Patrol leader election questions

[Adamcp]

Hoping for some advice.

 

Troop had been mostly run in a "Troop Method" in the prior few years. There were "patrols", but they were rather meaningless for all intents and purposes. I've been the Scoutmaster for the past 18 months or so, and based upon wisdom gleaned here and elsewhere, including ItOLS, I saw the potential for facilitating the patrol method more fully.

 

The good news is that the past year's SPL had gone through NYLT, is very active in scouting, and wanted to have a more true patrol method as well. Add to that, four solid and active Patrol Leaders, and we have made good strides. So much so, that a bunch of boys who were languishing have re engaged and have earned First Class. Patrol cooking has definitely been a new and wonderful experience for the boys (sad it was so long in coming).

 

One more important variable. We just crossed over 18 Webelos last week. Yup, eighteen to add to our 36. I anticipate 10-12 sticking (younger brothers of some of the boy scouts, and boys I knew from Cub Scout days when I was the Cubmaster, so I predict 10-12). So the current Scouts wanted to add a fifth patrol, and I agree with them. I kinda think it's their call, though the idea that they could make this decision on their own was a wholly new idea for them.

 

Even though it may upset the apple cart, it does feel like it is time to have new elections for Patrol Leaders. 1) The current four PLs have had the job for one year. 2) There are a bunch of boys who are First Class now and are talking about interest in leadership. And 3) we have a new patrol to set up. The boys want to reorganize all the patrols. Makes sense to me, especially since one patrol has had much poorer attendance than the other three (not due to the PL, in my humble opinion).

 

Some adult scouters (already we have a problem, I know), are advocating moving these four PL boys out, making them Troop Guides, and having them part of the Senior Patrol. They want to clear out leadership opportunities for the boys who are coming up behind the current four PLs. In fact, the current SPL wants this idea, as well. He wants more boys in the Senior Patrol. I think this idea is a throwback to the Troop Method of the past. The Senior Patrol was/is a bunch of older boys with no real leadership roles and poor participation and attendance. Great guys, but poor leadership clarity. Their roles are quite loose and unfocused. I think the Senior Patrol would be better kept small, and keep almost all the Scouts in patrols. And therefore keep these four active and solid scouts (who have been the PL) in the patrols.

 

So I would think one option would be for the current four PL boys to be given the chance to run for PL again, and let to boys decide from among the ten eligible (the troop has always had a rule of PL needing to be First Class, is this normal?) Scouts. "Okay boys, here are 10 names, pick the five Scouts who you feel would be the best Patrol Leaders"). Then let the boys organize their five patrols around these five leaders. Pros: you may get the five overall best leaders. And if any of the current four PLs is reelected, you get some consistency.

 

Well, that's the opposite of a lot of what I read, which would recommend to have the boys divide up into five patrols, and then have the boys elect their leader from within the patrol. Might not get the best five leaders. Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't. Having so many brand new Scouts, it feels important, but maybe I am wrong. Since the boys have made strides this year, I'd hope they would take another step forward, since it feels there is still a long way to go.

 

As I re-read before posting, I actually have two separate issues:

1) would you intervene regarding having the four current PLs run again if they want the position (or would you pave the way for new boys to have an opportunity)?

2) either way, would you elect the five highest vote getters from a general election of eligible scouts and then organize patrols around these five boy leaders, or would you organize five patrols and then have the patrols elect from within? Would you let the boys decide, since it is their patrols? I am all about letting boys learn from their mistakes, but one also wants a strong program within which to truly learn from both successes and failures.

 

Or am I missing something else entirely?

[Stosh]

Okay, here's the scoop from way out in La La Land.  I don't really count in the grand scheme of things, but then I don't seem to have as many problems as others either.  So take that with a grain of salt.

 

As long as one is currently in a major transition, here's my solution.

 

Put all the boys in one room.  Give them the instructions.  Patrols are to be 6-8 boys, It is up to each patrol to have a PL.  When you have arranged that set up, come out and let me know what you've decided.

 

It takes all the adult recommendations, concerns, angst, frustration, interference, etc. and keeps it out of the way of the boys.  Trust them to do what they think is right for them.

 

If all four PL"s were great PL's they should come out with PL positions, if not someone else will  It should be of no concern of the adults what the boys pick.

 

With the number of patrols that might form, the boys may wish to have an SPL, a SENIOR PL who will assist the PL's with their operations in their patrols.  This person ideally would be selected by the PL's who would be relying on him for his assistance as needed.  The PL's are selected by the patrol members as the boy to help the patrol be successful, the SPL should be selected by the PL's as the boy to help the PL's be successful.

 

Once that has been decided, start teaching the boys about leadership and not just management.  It sounds as if there are some envy going on here and a tremendous misconception of what leadership is.  There is more to leadership than having a leadership title. 

 

Let's say out of the  36+12 boys - 48 that makes 6 patrols.  Five in reality and one Leadership Corps "patrol". 

 

1 SPL (LC)

1 ASPL (PL of the Leadership Corps (LC) group)

5 PL

5 APL

1 Troop QM (LC)

1 Troop Scribe (LC)

2 TG (LC or with patrol) (for the new boys if they happen to group together)

5 Instructors (one from each patrol)

1 Chaplain Aide (LC)

 

Okay, that's 22 boys in direct leadership positions that are obvious at first glance,  We're getting close to half the boys needing to produce leadership skills and be functional.  And if the 5 APL's complain that they don't get POR credit for APL work, just ask them if they are doing it to get rank advancement or to help their patrol.  If they say rank advancement, get someone else in there who will be a functional leader.

 

Then train these people to actually do their job and take care of those that they are responsible for taking care of.  If a APL won't work double time to make his PL look good and be successful, he has no business being an APL, or any other position for that matter.

 

So here's how it works, dump them in a room, let them sort themselves out, pick a basic leader (PL) and when they come out ask if there's going to be an SPL, ASPL, QM, Scribe, CA, etc.  LET THEM TELL YOU WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN and simply record their decision.

 

Remember if it doesn't work out, it's not your fault.  If it doesn't work out it's theirs and it's up to them to make it work.  They may need to shuffle around for a few months until they get everything working, but LET THEM do the sorting and shuffling.   If they make a change, just say, Okay and make the changes in the system.  Don't make it a big deal.

 

Most adults over think this process when it's really not their problem in the first place.  I don't think about it at all and I have no problem with the structure of my troop's patrol organization.  The boys do at various time, but I don't. 

Edited April 27, 2016 by Stosh

[qwazse]

I have never seen an adult-managed solution surpass a scout managed solution.

Simple rules: no PL should ever be asked to step aside by anyone except the boys in his patrol. If things aren't working, the boys may propose a change at any time. If the boys involved in the change are in agreement, support them.

 

If the Rat Pack patrol wants to continue with Frank as their leader until he ages out, let them,

If Dean and Sammy want to take on six new scouts each and with them start two new patrols of mostly crossovers, give them your blessing.

If the Panzer patrol really hasn't gelled, and wants to split and join the two pretty cool patrols, and everyone agrees, you win.

If Jason is standing out from all the rest, would like someone else be SPL, and just wants to help the troop or his district, offer him JASM.

 

It continues to amaze me the number of adults who believe every scout should have a turn at a POR with "Leader" in the title.

[blw2]

I pretty much agree with Stosh and qwazse (but I will qualify that I am not an experienced SM, only an energized scouter that has put a whole lot of thought and research into all of this stuff)

I would add perhaps, that a bit of prep and guidance should be given to the current PLC before the big "shakeup"

... in that they should be given some clear guidelines... such as in patrols should be roughly 6-8 boys AND what the various PORs are that should be filled...both of which have already been laid out here....

and I'd add perhaps, that a bit of an outline of a "few options" should be given or pointed out to the PLC (taking great care to point out the options of structure in the handbook and so on, without bias or suggestion)

 

I would say that if the existing patrols didn't really want to mix things up completely... As in maybe a scout or two wanted to shift to other patrols, but the core of every patrol wants to just stay together.... then they might consider things like a NSP

But since your webelos are already scouts and in the troop.... and if they on the other hand wanted to totally shake everything up, throw everyone into a room to completely shake out a new set of patrols form scratch

 

Either way, having been made aware of options they can then have some tools to consider (such as a NSP, or that patrols can stay together forever, or patrols can be completely shaken up on some fixed interval if they would rather, etc..). 

My thinking is that the scouts can't really come up with their best solution if they don't know the rules and the possibilities.

 

I am definitely a minority here, but i believe in the concept of a new scout patrol _BUT ONLY when defined as a patrol of scouts that all just happen to be new. (not this forced arrangement as the BSA is currently defining it)  I have yet to read or hear any points that sway me from that idea.... that there is nothing wrong with a group of same or similar aged scouts if that's what shakes out.  In fact I contend that it often probably makes sense for all or most of these new crossovers for example to stay in a permanent patrol together.... they are all similar age, with similar interest and abilities, and probably would have the most fun "hanging' with each other.  Every failure I have read about seem to be failures in implementation of what should IMO be a free and natural thing.

[TAHAWK]

A patrol is a small, largely self-selected  team of friends who, under the leadership of a Scout they elect,  experience a Scouting program they collectively plan.

 

"You set up a structure—six to eight Scouts—and let them figure it out,’ he says.

      . . .

‘Boys are going to want to stick together if you can use their friendships to put together a team.’

  

                  B.S.A., Scouting (May-June 2012)(quoting child psychologist   Dr. Brett Laursen )

[qwazse]

@@Adamcp, I generally agree with @@TAHAWK that an SM's best strategy is to stick to the standard BSA mantra.

 

If the SM is willing to be flexible and let the boys self-organize with absolutely no stipulations as to which youth can be elected PL/SPL, he and his ASMs will have a more fulfilling adventure in scouting.

 

This doesn't mean that things will be all roses. For a while, we had a time of it because the boys outright refused to segregate into patrols. They "liked each other too much." Deep down, I think this was a response to tragedy. And the boys needed to grow up and find their separate ways outside of scouting to realize they could still be united around their lost buddy. So, they aligned themselves on paper, and organized accordingly at summer camp, but by day 4 they abandoned their respective sites and set up pioneer bunks on the lake shore. Now that the youngest of that bunch are the oldest in the current troop, they see the sense in stable divisions.

[Eagle94-A1]

Everyone has said what I would. But this one line says it best IMHO:

 

"I have never seen an adult-managed solution surpass a scout managed solution."

 

underlining bold and larger font are for emphasis.

 

As you can read in other theads, my troop is adult lead, and it has problems. So much so that we are completely reorganizing the troop on Monday. IMHO 99.99999% of those problems are the result of adult interference, and I will put myself in the problem category too. While I may not agree 100% with what is going on regarding the changes, I do believe it's a big step in the right direction, and can lead to the changes I want to see occur. The issue as I see it is getting the naysayers aboard to Scout run.

 

Another troop is in worse shape than mine. they are completely adult led, loosing members, and are slowly dying.  All because the SM won't give responsibility and authority to the Scouts.

[Stosh]

I have said it many times before, and I'll say it again.  I have often wondered why I don't seem to have the myriad of problems others seem to be having with their troops, their structures, their discipline issues, their adult interference problems, etc. etc. etc.  Yeah, I don't do things the way everyone else does them, but then for some reason I don't have their problems either. 

 

The only time I got into "trouble" was in my former troop where the parents had me removed from SM, "because the boys were expected to do too much leadership."  Their words verbatim, not mine. 

 

And on the other hand that reason is why the Council came to me and asked me to set up a new troop using the boy-led emphasis.  And why another district in the council came to me and asked me to set up a regional Venturing Crew for their people, too.

 

Some people "get it" and some don't.

[Beavah]

Hiya Adamcc!

 

Da notion of rotatin' leadership positions or clearin' out leadership positions or havin' a "senior patrol" as a parkin' spot for older boys is almost always an adult, troop-method notion, eh?   In da modern BSA system the PLC is supposed to be the "Senior Patrol", eh?  The title is a holdover from the past.   The SPL is not supposed to be leadin' his own separate Senior Patrol, he's supposed to be leadin' the PLC.

 

Rotatin' leadership is one of da worst ideas I've ever seen for troops.   It comes from Advancement Run Amok, where yeh deliberately break up the natural leaders and patrols in order to give boys artificial positions for advancement.

 

So, I'd say...

 

1) No, boys should be allowed and even encouraged to run again if they're interested.   They should be encouraged to take their patrol "to the next level".

 

2) I think the lads should form patrols first, but I don't think this question is really that important.   I'd leave it up to how da PLC wants to proceed.   However, I do think you're missin' something important.

 

Generally speakin', I'd try to not break up successful patrols, eh?   Whole troop "patrol reorganizations" are a bad thing to get in a habit of, as they really break the Patrol Method.  Patrols should be permanent, with their own character and a real sense of loyalty.   Patrol yells and slogans and all da rest are things that patrols develop over a longer stretch of time, eh?   They're a product of identity and loyalty, not a precursor.    

 

If yeh need to add a patrol, the most common thing is to have the PLC recruit or appoint one of the best scouts they can find who wants the challenge of startin' a new patrol, then he gets to recruit boys into that new patrol, eh?  No more than a couple from each existing patrol, but the boys usually work that out.   That way the old patrols keep their identities and character, and yeh put together da ingredients for a strong new patrol to join 'em.  Yeh preserve da Patrol Method.

 

Now, in your case maybe the lads also do somethin' about breakin' up the one non-functioning patrol and startin' two new patrols that two boys can recruit people into, but at least your other workin' patrols maintain their core people, their identity, and their strong leaders.   It also means you're usin' your best, most committed kids well in the place where all real Scoutin' happens, eh?  The Patrol.  Not some parkin' area for older boys to be bored in.

 

Yeh spent a hard year gettin' kids to start seein' the Patrol thing work, eh?   Don't break it now just because the lads have never seen how to do this before and will naturally fall back on old habits. 

 

Da Patrol Method was based off of Baden-Powell's experience with British public school "house system", eh?   Just like J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books.  Yeh don't see Hogwarts dissolving Gryffindor or puttin' all the House Prefects into some sort of Senior Patrol do yeh?

 

Beavah

Edited April 27, 2016 by Beavah

[Beavah]

The only time I got into "trouble" was in my former troop where the parents had me removed from SM, "because the boys were expected to do too much leadership."  Their words verbatim, not mine. 

 

Yah, Stosh, but we tried to warn you, eh?    Yeh just weren't willin' to listen. 

 

Boys need coachin', eh?   They can take on a lot of stuff, but it takes time to build troop cultures like that.   It takes time to educate parents, time to build traditions of youth leadership, and all the rest. 

 

@@Adamcp isn't leadin' the well-developed troop with da long tradition of Patrol Method and Youth Leadership and parental support, eh?   He's fairly new to the game, and the boys are fairly new to the game.   Sink-or-swim sometimes works and sometimes doesn't, but it's usually not the best way.   The better way is for adults to carefully provide a structure for boys to work within, and active coachin' as needed.   Not take over, just provide da level of structure and quiet support that's needed for the boys to succeed (or fail within certain boundaries).

 

As the lads take over more an the troop culture becomes stronger, then the adult support can fade, eh?   And if yeh lose a big group of older boys the adult support comes back in a bit while da next generation of leaders gets on their feet.

 

Dependin' on the existin' troop culture, open patrol reorganization can work well, or it can lead to some kids feelin' awful as the last picked, or it can lead to jocks vs. nerds.   Most often, yeh get same-age patrols because every other activity from school to sports that the boys participate in is age-segregated.  It's all they know, eh?  The old notion of bein' a gang or a bunch of neighborhood kids is gone from their lived experience.... and forgotten by their parents.

 

It takes time to build youth and troop culture so that the boys are really lookin' out for each other and really doin' OK with leadership and not votin' a lad they don't like off the island.   It takes time to help parents learn somethin' that used to be natural, but now is counter-cultural.  

 

Bein' right about da potential for youth leaders and patrols isn't worth a lot if we fail, eh?   

 

Beavah

Edited April 27, 2016 by Beavah

[Adamcp]

I am honored by the time and thoughtfulness put into the replies to my initial questions. Thank you so much.  I do have thoughts and responses in kind (mostly to say that you are all inspiring me & challenging me, and maybe to ask some follow ups), but I am at work and can't take too long here.  Just wanted to say an initial thanks and will write more as soon as I can.  (Deep bow).

[blw2]

So, I'd say...

 

1) No, boys should be allowed and even encouraged to run again if they're interested.   They should be encouraged to take their patrol "to the next level".

 

 

 

I was thinking about this one comment....and then building from my own frustrations with this sort of stuff, i would add this...

that they shouldn't really be encouraged to "run" at all.... I mean why do we have this fixed election cycle anyway?

Why not instead just let each individual patrol figure out if or when they need a new PL.... just as Stosh is often pointing out.

[Stosh]

Yah, Stosh, but we tried to warn you, eh?    Yeh just weren't willin' to listen. 

 

Boys need coachin', eh?   They can take on a lot of stuff, but it takes time to build troop cultures like that.   It takes time to educate parents, time to build traditions of youth leadership, and all the rest. 

 

(snip)

Bein' right about da potential for youth leaders and patrols isn't worth a lot if we fail, eh?   

 

Beavah

 

Hard to tell the intent of the comments, but one must always consider the source of the problem.  When I left Troop #1 as an ASM I was pretty much done with scouting.  My son was out of the program and it wasn't any fun anymore.  But Troop #2 called me up and asked me if I was interested in being the SM.  I "interviewed" with the Committee, I had coffee with the outgoing SM and I had an open Q & A with the boys.  I told them I am very boy-led and patrol-method and it would be a big change from what they had and it would be a lot of work.  So if they wished to have a continuation of the program they are used to, just keep looking for someone else.

 

If the Committee called and wanted me to be the SM, I would have refused it.  If the SM called, I would have politely declined, but if the boys called, I felt it would be enough to come out of "retirement".

 

The boys called.

 

They also stepped up, and the troop grew from 5 boys to 28 in about 3 years time.  We did the whole TLT training, and adopted the structure of PL being the highest ranking officer in the troop.   was on Lesson #3 of Green Bar Bill's leadership training program when the CC of came and announced they were changing SM's because "I expected too much leadership out of the boys."

 

Parents were happy, the boys weren't.  Last I heard there were about 7-8 boys in the troop.

 

It was no skin off my nose either way.  I felt bad for the boys, but it wasn't an issue I was concerned enough to worry about.  It wasn't but a few weeks later the DE from another district approached me about starting the Troop #3 I"m with now.  And it was a couple of weeks ago that the DE from the third district approached me about starting Venturing Crew #2 because of my success with Venturing Crew #1 that I turned over to others a couple of years back.

 

Youth run program are very successful if one leaves the youth to run them.  The same dynamics apply in the non-scouting youth groups I work with in the community and churches in the area.  I do find it easier to run the community and church youth programs because there are far less restrictive bans applied to them as it is in the BSA programs.

[Stosh]

I was thinking about this one comment....and then building from my own frustrations with this sort of stuff, i would add this...

that they shouldn't really be encouraged to "run" at all.... I mean why do we have this fixed election cycle anyway?

Why not instead just let each individual patrol figure out if or when they need a new PL.... just as Stosh is often pointing out.

 

Adult election cycles are adult driven.  The boys only care if they have a good PL or not.  If they have a good one, they aren't going to change unless they have to as demanded by the adults.  The rub comes when the adults tell the boys they can't have the one they like run again.  And thus the problems surface, and I for one back the boys on this one.  Why can't they have a PL they like?  And better yet, instead of telling a boy he is to run for PL so he can get his 6 month POR filled for advancement, why not tell the boy to get his act together and prove to his patrol he could do a better job as PL and earn the right to be the new PL!  I don't think it's fair to have adults mandate they have to change to a kid needing POR as their PL.  I would NEVER accept that as a kid nor do I as a SM who's job it is to protect and take care of my boys. 

[Adamcp]

Either way, having been made aware of options they can then have some tools to consider (such as a NSP, or that patrols can stay together forever, or patrols can be completely shaken up on some fixed interval if they would rather, etc..). 

My thinking is that the scouts can't really come up with their best solution if they don't know the rules and the possibilities.

 

 

Well if a purpose of this forum is to stretch folks beyond their original worldviews, it's working with me.  Thanks again.  But I am definitely struggling to connect the ideology with the practicality.  Especially when the other adults with whom I am working (I think) see things as just fine the way that they are. So I am struggling within myself and also anticipating struggles with the other adults, who are my friends and on whom I don't pull the SM card, so we may need some deep talk.

 

I am also struggling (but I think I will get there) with what I find to be the amazing lack of creativity that I find in the Scouts.  I think the educational system and the troop system has beaten them into submission.  I see it in my son's high school academic work, where he NEVER takes a chance for fear of the teachers anticipated negative reaction to anything outside the box (which he may be misperceiving, but it IS his perception).  And when I try to ask the Scouts to think for themselves, I get blank stares and shrugs.  But like I said, I can get past that.  I am patient.  When I said, "patrol cooking is the plan", they stared at me, looked lost for a while, and then clicked in.  It has been the only (no, the MAIN) source of creativity that I have seen from them.  It's there.  The creativity is there. It just has not been reinforced by the systems in which they live.  But I believe patience is the antidote for that, and I can be patient, ask them to make choices and be patient with their pause. 

 

That said, I quoted blw2 because I do sometimes see another side. I have had the thought that the boys don't seem to even know the possibilities.  "We could do that?" has been a question I have gotten from the Scouts, but only when I (ADULT) introduced an idea to them.  Sometimes, I feel like without seeing the playing field they would keep on the old track simply because they do not seem to know that there are other tracks in existence. It's like we've gone into a restaurant and they do not know any of the ways restaurants work. But if they knew about ordering appetizers before the main course, they may create an appetizing meal without help.  And maybe they would order appetizers last, but at least they would know about appetizers.  Where is MY line in what I suggest or just leave completely alone?!? (You see, I waver.)

 

So the goal? Seeking balance between the two perspectives (let 'em loose AND showing them the options -- which I think may be Beavah's perspective, along with his apostrophe  ?)?  Maybe, but I also don't want to water it all down, and I see the value in Stosh, qwazse, Eagle94-A1, and TAHAWK promoting a more wholehearted and fundamental change in letting them loose. 

 

Am I hearing the message correctly? Cause my brain is still churning.