Patrol leader election questions

[Eagledad]

When a scout didn't get the position he wanted, that experienced was coached as another opportunity to develop respect and growth by taking on other responsibilities. This happens often with young ambitious scouts wanting to try their hand at leadership in a mature patrol. Some scouts take it hard. But like qwazse, they are guided to show their ambition by taking on responsibilities that give them experience and exposure. Many of these scouts grow more from those tasks than from their POR positions.

 

Barry

[qwazse]

Sometimes, @@Stosh, your biases send you off the rails.

 

 

Which would you prefer: counseling one youth to take it as an opportunity to serve in different ways, or having all of your youth rely on an entitlement system?

One of our scouts was put out that he was not elected SPL.

 

In my troop that isn't a big deal.    ...

It could have just as well been another scout and another position or Order of the Arrow election, or whatever. In fact, post #88 above indicates that absent the "senior" position, the issue remains.

 

respect (noun) = the quality or estate of being esteemed. Or, as someone recently put it, recognized as someone who can be trusted to get the work done, who cares about those who he is working with.

[Stosh]

Sometimes, @@Stosh, your biases send you off the rails.

 

It could have just as well been another scout and another position or Order of the Arrow election, or whatever. In fact, post #88 above indicates that absent the "senior" position, the issue remains.

 

respect (noun) = the quality or estate of being esteemed. Or, as someone recently put it, recognized as someone who can be trusted to get the work done, who cares about those who he is working with.

 

Not to worry, I've been known to get off he beaten track more than once along the way.

 

I understand the SPL issue.  In my troops the aspired to positions are the PL's and there were never enough spots to keep everyone happy.  But you are totally correct, it can be any position of leadership whether it be a recognized POR or not.  I for one, think the Grubmaster is more important than the SPL, PL, Scribe, and QM combined!  If he can make good coffee, one can add ASPL, APL, TG and DC to the mix. 

 

While respect (Greek for "to look a second time" meaning the person is worth a second look) is important, I work very hard at developing SELF-respect.  I am in the business of building confidence, maturity, character, and any number of important characteristics in a young boy, but self-respect is the foundation for without that, how can a boy even believe in himself and build confidence along the way.  A boy that is unsure of himself will find it very difficult to take care of others and their needs.  If a boy has self-respect it will encourage others to follow in giving respect.  Lead by example.  Do you trust yourself to take care of yourself?  If yes, then others will follow.

 

If one is going to lead, they are going to get out front and be the first to get there.  Because you haven't been there before, you're going to make mistakes, don't worry, that's how you learn.  If you don't know how to deal with mistakes, how can you help others when they makes mistakes?  This won't work if the boy doesn't have confidence and self-respect.  Once they get that under their belt and really believe it, then they can start really believing in themselves, too.  It's always easier to follow someone who knows the trail and is willing to help you along it.

[qwazse]

Obviously we're talking two sides of the same coin here. The boy who was failing to grasp why all these scouts (to whom he was sincerely friendly and often helpful) would not his name in the hat when elections rolled around, was trying to do what he had been doing, only harder. And, he on a trajectory of a "why doesn't anyone ever listen to me?" attitude ... not to the point where they other boys were noticing (we're a flighty lot of late), but from the back of the room his frustration was obvious by the end of each meeting to anyone watching.

 

So, confidence ... self-respect ... I wasn't too worried about that in this kid. He just needs a few more tools in his kit.

 

Same applies to most kids who I've seen take election losses hard. Their inflated esteem of themselves blinded them to some rough edges that required a month of light sanding (or sometimes years of grinding)!

Edited May 26, 2016 by qwazse

[Stosh]

If this boy campaigned on the slogan, "What can I do to help?" he'd get elected in a heartbeat, especially if the boys saw him doing this in his patrol and troop on a regular basis.

[Tampa Turtle]

If this boy campaigned on the slogan, "What can I do to help?" he'd get elected in a heartbeat, especially if the boys saw him doing this in his patrol and troop on a regular basis.

 Sometimes the most helpful boy in the troop gets taken for granted; kinda like Mom at home. A little more assertiveness will be needed to get elected in our Troop.

 

One boy, who just lost the SPL election, would be  excellent SPL material but needed to tone down the "In my old Troop we did things right" (even if it was true) and saying older boy who wouldn't obey him will just be run out of the Troop. I tried to warn him...

[Stosh]

 Sometimes the most helpful boy in the troop gets taken for granted; kinda like Mom at home. A little more assertiveness will be needed to get elected in our Troop.

 

One boy, who just lost the SPL election, would be  excellent SPL material but needed to tone down the "In my old Troop we did things right" (even if it was true) and saying older boy who wouldn't obey him will just be run out of the Troop. I tried to warn him...

 

And this is why servant leadership doesn't work in your troop.  If one is only looking at the world in a myopic POV, then yes, they will draw this same conclusion.  But taking mom for granted at home is not the same thing as when all is said and done, when things go bad in life, they always go home to mom.  Need a little TLC when you're feeling poorly?  Mom's chicken soup.  If Mom ain't happy, nobody's happy!  On the battlefield the person called out for by dying soldiers is mom!  DO NOT ever underestimate the power of mom's servant leadership.

 

At the centennial jamboree, our contingent had a quiet Hmong boy sign up.  He came with his mother.  She did the paperwork, collected up his gear, etc.  I heard the comments from the other adults and the "mama's boy" from the other boys.  He missed the shakedown weekend, and I was kinda worried because I didn't know this kid from Adam.

 

Well, he kinda hung to himself, but if anyone needed to head for the latrine and needed a buddy, he would offer to go.  If anyone was having trouble with camp chores he always was there to help.  I don't think I ever heard him say more than 3 - 4 words in a row.  This went on for the whole time,

 

Well, the day before we were to leave he sprains his ankle.  For the rest of the day, he sat with his foot up and iced.  Every time someone needed to help, he offered and someone else did it for him.  He never ran out of ice.  On the day we were leaving, all this things were packed up by other scouts, his camp chores assigned to him were voluntarily done by others, his tent was taken down and all his gear carried to the bus.  Two boys helped him hobble, in the pouring rain, to he bus.

 

What I witnessed was amazing.  Oh for a troop of all boys like this one.  This kid did not need assertiveness training!  He earned the respect of everyone in that contingent one simple, quiet act at a time.  Was he taken advantage of?  Maybe at first, but that wore off very quickly.

 

Never underestimate the power of servant leadership.

 

The better boy always talked about his former troop?  How is that taking care of his current boys?  His attitude would be running the older boys out of the troop?  Seriously???  This boy would make an excellent SPL????  NO WAY!  And if the boys sense that feeling from the adults, they too will fall prey to that way of thinking. 

 

After this, just before the vote, take your PL's aside and ask THEM who should be SPL, the person that would be helping them be better PL's.  Then have the troop vote, per BSA policy.  If they don't match, I would suspect a major leadership disconnect in the troop. 

 

I had one boy come to me complaining that his PL was picking on him.  I got the two together and asked them to explain.  The boy said that every time they did Dutch oven cooking the PL always made him clean up the Dutch ovens.  Then I asked the PL if this was true.  He said, "Yes".  I asked him why.  He said it was because it was a tough job and he needed his best scout doing the best job on them.  I told him his patrol member felt he was being picked on.  The PL apologized for poor communication.  The boy kinda perked up and said, "Then I don't have to clean the Dutch ovens all the time?"  The PL said, "I apologized for poor communication, not for wanting to have my best scout doing the big jobs.  Eventually that DO cleaner became the APL for the patrol, and when the need arose for a PLC and SPL, this PL championed him for the position and the DO cleaner became the troops first full-time SPL.

 

Ironically this boy got so good at cleaning DO's he would normally be done cleaning them before the boys started washing their dishes after dinner. 

 

NEVER underestimate the power of real servant leadership and don't adult-mess with it by offering assertiveness training.    If one ever gets a chance to ever experience this first hand, they will never go back to management style "leadership" again.

[TAHAWK]

There seems to be more than one definition of "servant leadership."

 

"Most Scouts will very quickly tell you that they would rather tell people what to do than be told what to do. That is human nature, not just the nature of a Scout. But leadership in the troop is not about the title or even about being the person doing the telling. It is about a choice to lead.

 

It is about a choice to give rather than to receive. What we need to build into the makeup of our Scout leaders is the concept of servant leadership. We trust effective leaders because they care about us and about helping others succeed. That is the true role of a leader—helping other members of the troop succeed. Servant leaders understand what success looks like not only for the group but for each member of every team. They do everything they can to help the troop and each member succeed.

 

Servant leaders help the troop through day-to-day operations and through all the chores and tasks that must be accomplished. Duties are delegated and roles assigned. Troop leaders help manage this process. They focus on how to make every member successful in assigned tasks so that the troop will come together quickly as a team.

 

Servant leaders want to lead because they know they can help make a difference and provide a better experience for every individual.

. . .

 

Servant leadership is about making the choice to lead, to give more than you receive, and to make a difference.

• Effective servant leaders care about others, about helping others succeed, and about making the group successful.

• It is important to build up the idea and value of servant leadership in our Scout and adult leaders.

• A good group leader is focused on the success of the members of his team—as individuals and as a team. Servant leaders understand what success looks like not only for the team as a whole, but also for each member of the team.

• Group members can see when a leader cares about their needs and is focused on their success. That service earns him the group’s respect. When he has that respect, the Scout has earned the title and role of leader.

• A troop leader who seeks to serve knows his troop members well enough to help them succeed, helps his troop through its day-to-day operation, manages and delegates troop duties, focuses on how to help all members be successful in their assigned tasks, and works to bring the troop together as a team.

• Servant leaders want to lead because they know they can help make a difference and provide a better experience for every individual."

 

 

Reading at least the B.S.A. literature on the topic, one leads in many ways, including delegating and assigning tasks.  What seems to tie it all together is the goal or motivation of helpfulness.

 

 

So when a "servant leader" observes someone using the wrong approach, say a myopic approach, does he correct that person?  How does he correct the myopic one?

 

 

B.S.A. simultaneous advocates "servant leadership," EDGE, and learning by doing.  How does always cleaning the Dutch Ovens for the patrol fit all three?  

[Eagledad]

Thanks TAHAWK, That is very good.

 

Barry

[Stosh]

There seems to be more than one definition of "servant leadership." 

 

I use the definition set forth by Robert Greenleaf back in the 1970's when he identified the process and coined the phrase.  Actually in reality is is biblical and has been around for a couple thousand years.

 

"Most Scouts will very quickly tell you that they would rather tell people what to do than be told what to do. That is human nature, not just the nature of a Scout. But leadership in the troop is not about the title or even about being the person doing the telling. It is about a choice to lead.

 

Telling people what to DO is management, not leadership.  This is where most dialog breaks down.  It is very difficult to explain and use servant leadership in a management situation.

 

It is about a choice to give rather than to receive. What we need to build into the makeup of our Scout leaders is the concept of servant leadership. We trust effective leaders because they care about us and about helping others succeed. That is the true role of a leader—helping other members of the troop succeed. Servant leaders understand what success looks like not only for the group but for each member of every team. They do everything they can to help the troop and each member succeed.

 

Yep, it's based on empathy, not organization knowledge.

 

Servant leaders help the troop through day-to-day operations and through all the chores and tasks that must be accomplished. Duties are delegated and roles assigned. Troop leaders help manage this process. They focus on how to make every member successful in assigned tasks so that the troop will come together quickly as a team.

 

And here's were the roads diverge.  The day-to-day operations is a management concept, not a leadership concept.  All the chores, tasks and duties are dealt with using management skills, not leadership.  As a matter of fact, when I teach servant leadership, there are no duty rosters posted except for those required by summer camp staff.  They are posted and then ignored.  All my boys are taught from day one: "What can I do to help?"  That is what servant leadership is all about.  How important is management under those circumstances?

 

Servant leaders want to lead because they know they can help make a difference and provide a better experience for every individual.

 

Nope, most of my servant leaders really don't care if they lead or not.  They are just taking the "help other people at all times." seriously. 

. . .

 

Servant leadership is about making the choice to lead, to give more than you receive, and to make a difference.

• Effective servant leaders care about others, about helping others succeed, and about making the group successful.

• It is important to build up the idea and value of servant leadership in our Scout and adult leaders.

• A good group leader is focused on the success of the members of his team—as individuals and as a team. Servant leaders understand what success looks like not only for the team as a whole, but also for each member of the team.

• Group members can see when a leader cares about their needs and is focused on their success. That service earns him the group’s respect. When he has that respect, the Scout has earned the title and role of leader.

• A troop leader who seeks to serve knows his troop members well enough to help them succeed, helps his troop through its day-to-day operation, manages and delegates troop duties, focuses on how to help all members be successful in their assigned tasks, and works to bring the troop together as a team.

• Servant leaders want to lead because they know they can help make a difference and provide a better experience for every individual."

 

Which one of those don't fit into "taking care of your people?"

 

Reading at least the B.S.A. literature on the topic, one leads in many ways, including delegating and assigning tasks.  What seems to tie it all together is the goal or motivation of helpfulness.

 

BSA does not distinguish between leadership and management, they put the two together and try to create some kind of hybrid and this is maybe where the various "definitions" of servant leadership originate.  Notice the verbiage "delegating and assigning tasks".  That is purely a management issue, coupled with some sort of persuasive motivation to get people to adhere to the task's accomplishment.  Managers have a task to accomplish, people are mere tools to aid in getting it done.  Is that really "helping people at all times?"  Not necessarily.

 

So when a "servant leader" observes someone using the wrong approach, say a myopic approach, does he correct that person?  How does he correct the myopic one?

 

If someone has to TELL someone to do something, they are generally in a management role.  If they have to TELL someone to follow, it means they weren't following the leader in the first place.  If no one listens to the "PL" (as we hear many times on this forum) then that PL is leading NO ONE!  So the choice that needs to be made is: Is it more important to have people follow or more important to get the job done?

 

B.S.A. simultaneous advocates "servant leadership," EDGE, and learning by doing.  How does always cleaning the Dutch Ovens for the patrol fit all three?

 

Well, that "picked on" scout eventually became that PL's greatest fan (follower) and as SPL would have done anything to see to it that that PL was successful with his patrol.  As it ended up, was the SPL the new LEADER(?) or did he just become a stronger servant than his original PL?    Once one sees this dynamic,  one can fully understand why APL's were getting selected to be SPL's in my troop.  Those that worked the hardest to support their PL's became the greater servant of other servants. 

 

So in terms of management, did the jobs get done?  With everyone doing servant leadership, the patrol members end up constantly asking "What can I do to help?"  Does that sound like a patrol that needs it's members motivated to do the task assigned to them on the duty roster?

 

I may have my faults as a SM, but I have NEVER heard any of my boys ever say, "They won't listen to me!" 

Edited May 27, 2016 by Stosh

[TAHAWK]

"So when a "servant leader" observes someone using the wrong approach, say a myopic approach, does he correct that person?  How does he correct the myopic one?

 

If someone has to TELL someone to do something, they are generally in a management role.  If they have to TELL someone to follow, it means they weren't following the leader in the first place.  If no one listens to the "PL" (as we hear many times on this forum) then that PL is leading NO ONE!  So the choice that needs to be made is: Is it more important to have people follow or more important to get the job done?"

 

Stosh, read the question again.  You tell constantly.  Here.  Today.  Yesterday.  Tomorrow.   You have passion for the topic and try to tell us what we are doing wrong in your opinion.   I find nothing wrong with that.   

 

Is the job more important than having "followers"?   It's not a dichotomy.  Leaders get the job done with the team they lead every day.  "Keep the group together.  Get the job done."   The "job" may very well be each member developing into the best person and best citizen he can be.  Oh, that would be Boy Scouting.

Edited May 27, 2016 by TAHAWK

[Stosh]

"So when a "servant leader" observes someone using the wrong approach, say a myopic approach, does he correct that person?  How does he correct the myopic one?

 

If someone has to TELL someone to do something, they are generally in a management role.  If they have to TELL someone to follow, it means they weren't following the leader in the first place.  If no one listens to the "PL" (as we hear many times on this forum) then that PL is leading NO ONE!  So the choice that needs to be made is: Is it more important to have people follow or more important to get the job done?"

 

Stosh, read the question again.  You tell constantly.  Here.  Today.  Yesterday.  Tomorrow.   You have passion for the topic and try to tell us what we are doing wrong in your opinion.   I find nothing wrong with that.   

 

Is the job more important than having "followers"?   It's not a dichotomy.  Leaders get the job done with the team they lead every day.  "Keep the group together.  Get the job done."   The "job" may very well be each member developing into the best person and best citizen he can be.  Oh, that would be Boy Scouting.

 

@@TAHAWK  We are very close to saying the same thing. 

 

The question was how does one go about correcting the myopic person about servant leadership.  First of all one does not TELL them anything.  That is a management concept.  I would start by asking them to clarify their view of the issue, and then help them see what you see.  I don't see people doing things "wrong" when it comes to this issue.  It usually just means people are using a different definition than I am when it comes to leadership.  For me "getting the job done" is a management objective.  It can be done in a number of different ways.  I can threaten, I can plead, I can coerce, I can motivate, etc. some of the things are good and others not so good, but somehow I get the job done.  It has nothing to do with whether the person is following and after the job is done I don't care about these people until the next time I need a job done.  I just see this process as VERY ineffective and difficult for young boys to master.  Heck, there are a lot of adults that find it difficult to master.

 

But we have instead the leader (servant if you prefer) that requires followers!  Duh!  What's the task?  Don't need one.to ask anyone to do anything.  But the leader.... in order to LEAD makes the first move, they HELP OTHERS with what they are doing.(Help other people at all times)  It makes that person's life easier and of course the leader scores a few atta boys with those that he helps.  So down the road the leader has a task that needs doing and those around him that he has helped, show up and ask, "What can we do to help?"  The leader has set the tone, the followers are now leading by the leader's example.  So now the roles are reversed and the followers are helping the leader.  And this ping pong game gets played over and over again and eventually one begins to realize that everyone is heavily invested in caring teamwork.  How many duty rosters are necessary in this setting?  NONE.

 

That desire to serve becomes ingrained in each individual, some more so than others.  Helping other people at all times becomes a culture of the patrol, troop, and each boys' relationships of the future.

 

So in that whole explanation how much MANAGEMENT was needed?  Very little, with everyone working together it becomes a super efficient process and the jobs get knocked out with very little organizational necessity.  A good leader will develop come good organizational skills such as project management, problem solving, group dynamics, inter-personal relational skills, etc.but they will only enhance the underlying premise of servant leadership.

 

I just find that this servant leadership approach is so much cleaner, easier to understand and in the long term, more efficient than spending a lot of time learning just management and redefining it as some kind of "leadership".

[TAHAWK]

Let me try again.  

 

You did tell someone that.  Today.   In so many words.  "myopic"

 

Yet you are still a good guy.

 

I wish labels were not so important.  Don't tell me it's myopic -- or management or telling.   It amount to a can of ideas with a label, and everyone disagrees about what's in the can.  

[Stosh]

my·op·ic

ˌmīˈäpik/

adjective

adjective: myopic

nearsighted.

synonyms:

nearsighted;

shortsighted

"a myopic patient"

antonyms:

farsighted

lacking imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight.

"the government still has a myopic attitude to public spending"

synonyms:

unimaginative, uncreative, unadventurous, narrow-minded, small-minded, short-term, shortsighted

"the government's myopic attitude"

antonyms:

farsighted

 

 

It's no more a label than any other adjective in the English language. 

[TAHAWK]

Using adjectives does not give us a free ride.

"unimaginative, uncreative, unadventurous, narrow-minded, small-minded, short-term, shortsighted"

 

How about just explain and skip labeling fellow Scout enthusiasts with adjectives?   

 

I'll bet quite a collection could be assembled, and not a one courteous or kind.

 

Then  we could work on the "clever" sarcasm.

 

Entirely up to all y'all.