Significant Cultural Changes are Coming Soon

[Sentinel947]

10 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

May I ask why?  This would eliminate 1/3 of the ASMs that I've enjoyed working with.  Most trades (carpenters, plumbers, welders, electricians, etc.) farmers and enlisted military don't have or need a BA/BS.   Many of these individuals are self-employed, which allows them to schedule their time for volunteering.

My 6 years of college were a lot of fun, but influenced about 1% of anything I did as a scouter.

This is just part of the JD (job description) for a DE. I don't think @Cburkhardt was suggesting it become the standard for Scouting volunteers.

The DE role has some huge challenges. From a job design perspective, it's asking people to have a variety of valuable skillsets for a low rate of pay. That's a poor business practice. The BSA will always struggle to attract people with the right background for such a multifacted role, and once it starts to develop staff to have the necessary sales, fundraising and people management skills needed to be a DE, they can leave the BSA for sales, fundraising or HR jobs that are more lucrative than being a DE. 

Many American companies are starting to eliminate degree requirements where it makes sense. Certainly if ASM was a job, I'd see little reason to require a degree for it. 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Sentinel947

[JoeBob]

10 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

This is just part of the JD (job description) for a DE.

I understand.  I thought we were talking about the DE becoming a volunteer role in the future. 

A large national organization would want their new DEs to understand all the latest buzzwords and management conjectures theories.  National also wants them broken and submissive to their chain of command.  Hence college.

A volunteer DE needs to be someone who can lead a team, inspire excellence, support struggling units, and takes ownership of their results.  Does that sound like an NCO, a business owner, or a college grad?

[Cburkhardt]

Sentinel is correct.  This was a discussion regarding District Executives.

As to the comment on the document itself, I agree the job requirements have become overly expansive and no longer suggestive of a “fun” career.  
 

As for the fund raising component, I am going to start a separate discussion in a couple of weeks sharing my view that Scouting should adopt a different model to raise funds for units and FOS for councils.  Stay tuned, because you will see things you like and dispute.

[carebear3895]

37 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

This is just part of the JD (job description) for a DE. I don't think @Cburkhardt was suggesting it become the standard for Scouting volunteers.

The DE role has some huge challenges. From a job design perspective, it's asking people to have a variety of valuable skillsets for a low rate of pay. That's a poor business practice. The BSA will always struggle to attract people with the right background for such a multifacted role, and once it starts to develop staff to have the necessary sales, fundraising and people management skills needed to be a DE, they can leave the BSA for sales, fundraising or HR jobs that are more lucrative than being a DE. 

Many American companies are starting to eliminate degree requirements where it makes sense. Certainly if ASM was a job, I'd see little reason to require a degree for it. 

Degree and a pulse, with the latter being negotiable. 

[ParkMan]

40 minutes ago, Cburkhardt said:

As to the comment on the document itself, I agree the job requirements have become overly expansive and no longer suggestive of a “fun” career.  

 

1 hour ago, Cburkhardt said:

Maybe it is possible that the concerns of Eagledad and Parkman might be partly addressed by the downsizing of Scouting that is going to take place next year in most places.  

I have some good friends who are and were DEs.  As such, I recognize there is a role for professionals.  My sense is that as the job description has become broader and many of the responsibilities of volunteers transferred to professionals it is reaching the point of unsustainability.  I think, for example, our DE for 75 units is spending 50% or more of his time just dealing with fires and another 25% responding to SE requests.    This leaves only 25% for his strategic responsibilities.

As a district/council volunteer - I see it now.  The DE comes to a meeting to tell the District Chair what he needs to do for the budget or to tell the District Commissioner what meeting a UC needs to go to.  A unit calls with a complaint and the DE visits.  In my mind, these efforts are largely duplicating "the easy stuff" of being a senior district volunteer.  Our District Chair is a seasoned executive - I don't think the DE really needs to tell him how to write a budget.   Out District Commissioner a seasoned volunteer - I think he can handle some unit support

As a result of all of this, the DE probably only has about 25% of his time to really focus on the core value add of his role.   So when a DE only has a couple of days a week to focus on building the district, what can he meaningfully do?

My proposal is to refocus the DE role.  I would like to see a realistic job description for the DE that is achievable by an early career employee in 40 hours a week.  Assume the following:

• The District Commissioner and District Chair are prestige jobs
• There is a 50% staffed district committee
• The average DE supports a district of 2,000 scouts and 75 units.
• Each scout, or average, contributes $15 a year towards the salary of the DE.

With those basic facts - realign the position.

 

 

[Eagledad]

14 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I propose is to refocus the DE role.  I would like to see a realistic job description for the DE that is achievable by an early career employee in 40 hours a week.  Assume the following:

• The District Commissioner and District Chair are prestige jobs
• There is a 50% staffed district committee
• The average DE supports a district of 2,000 scouts and 75 units.
• Each scout, or average, contributes $15 a year towards the salary of the DE.

With those basic facts - realign the position.

 

 

You are assuming your DE was doing his job as designed. Maybe we should look at the DE job description before realigning what your are observing from your DE.

Barry

[ParkMan]

18 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

You are assuming your DE was doing his job as designed. Maybe we should look at the DE job description before realigning what your are observing from your DE.

Barry

I did.  cburkhardt posted it:

9 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

Principal Responsibilities

1. Work with a volunteer board of directors and other community and business leaders to identify, recruit, train, guide, and inspire them to become involved in youth programs.
2. Achieve progress towards specific goals and objectives which include: program development through collaborative relationships, volunteer recruitment and training, fundraising, membership recruitment and retention.
3. Be responsible for extending programs to religious, civic, fraternal, educational, and other community-based organizations through volunteers.
4. Secure adequate financial support for programs in assigned area. Achieve net income and participation objectives for assigned camps and activities.
5. Recruit leadership for finance campaign efforts to meet the financial needs of the organization.
6. Ensure that all program sites are served through volunteers, regular leader meetings, training events and activities.
7. Collaborate with adult volunteers and oversee achievement of training for their respective role.
8. Be a good role model and recognize the importance of working relationships with other professionals and volunteers. The executive must have communication skills and be able to explain the program’s goals and objectives to the public.
9. Provide quality service through timely communication, regular meetings, training events and activities.
10. Have a willingness and ability to devote long and irregular hours to achieve council and district objectives.

I read this as a lot of volunteer oversight and management.  Am I wrong?

EDIT: Further, the job description is raise money, grow membership, & oversee volunteers.  This seem undoable in a large modern district.  We've all been remarking about that for years now.  Why not take a step back, focus the job on the highest value add areas, and then trust and enable volunteers to do the rest?

Edited December 11, 2020 by ParkMan
expanded the thought

[Eagledad]

8 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

I did.  cburkhardt posted it:

I read this as a lot of volunteer oversight and management.  Am I wrong?

You are correct. ParkMan observed his DE directing (Micromanaging) committee Chair level volunteers to do specific tasks that they should be delegating to members in their committee.

Even as a SM, I spent 50% of my time working with my staff to insure they understood our vision and were trained for their position. The CC did the same.
 

A District Commissioner should know the heartbeat of the district by the monthly (bimonthly) reports from the DCs. If the DE knows of unit problems before the District Commissioner, that is a red flag that something isn’t working as trained. Or supposed to be trained.

There is a training curriculum for District Chair positions. Maybe that is a problem area.

Barry

[ParkMan]

17 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

You are correct. ParkMan observed his DE directing (Micromanaging) committee Chair level volunteers to do specific tasks that they should be delegating to members in their committee.

Even as a SM, I spent 50% of my time working with my staff to insure they understood our vision and were trained for their position. The CC did the same.
 

A District Commissioner should know the heartbeat of the district by the monthly (bimonthly) reports from the DCs. If the DE knows of unit problems before the District Commissioner, that is a red flag that something isn’t working as trained. Or supposed to be trained.

There is a training curriculum for District Chair positions. Maybe that is a problem area.

Barry

I see what you're saying.  I misunderstood.  Sure - maybe it's just us,

I'd just wrap the conservation on this point to say that I think this expectation that the DCs report to the DE is a mistake.  The DCs report to their council counterparts.  When the pros have to (or even can) step in then it weakens the need for volunteers to step up.  I suspect that we are seeing lots of cases where the professionals have assumed too more responsibility for the work in Scouting, creating an unsustainable model.  When I was in a DC role, I was ready to walk away from it simply because I got tired of being told what I should or should not worry about by the DE.  I much more thoroughly enjoyed being a Troop CC than I did a DC.

[RememberSchiff]

My experience, at best, volunteers will step up only where they see a need. After these past 9 months, the #1 need our volunteers see is summer camp, #2 summer camp, and #3 summer camp.

My $0.02,

Edited December 11, 2020 by RememberSchiff

[Cburkhardt]

Will “renting” impact “duty to God”?  

A separate thread is currently discussing the apparent development that churches will now have the option to discontinue their chartered organization relationships with Troops in favor of a more-distanced lessor-lessee relationship.  Te practical and relationship discussion of this should continue on that other thread. However, from a cultural perspective, this presents an issue.

If a Troop is a “renter” and no longer part of a church’s program, how will this impact the “duty to God” aspect of Its program?  Does this present a bigger issue across the Scouting movement?

 

[ParkMan]

6 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

Will “renting” impact “duty to God”?  

A separate thread is currently discussing the apparent development that churches will now have the option to discontinue their chartered organization relationships with Troops in favor of a more-distanced lessor-lessee relationship.  Te practical and relationship discussion of this should continue on that other thread. However, from a cultural perspective, this presents an issue.

If a Troop is a “renter” and no longer part of a church’s program, how will this impact the “duty to God” aspect of Its program?  Does this present a bigger issue across the Scouting movement?

 

It shouldn't.  Too much is made of the ownership issue here.  Whether the CO is the technical owner or an informal organizer, it really shouldn't matter too much.  If you troop meets at a location, it would be good to integrate into that community.  So, it really shouldn't matter at all who provides the legal ownership of the unit.

In fact, the BSA should make this ownership question one of merely enforcement of YPT and training rules.  

[Cburkhardt]

I am inclined to agree with you.  The only apparent purpose of the presumed lessor-lessee option is to handle the liability issue and not to distance a unit from a religious affiliation.  I have my Troop as an example.  If our Episcopal Church CO was to somehow opt into this new arrangement at some point in the future (maybe at the insistence of a Diocese official?), it would not change our programmatic activity or relationship with the church at all.  The parish leadership and members love us and the Scouts admire them greatly in return.  The Bishop attended our very first gathering and dedicated the unit into existence.  In our case the shift would be simply regarded as a change for business reasons and it would hardly be discussed.  I don't think it would change our Troop's culture of "Duty to God".  I understand there are other potential impacts of such a shift related to unit-council matters, but those potential impacts are being well-discussed on the other thread.  

[ParkMan]

2 hours ago, Cburkhardt said:

I am inclined to agree with you.  The only apparent purpose of the presumed lessor-lessee option is to handle the liability issue and not to distance a unit from a religious affiliation.  I have my Troop as an example.  If our Episcopal Church CO was to somehow opt into this new arrangement at some point in the future (maybe at the insistence of a Diocese official?), it would not change our programmatic activity or relationship with the church at all.  The parish leadership and members love us and the Scouts admire them greatly in return.  The Bishop attended our very first gathering and dedicated the unit into existence.  In our case the shift would be simply regarded as a change for business reasons and it would hardly be discussed.  I don't think it would change our Troop's culture of "Duty to God".  I understand there are other potential impacts of such a shift related to unit-council matters, but those potential impacts are being well-discussed on the other thread.  

It sounds like we have a similar perspective on this.  One of the strengths of the BSA structure is the ability to tailor individual programs to the needs of specific local communities.  The ability of a community of Scouts and Scouters to tailor the application and depth of the Duty To God component is an example of that.  I hope that this accommodation for liability reasons does not impact that in the slightest.

I do believe this is where the Commissioner teams will need to be active in encouraging those units who make the ownership transition to continue a "hearts and minds" connection.  While I have no doubt that there are some COs who very seriously uphold all aspects of the CO agreement, I do believe the vast preponderance would be happy to continue to consider a unit meeting at the CO a part of their ministry- regardless of the technical ownership.

[Cburkhardt]

Very thoughtful.  I do not find it difficult to involve our CO, but it takes remembering that a unit has to directly include them in our program.  When our bus leaves the church parking lot for summer camp, a priest is invited to provide encouragement and a blessing.  When we wanted to do a service project at the church, some of our girls attended their facility committee meeting.  When a girl’s mother died we asked for a nun to visit and talk to us.  The Senior Warden is our Troop Chair.  They will want to be part of us if we ask them.  How the legal document is drafter would not impact those things.