What thinks the group?

[skeptic]

What think the group.  IF every summer, ALL (even the Chiefs) executives from National had to spend at least two weeks in a summer camp, a different one each year, as well as a couple of weekends during the year with "various" local units, all levels, just being a leader and mentor for scouts?

 

Would we see some things that we, as the ones that actually do the program, often have concerns about taken under serious advisement?  Would a chef learn something from being a server or hostess?

 

Just making waves because I am old and cantankerous.

[RememberSchiff]

If ... they spent THEIR vacation time.

 

[jwest09]

Would they learn something?  Yes, certainly.  Would affect change in the program?  Maybe, maybe not.  The phrase, "confirmation bias" comes to mind.

 

On my part, I don't really buy the argument that unit-level challenges have a significant cause in national-level executive decision.  Blaming "National" or "Council" or whomever for failures in unit-level programming seems like a scapegoat, more often than not.

[NealOnWheels]

If a summer camp knew they had someone from national visiting them they would get a very different experience than the volunteers get.

[desertrat77]

I like the idea.

 

Just so long as they can't pick the camps they go.  Make it random.

 

The only downside:  some of the HQ types are not very good working around scouts.  Or being in the outdoors.  Or conversing with volunteers.   After all, they work at National...they have it all figured out.  They talk, we listen.  You can see where they might lead.  Most unit level volunteers aren't interested in ring-kissing.

 

Many other execs would probably welcome the opportunity to escape the office, with its endless meetings, luncheons and such. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by desertrat77

[skeptic]

I like the idea.

 

Just so long as they can't pick the camps they go.  Make it random.

 

The only downside:  some of the HQ types are not very good working around scouts.  Or being in the outdoors.  Or conversing with volunteers.   After all, they work at National...they have it all figured out.  They talk, we listen.  You can see where they might lead.  Most unit level volunteers aren't interested in ring-kissing.

 

Many other execs would probably welcome the opportunity to escape the office, with its endless meetings, luncheons and such.

The point, " some of the HQ types are not very good working around scouts.  Or being in the outdoors.  Or conversing with volunteers."  is the biggest reason to do something like it.  And they should do cub camps and high adventure too, just at different times.  When I was in retail management, it was obvious how disconnected upper management was from "customer" realities.

[Stosh]

As one who values personal time, I would never expect anyone National down to the parents that I would require they give up their hard earned vacation to spend it at a camp.  But what I would require is that everyone who is employed by BSA be required as part of their work to spend at least one week each year at a random camp.  We waste enough money with providing a program designed by the Ivory Tower.  Maybe we could spend the money on training them as to what that program does or doesn't do for boys.

[scoutldr]

Would make a good episode for Undercover Boss.

[Eagledad]

On my part, I don't really buy the argument that unit-level challenges have a significant cause in national-level executive decision. Blaming "National" or "Council" or whomever for failures in unit-level programming seems like a scapegoat, more often than not.

My opinion is National brought in female troop leaders, New Scout Patrols, First Class in First Year, and a same age patrol program in all about the same time. Did those additions effect the units and the basic troop program? Dramatically in my opinion.

 

National added Tigers to the cub program and I think that had a huge affect on that program.

 

We need to give credit to units that succeed despite Nationals changes.

 

That doesn't mean I think sending professionals to summer camp would help units. The meat of unit programs is implementing the program during the year, not summer camps. I need pros around our everyday program to see how their changes challenge Us.

 

Barry

Edited May 21, 2017 by Eagledad

[MattR]

The meat of unit programs is implementing the program during the year, not summer camps. I need pros around our everyday program to see how their changes challenge Us.

 

Barry

How about having each executive spend time with a randomly selected unit?

 

I'm not sure it would help for the same reason you mention that going to summer camp wouldn't work. I'm not sure how many of these executives understand how the program works. I looked at the BSA "Game Plan for 2016." http://slideplayer.com/slide/10781510/The emphasis is: Membership, people that work at national, IT infrastructure, finances, and high adventure bases. There is nothing about helping units, or improving the program. The closest they have is membership numbers and high adventure bases. They don't see a problem.

Edited May 21, 2017 by MattR

[Stosh]

Some of us do make the adjustments in spite of the challenge.  However, if these execs would see how much fun the boys had at summer camp just maybe they would focus more on improving that instead of introducing useless policies that don't focus in on what makes real scouting useful to the boys.

 

If they had to sit on a picnic bench bored to death with 3 citizenship MB's in a row, and have to sit on the sidelines while the boys do swimming and shooting sports, maybe their attitudes would change.

 

Whereas I have never had to deal with female scouters in a unit, nor do push for the FC first year either.  BP didn't mind the NSP idea of getting the boys oriented to the troop, but he did emphasize the boys hanging together as friends, which naturally occurs if the adults stay out of the process.  I ignored the JTE and other such nonsense.  They ride my back a bit but over the years they pretty much leave me alone.  My boys like what they are doing in spite of national policies, so I'm happy with the way thing seem to be.  Now when things close in on me, there's always a choice on my part to walk away and do something for youth in a way that satisfies me better.  As long as my boys are happy, I'm happy.

[Back Pack]

If, and only if, the camps didn't know.

[TAHAWK]

My first Scout Executive was a star.  He raised money from business leaders, was "Mr. Scouting" to the public, was a very popular leader of his staff. and helped staff adult ans leader training (never as a course director - as a volunteer staffer).  

 

One Saturday night in the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area we were gathered around the campfire and heard "Hello the Camp.  Can I join you."  It was himself -- with three pounds of marshmallows.   He had some funny stories to contribute and joined the singing with gusto.  Stayed the night and hiked out with us the next day.

 

Turns out that every month he joined a troop or Post outdoor activity, and he missed very few camporees.   Also appeared at many courts of honor, and not just for Eagles.

 

A few years later when OA duties made me a semi-regular at HQ, I mentioned the incident to him.  He told me being with units when they were involved in unit program was part of his job as he saw it.  

 

There were literally tears at his standing room-only retirement dinner.

 

My first Scout Executive in my second life in Scouting in Ohio went to the Council main camp twice a year (annual inspection and Executive Committee steak fry) and, as far as I could determine, after asking around extensively, never ever attended district or unit activities.  He was not a star and was fired by Council after his "rabbi" at Region retired.

 

I think the observations about the value of seeing what is really going on in the real world of Scouting are pure gold.

[desertrat77]

The point, " some of the HQ types are not very good working around scouts.  Or being in the outdoors.  Or conversing with volunteers."  is the biggest reason to do something like it.  And they should do cub camps and high adventure too, just at different times.  When I was in retail management, it was obvious how disconnected upper management was from "customer" realities.

Agreed, it might help to connect the disconnected.  Then again, their presence might also be a friction point for an otherwise great week at camp.  Some execs would not be able to resist the urge to pull rank, bark orders, ruffle feathers, and otherwise act outside of their lane.

 

I'm also thinking of the welfare of the execs.   I'm not the only volunteer scouter who would not hesitate to tell an offending HQs scouter what I think.   

Edited May 22, 2017 by desertrat77

[Eagle94-A1]

It would open eyes.

 

When I worked for national supply, I was part of a pilot program operating a store at a camp. I was hired because I had camp experience. Long story short, everything I wrote for the proposed Standard Operating Procedures manual was questioned repeatedly by my boss: from hours of operation to staffing to supplies to design lay out. Even when items were approved and finalized in the proposal, when executed they were still questioned. Boss had 0 experience working at a summer camp. Didn't have a clue. Two summers went by and there was constant questioning.

 

Then the boss got assigned to work national jamboree. Let's just say the boss finally got some experience in working a camp store and understood why I planned things the way I wrote them.

 

Current job has the managers doing rounds every day. They have to go visit x number of patients every day, and the floors change every week. Long story short a lot of changes for the better are going on as a result.