Leadership as "Authenticity"

[ParkMan]

8 hours ago, yknot said:

The problems you outline are largely attributable to the inherently dysfunctional organizational structure of scouting. There is little to no accountability in the scouting hierarchy. We have at least five levels of operation -- CO, unit, district, council, and national -- and little connection between them. In a corporate structure, low level employees with an issue generally at least have an HR department. There is no such function in scouts. We have four separate tiers with their hands out for fundraising and they are each only truly interested in or accountable to their own needs -- COs, who sometimes solicit direct fundraising support from units, units, who need dues, districts and councils, who run FOS and popcorn and whatever else, and National. By design, COs and units are largely isolated and there is no conduit for requiring accountability from Councils or National. There are accountability gaps everywhere you look and I believe this is partly why we were so successfully exploited by child predators. It's no coincidence that our structure is somewhat similar to that of the Catholic Church. Before scouting became so focused on marketing (money), membership and advancement, the structure worked OK but it no longer does. 

One of the good things that could possibly come out of bankruptcy would be a more functional organizational structure. 

What I believe this leadership article is implicitly saying is that authentic leaders should work to cultivate a culture of communication and openness.  That there are 5 layers in the BSA is fine.  There are many organizations with a lot more layers than that which have managed to resolve this kind of problem.  Really, just having the senior leaders of the BSA get out there and start visibly talking to unit leaders would be a good first step.  A monthly update from the CEO would be a good step.

To me, the leadership lesson in all of this is that a leader has to want to be authentic - it requires effort.  They have to make this a priority.

[ParkMan]

51 minutes ago, David CO said:

I don't blame them for this.  Our unit doesn't want them.  We would prefer that they stay away.  On the rare occasion someone does show up, we aren't very cordial.  We don't even offer them a cup of coffee.

I guess I'd simply say - I don't blame them for this either.

However, the leadership lesson is that leaders who want to better connect with those they lead have to want to connect.  That you don't want it is all the more a reason for them to want to hear why.  Even if it's not some trumped up photo op, but a discussion about why your unit wants nothing to do with anyone but your own unit.  

[Eagledad]

13 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

What I believe this leadership article is implicitly saying is that authentic leaders should work to cultivate a culture of communication and openness.  That there are 5 layers in the BSA is fine.  There are many organizations with a lot more layers than that which have managed to resolve this kind of problem.  Really, just having the senior leaders of the BSA get out there and start visibly talking to unit leaders would be a good first step.  A monthly update from the CEO would be a good step.

To me, the leadership lesson in all of this is that a leader has to want to be authentic - it requires effort.  They have to make this a priority.

Agreed, five layers of leadership have little or nothing to do with the leadership on the bottom layer. In fact, the lack of leadership guidance from the five layers is more of the complaint from new BSA leaders. But, the BSA is structured to give COs and units their own independence to operate Leadership and Leadership Development within the given BSA structure. It's up to the COs and unit leaders to seek out training and guidance within and outside of the organization. Failure to perform is on the individuals in the unit, not the other four layers. While I don't care for some of the program structure, I certainly don't blame or credit the BSA on my leadership skills.

The article in this discussion is pointed toward the individual leader at any level. Nothing prevents each individual from using guidelines from the article to grow and become a better performing leader.

I do have another view of a person's motivation to be authentic. I believe some leaders do strive to be authentic when it's not in their nature. My observation is that developing oneself to be an authentic leader requires their natural character to be authentic, or to develop the natural character along with their leadership. Either both develop, or neither, because how can someone be an authentic leader if their life habits are not authentic.

In fact, developing character through the habits of leadership is what the Scouting program is all about. We discuss Servant Leader a lot, but in truth the best servant leaders come from a servant lifestyle. I believe the same goes with being authentic. The adults in our troop believed that working on a servant lifestyle naturally led into servant leadership. I'm not convinced that a person can be an authentic leader if they aren't somewhat authentic in the rest of their life.

Barry

[David CO]

57 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

That there are 5 layers in the BSA is fine. 

I don't agree with you on the layer thing.  I consider my unit/CO to be a parallel group.  We have completely separate ownership.  BSA doesn't own us.  We are not the bottom rung on a BSA ladder.  

[David CO]

17 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

But, the BSA is structured to give COs and units their own independence

BSA doesn't give us independence.  We are independent.  We always have been.  Independence isn't a gift from BSA.  BSA doesn't own the unit.

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, David CO said:

BSA doesn't own us.

True. But BSA sets the rules that you are to abide by and that you (as a registered adult leader) agreed to "comply" with, to "respect and abide" and (if you are a CO), conduct yourself/your program with.

EDIT: And @David CO you can continue to over and over again down vote when I point this out, but you have never, ever provided any substantive explanation (other than down votes) as to how you can sign/agree to these conditions knowing and intending to NOT "comply", "respect and abide" and/or "conduct" yourself/your program in open and direct contradiction to the BSA rules.

1) The Adult Application

Quote

I hereby certify that I agree to comply with the rules and regulations of the BSA and the local council, including the Scouter Code of Conduct.

2) The Scouter Code of Conduct

Quote

I will respect and abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, BSA policies, and BSA-provided training,

3) The Charter Organization Agreement

Quote

The Chartered Organization agrees to...Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies.

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[Eagledad]

3 minutes ago, David CO said:

BSA doesn't give us independence.  We are independent.  We always have been.  Independence isn't a gift from BSA.  BSA doesn't own the unit.

You are arguing with agreement. Good for you. 

Barry

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, David CO said:

BSA doesn't give us independence.  We are independent.  We always have been.  Independence isn't a gift from BSA.  BSA doesn't own the unit.

You (as an adult leader) or you (as a CO) enter into a written agreement to abide by BSA's rules. No one made you sign. No one made you agree to this. You are 100% independent to not agree to what BSA has to offer in terms of its rules.

Rather than just petty down-voting, can you explain how or why it is acceptable to agree to BSA's rules, in writing, knowing full well you have no intention to abide by them?

How is that "authentic" leadership?

1) The Adult Application

Quote

I hereby certify that I agree to comply with the rules and regulations of the BSA and the local council, including the Scouter Code of Conduct.

2) The Scouter Code of Conduct

Quote

I will respect and abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, BSA policies, and BSA-provided training,

3) The Charter Organization Agreement

Quote

The Chartered Organization agrees to...Conduct the Scouting program consistent with BSA rules, regulations, and policies.

 

[David CO]

15 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Maybe I'm eternally an optimist, but I think that by discussing these issues we can begin to make headway in terms of understanding each other on them. 

Yes. If you can believe that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you are definitely an eternal optimist.

[carebear3895]

3 hours ago, David CO said:

I don't blame them for this.  Our unit doesn't want them.  We would prefer that they stay away.  On the rare occasion someone does show up, we aren't very cordial.  We don't even offer them a cup of coffee.

lol.

But on a much more serious note, it actually worries me that you're teaching youth to be hateful,  judgmental,  and un-scoutlike. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by carebear3895

[carebear3895]

2 hours ago, ParkMan said:

What I believe this leadership article is implicitly saying is that authentic leaders should work to cultivate a culture of communication and openness.  That there are 5 layers in the BSA is fine.  There are many organizations with a lot more layers than that which have managed to resolve this kind of problem.  Really, just having the senior leaders of the BSA get out there and start visibly talking to unit leaders would be a good first step.  A monthly update from the CEO would be a good step.

I work for the CEO and no one has heard from him directly since he took the job. Surbaugh would at least make the effort to communicate with field staff. 

To your point though, upper and middle management have always been the weakest link of the Boy Scouts. There are a lot of artificial layers to National. 

[carebear3895]

14 hours ago, ParkMan said:

 

It would not be hard for the BSA to begin to remedy this.  For example - what if the BSA gave an ACSE the title of "Chief Scout" and put him/her in charge of programming.  As part of that person's job, he/she person held monthly town hall meetings around the country.  The Chief Scout fielded tough questions from unit volunteers and gave honest answers.  The Chief Scout painted the vision of the organization.  Sessions are recorded and put online for all to see.  What if that person made a statement early on that "we will not sacrifice program quality for membership."  Don't sugar coat things, be honest, genuine, and direct - in other words, be an authentic leader.  I have a hunch that volunteers would love a person like that.  

 

These positions actually do exist. 

There is an ACSE of Outdoors adventures (but his primary role is oversseing the HA bases).

There is a National Director of Program. She is actually an oddity in that she was never a Professional. She was directly hired to the position. Under her are:

National Director of Cub Scouts

National Director of Scouts BSA 

National Director of Exploring. 

I believe they eliminated the Venturing/Sea Scout Director position. 

 

I have said this before on this forum, but am very open and candid with the volunteers I work with. My philosophy has always been  "if someone is going to help me solve a problem, then they need to know the problem first". Not to brag, but I believe honesty and integrity have led me to have a great working relationship with all my volunteers and my district has directly benefited from it. It DOES however have a tendency to annoy my SE. But hey, hard to argue with results. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by carebear3895

[fred8033]

Perhaps there is a way to turn the "BSA vs UNIT" to reflect on Authentic leadership.

So much distrust could be driven by non-aligned goals.  Unit leaders want their unit health, active and great experiences for their scouts.  BSA leaders need membership, growth and visibility of BSA as a product / value statement.  So often we see this as national leaders only talking to units when it involves recruitment or problems that have happened.  

We think of ourselves as one team, but it's not really true.  BSA (national and councils) have an annual cycle of talking to units that have little to do with unit program.  (fall recruitment, recruitment, popcorn sales, fundraisers, etc).   None of those directly help the unit accomplish unit goals.  Units may do more on their own for recruitment, but it's usually disconnected from national / council.  Further, units rarely see BSA national talking about camping, advancement, fun, etc except through publications.  Instead, units see external pressure about external goals with little care for the unit goals themselves.  

Perhaps the BSA could promote trust and connection by better aligning the goals of the unit with the BSA goals.  Maybe this means splitting BSA's organization so that membership, risk, fundraising, etc is separate from unit interaction.  ... I'm not sure, but this seems to be part of the broken chain.  

[ParkMan]

2 hours ago, David CO said:

I don't agree with you on the layer thing.  I consider my unit/CO to be a parallel group.  We have completely separate ownership.  BSA doesn't own us.  We are not the bottom rung on a BSA ladder.  

Agreed.  The unit is a separate legal entity from the council which in turn is a separate legal entity from national.

Here's how I think the org chart effectively looks.

I think that because national has control over the program itself, the CEO or President of the BSA can effectively be considered the "leader" of Scouting.  In this case it's not leadership in terms of ownership, but leadership of  the program itself.  In this discussion of leadership with youth, I would be comfortable distinguishing between ownership and leadership.  You don't have to own something to provide leadership.

[fred8033]

 

2 hours ago, David CO said:

BSA doesn't give us independence.  We are independent.  We always have been.  Independence isn't a gift from BSA.  BSA doesn't own the unit.

 

Yeah.  Units can pretend to be independent, but their not.  It's a fallacy.  Ya wear the uniform.  Ya buy the boy scout handbook.  Ya sign the form.  Ya submit the Eagle applications.  Ya walk the brand.

Most importantly, BSA national bankruptcy is not happening because abuse that happened in the corporate office lunch room.  It happened in the units.  Now, national is being held accountable because of unit leader abuses.  That's what the courts are saying.  Courts are saying BSA national is paying for unit damages.

My apologies, but your exact statements scare me.  I can't say I'm 100% perfect following BSA's guidance, but I try my best and I work hard at it.   We need to show that we are trying our best.  Essentially, explicitly saying you sign kids up as BSA scouts, but then say you're independent scares the crap out of me.

I'm not sure where the difference is?  Or why to emphasize the independence?  You probably run a great program.  But those statements scare me.  It absolutely TRUELY scares me that you would not welcome a council or national visitor to your unit.  That's a red flag that I'll trust is just bravado in the conversation.

I'm not sure where the independence would popup, but it scares me.  Unregistered leaders on camp outs?  Unapproved activities?  Singing to get your stuff back ?  I'm sure what the real issue is.

Emphasizing grievances, differences and independence just scares me.