. A good CEO would put in place people who know their various areas (i.e., BSA program detail) so that they (the CEO) would not need to be fluent in that detail, but rather would have the right people in place to address and implement his vision.

 

You can bet that this guy was hired for a reason. He must be on board with whatever the strategic vision of the board is, otherwise he would not have gotten the role. What that means for the future of BSA I suspect we will find out soon enough. 

 

 

I'd be more concerned by Surbough's insider status if the BSA President was an insider, also.  Otherwise, meh.

 

 

The pres has little power. They manage the board. The real power is the CEO role. If the CEO decides to switch to blue uniforms and the president doesn't, the pres can encourage the board to support his view but if he does not have the votes the organization goes with the CEO's course.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Bad Wolf

[RememberSchiff]

Times change. Maybe the BSA program will change towards STEM as more of our members have a background, confidence, and interest in STEM. At a recent troop meeting (plan was knife and ax), about 1/3 remembered to bring their knife but they all remembered their smartphone.

 

Calling Bill Nye?

 

My 1 bitcoin,

[desertrat77]

Desert, absolutely!  I definitely share that beef.  We need a new Green Bar Bill, don't you think??  

LeCastor, I'm all for the next GBB!   What intrigues me is the possibility that several people out there in the BSA, right now, could take on that role.   It's just a matter of the BSA adopting a strategic sense that such a person--and their commitment to the BSA's outdoor heritage--would be welcomed and championed.

 

It would be a challenge because the BSA gave a lot of ground over the last couple decades to scouters at all levels that favor meetings, indoor activities and paperwork.

[LeCastor]

@@desertrat77, so in addition to a new CSE perhaps we should also have a National Director of Scoutcraft.  Who would be our next Green Bar Bill?  What role would he/she play in today's BSA?

[Stosh]

@@desertrat77, so in addition to a new CSE perhaps we should also have a National Director of Scoutcraft.  Who would be our next Green Bar Bill?  What role would he/she play in today's BSA?

 

It'll never happen.  It is my opinion that that ship has sailed and BSA will now simply wait out the old guard and do whatever it wants.

 

It's kinda like football.  Used to be leather helmets, no face guards, few pads.  Now even the pressure in the football is regulated and monitored.  Or baseball... When Casey hit the ball it cracked, now it dings.  Or hockey, you used to be able to pick the goalie out of the crowd.

 

50 years from now, you won't be able to even recognize the program as a outdoor program.

[Eagledad]

I guess I'm a bit more methodical on this. As a numbers person, I know the BSA has internal problems that far far out weigh uniforms and local option (uniforms?). For the past 15 years posters have been proclaiming that allowing gays would change the trend of lowering numbers. Yet, there was no evidence to suggest it. However, we can track declines by policy changes, specifically in Cubs. I haven't seen the numbers the last two years, but I'm quite confident that allowing gay scouts didn't fix the declining trend. Now we think, the local option will do the trick?

 

I'm with the guys who want to get back to the adventure. While I don't think allowing patrols to camp without adults will change most troop programs, it is indicative of National going back to the outdoors. And, a simpler cub program that the average adult can manage on a couple hours a week will help reduce the burnout problem that is killing us. The BSA looses more than 50% of 2nd year Webelos. 1st year Webelos and Bears aren't that far behind. And most of that is attributed adult leader burnout.

 

All that being said, I'm not confident a new executive chief can even see the real problem in two years, much less fix it.

 

A bold move would be to shake up the lower ranks National a bit to find those with a passion for the vision again.

 

Barry