Leadership Evaluation---Feedback Welcomed

[hotdesk]

Our Patrol Leader''s Council, with the guidance of our Scoutmaster and Assistant Scoutmaster, recently established guidelines for conducting Leadership Evaluations.

 

Each scout that serves in a leadership position was given a form that read

 

"Scouts that serve in a leadership position will receive a detailed description of their position in written form. They will have a discussion with the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader or Senior Patrol Leader and an Assistant Scoutmaster or Scoutmaster within two weeks of being appointed to or elected to share expectations.

 

On a monthly basis the ASPL will evaluate scout leaders. It will be a simple evaluation that includes a basic check of the completion of each responsiblity delegated to that leader.

 

If a scout is found not to completing their delegated responsiblities the scout will be placed on probation by a simple majority vote by the Patrol Leader''s Coucnil. A list of scouts put on probation will be provided to the Troop Committee during the Scoutmaster''s Report.

 

After being put on probation the ASPL will arrange for a meeting between the scout and the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, an Assistant Scoutmaster or Scoutmasters, and the scout''s adult advisor to discuss neccessary improvements.

 

If the discussed improvements are not met by the next Patrol Leader''s Council meeting the scout will be removed from their position by a simple majority vote by the Patrol Leader''s Council.

 

A list of scouts removed from their position will be promptly given to the Troop Committee during the Scoutmaster''s Report. The scout will receive credit for serving in their position until the date of the Patrol Leader''s Council meeting where the scout was removed from his position.

 

The Senior Patrol Leader will keep the responsiblity of appointing scouts to leadership positions."

 

The scouts are then expected to sign this document verifying that they read and understand it.

 

Also attached are the questions that the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader will review during the evaluations.

 

For example:

 

"Scribe

Were the most recent minutes from the PLC meeting emailed out?

Are attendance logs up to date?

Were the pervious month''s attendance logs provided to the Advancement Coordinator?"

 

"Order of the Arrow Troop Rep.

Are Sign Up sheets up for the activities that happen during, at least, the next month and a half?

Did he promote the most recent O/A Chapter Meeting and/or Event?

Has the O/A Troop Rep promoted troop events during the Announcement Times during meetings?"

 

A scout is expected to get a majority of the evaluation to meet expectations in order to avoid futher action by the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader.

 

What are your views and suggestions? This goes to our Unit Committee at this month''s Committee Meeting. The scouts have already started following the motions of this evaluation.

[FScouter]

I''m agin any document, required, that ends with "or else you''re outta here".

 

What problem are you trying to solve with this, and more importantly, what other solutions have you tried?

[Eamonn]

". A list of scouts put on probation will be provided to the Troop Committee during the Scoutmaster''''s Report."

Why?

What will the committee do?

Unless of course this a way of showing the committee that the SM if failing to do such a great job of training the youth leaders and have them form a nominating committee.

Ea.

 

[purcelce]

IMHO the formal evaluations are a bad idea...these are kids and not employees.

 

The SM Conference would be the way to go for leadership evaluations. Committee should not have anything to do with the program side of the house, that is the SM''s job.

[hotdesk]

lists are provided to the committee because it deals with advancement and advancement policies.

 

The evaluation process was formed by the scouts in an order to get other scouts to complete the requirements of their positions. It is clear to me, from reading these forums, that we are not the only troop that has problems with this. Our more "vital" positions like Quartermaster and Scribe have always been successfully filled, but positions like Chaplian''s Aide, O/A Troop Rep, and Historian have constantly not been successlly filled. The evaluation gives the scouts a way of knowing what they are supposed to do and allowing them to do it.

 

In the past we have had the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader and Senior Patrol Leader talk to the scouts, attempt to encourage them to do it, and have encouragement from other adult leaders.

 

Since a few of you seem to have wonderful scouts that always complete the positions they are appointed to how do you get them?

[hotdesk]

Part of the reason that we are having the Scoutmaster tell the committee regarding these actions is that the Scoutmaster is suppose to inform the committee of actions made by the Patrol Leader''s Council.

 

A benefit for a written evaluation, in my mind, would be if a change in leadership is needed. If Scoutmaster decides Johnny has not fullfilled his position and should then not receive credit for the position and is simply remove there is no doubt his parents will question the decision. Mom will call questioning Scoutmaster and Scoutmaster (if written evaluation is written)will have written proof and evidence on why Johnny will be removed from his position. He can explain to them that Johnny had a warning and meet with him to discuss improvements. He can explain to them that the PLC felt improvements were not met. He can then offer to show the evaluation to them if they want.

[Eagledad]

>>What are your views and suggestions? This goes to our Unit Committee at this month''''s Committee Meeting. The scouts have already started following the motions of this evaluation.

[frank10]

If I was a scout, I''d want to know why this new document wasn''t given to the SM and SA''s at the same time as the PLC

[hotdesk]

This document was presented to the Patrol Leader''s Council after the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader and Senior Patrol Leader finished it and asked for advice from the Scoutmaster and Assistant Scoutmaster to make sure it was something that was worth bringing up. We tought it was.

 

Maybe a little backround information is necessary. A little over a year ago we had a new Scoutmaster take the position. Our pervious Scoutmaster, also my father, unexpectly passed away. I, at the age of 19, was the only active Assistant Scoutmaster and the new Scoutmaster took over after only being in the program for 8 months. His training was incomplete and 8 months of program was not enough experience.

 

Our Senior Patrol Leader, who had served a couple of years before, and his Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, who had served before as ASPL, SPL, and Troop Guide, installed our troop''s evaluation process. Since the Scoutmaster was new and I was indifferent, the SPL and ASPL bypassed the PLC and Scoutmaster and went ahead with the evaluation process. When we found out about it we referred it to the committee for their approval because 1. Our Scoutmaster took boy-led to heart and 2. we were unsure of what else to do. The committee approved and supported their process.

 

This new process is a strong scaleback of the pervious process. The last one looked at attendance, uniforming, and much more. It included a lot more than just simply looking at the completion of their position.

 

The Senior Patrol Leader and Assistant Senior Patrol Leader wanted something that wasn''t as strict. This time we were asked for advice (and are still looking for some to give) since our thoughts were not considered last time.

[John-in-KC]

Why are you as SM giving the Program report to the Committee? Why not empower the SPL to the adults, and give him a major responsibility? Let him do the reporting.

 

Mentorship. Coaching. Guiding! Adults supporting youth need to be aiding and encouraging, not cold and formal.

 

Every minute you have a leader writing an eval is a minute he''s not being a living example to others. I can write an Army Officer Evaluation Report or Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Report which will get my Lieutenants to Captain, my Captains into command or to Major, and two of my Majors into resident Command and General Staff College. I worked with them to do strengths and weaknesses, I played to their strengths whilst developing their weaknesses at work, and I wrote to their strengths in the evaluations.

 

I like what Barry said: This may last a few months. Get ready for deer in the headlights stares, get ready to do a LOT of coaching. After no more than 3 months, I suspect the reports will become blah blah blah same as last month nothing new stream of conciousness. Even as a staffer at Scout Camp, EagleSon got informal feedback, mentoring, and encouragement, not hard paper!

 

I''m not in love with this idea.

[hotdesk]

As I informed everyone in my pervious post I am an Assistant Scoutmaster.

 

The Scoutmaster of our troop gives that Scoutmaster Report that is detailed in the Troop Committee Guidebook:

 

pg. 33

 

"Reports

 

Scoutmaster (troop progress, actions of patrol leader''s council, disciplinary problems, attendance, monthly outing plans, other troop needs)"

 

According to the Troop Committee Guidebook the "committee interacts with the patrol leader''s council through the Scoutmaster." It does not mention anything about the Senior Patrol Leader.

 

The evaluations are done by the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader. He is responsible for "training and giving direction to the quartermaster,...." I personally feel that this will allow the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader a chance to actually see where the scouts are that he is to provide training and direction to. This will allow him to actually see their responsiblities in writing and then determine in which direction they need to go.

 

I would believe and hope that, as John-in-KC said, "I suspect the reports will become blah blah blah same as last month nothing new stream of conciousness" becomes true. If the Assistant Senior Patrol Leader can report the same thing to the Patrol Leader''s Coucnil then that will mean, under the evaluation process, that all of our positions are being maximized and running efficiently. I know of few troops that can say that everyone from the Senior Patrol Leader down to the Historian is doing exactly what they are suppose to be doing. Our goal is to have the status quo change from not really expecting a whole lot from some positions to expecting everyone to pull their own share.

 

Also if there is additional coaching because of this, why is that bad? Have we as a program come to a point where instead of encouraging and coaching each scout to do something with their position that we simply say I know Johnny won''t do anything so let''s make him Historian? As adults we are suppose to be coaching and allowing our scouts to develope into leaders.

 

If this only last a few months, then it at least it lasted a few months. It will show the Senior Patrol Leader, Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, and other leaders that they have the power to introduce new guidelines, policies, and important decisions to the troop by going through the Patrol Leader''s Council and then working with the Troop Committee. Our troop has really only been boy led for the last 6 years. The troop committee still has an opinion that all decisions need to be first presented to them. Maybe this lasting will be a small step in changing that opinion.

[Aquila]

Sounds to me like the SPL and ASPL might be a little big for their britches...

 

Who would WANT to serve in *any* position under these guys?

[Eagledad]

>>Also if there is additional coaching because of this, why is that bad?>As adults we are suppose to be coaching and allowing our scouts to develope into leaders.>If this only last a few months, then it at least it lasted a few months. It will show the Senior Patrol Leader, Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, and other leaders that they have the power to introduce new guidelines, policies, and important decisions to the troop by going through the Patrol Leader''''s Council and then working with the Troop Committee.

[SemperParatus]

I would take this a step further. Since the committee is okay with the scouts doing evaluation paperwork, the committee should be okay with doing the same for all the adult volunteers. The CC can complete an evaluation of the SM and all committee members monthly. And of course, the SM can write a monthly evaluation report of the SMAs. I am sure you have some adults that don''t always do everything they are supposed to do, and it is about time for them to suffer some consequences as a result.

 

"We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork can be overwhelming" ~ Wernher von Braun

[highcountry]

Too much paperwork, there is more than enough already. This is mostly a boy issue, they know who is pulling their weight and who is not. I had a patrol leader, an APL and a scribe who did less than nothing the past six months, The Scribe was told at his BOR for Life in the spring that they would barely pass hiim for that badge as he had been inactive and not doing much to fill his duties. Since then it has only gotten worse. We are small enough so the AC as is almost everyone else, who shows and who is absent, from troop mmetings, activities and such. If a parent wants to complain I tell them it is the boy''s decision and if they want another chance they best have their sone get with the program, we don''t check off boxes on the way to badges just because someone wears a patch on their sleeve. The scribe in question personally is done with scouts, he is still on the roster as his parents want him to make Eagle, he could care less and wants to drop out. No coaching is going to turn this one around, he has a negative attitude too boot.

 

The PL in question is one of the laziest kids you''d want to meet, I and others have tried coaching and encouragement with little to ne effect. He is one of those scouts someone needs to tell to do something over and over but forget about him taking any sort of independent action on his own or lead others when delegating a task. The boys are fed up on this one.

 

The APL is a real problem, comes from a bad home and has been a serious problem in our troop. He won''t even do things when asked (unless an adult intervenes) but has Zero leadership skills. This scout has had intense coaching and help from adults he relates to and has made no progress either.

 

Again the boys all see this, and we just had program planniing/greenbar. When we do this in the fall we re-evaluate youth leadership and they provide a new recomended leadership chain for the troop to vote on at the next meeting. The boys unanimously removed all 3 from their posts and replaced them with others we felt would do the job.

 

AC knows these boys are under scrutiny at next BOR and SMR due to teh lack of leadership and in one case, active participation. This avoids the paperwork hassles. If some parent is not happy, I as are others, have no problem explaining what went down and thet their son is the one who dug their own hole.

 

If one wonders why these 3 were in leadership positions to begin with, let me say the APL and PL were scouts we have been trying to develop and we thought we would try to see if enhanced position and leadership would cause tehm to advance in their maturity and growth....it failed. The Scribe was being pushed by mom to make Eagle and needed teh leadership spot, no one else wanted scribe and the scout told us he would start to be more active and make more meetings and do the job, he failed on the promise so he is out.