Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts suffer huge declines in membership

[fred8033]

7 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Methods should be a checklist for PLC to insure they are following the BSA program. 

And the PLC would do what with the method "leadership development"?  The closest I can see is making sure each scout gets a chance at shopping for food for the scouts or taking their turn in another area.  BUT, that can be easily explained in oath and law.  A scout is helpful.  It's also about being part of a team.   There is zero need to have the PLC talk about leadership.  PLC should be talking about activities and doing cool things. 

 

12 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

The problem here is that the public does believe leadership is part of the program.

Sadly, that's a marketing problem.  At some point, BSA started selling scouting as more than it was.  Scouting is an absolutely great way to encourage / develop leadership.  It's the absolute best environment.   But "teaching" it is the problem. 

Let the mom see it in the "AIMs", but not in the methods.  

[Eagledad]

Just now, InquisitiveScouter said:

Who is held accountable for any of the other items??

One of the most often repeated ideas to parents is, "Stand back, shut up, and watch..."  Of course, in much nicer terms than that

Leaders don't develop until you put them in the hot seat.  Scouts are amazed, at first, when you "Train 'em, trust 'em, and let 'em lead!" 

How many new adults come in with the instincts of "train them, trust them, and let them go." 

The whole reason for this discussion is adult instinctively take over. So, I feel the idealism being presented here is missing the point. Adults have to have a goal and a plan just to keep the program out of the gutters. My point is if you take leadership out of the plan, the adults will take leadership out of scouting. Leadership has always been part of scouting. IF you want to keep leadership in scouting, even if leadership is a by-product of just participating in patrol activities, leadership has to be in the plan. 

The solution isn't taking leadership out of the design, the solution is figuring out how to keep adults from abusing the design.

Barry

[Eagledad]

2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Sadly, that's a marketing problem.  At some point, BSA started selling scouting as more than it was.  Scouting is an absolutely great way to encourage / develop leadership.  It's the absolute best environment.   But "teaching" it is the problem. 

Let the mom see it in the "AIMs", but not in the methods.  

And when was leadership- a marketing problem, 1933? As I said, a scouting experience was a valued resource in WWII because of the leadership image. I think you are wrong to look at leadership as a skill for scouts. LEADERSHIP IS AN IMAGE of scouting. In fact, it could be argued that leadership is as much of an image as adventure. If the problem isn't enough adventure, which I might agree, then lets fix the marketing of adventure. 

Barry

[InquisitiveScouter]

Leadership through outdoor adventures!!

Edited July 12, 2021 by InquisitiveScouter

[Eagledad]

10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

And the PLC would do what with the method "leadership development"?  The closest I can see is making sure each scout gets a chance at shopping for food for the scouts or taking their turn in another area.  BUT, that can be easily explained in oath and law.  A scout is helpful.  It's also about being part of a team.   There is zero need to have the PLC talk about leadership.  PLC should be talking about activities and doing cool things. 

Well, my PLC insured we had elections and clear expectations of leadership. They also took responsibility in giving leadership opportunities to all age scouts with all maturities. For example, our PLC looks for young less experienced scouts to lead small service projects with PL and SPL Very impressive actually.

I'm wondering how your PLC does for leadership?

Barry

 

[InquisitiveScouter]

6 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I'm wondering how your PLC does for leadership?

We have Scouts plan outings...tooth to tail, using a one-page checklist from Troop Leader Guidebook, which is pretty good.  They have to report to PLC at each milestone...3 months, two months, one month at the formal PLCs, and then the two weeks, one week at short PLCs after meetings

See page 20 in the pdf...

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/512-150_appendix(15)_web.pdf

Edited July 12, 2021 by InquisitiveScouter

[fred8033]

2 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Well, my PLC insured we had elections and clear expectations of leadership. They also took responsibility in giving leadership opportunities to all age scouts with all maturities. For example, our PLC looks for young less experienced scouts to lead small service projects with PL and SPL Very impressive actually.

I'm wondering how your PLC does for leadership?

Barry

 

Our PLCs have always focused on what's next.  Often for the next two months or longer.  Next campout.  Next activity.  Next planning session.  Next mtg.  SM would work with SPL for a few minutes so SPL had a plan.  SPL would then go into a room / area with the PLs and do their planning.  SPL would share back to the troop committee what was needed or other comments.  

SPL runs all "troop" activities unless he's not there or assigns it to another scout.   PL runs all patrol activities unless he's not there.  Elections were scheduled during annual planning.  

The troop did run (until last two years) an annual training session for new scout leaders.  (don't run now as we don't have any new scouts).   That training session used BSA 1980s VHS tapes that ran for five / ten minutes and then paused.  It was an extremely good training program.  Run tape for five minutes.  Watch PL kneel on ground reviewing what the scout put in his hiking pack.  Then pause and reflect.  Then a challenge game such as blind folded lifting a bucket with elastic cords tied to a small circle.  

 

Perhaps, I should get back to my original reason for treating this as a hot topic.  I've been involved in four / five troops now.  I still love the first troop the most and the original scoutmaster was an absolute great example.  My challenge is I've seen too many times where the scouts are harped on by the adults for how they should be running things.  PLCs with many adults injecting.  Patrol meetings with almost every parent present.  Heck, PLC should have one adult present AT MOST and that adult (the SM) sitting outside the circle, a little back and mostly quiet unless asked.  The patrol meetings also should not have any adults.  

I consider it a successful PLC if they have agendas for the next immediate meetings and ideas for next months mtg.  Success if they know who's bringing the food; have menus; know the gear and have an idea of what to do during the camp out / activity.  

 

I should be forthright here.  We're a small troop at this point.  We're just trying to have adventures.  Many of my comments are based on when we were larger 40/50 scout troop for decades.   

[fred8033]

35 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

And when was leadership- a marketing problem, 1933? As I said, a scouting experience was a valued resource in WWII because of the leadership image. I think you are wrong to look at leadership as a skill for scouts. LEADERSHIP IS AN IMAGE of scouting. In fact, it could be argued that leadership is as much of an image as adventure. If the problem isn't enough adventure, which I might agree, then lets fix the marketing of adventure. 

Barry

LEADERSHIP IS AN IMAGE.  I'm okay with saying scouts become good leaders.  I'm saying volunteer adults are really bad at teaching leadership.  Scouts were chosen during WWII because they could do well in adverse conditions.  A strong rain storm is a better leadership teacher than any adult.  

[fred8033]

48 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

The solution isn't taking leadership out of the design, the solution is figuring out how to keep adults from abusing the design.

The design is scouts working with scouts in the outdoors doing things.  By doing that, leadership is fostered.  SM can do minor reflects and suggestions as part of helping the troop function and scouts grow.  But, there is no need for a constant focus on "leadership development".  Sure, do an annual leadership course in the troop.  Let ASPLs build experience to become the next SPL.  Share roles and jobs.  ... BUT, explicit focus on leadership is often more destructive than helpful.

[qwazse]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

And when was leadership- a marketing problem, 1933? ...

You've made my point. Leadership was not a method of scouting in 1933. As @fred8033, scouts have a reputation for treating the roughest parts of boot camp as another night out under the sky. It's their self-reliance and resilience that are selling points.

People have sacred cows. They love to carry them wherever they go. They think it makes them special. It does, to the other people carrying those same cows. But what about the folks carrying sheep? Could a lot of our potential membership be shepherds who are intimidated by those cow-pokes? Some of us know that the Almighty finds a lot of leadership in those shepherds as well as cowboys.

Okay, that metaphor is falling apart fast. But my point is that more parents are worried that their kids grow up strong and good than are worried that they become these cracker-jack leaders. We all have been trained to see leadership blossoming in places that a lot of people ignore, but that's not how the world thinks. Yes, Mrs. Q and I want our kids to be leaders in their fields and give honor to the Lord wherever they go. But we have a lot of friends who just want their kids to have okay lives. Some are just hoping to keep the kid out of jail. Some are holding a revival meeting in the back of the hall as he/she walks to get that diploma. For those kids, if you take the spot-lite off of leadership, they begin to feel welcome. (And, your scouts who do want leadership have some "real" peers to practice on!) And those kids have been some of the best people for my kids to befriend.

In general, membership growth has to do with attracting the folks who haven't drunk the bug juice.

Edited July 12, 2021 by qwazse

[Navybone]

58 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I’ve been in decades of MBA courses and high performance team training and similar sessions.  From what I've seen ...   Leadership is not something that can easily be taught.  In fact, I'd question whether it can be taught.  What you can do is create situations where leadership is necessary and individuals will naturally learn. 

A nuanced comment on your assessment on teaching leadership, based on my experience (MBA and senior military leader) - leadership is learned by doing (being in a position of leadership) and having a mentor or guide to help develop the individuals leadership skills.   My concern and experience with naturally learning is that poor leadership skills that create results can be the the wrong lessons learned.  What I mean by this are use of yelling, fear, intimidation, threats, etc. and learning that those type of toxic leadership methods can be successful to get objectives met.  

[Eagledad]

I guess I can't take this discussion seriously because nobody mentions taking out Advancement and Adult Association, which are the conspirators that drive adults to teach leadership. Taking out leadership will only make units more adult run.

Barry

[fred8033]

46 minutes ago, Navybone said:

A nuanced comment on your assessment on teaching leadership, based on my experience (MBA and senior military leader) - leadership is learned by doing (being in a position of leadership) and having a mentor or guide to help develop the individuals leadership skills.   My concern and experience with naturally learning is that poor leadership skills that create results can be the the wrong lessons learned.  What I mean by this are use of yelling, fear, intimidation, threats, etc. and learning that those type of toxic leadership methods can be successful to get objectives met.  

Absolutely true.   SM should be doing lots of friendly coaching to help scouts develop and foster the right environment ... if the SM even knows to do that.  Reflection and mentorship should always be part of the program.  Heck, it's the reason we have the SM moment.  

[Eagledad]

56 minutes ago, Navybone said:

A nuanced comment on your assessment on teaching leadership, based on my experience (MBA and senior military leader) - leadership is learned by doing (being in a position of leadership) and having a mentor or guide to help develop the individuals leadership skills.   My concern and experience with naturally learning is that poor leadership skills that create results can be the the wrong lessons learned.  What I mean by this are use of yelling, fear, intimidation, threats, etc. and learning that those type of toxic leadership methods can be successful to get objectives met.  

The technique of learning leadership, whether naturally or actively doesn't matter if the mentors, coaches and role models are bad leaders. Watch the youth leaders of any troop at your next summer and notice how much they mimic the adults. 

Actual leadership experience only improves leadership skills when the leader has to change a habit as the result of a bad decision. 

I found that leadership skills learned by passively observing other leaders pushes program maturity because new scouts observe the good habits learned by previous leaders who change their habits made by bad decisions. New leader are generally starting with a better set of skills than their previous leaders. That can be a constant challenge for adults to make sure each scout is growing from their experience.  

I became the Council youth leadership development chair because our troop developed the reputation for good youth leadership. Ironically, I shouldn't have gotten the credit because it was the boy run program itself that lead to our program leadership maturity. We adults just stayed out of the way. That being said, we fully understood that leadership is the most stressful action in the scouting program for developing character. 

I find that units with toxic leaders don't mature much, if at all.

 

Barry

 

[yknot]

One thing we have to keep in mind is that scouting teaches one kind of leadership model: top down. The rank advancement system is built around that. In most cases, it tends to recognize and reward confidence and self advocacy and not necessarily competency and good outcomes. Scouting loses a lot of kids during the transition from AOL to first year or two of troop, and I think leadership plays a role. I have seen a lot of good kids leave in that time frame because they need confidence building in order to learn more about leadership and scouts is often not a good place for certain kinds of kids to get that. They get steamrolled. I really feel like scouts has often put itself forward as a youth leadership program when in reality it often doesn't seem to really know that much about kids. It's more what adults think would be good for kids, and the further away it gets from focusing on the outdoors and outdoor skills, the worse it seems to get. And as I've said before, if scouting was that good at producing great leaders, we wouldn't have the kinds of organizational dysfunction and crises that have plagued it for the past few decades because BSA is basically led by scouts.