Now Arriving, the Return of the Lion

[Stosh]

I was hoping that by starting a thread of it''s own on burn out, this topic would not be hijacked.  But alas,'twas but wishful thinking.

 

No, people don't burn out because they are among the 10% that volunteer.  They burn out because expectations keep growing until the tipping point says enough is enough and then everything, even the things they totally enjoy doing are discarded.  Is it not true that once we have a willing volunteer, they become the go-to person when something else needs doing?  They are the caring ones that wish to make things go well for others and thus become easy prey to pounce on when more work is needed to be done.  Sure, it would be easy for them to say NO, but we all know that they won't, because they are.... wait for it.... the caring ones.  They are taken advantage of by authoritarian managers who's only goal is to get the job done and who have no idea what taking care of their people is all about, nor are they interested in helping people at all time.  So we just have these people hang in there doing the best they can, feeling guilty that everything's not getting done, the program is being harmed and they feel guilty for that too and when they can't take it anymore, they quit. 

 

Do I have that about right?

[Sentinel947]

I was hoping that by starting a thread of it''s own on burn out, this topic would not be hijacked.  But alas,'twas but wishful thinking.

 

No, people don't burn out because they are among the 10% that volunteer.  They burn out because expectations keep growing until the tipping point says enough is enough and then everything, even the things they totally enjoy doing are discarded.  Is it not true that once we have a willing volunteer, they become the go-to person when something else needs doing?  They are the caring ones that wish to make things go well for others and thus become easy prey to pounce on when more work is needed to be done.  Sure, it would be easy for them to say NO, but we all know that they won't, because they are.... wait for it.... the caring ones.  They are taken advantage of by authoritarian managers who's only goal is to get the job done and who have no idea what taking care of their people is all about, nor are they interested in helping people at all time.  So we just have these people hang in there doing the best they can, feeling guilty that everything's not getting done, the program is being harmed and they feel guilty for that too and when they can't take it anymore, they quit. 

 

Do I have that about right?

I'd say partially right. There's a bunch of people involved in these scenarios. A few I've seen:

 

You definitely have people who are serial volunteers, and can't say no. (I'm one of those people!!!!). Those folks are really prone to burn out. These are some of the best volunteers, but can also be prone to accepting responsibilities they cannot deliver on. I agree with your description. 

 

Next is the Sniper. They shoot passive-aggressive, or even well meaning advice, but when the work needs to be done, they have an excuse ready, or are conspicuously absent. This is generally a parent who isn't a volunteer, but it can be anybody. 

 

The Boss is somewhat like you've described Stosh. We had an old CC who wanted to tell the Scoutmasters how everything should be done, but hadn't been to a camping trip in over 5 years. He was so removed from the program he'd lost the on-the-ground reality. I've not yet seen the Boss in a Scout Troop that is so process oriented they don't care about people. (I have seen it in the workplace.)

 

The Helper. They take one a few small jobs here or there. These are the folks that we need to engage into the bigger roles, as long as it fits their personality, skills and life situation. 

 

The Outsider: They might become a volunteer, but they think everything is going well. They are the kind that drops their kid off every week and cuts the checks, but that's about the extent of their involvement. Getting them to step into the mix is really hard unless there is some kind of crisis going on where the need is super obvious. 

 

Anybody got anything to add? Corrections? These are my observations from my Troop. YMMV

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Sentinel947
Silly College student...Their and there are two different words. They have two different meanings that are too different to be used interchangeably.

[Stosh]

@@Sentinel947, I will go along with the Serial Volunteers, idea because these people are the ones that are the only ones that really take seriously taking care of other people at all times.  I, too, am involved as a serial volunteer.  I am a UC, I am a SM, I'm looking into working once again as a CA, I am signed on as an adult leader in my local church youth program, I volunteer weekly for the American Red Cross, I donate blood on a regular basis and I ring bells every year for the Salvation Army.    and I don't burn out.

 

According to my definition of leadership and the principles of the Scout Oath, none of the other people are leaders.  What's the motivation for the drive-by Sniper?  the Boss,  the for-show Helper or the Observer?  Are any of these people interested in anything other than themselves, their image or their small world in which they live?  These people are not part of the Scouting program.  And when it comes down to the bottom line, does one really want them as volunteers?

 

One of the reasons why I prefer people who have had scouting backgrounds is many of them understand what helping other people at all times really means and they have applied those long ago dynamics to the way they live their lives.  It could have been generated and nurtured through other programs such as 4-H, church, school and community programs, but they all have a genuine love of taking care of others besides themselves.

 

In our Me-Generation people and the modern millenials, the focus is on oneself, one's own success, one's own career path, or what's best for their situation.  If those are the people that make up the 90% out there, I would prefer they stay out there.  I can do more with 10% of true leaders than running around begging the 90% others out there to care..

 

When I go looking for volunteers the #1 requirement is not whether or not they can do the job, but whether or not they care about what they are doing for others.  The job can be taught, caring can't.

[fred johnson]

and honestly, if anyone asked me..... I would probably suggest against signing up their son for the Tiger year.... certainly not Lion!

the only exception might be tiger, if the pack had a perpetual tiger den leader - such as a retired school teacher, that had plenty of time, was great with little kids, etc... then they would prob be able to really make for a fun program, rather than some new parent trying to figure it out as they go...

 

I've given that same advice.  Heck, I had 15 years of Cub Scouts and now 12 years of Boy Scouts ... and counting ...  It got to the point I looked for excuses to not sit through another pack meeting. 

 

I've given advice and I do recommend not starting until Wolf or even Bear.  IMHO, you get full value out of the program by waiting until the Bear year.  

 

The big value is when scouts start to be old enough when they detach from their parents.  

 

If I had to do it again, my boys would join in 2nd or 3rd grade.

Edited February 29, 2016 by fred johnson

[Eagledad]

A pack in our district dropped the Tiger program completely. After five years without Tigers, their numbers were the same as the numbers six years previous with the Tigers. 

 

Barry

[Stosh]

I know it's hard on adults with the Tiger/Lion addition, but what about the boys?  How does the impact of some of the boys being Tiger/Lions and others not?  Do they feel they have missed out on something along the way?

 

I guess I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, but I can appreciate the fact that the expectations of adults in this new format might be different than the results experienced by the boys involved.

 

Sure if the pack offers no Tiger/Lions, then everyone misses out and the boys are none the wiser, but if offered and some held their boys back and others didn't, how are the boys themselves going to react to having maybe been left out?

[fred johnson]

BSA needs to think beyond the membership issue and the $$ revenue needed and start looking at providing quality improvements for the struggling programs already in place.  A temporary membership fix/boost at the Lion's level will only prove to the parents the program isn't what it was advertised in the first place.  People put their children into youth programs for others to maintain.  They themselves don't want to run the program, they are paying to have their child in the program.  It's like buying a season ticket to the ski hill or a membership in the YMCA.  My kid will learn to ski and swim, but I'm not the one teaching it, that's what I'm paying for.

 

You are on the right track with the needs out there to fix up the program.  I just don't see BSA doing anything to provide the expertise to get it done well.  They simply add a new age level, print new books, sell new materials, take on new members and then let the Packs and the Pack leadership figure out how to survive the influx of new boys. 

 

BSA will kill the program with short term fixes by chasing numbers in a weaker part of the program that costs membership in the core program.  

[fred johnson]

I know it's hard on adults with the Tiger/Lion addition, but what about the boys?  How does the impact of some of the boys being Tiger/Lions and others not?  Do they feel they have missed out on something along the way?

 

I've talked with 100+ boys working on their Eagle rank.  We've talked about their scouting career.  Not a single one has mentioned anything interesting from Tiger.  Only near comment is about Pinewood derby but then again they do that in their 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade, 4th grade and sometimes 5th grade.   Beyond that, no significant impact.

[Stosh]

I've talked with 100+ boys working on their Eagle rank.  We've talked about their scouting career.  Not a single one has mentioned anything interesting from Tiger.  Only near comment is about Pinewood derby but then again they do that in their 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade, 4th grade and sometimes 5th grade.   Beyond that, no significant impact.

 

Eagle scouts are many moons separated from showing up for Cub Scouts with your brand new scout shirt and the guy next to you has patches and bling dripping all over it  and there's a story of adventure behind each one and all you have is the council strip and troop number on yours.

 

Just sayin'  ....

[Eagledad]

As I said, the pack that took out their Tiger program has had no issues. But if you are really worried that scouts may feel they are missing by not doing tigers, then you aren't taking the adult burnout issue seriously or you just don't believe five years in Cub Scouts burns adults out. 

 

I understand, sometimes these things take a while to understand. 

 

Barry

[Stosh]

Scouting is for the boys so I wasn't talking about the boys burning out.  The adult burn out issue is irrelevant.  If some adult has a bad experience with scouting and the organization failed to support them properly, that's not the fault of the boys.  The unit just needs to focus on a major adult recruitment push at say the Wolf/Bear break or Bear/Webelos break.  Maybe if the adults were supported properly the whole issue would simply go away regardless of how long the program lasts.

 

I also said the pack that took out the Tiger program would not produce an inequality with the boys in the unit.  They all miss out equally is not the same as some did and some didn't.

 

I hope this adds clarity to the comments made or at least helps get everyone on the same page a bit.

[Krampus]

Most of the kids I talk with see CS as a blur. They cannot really recall which year they did anything, except for maybe Webelos.

 

I'll be if you ask most kids what they did in first grade or kindergarten, few (if any) could describe anything meaningful from those years...so it is not just Scouts.

[Stosh]

I think that might be more the problem with how the program was run than it has to do with the concept to begin with.

 

My son is now in his 30's but I bet if I were to ask him if he remembers some of the activities he did as a Tiger he would remember.  I remember them!

 

Back then the program had no DL.  Each parent of their Tiger planned one activity for the boys to do.  Some went on a hike, another had a field trip to a place that rehabilitated injured birds of prey, we toured the library, we toured the airport including going up into the control tower and watched the luggage get handled behind the scenes, we visited the police and fire stations, TV station, and pretty much had a blast, both Cub and parent.

 

This was back in the day when the Tigers wore orange t-shirts and there wasn't any big hoopla about program structure.  I don't even remember if the Tigers even went to the Pack meetings and I know they didn't get any bling to hang on their t-shirts.  

 

I'm thinking my son and I were extremely fortunate to get in early enough in the program to miss out on what it has become.

 

Oooh, oooh, I forgot one.  One of the parents took us to the university and we got a private program just for first grade boys at the school's planetarium.  How I could have forgotten that one is beyond me.  Must be my old age and it was 30+ years ago. 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Stosh

[Sentinel947]

I skipped Tigers. I remember my Cub Scout overnight. Our Den visited Voice of Americas broadcast station in town. I remember Crossover. That's it. I was a cub 2002-2005.

[Eagledad]

The reason the BSA created Tigers was to compete against the Campfire program that started recruiting boys in the first grade. 

 

Barry