BSA National and Change Management

[Hawkwin]

26 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I have a couple of questions that I'm not sure anyone on the forum can answer, when did women start taking positions at policy making level of National and how many are there now?

Barry

Depending on how you measure things, looks like 1969 and/or 1973.

http://www.oocities.org/~pack215/hist-cs-women.html

 

1969 Den leader coach conferences at Augustus House and Schiff Scout Reservation in New Jersey to establish training curriculum.

The first women were named to the national Cub Scout Committee: LaVern W. Parmley and Elizabeth C. Reneker. A study was conducted by BSA on the subject of "Awards for Women."

...

1973 The national Executive Board voted to allow women to serve as institutional representatives, Cub Scout roundtable commissioners, Cub Scout unit commissioners, unit chairmen, and unit committee members, den leaders, assistant den leaders, and den leader coaches.

The first women appointed to the national Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America were Elizabeth Augustus Knight and LaVern W. Parmley.

More:

https://scoutingwire.org/these-5-women-made-scouting-history/

1. LaVern Watts Parmley

As the fifth general president of the Primary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Parmley oversaw the Sunday school program for children younger than 12 years old. During her 23 year tenure (1951 – 1974), Parmley made a massive move for Scouting: the integration of the movement into Primary programs for boys eight to 11 years old. Parmley was also the first woman to receive the Silver Buffalo award.

[NJCubScouter]

1 hour ago, carebear3895 said:

I mean I met the guy in charge of BSA IT. Never worked in IT in his life, but he was a professional scouter and former SE. The guys who are BSA HR....never spent a day in HR but were again professional scouters and former SE's. It's a bad pattern

Sounds pretty bad to me.

[NJCubScouter]

1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

My daughter is at day camp this week (I chaperoned yesterday) and I have been struck by two things:

1. The number of people that were not aware that Scouts was going coed in any capacity (a failure of management - it seems Nationals relied on Boys Life and packs/troops to tell this story and Nationals should never let someone else tell your story or you lose the narrative).

2. The number of parents that expressed excitement at the idea (I know, completely anecdotal).

I get that some parents will remain clueless up and through any changes but I think it fair to assume that any parent that is involved enough to not only send their scout to summer camp but also attend, might have a higher level of involvement that would facilitate them being informed of the membership changes. Nationals could have certainly exercised change management better as it pertains to communication of the change.

This is something I have been wondering about:  Were they going to depend on the existing Scouting community to get the word out about this, or were they going to have an all-out publicity campaign so that everybody, inside and outside of Scouting, would know about it.  From your post, which has been confirmed by the fact that I have not heard much discussion about this outside of Roundtables and this forum, it appears they have chosen the former.  I think that is a big mistake.  I think the population of families that have been clamoring for their daughters to be able to join Cub Scouts and "Boy Scouts" is much smaller than the population of families that haven't even thought about it because they don't know it's available.  Kind of like a new high-tech vacuum cleaner that sings, dances and plays the Star-Spangled Banner.  You don't know you "need" it until you see an ad for it.

[MattR]

5 hours ago, Eagledad said:

I'm not so sure. I think they are too far from the trenches to feel enough humility to change.

 

2 hours ago, carebear3895 said:

The problem with National professionals reflects a bigger problem with BSA professional in general. I would wager 95%-100% of the pros working at National were SE's in like 2000-2015 and are pretty out of touch. They were DE's in the 80's and 90's and have no idea the problems facing DE's today. The talent is limited because they purposely limit the talent by not trusting the young professionals...the guys and girls in the districts right now.  

 

I mean I met the guy in charge of BSA IT. Never worked in IT in his life, but he was a professional scouter and former SE. The guys who are BSA HR....never spent a day in HR but were again professional scouters and former SE's. It's a bad pattern

I believe all of this. There's one more aspect of this and that's money. I've seen volunteer organizations lose their way when it comes to money. BSA has high expenses so the core of the program is being ignored to solve the money issue. The focus has moved from quality program to high membership. Add in the fact that so many at national are far from the action and that so many parents see scouts as all about eagle and a reasonable solution is to push advancement. So FCFY, lions and tigers, STEM, silos of interest at national, and girls. In the mean time they've forgotten about the heart of the program.

When Hillcourt was pulled out of retirement to fix things there were also silos but I suspect the money problem wasn't so bad. It would take some real leadership to fix things now. Servant leadership. Someone that could cut through the sclerosis at national. Does anyone know of someone at national we could invite to join us?

[CalicoPenn]

5 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

1. The number of people that were not aware that Scouts was going coed in any capacity (a failure of management - it seems Nationals relied on Boys Life and packs/troops to tell this story and Nationals should never let someone else tell your story or you lose the narrative).

 

I know its popular to blame National for any and everything but in defense of National on this so-called failure of management - the BSA issued a press release that was covered by just about everyone in the media - ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, MSNBC, CNN - and pretty much every newspaper - large and small - covered this   Time magazine covered this .  Conservative blogs covered this.  Liberal blogs covered this.  Progressive blogs covered this.  Short of the BSA sending out some kind of campaign style postcard to every house in the USA, the news was pretty much all over the place.  It's not National's failure that so many people apparently don't pay attention to news coverage.

 

[Eagledad]

I don't know Calico, you didn't score any points on National hiding in the bushes looking to catch volunteers breaking policy. National isn't held accountable by anybody accept National. Criticism is warranted if for nothing else than balance. 

Barry

[gblotter]

21 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

Think the ban on Scouts under 14 using a 4-wheel cart (aka Radio Flyer Wagon) is silly and you're not going to enforce it at a service project?  No one from National is going to jump out of the bushes and fine you for refusing to follow that rule.  None of their rules and prohibitions are pro-actively enforced (except perhaps at District/Council events/properties, summer camp, National properties) - they are enforced retro-actively - after the event has occurred.  No one form National/Council is actively monitoring our units to make sure we are following the program to the letter.

The primary benefit that National receives from the G2SS is shielding from liability. Concern about the safety of individuals is a secondary consideration (sorry to be so cynical, but that is the truth). That is why we see such ridiculous rules. That is why we see no monitoring or enforcement. If a 13 year-old gets hurt using a 4-wheel cart, National will transfer any lawsuit liability to the local unit and local leadership for not following the published rules. Problem solved.

[Eagle94-A1]

I complained to my SE when the rules first came out. He was one of the good ones and went up the food chain to National to find out why. The rules are based upon DOL and OSHA laws, and were implemented at the request of one non-profit that BSA does work with. If memory serves, it is Habitat for Humanity that requested we follow these rules when working with them. For whatever reason, National decided to implement them in the G2SS.

5 minutes ago, gblotter said:

The primary benefit that National receives from the G2SS is shielding from liability. Concern about the safety of individuals is a secondary consideration (sorry to be so cynical, but that is the truth). That is why we see such ridiculous rules. That is why we see no monitoring or enforcement. If a 13 year-old gets hurt using a 4-wheel cart, National will transfer any lawsuit liability to the local unit and local leadership for not following the published rules. Problem solved.

Agree 100%.

[gblotter]

12 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

I know its popular to blame National for any and everything but in defense of National on this so-called failure of management - the BSA issued a press release that was covered by just about everyone in the media - ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, MSNBC, CNN - and pretty much every newspaper - large and small - covered this   Time magazine covered this .  Conservative blogs covered this.  Liberal blogs covered this.  Progressive blogs covered this.  Short of the BSA sending out some kind of campaign style postcard to every house in the USA, the news was pretty much all over the place.  It's not National's failure that so many people apparently don't pay attention to news coverage.

CalicoPenn is absolutely right on this point. National has blown their co-ed horn using every means possible.

It is shocking to me how many of the Scouting families in my own troop are not aware of the co-ed Scouting decision. Although I vehemently disagree with the decision, I have mostly stayed silent about it with our Scouting families. Perhaps they rely on me too much to inform them about what is going on in the Scouting world.

Edited July 11, 2018 by gblotter

[Eagledad]

5 minutes ago, gblotter said:

The primary benefit that National receives from the G2SS is shielding from liability. Concern about the safety of individuals is a secondary consideration (sorry to be so cynical, but that is the truth). That is why we see such ridiculous rules. That is why we see no monitoring or enforcement. If a 13 year-old gets hurt using a 4-wheel cart, National will transfer any lawsuit liability to the local unit and local leadership for not following the published rules. Problem solved.

Unless things have changed recently, my experience is National doesn't sluff off liability if the unit didn't follow policy.

Barry

[gblotter]

5 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

The rules are based upon DOL and OSHA laws, and were implemented at the request of one non-profit that BSA does work with. If memory serves, it is Habitat for Humanity that requested we follow these rules when working with them. For whatever reason, National decided to implement them in the G2SS.

Because if National does not implement the same DOL and OSHA and Habitat for Humanity rules, then BSA will have increased legal liability for ignoring "industry standard" safety practices. As I said before, this is all about exposure to liability.

Edited July 11, 2018 by gblotter

[gblotter]

6 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Unless things have changed recently, my experience is National doesn't sluff off liability if the unit didn't follow policy.

I'm not a lawyer. You may be right.

Edited July 11, 2018 by gblotter

[Hawkwin]

12 hours ago, CalicoPenn said:

I know its popular to blame National for any and everything but in defense of National on this so-called failure of management - the BSA issued a press release that was covered by just about everyone in the media - ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, MSNBC, CNN - and pretty much every newspaper - large and small - covered this   Time magazine covered this .  Conservative blogs covered this.  Liberal blogs covered this.  Progressive blogs covered this.  Short of the BSA sending out some kind of campaign style postcard to every house in the USA, the news was pretty much all over the place.  It's not National's failure that so many people apparently don't pay attention to news coverage.

 

I am usually one of the first to defend Nationals. I have no knee-jerk loathing for them and give them the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity. That being stated...

When my bank makes a change to my accounts, it does not rely on a press release and favorable news media and blogs to tell their story. They send me an email or a dead tree letter letting me know.

As significant as this change was, as much as Nationals wants this once in a generation membership change to be successful, every registered parent should have received an email and a dead tree letter detailing the changes - and then sent one ore two more as the details became known.

BSA/Nationals can either try to own their success, or they can rely on the media, and blogs, and press releases to make this successful. *shrug*

[Eagledad]

5 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

I am usually one of the first to defend Nationals. I have no knee-jerk loathing for them and give them the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity. That being stated...

When my bank makes a change to my accounts, it does not rely on a press release and favorable news media and blogs to tell their story. They send me an email or a dead tree letter letting me know.

As significant as this change was, as much as Nationals wants this once in a generation membership change to be successful, every registered parent should have received an email and a dead tree letter detailing the changes - and then sent one ore two more as the details became known.

BSA/Nationals can either try to own their success, or they can rely on the media, and blogs, and press releases to make this successful. *shrug*

Feelings of the volunteers aren't false. The way National implements most of their policy changes lately is dragging their  membership behind them and letting them deal with the fallout without support.

Now that isn't all the time, National did a pretty good job of introducing their new leadership training back in 2000. They prepared the Council professionals of the new changes so that they could support the districts and units. Folks were still annoyed by some of the changes, but at least everyone felt they were in it together.

I would like to give National some credit and even some benefit of the doubt, but it irks me that volunteers have no path of holding National accountable for their management. It's pretty much of a just sit and wait to see what will happen next type of relationship. 

Barry

 

[RichardB]

Couple of questions for deliberation:  

How many of you that want to be "in the know" are signed up for a weekly Scoutingwire feed?   https://scoutingwire.org/ Are you promoting that?  

Does you council have a newsletter?  Do you get that?   Any articles in there on changes?   

Do you get Scouting Magazine 6 times a year?   Do you read it?    

Do you subscribe to Bryan's Blog?  

Do you really want an email and a dead tree letter?  @Hawkwin

Richard

Bonus Question:  did you know the Program Hazard Analysis http://scouting.org/filestore/pdf/680-009.pdf narrative was based on management of change document:  http://scouting.org/filestore/HealthSafety/doc/Narrative.doc?