Positive National Structural Changes during Financial Restructuring

[yknot]

Restructuring needs to give the grass roots level more prominent, direct, and influential access points. BSA is a very insular, top down organization and it needs to become more nimble, transparent, and accessible. There currently is no way for local units to demand anything from national short of refusing to recharter, which none of us will do because it only hurts the kids. 

I can't think of a single well regarded business or institution that only promotes from within except for maybe religious orders. That obviously needs to change. 

In that vein, national needs to reach out and consult and recruit more with and from other successful outside organizations. Examine how other youth organizations like Little League and 4-H are structured, what they know about changing youth demographics and how they are adapting. Customer service has been a problem with National, so do the same with businesses that are known for superior customer service like Amazon and L.L. Bean etc. Why don't we have stronger partnerships with other outdoor oriented organizations, like Audubon, The Sierra Club, etc. Can they partner with us to help with resources for the outdoor program? Where can we find a Bear Grylls? 

There may already be people from some of these organizations offering token viewpoints on the many boards, but they must not be having much input. The focus of a restructuring should not be, in my opinion, to restructure scouting but to create an organization that can sustain scouting by focusing on the customer -- the units and ultimately the scout and his or her family. 

[desertrat77]

7 hours ago, yknot said:

...

I can't think of a single well regarded business or institution that only promotes from within except for maybe religious orders. That obviously needs to change. 

...

Why don't we have stronger partnerships with other outdoor oriented organizations, like Audubon, The Sierra Club, etc. Can they partner with us to help with resources for the outdoor program? Where can we find a Bear Grylls?....

Ynot, I concur with everything in your post, and would like to add a couple thoughts....

Promoting from within:  this faulty practice has been true in the BSA for decades and now the organization is paying for it.  The national pros and volunteers on the high-level committees have demonstrated an incredible disregard for reality, and appear to have very little loyalty to those that serve at unit level.  Frankly, I see the looming bankruptcy upsetting their apple-cart to a degree they are not fully anticipating at this time.

Outdoor organizations:  spot on observation...I think these organizations stay away from the BSA in droves.  Some because we are faith based, but much of it because of the poor image that the BSA has garnered, be it deserved or undeserved.  Our national pros and vols have done nothing to shape strategic level public relations for a long, long time.  Again, we're all getting ready to pay the bill for their neglect.  Additionally, the BSA has deliberately distanced itself from our outdoor adventure image.   

Bear Grylls:  we could find one but I don't think the bureaucrats want to share the lime light.  Plus there are viable candidates who would decline because of the BSA's poor image. 

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by desertrat77

[yknot]

6 hours ago, desertrat77 said:

Outdoor organizations:  spot on observation...I think these organizations stay away from the BSA in droves.  Some because we are faith based, but much of it because of the poor image that the BSA has garnered, be it deserved or undeserved.  Our national pros and vols have done nothing to shape strategic level public relations for a long, long time.  Again, we're all getting ready to pay the bill for their neglect.  Additionally, the BSA has deliberately distanced itself from our outdoor adventure image.   

Bear Grylls:  we could find one but I don't think the bureaucrats want to share the lime light.  Plus there are viable candidates what would decline because of the BSA's poor image. 

 

Hey, thanks. 

Yes, I think we are probably going to remain toxic for the next few years. But, if we survive, I hope we can pursue some innovative strategic partnerships that could do some great things, especially for the outdoor program. Scouts has to want to still be an outdoor program though.
 

[desertrat77]

7 minutes ago, yknot said:

Hey, thanks. 

Yes, I think we are probably going to remain toxic for the next few years. But, if we survive, I hope we can pursue some innovative strategic partnerships that could do some great things, especially for the outdoor program. Scouts has to want to still be an outdoor program though.
 

I really like the strategic partnership concept...I think it should be a top 3 initiative for the BSA in the days and years ahead.  I concur, the BSA must want to be an outdoor program.  Hiking, backpacking, canoeing, climbing real mountains, camp fires, identifying and appreciating flora/fauna.  Heat, cold, wind, rain, snow, doesn't matter.  Adventure.

[MattR]

Oops, forgot the most important item:

Remove the silos.

National seems to consist of disparate groups that are so focused on their small fiefdoms that, collectively, they just chip away at the most fundamental aspects of scouting. It seems there are silos for safety, future jobs, lifelong learning, not having fun with toy guns or anything that looks like it, advancement, citizenship, JTE/WB/training/EDGE, and leave no trace.

In the meantime we've been wondering what happened to the Patrol Method, Scout Led, and Fun silos. These are really fundamental ideas and they've been crowded out. There needs to be someone very high up that truly understands how important it is for scouts to take ownership, and this person needs the authority to defend that from all the other ideas coming from these silos, that are just boring kids into submission. Every single MB does not need a requirement about safety or future job possibilities. There's nothing wrong with squirt guns. At the same time patrols need to be encouraged to do their own thing.

This is not a program change. This is restructuring national so they focus on the fundamentals. There needs to be one super silo, the one that defends the fundamentals of scouting. This should be led by the guy with the vision that has been mentioned elsewhere.

[walk in the woods]

10 hours ago, desertrat77 said:

Bear Grylls:  we could find one but I don't think the bureaucrats want to share the lime light.  Plus there are viable candidates who would decline because of the BSA's poor image. 

We had Eagle scout and survivalist Creek Stewart for a bit.  He used to mention his scouting background on his TV shows.  I learned about him at the 2013 NSJ.

[RememberSchiff]

Working with outdoor adventure businesses may become more  common if  National and Councils sells their high adventure camps but IMHO, units can do this on their own without National forming partnerships. I would like National to rebuild our relationships with the military as the Sea Scouts did with Coast Guard. 

My $0.02 ,

Edited February 16, 2020 by RememberSchiff

[ParkMan]

@yknot's, @desertrat77's, and @MattR's comments hit upon a common theme.  This theme permeates about 50% of the posts on this forum.

Today, the organization that is the BSA - whether through volunteers or professionals is one that is largely focused on operations, rules, and safety.  We spend so much time and effort on how.  We have structures in place that when they work are great - G2SS, commissioners, professionals, Districts & Councils, Wood Badge, etc.  But, when they are done poorly probably end up doing more harm than good.  Bans on water guns, the wheelbarrow rule, bad commissioners, professionals who take over, the preachiness of LNT, well known Wood Badge cliques, uniform police, bad roundtables, etc...  How many topics have we had which end up in a discussion of "how they are supposed to work" vs. "bad examples we've all seen".

If I look at the most successful packs & troops I know, they do so by knowing how to smartly leverage the resources provided by the BSA.  We all know which professionals and volunteers are worth working with.  We all know how to work with the system.  The BSA provides them the resources to be successful, but the BSA doesn't make them successful.  Those units make themselves successful.

If I read through some of the good ideas on this page:

• Volunteers to have more national access points 
• Recruit more from the outside
• Remove the national silos
• Focus on the fun silo

To me, these all point to a national structure that has the wrong focus.  Volunteers feel controlled by the BSA, volunteers feel like the structure is more of a burden than a help.  

We have to be "the" go-to activity for outdoor youth fun.  We have to be "the" go-to activity for youth development.  We have to be focused on doing, on saying yes, on pursuing fun. 

An example

Permit me a side example.  Sears, Roebuck and Co. vs. Amazon. 

Sears and Amazon started essentially the same way. 

• Sears had a catalog that people bought the products they needed.  The catalog was large, broad, and it made it easy to buy what you wanted.  The goods were shipped to you.  People all of a sudden had easy access to all kinds of goods.
• Amazon has a website where people bought the products they needed.  The website was large, broad, and it made it easy to buy what you wanted.  The goods were shipped to you.  People all of a sudden had easy access to all kinds of goods.

Along the way Sears got encumbered with all kind of infrastructure that supported a certain way of doing business. They built stores, they built a supply infrastructure, they hired staff, etc...  They even made their own credit card business.  Eventually that infrastructure became too out of date and unwieldy. Sears became bloated and slow.  Later, Amazon came along and provided the exact same service that Sears originally did. 

Last year Sears had revenue of $14 billion, Amazon $280 billion.  Sears currently has about 90,000 employees.  Amazon currently has about 750,000 employees.

What's the connection?

It feels to me a lot like there is a similarity here.  It's not that we have to change our program. The program is largely fine - kids want to get outdoors, kids want to have adventures, kids want to have fun, kids enjoy being with other kids.  We don't have to replace all that with video games merit badges and sedentary activities.  

The challenge for the BSA is to have a positive, results oriented focus.  We need to be looking for innovative ways to say yes.  Let's look at the issues keeping units from being successful and let's go address them.  

Recommendations

Structurally how do we do this?  My take is that we start by listening to unit/district leaders.  Help them provide solutions instead of forcing a one size fits all approach.  At what seems like every turn now, nationals response to challenges is to impose more and more central control.  It's as if the national mindset is "we know the right way, if only everyone listened to us we'd be fine".  I do not doubt that there are utterly brilliant people in national, but that's not a positive, results oriented focus.

We've got to be focused on delivering the core idea here.  We've got to look at where the infrastructure has added on a life of it's own and be willing to remove it.  If that means shifting or roles and responsibilities so be it.  If it means changing hiring practices, so be it.

Some specific proposals:

First, focus more on success stories and help build vision.  Proposal: Create a marketing team that is really out there talking about what we do.  There have been some bright spots lately in marketing, review those and do more of that.

Second, increase hands on training for unit leaders.  A perfunctory online intro class is not enough.  If you have to partner with REI to give canoeing lessons - do it.  More content, more training.  Make those trainings 21st century absorbable - short evening classes, short Saturday morning classes.  Less weekend trips to camp.  Proposal: Create a national, subject focused expert training development team.  Have them generate content and materials that can be absorbed and delivered locally.  Make that content about doing, not rules and structure. In that content allow for local innovation.  WHen innovation occurs that results in success, learn about it, absorb it, and utilize it.

Thirds, focus the professional staff on enabling and day to day problem solving.  Proposal: Align the national professional goals and structure such that they drive ground level problem solving and action.  National HR needs to be supporting this.  National hiring practices need to support this.  National staff development needs to support this.

Edited February 16, 2020 by ParkMan
expanded the thought

[yknot]

@Cburkhardt  On this President's Day weekend, thank you for framing and initiating these different conversations about our hoped for better future. I am grateful for all the voices on this board and that we are all able to come together and have these varied and thoughtful discussions.  

[Cburkhardt]

The Financial Reorganization Bankruptcy (Chapter 11) was just filed.  We will not be addressing that filing on this posting.  Only positive things we can attempt to implement during that process.

[MattR]

3 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

Only positive things we can attempt to implement during that process.

I have some positive questions for you. You've started a few thought provoking threads about restructuring. I've gone along with it because it's cathartic. However, it seems to me that any restructuring that happens will be entirely about the lawsuits. I don't see how any restructuring can encompass the issues we've discussed in these threads. All I can see is that the BSA, and maybe some (or all?) councils, will just have less money. There will be less staff and less properties but the fundamental organization, and certainly the program, isn't going to change. Even if the court appoints a new CEO, who is to say this person will have the required vision? I really don't know much about how bankruptcy can effect change and so this is all just my guess. However, you've apparently done quite a bit in the BSA at many levels. Is there something you know that I don't? How can any restructuring of the BSA include the ideas in these threads? Or are you just assuming things will get really bad, a phoenix will rise from the ashes and we should be ready? Or is this just cathartic to you as well?

I'm not interested in the machinations of bankruptcy, just how the new ideas we've been talking about can, well, get beyond the people writing on these pages and to those that can effect national.

[Cburkhardt]

Why did I make these postings over the last month?

I'm a long-time volunteer who spent about 30+ years in council and national roles up until a few years back.  I knew that the BSA would file a Chapter 11 because it had to -- once the statutes of limitations were eliminated -- allowing a flood of lawsuits and now the bankruptcy claims.  I dearly love what the BSA achieves and hope that when we come out of Ch. 11 we will be able to thrive. 

My insistence on positivity in the posts I focus is because I can see what we will face over the next couple of years -- a potentially-toxic stew of the right and left being against us for cultural reasons and the trial industry making a stab at bringing us down into liquidation so they can get maximum cash.  There is going to be a lot of bad will and negativity in the BSA and even among some posters on Scouter.com -- so I wanted to start us off into this new phase on as upbeat a spirit as we can be.

I believe the time when an entity is down is the time to dispense with the things that don't work and a time to adopt new things that do.  Folks on "Scouter.com" have observed for many years that "we just can't do anything" about the BSA's significant challenges.  Well, now is going to be the opportunity to do things differently.  The organization is going to be smaller, but not the same.  For example, just today the Southern Region was wiped-out.  No more region director and half of the 8 area directors were dismissed.  That is change.  That is reorienting power back to the local level.  This is going to be the environment for Scouters of good will to come forward with the kinds of ideas expressed on the postings  these last 4 weeks.  Back before I "retired" from my council and national roles, I was an insider in the movement.  I left all of that and am now the Scoutmaster of my 12-year-old daughter's Troop.  But, I am aware enough to understand that these blogs have been carefully read by a wide variety of people wanting to know where the future of the BSA is going to be.  The cross-section of commenters these past 4 weeks has been a very representative group.  Look  me up in a couple of years and I think you will see great and positive changes in the BSA consistent with much of what has been said here. 

[MattR]

It sounds like you're going with B) Be Prepared for when the phoenix flies. I hope you're right. And you're not the first person that has told me this.

 

[dkurtenbach]

7 hours ago, MattR said:

 I don't see how any restructuring can encompass the issues we've discussed in these threads. All I can see is that the BSA, and maybe some (or all?) councils, will just have less money. There will be less staff and less properties but the fundamental organization, and certainly the program, isn't going to change.

 

4 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

 The organization is going to be smaller, but not the same. 

I have to agree with @MattR, at least based on what I've read so far.  The issue here is money, and only money.  There is nothing about this controversy that provides any reason or incentive to change the basic organizational structure, policies, or programs of the Boy Scouts of America.  Some properties may be sold, some councils consolidated, we'll have further declines in membership -- in other words, the status quo.  It is exactly what has already been happening in BSA for a long time.  Considering the upheaval of the last seven years, there is and will be a strong appetite for trying to achieve as much "normalcy" as possible.  After all, we've only just opened the doors to girls in Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting. We haven't even felt the hit from the loss of the LDS folks yet.  There is a lot of smoke to clear without the bankruptcy thing.  And what I see happening is that the bankruptcy is going to be something that barely registers in day-to-day Scouting.  If there is a reduction in council services, most members and families will hardly notice.  

[ParkMan]

I could absolutely see a different district/council/area structure emerging here.

Say that some of the more dire theories about bankruptcy are true and that some council assets are sold in this.  I could entirely envision a restructuring around fewer, larger councils and fewer, more regional camps.  I could see councils the size of states or at least very large metropolitan areas.  I could imagine a one or two camps for a state like Virginia, Illinois, etc.  You'd have to drive 2-3 hours to get there, but it's where there would be.  Or perhaps fewer big developed camps and more less developed camps.  What is a small council camp today might stay as a primitive camp, but the big metropolitan camp stays as the primary summer camp.

Similarly, I could see a change in professional responsibilities.  Much of what DEs do is focused on membership, FOS, and unit service.  What if we just didn't focus on that.  Forget growth goals from councils and fundraising numbers.  Charge $20 per kid per year and have one professional for every 5,000 scouts.  They could handle paperwork, major issues, etc.  Most everything else is simply unit or volunteer driven.  Imagine districts with no DEs.