POR review

[prof]

A fellow committee member has suggested a plan to monitor how boys are doing with their positions of responsibilities. He has suggested a monthly formal meeting between the boy and the mentor. A scorecard would be used. My guess is that it would take about 20 minutes per boy to complete. Each mentor (SM or ASM) works with 3 boys, so this is about an hour per month, plus time needed to prepare, plus time reviewing the scorecards with the committee.

 

Another approach is much less formal. The mentor works with the boy, encourages him, coaches him along the way. If at the end of his term, the boy has done okay, then the mentor signs off in his book. The mentor lets the boy and the committee know if there are major problems that may require the boy to be replaced if not corrected. In general, feedback between the mentor and boy is ongoing, but not formal unless that is what is needed.

 

I would be interested in what you do in your troops. How formal is the interaction between mentor and boy? Does anyone use scorecards for this?

[ValleyBoy]

A fellow committee member has suggested a plan to monitor how boys are doing with their positions of responsibilities. He has suggested a monthly formal meeting between the boy and the mentor. A scorecard would be used. My guess is that it would take about 20 minutes per boy to complete. Each mentor (SM or ASM) works with 3 boys, so this is about an hour per month, plus time needed to prepare, plus time reviewing the scorecards with the committee.

 

Another approach is much less formal. The mentor works with the boy, encourages him, coaches him along the way. If at the end of his term, the boy has done okay, then the mentor signs off in his book. The mentor lets the boy and the committee know if there are major problems that may require the boy to be replaced if not corrected. In general, feedback between the mentor and boy is ongoing, but not formal unless that is what is needed.

 

I would be interested in what you do in your troops. How formal is the interaction between mentor and boy? Does anyone use scorecards for this?

Just my opinion, but it is not the job of the unit committee to monitor how each boy is doing in their position of reasonability.  Let me take that back they can monitor by getting feedback from the SM on how the SM on how they are feeling the position, but that is all.    Also for advancement purposes if the youth holds the position then they are signed off on that position no matter how good are bad a job they did in that position.  It is alright for the SM to meet with the SPL to help him become a better SPL, but when it comes to the other youth positions it should be left to the SPL and the other youth in the troop mentor them in their position. 

Edited November 10, 2017 by ValleyBoy

[Scoutmaster Teddy]

What ValleyBoy said. I don't see POR's as a Troop Committee item. That is for the Scoutmaster and SPL/ASPL. I have mentioned POR items at committee meetings, general things such as how well a scout is doing or what issues the SPL and I see throughout the year. But I'll never allow them to oversee POR's.

 

Scoutmaster Teddy

[Stosh]

The PL's monitor the functionality of the POR's.  If they are doing a good job, they stay in that position, if not the PL's put someone in there that does.  If the scout can convince the PL's he's doing a good job by his performance for 6 months, he's given a check box for the rank.  Otherwise, he asks for a different POR he might be good at and gives that a try.  As long as the PL's are satisfied, so am I.

[The Latin Scot]

What on Earth does the committee have to do with a boy's performance in his duties? They have no place in the internal affairs of the Troop; if somebody is going to monitor their progress, it's the Patrol Leaders, and they in turn are supervised by the Senior Patrol Leader. and if he isn't doing a good job, the boys themselves make the choice to choose a new one. The committee has no place in any part of this process, and assigning "mentors" is a form of intervention, a sign that they don't trust the boys to be able to learn their responsibilities well enough on their own. The boys deserve better than that - they deserve more trust.

 

As soon as your committee takes it upon themselves to intervene in this system, the spirit of Scouting is lost, and the boys lose the opportunity to fully develop their leadership potential because the right to accountability among their peers has been taken from them. My suggestion is to gracefully tell your fellow committee member to check the impulse to manage how the boys run their patrol, and trust that the patrol method works. Because if you let it run its course, it does.

Edited November 11, 2017 by The Latin Scot

[Eagle94-A1]

Growing up, as a PL my mentors were the two SPLs I served under, and the older Scouts in the Leadership Corps. When I was ASPL, it was the SPL, and sometimes when they were home from college or military leave the former Scouts I worked under. I can count on one hand the number of times I was mentored by an adult. It was when I was acting in the SPL role, and it was the SM doing the mentoring.

 

The more adults involved in a troop, the more problems will arise.The committee doesn't need to be involved in supervising the leaders. They need to support them by getting the resources they need to have their program.

[MattR]

Is it just me or do the responses seem a bit harsh?  I mean, the biggest complaint is that the committee should not be involved in PORs, but the OP never said the committee would be doing this. The mentor is an SM/ASM. prof never said he was going to do it.

 

@prof, to answer your question of whether scorecards or something less formal should be used, scorecards will only measure part of what a scout's responsibility is. You could measure number of events and number of scouts and stuff like that but things like scout spirit tend not to be measurable. NYLT might talk about SMART goals, which are great, but there's more to it than that. If a PL shows up at every meeting but is a dictator then what?

 

One comment you made in the relaxed version implied that at the end of the POR the mentor would either give the scout credit or not. If so, that would be a problem for me. Waiting until the end to tell a scout he didn't earn the POR falls under the category of a surprise, something I tried to stay away from. I always gave credit for the time they served. Now, if they were doing a lousy job then we talked and tried to make it better. At worse, if the scout was doing so bad that he had to be removed he would at least get credit for the time spent.

 

So, some combination of the above might work better. Meet every month but use a relaxed set of metrics.

 

Now comes the other part - who is the mentor. It would be better if that were another scout (except for the SPL). SPL, ASPL, or PLs. That does assume these scouts understand what the job entails. If they don't then it would be a waste of time, at which point an adult would be involved. If it were an adult then maybe he should really be coaching the scout that should be mentoring so eventually it would be the scouts doing this.

 

As far as committee vs SM/ASM, in my troop it's not a clear separation. Everyone that's an ASM is also on the committee but not the other way around. All of our ASMs are trained and we don't want non-trained adults working with the scouts. However, if they're trained that doesn't preclude them from helping the committee. It works for us.

[David CO]

 The mentor works with the boy, encourages him, coaches him along the way. 

 

I was a Lone Scout. This sounds a lot like Lone Scouting. I wonder if the committee member was himself a Lone Scout, and is now tying to apply his scouting experiences to the troop.

 

When I became a Scoutmaster, I had to put aside many of my personal experiences as a Lone Scout and learn how to do scouting as a troop.  

[TAHAWK]

Just my opinion, but it is not the job of the unit committee to monitor how each boy is doing in their position of reasonability.  Let me take that back they can monitor by getting feedback from the SM on how the SM on how they are feeling the position, but that is all.    Also for advancement purposes if the youth holds the position then they are signed off on that position no matter how good are bad a job they did in that position.  It is alright for the SM to meet with the SPL to help him become a better SPL, but when it comes to the other youth positions it should be left to the SPL and the other youth in the troop mentor them in their position. 

I agree about POR performance being a uniformed Scouter area of responsibility.  BSA does not agree that merely holding a POR is automatically enough for advancement.  You might review BSA, Guide to Advancment, pp. 26-27 (2017).  In summary: "When a Scout assumes a position of responsibility, something related to the desired results must happen."

[qwazse]

No scorecard. But scouts are asked (and trained to asked) what has been done in this PoR this month? (I really don't care about a laundry-list of things not done, as some of you have seen me write in response to some scouts' posts.)

Sometimes I phrase it dramatically. For example: "How have you saved our troop from disaster this month?"

The hope is they will wind up repeating the question to one another.

The goal is to get the boys so proud of their positions that they have an accomplishment to brag about.

 

Basically, try to get each scout to write his own score-card. My experience is those will be tougher than any committee draws up.

[Stosh]

One of the struggles I used to encounter is how this supposed "chain of command" works.  Sure there has to be a goal set and needs to be met in order to run a successful program.  I found that "outsiders" often set the goal and forget the real needs of those receiving the program.  I made the switch early on to focus more on needs and the goals will take care of themselves.  The ultimate person needing assistance is the PL who is the one working directly with his patrol members, i.e. the customer of the program, the one who needs to be successful in order for them to be content and successful themselves.  This is the key person who will know specifically what is needed for each scout.

 

Well, he can't do it all by himself so he has a right-hand man there to ASSIST him in getting it done.  This is the APL.  Too often the APL does nothing except wait around for the PL to be absent so he can "take over" running the patrol.  An active PL will find this person totally useless most of the time and BSA recognizes this by making the APL a non-POR position.  Sorry, but this is baloney.  The APL needs to know as much about the patrol as does the PL.  They are a team working together and thus the APL is the second most important position in the troop. It is his job to make sure the PL is successful. If the PL needs to step away for 3 months so that he can participate in school sports and the APL takes over and runs the patrol during that time, is he not just as important as the PL?  Yet he gets no credit for it.  That's a joke.  And furthermore the APL has no right-hand man to help him during this time.  It makes the job even tougher.

 

So then who supports (not directs) the PL?  If someone is "directing" the PL, it is almost certain they do not have the detailed information on the patrol members to give any sort of guidance.  The PL should know what his people need, not some outside supervisor.  The PL needs a stove to cook on during an outing he puts in his needs to the QM who supports him with material needs for his patrol.  The QM doesn't tell him he needs a stove, but he has one ready in case the PL needs it.  Same for any other leadership corps positions.  They are the PL's "go-to guy" for help. 

 

So what about the SPL?  When my PL's set up a PLC when they had 4 patrols and things were a bit dicey and uncoordinated, they became the PLC and set their best APL person in as SPL.  This person had the best support skills to assist the PL's do their job once it got large enough to warrant.  He understood what was necessary to make sure each of the PL's were successful.  He did it for one, now he does it for 4.  Yes, it's a big responsibility, but his focus is toward successful PL's with liaison responsibilities with the SM.  Up to his point each PL liaisoned with the SM.  As the patrol numbers grew this became more of a burden to the SM.  The SPL took on that responsibility from the SM and made the job easier and took the final step to total boy led.

 

The SPL focused solely on working with the PL's.  And he then selected an ASPL to support the work of the Leadership Corps of the troop.  He assisted every QM to make sure he was successful in getting supplies to the PL's.  He trained the TG to work with the NSP and be successful, etc.  The SPL could have as many supportive ASPLs as needed to make sure the PL's were getting the help they needed to be successful.

 

Once this system was in place, the determination of how "good" a POR was done was determined by the PL's.  Did the SPL give them the help needed to do their job with the patrol members?  If not, they replaced him with someone who would.  Did the QM get the right equipment at the right time to the PL's?  If not, they replaced him. 

 

The caveat to the whole thing was If the PL was not doing his job, the members of the patrol replaced him.  So in fact the total membership had control over who ran the troop and if it wasn't getting done correctly they could in fact make immediate changes, on the spot, to fix the problem. 

 

If the PL ever hears the words, "I need help with...." and he doesn't respond, the membership will lose their trust in that PL and he'll be back at patrol membership in a heartbeat.  Same for the QM who hears, "I need help with....", the same for SPL, etc.

 

The driving dynamic of this setup is from the bottom up, not the top down.  What do Committee Members know about what the needs are in the troop?  They don't, so why are they mentoring by guessing?  What does the SM/ASM team know about what the needs are in the troop?  Maybe a bit more, but they have no idea what the total picture is and so they too, mentor with limited knowledge.  SPL?  With a 15 year old boy there is no what he's going to be able to know what's going on in the troop any more than the SM/ASM team.  Who knows?  The PL's do.  They keep their eye on the success of 6-7 boys and that's about the maximum most humans can handle at one time.  Even a corporal in the Army doesn't have much more soldiers to take care of in their squad.  BP was military, he knew how things worked from the bottom up.

 

So we hear expressions such as the "Brass", "Higher Ups", and "Ivory Tower" and it normally is NOT in flattering terms.  They are the ones least connected to the actual operation of the organization.  Mike LaMach, CEO of Ingersoll Rand, an American globally diversified manufacturing corporation went on record as saying, "The people we have in this organization that work the line making product do not work for us, we work for them."   

 

This is the model I use, it works and for some very magical reason unbeknownst to most, I have virtually no problems of whether or not a POR is running well, whether or not the passed any hoop jumping to get it checked off for rank advancement, no end of the line surprises for the boys at the BOR, no SMC's to correct or direct anything.  It kinda runs itself

 

Scout: "The boys in my patrol are having a problem with the PL, he's never around."

SM: " What do you think will solve this problem?"

Scout: "We all think Johnny would be a better PL."

SM: "Then make him PL."

Scout: "You can do that??!!"

SM: "No, YOU can."

 

end of discussion.

 

It works that way, all the way up the chain-of-command.  The nice thing about the whole thing is once this was put in place, I have had to do ZERO SMC's on anyone's POR performance. The boys handled it by themselves, all the time.  And the really good thing about it was that any officer in the troop knew that if they weren't doing a good job for the boys, they could be replaced on the spot. 

 

After a few months, it was surprising how well things began to run.

 

I as SM do not need to even ask whether or not they did well in their POR, if they successfully made it to their 6 months, I know the members that were being supported were satisfied with his performance.  It's better they keep score than me, anyway.  What do I know about the behind the scenes relationships of the boys? 

[CalicoPenn]

Is it just me or do the responses seem a bit harsh?  I mean, the biggest complaint is that the committee should not be involved in PORs, but the OP never said the committee would be doing this. The mentor is an SM/ASM. prof never said he was going to do it.

 

 

Harsh?  I didn't sense that - Incredulity?  That's more what I felt was being expressed.

 

My first (and continuing) reaction is why is the committee even being considered to have a role in all of this.  And yes, Prof does actually say the proposal (its not his, we understand that) includes a role - and a fairly substantial role at that - and that would be to review these formal session scorecards and discuss amongst themselves if a Scout needs to be removed from their POR.  I think folks have expressed it well - it is NOT the committees job to be involved in evaluating whether the Scouts are performing in the PORs or in setting up some kind of formal scoring plan or in discussing, and possibly deciding, whether a Scout needs to be replaced in their POR.

 

A Committee has three major roles and one minor role:

 

Major 1:  Staff up the program side of the adult leadership (SM & ASM's) appropriately, as well as ensuring adequate staff on the committee.

 

Major 2:  Provide logistical, financial and administrative support to the Troop.  Support the program the PLC plans.  The committee doesn't approve the Troop program, they don't an up or down vote on the program.  It is appropriate for an SPL to make a presentation of the plans for the year.  It is not the committee's job to then vote on it - its the committees job to help figure out how to make it happen - lining up drivers, etc.  If they have any concerns over parts of the program plan, they tell the Scoutmaster and he brings it to the SPL to bring it to the PLC for further discussion.  It should be something simple like "The weekend they chose to camp in April is the same weekend as the church's men's retreat and 4 out of 5 reliable drivers won't be able to drive the Scouts" with an occasional "The CO has asked that the Troop not do that kind of event so ask the PLC to plan something else".   It is not "We don't want to spend a lot of money renting canoes so cancel the June canoe trip".

 

Major 3:  Ensure that the program is being delivered properly and safely - within CO and BSA policies.  They do this by evaluating the Scoutmaster and ASMs - not by evaluating the Scouts. 

 

This leads to Minor 1:  Many will disagree and say this is a major responsibility but hear me out:  Staff up and run Boards of Review.  Yes, this is an important function, but here's why I say its a minor responsibility - because it should be very very rare for a BOR to "fail" a Scout but all to often, people who do BORs think of themselves as gatekeepers and purity squads designed to be a major hurdle for Scouts to jump over.  That's not the purpose of a BOR at all - its not a re-examination, it's not a chance for Committee Members to test the Scouts.  If the Scout is showing up to the BOR with a signed book, and the Scoutmasters blessing, making sure he's done the work is the least of the BORs responsibility.  The work is done, the work is signed of on - a Scout is Trustworthy - use the BOR for more important things.  Remember how one of the Board's major responsibilities is to ensure the program is being delivered properly and safely?  The BOR is one of the tools to make that happen.  This is the time to sit down with the Scouts and find out what they like and don't like about the program - what is going well, what can go better, how are the SMs/ASMs, how is the condition of the equipment (btw - imho one of the best questions you can ask of a Scout coming before the Board for the first time is to ask is "tell me about your tent at your last campout" - if you get an "it was really hard to set up, it leaked, it was missing stakes, it was missing a pole, the pole was broken, etc." answer - doesn't that tell you a lot more about what your Troop needs than "here, tie a square knot"), etc.   Yes, it's a major thing for the Scout, but for the Committee?  It's an evaluation tool - not of the Scout but of the Troop, and that's why I suggest its a minor responsibility - because it falls squarely under Major Role #3.

 

My answer to Prof would be tell the committee to stick to committee stuff - its the Boys, the SPL and the SM/ASM as advice givers/mentors that are the proper people to deal with PORs and evaluating whether a Scout is doing he job or not - trust us old timers - the Scouts can be far more demanding that you will ever be.  As for mentors?  The only formal adult/youth mentor should be SM/SPL.  The SM mentors the SPL through their term.  The SPL mentors the PLs.   Mentors don't have to hold PORs either.  The best mentor for a quartermaster is a former quartermaster - that former quartermaster might not have a POR at the time, or may have a different one - but he's still a valuable resource to the current QM.  You don't need formal adult mentors for any other position (not even for a first year Patrol - that's why we have Troop Guides) - but that's not to keep ASMs from being informal mentors to any Scout at any time.

[Eagledad]

The committee is responsible for the SM guiding the program toward the vision and goals. They hire and fire SMs to fit their program. I have no problem with them asking questions or suggesting ideas. The OP never suggested committee members do the mentoring, in fact he said that was the role of the SM and ASMs. It is the responsibility of the SM to explain (justify) how the program they are working is reaching the goals. Personally I believe this keeps the SM accountable for how the program is being run. I had to explain myself many times as well as explain why the committee’s suggestions may or may not work. Same age patrols and NSPs are a couple examples.

 

As for who mentors who, it really depends on how much the program is using the patrol method and the maturity of the youth leaders. 11 and 12 year old PLs need a lot more mentoring than 15 year olds. Who does that mentoring depends on the maturity of the older Scouts.

 

Is a list ok? Maybe at the start, but eventually performance is measured by the qwazse method. We have to remember the objective of the mentor is to get the scout to where he doesn’t need a mentor. The more a scout grows, the less he should need the mentor. So scheduled meetings become a dreaded waste of time and annoyance. I believe the best mentoring is done passively. The mentor waits for the scout to seek guidance. Otherwise the scout may not be ready to learn and grow from the mentors wisdom.

 

Mentoring is important to our program, but the goal is for most of the mentoring to be done by Scouts.

 

I also believe that a scout can learn just about all he needs to learn in the program by simply observing the actions of the other Scouts. When a trend of behaviors are not being learned by observing, and thus require specific training, that is a red flag that something is wrong in the program and needs attention.

 

So, to answer the OP, I would suggest the mentors should approach their role as mentoring future mentors. Not leaders.

 

Barry

Edited November 12, 2017 by Eagledad

[Stosh]

So one must ask the question, what drives the program?  The goals and aims of the program or the needs of the members?  The goals and aims of the program seem to be the root on adult directed from BSA down to it's membership.  On the other hand isn't the goal of Scouting to have a successful membership that absorbs the goals and aims as guidance to success?  That would mean that the boys drive the program. 

 

OMG!  If one does that the boys are all going to run off on their ATV's, jet-skis and want to do paint-ball.  No it doesn't.  The boys know the policies of BSA and I have never had the boys want to do any of those things unless they are properly sanction in a safe situation by the BSA.  The boys struggle coming up with acceptable activities that the unacceptable ones never even get brought up.

 

The statements about goals, aims, vision, are "Ivory Tower" platitudes that are mandated down onto the membership, because it is assumed that this is what the program is all about.  And you will have fun, or else!  Yeah right.  That's never worked for me with any youth group going through the rebellious, independence seeking youth of this age grouping.  They want fun and adventure, but on their own terms, not those set by adults. 

 

As we all know how well BSA listens to it's membership, one can be assured that the only thing that concerns me as a SM is whether or not my boys' needs, not goals, are being met.  Now if a boy wishes to set Eagle as a personal goal. Fine, but not every boy is interested in that.  They want other things and for the most part fit very nicely into the BSA program being offered.  They want the skills to be an adult some day, but not necessarily right now.  These are the turbulent years between being a kid and being an adult.  The successful charting of a personal path through that is what Scouting is all about.  What does any goal or vision of Scouting have to do with that?  Simply put the Scout Oath, Law, Motto and Slogan.  If at the end of a Scout's career in the program those values are a part of his life, he, and I, and the CO and BSA are happy. 

 

"Ideals

The ideals of Boy Scouting are spelled out in the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Scout motto, and the Scout slogan. The Boy Scout measures himself against these ideals and continually tries to improve. The goals are high, and, as he reaches for them, he has some control over what and who he becomes."

 

As I said, Oath, Law, Motto, and Slogan.  That gets taught to TF scouts.  But how can he attain those things without the SUPPORT of others.  No amount of MANDATES is going to cut it.  Once we try and codify mandates, we cull out the slackers and failures along the way to insure the statistical goals at the end.  It doesn't say much for the "help other people at all times" when these boys struggle and we don't listen to their needs at the time.

 

I have spent 5 decades helping people at all times.  I don't mandate their success, I facilitate it.  I don't set their goals, they tell me what they are.  I can only provide programs, BSA and others that try to meet their needs.  If the program doesn't have a aim or goal to meet needs, I guess I'm in the wrong business.

 

I have mandates to meet the needs of others through the BSA, the American Red Cross, and my home Christian congregation.  If the mandate is not there with BSA, then I've been barking up the wrong tree for 45+ years.  The Oath says, "Help other people at all times.", that's the right tree for me.  I can approach it and say, "This is the policy, does it help?"  or  "This is our program's aims and goals, do they help"" or do I simply ask, "What can I do to help?"  I take my cue from them.  Always have, always will.  That's how I help other people at all times.  Your mileage may vary.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Stosh

[Tampa Turtle]

While it could be a legitimate suggestion at my Troop if the Committee started 'reviewing' POR's than that is symptom that other things are not working as they should be.