why is it harder to make changes in a troop than a pack?

[eisely]

Chippewa's story sounds familiar to most of us and applies to almost any organization. Non profit volunteer organizations are even more difficult to change because of the level of emotional investment by all the participants.

 

This is an argument for term limits. While I admire the contributions of the dedicated people who stay at it for years, I think organizations benefit from periodic changes of leadership. I would suggest no fewer than three and nor more than five years for a scoutmaster. Spread the work around and gain the benefit from fresh approaches and different thinking. This is not an argument to always repudiate what was done in the past, but rotating the key positions avoids getting locked into personalities and fixed ways of doing things.

[Lisabob]

I started this thread thinking about some stories I had heard about both ends of the stick - those iron-grip, past-their-prime Scoutmasters who really needed to move on for their own sake as well as the troop's (you don't get many of those sorts in cub scouts!) AND those folks who are brand new and don't yet understand the program, but who mean well and want to make things as good as they can be for the boys. And I admit I was thinking about some of the comments to the effect of what Its Me posted as well.

 

My son's troop has a (fairly recent) tradition - not policy or rule, just tradition - that the SM and CC serve for 2 years at a time, with turnover staggered so we aren't undergoing change in both at the same time. The genesis of this tradition is that previously, the troop was run by two families where one was SM forever and the other was CC forever. It caused some problems and both families ended up leaving about a year before we joined. I see both good and bad to this new tradition. As a new family to the troop I was both shocked and I admit, not too happy, when the SM who had recruited our webelos boys announced he was stepping down just a couple of months after we joined. He had been a big factor in why the boys in our webelos den chose that troop over others. And now, three years later, my son is getting to know his 3rd Scoutmaster. (Who, by the way, is off to a great start!) Lots of turn over can be hard on the boys, who have to adjust to each new SM's style. And I also can see where it takes at least a year to begin to "get" the job of SM. Our previous SM was (IMO) really hitting his stride at the end of his term.

 

On the other hand...it also helps the boys understand that there are many ways to do things, and that different people have different strengths. And weaknesses. And personality quirks. And that you have to learn to play up people's strengths in order to lead effectively. This is something they might not really see if the same person were in charge for a long time. And it does limit the adult burn out factor, when people know they're signing up for a finite period, rather than for a life sentence.

 

By the way, our two previous SMs are still active in the troop - one as a committee member and patrol advisor (yeah I know, not a typical combo but it works for him) and the other as an ASM working with last year's crossover scouts. So we haven't lost their expertise, just shifted it to a different focus. So far that seems to work.

[eisely]

Lisabob,

 

Your last post is certainly on point regarding term limits and rotating positions. The reason that I think a three year minimum is more appropriate is that clearly the first year in a position is spent climbing up a steep learning curve. On other hand, if there is a regular rotation and everybody expects that, successors can be properly groomed and transitions will be less difficult. Better continuity with the desirable past will be maintained, while making change will also be made easier. And likely less adult burn out.

[GernBlansten]

The unit my son joined was really the opposite of the problem you all describe.

There was a leadership vacuum. The unit had a dedicated and beloved SM for 12 years and all the adults just got complacent. The unit thrived (although really a webelos 3 troop). The year before my son crossed over, he retired. An adult stepped forward as SM but he soon after lost his job so his personal life took him from his SM duties. The first year, we only had ASMs, no SM at meetings, campouts, committee meetings. They did fine but nobody took ownership of the program. We floundered. Recruiting was almost nil.

 

Since I had no experience in the BSA program, I didn't come in and gripe or complain. I offered to help as they saw fit, but really just stood back and evaluated the situation. Since my son had special medical needs, I attended every campout. I quickly become good friends with the existing leadership.

 

Finally, the absent SM resigned and one of our new dad's who was wood badge trained and very active in OA stepped forward to become SM. He recruited myself and another to be his ASMs and we got trained. His plan was a 5 year process (coincidentally, when his son turns 18). Slowly but deliberately refocus the troop on the BSA program. Resistance to cultural change was most apparent with the scouts, not the parents. At first, I wanted him to do some shock therapy with the troop to get them on track, but he wanted a gentle course correction. He was right. The older scouts would have quit. We are three years into his plan. We have made great progress, but still have miles to go. Each year as the oldest scouts age out, it becomes easier to change the culture. By the time our sons age out, the troop will be well on its way to being a model BSA troop. I hope those who follow us, build on our work.

[GernBlansten]

The unit my son joined was really the opposite of the problem you all describe.

There was a leadership vacuum. The unit had a dedicated and beloved SM for 12 years and all the adults just got complacent. The unit thrived (although really a webelos 3 troop). The year before my son crossed over, he retired. An adult stepped forward as SM but he soon after lost his job so his personal life took him from his SM duties. The first year, we only had ASMs, no SM at meetings, campouts, committee meetings. They did fine but nobody took ownership of the program. We foundered Recruiting was almost nil.

 

Since I had no experience in the BSA program, I didn't come in and gripe or complain. I offered to help as they saw fit, but really just stood back and evaluated the situation. Since my son had special medical needs, I attended every campout. I quickly become good friends with the existing leadership.

 

Finally, the absent SM resigned and one of our new dad's who was wood badge trained and very active in OA stepped forward to become SM. He recruited myself and another to be his ASMs and we got trained. His plan was a 5 year process (coincidentally, when his son turns 18). Slowly but deliberately refocus the troop on the BSA program. Resistance to cultural change was most apparent with the scouts, not the parents. At first, I wanted him to do some shock therapy with the troop to get them on track, but he wanted a gentle course correction. He was right. The older scouts would have quit. We are three years into his plan. We have made great progress, but still have miles to go. Each year as the oldest scouts age out, it becomes easier to change the culture. By the time our sons age out, the troop will be well on its way to being a model BSA troop. I hope those who follow us, build on our work.

[eisely]

GernBlansten,

 

Yours is also an interesting story that I think reinforces two points. The first point is the risk in relying on a long term individual for the key position of SM and the second is the value in planned change and transition.

[Chippewa29]

Although I don't necessarily agree with the idea of term limits, I strongly agree that you need consistent fresh blood coming into your leadership (both youth and adults). A megatroop in our district (100 youth) has a SM who has been with the troop since he was a youth and has been SM for twenty years. Although he has been in there forever, he is definitely no stick in the mud. He is always wanting to try new things and make their troop better. Also, he is very good about getting new leaders involved and getting their input.

 

One of the reasons my troop is more prosperous now that it has been in its 24 year history is the fact that I've been SM for 6 1/2 years. We just had an Eagle COH (our 17th Eagle over the years) where the honoree was the first in troop history to have the same SM his entire career.

 

In a couple more years, I'd like to be able to step aside. A certain leader can only take a troop so far. I'll get the troop to a certain point and then someone else can take it to even greater heights. Once I do leave, I'll make sure I disappear for at least six months and not be active for at least a year so the new SM can feel free to make changes and not have me hanging over him (or her). I don't want them to have to deal with what I dealt with.

[SMEagle819]

I have to agree with Chippewa29 about term limits. A long term SM can still be effective if new adults are entering the program. Many times, the new adults are looking for someone who "has been around the block a couple of times" so they are not overwhelmed with the program. Also, some of the "old timers" may find as the new blood comes in, it is a good time for them to transition out. I have been in the situation of replacing a SM who was SM for 25 years. All of the boys really respected him, and gave him their full attention when he spoke. When I took over, he stayed on as an ASM, and has been a valuable mentor to me, and other adults that have joined our troop (yes, he is still working with the troop!). There are many old timers out there who still have much to offer. I believe it would be bad to limit them as to how much they can serve or particiapte.

[anarchist]

while I feel the pain of the "term limit" crowd, it is just way too individual a problem to hang on term limits...I have seen a 20 year SM who reguarded as a saint by his scouts and the community and only poor health forced him out. Boys in his early years and boys in his later years all loved his program...

 

I have also a four year SM step down and leave such a power vacume that the troop really foundered...this guy was a fantastic boy led advocate but his follow up SM had a heck of a time directing the program...

 

I have seen a two year SM leave to prevent a whole sale mutiny and a six year SM just fade away...

 

I am sure many of us have other experiences but to pull the rug out from under a working program...just be cause...and you have no good reason or even a new outstanding replacement just seem like the Lilliputians want to be in charge. Or perhaps its just the "off with their heads" crowd's only way to win?;>)

anarchist

[BuffaloSR793]

Let me first say, I'm a Cub Scouter. This discussion is very intresting. In my hometown there are 3 troops. Two smaller troops where they have had the same Scoutmaster for quite some time. Both are 10 boys are less. Membership is stagnant at best.

 

The one Troop that is growing, has a strong leadership and strong pool of intrested parents. They change Scoutmasters every couple of years.

 

I know of a troop in a nearby town, that has the same Scoutmaster for the past 20 years. While, I applaud their dedication, it may be best to have some type of term limit. This would ensure "fresh" thinking and new blood at the Troop level.

 

I'm not saying the previous Scoutmaster has to leave the program entirely. They can be a great source of assistance to the new Scoutmaster.

 

Just an opinion from a Troop outsider, aka Cubber.

 

 

Buff

 

 

[allangr1024]

I just took over the SM job for our troop. I have found that the determining factor in leadership is not necessarily the freshness of the leader, but the vision.

 

Our strongest SM was a guy in his twenties who had the troop for 10 years. He was an eagle scout from an "Eagle Mill" troop across town who grew up and came with his father to start a new troop. He had fun with the scouts, and they loved him. I brought my boys the last two years of his tenure. He had been to every training event offered, had been thru woodbadge, lifeguard, OA, etc. I went thru woodbadge and then bugged him about how little we implemented the patrol method. He was used to a troop of 10 to 12 boys, but by the time he left we had 55. He had to leave town for a job.

 

The next two guys had training, but if they had any plan, I could not percieve it. A program of merit badge classes in the troop meetings has continued, but I was bugged about how little the PLC had to do, since the adults did it all. The first of these lasted four years, and the second two. The last of these guys got too busy with his business (as can happen), and resigned.

 

Now I have the job. I am determined to have the boys do more to lead the "boy led troop", by doing the annual campout planning and having them resolve real issues in PLC. I have gone thru one election cylce so far, and am embarking on my second. It takes a while to get the boys to own the leadership role.

 

I don't think that a set time period is a great idea. But some other mechanism might make sense. I made a commitment for two years, and that looks like very little time to me.

 

AND, I would hate to have to be the guy who follows the really great scoutmaster, and then have the really great scoutmaster remain in the troop. The previous guy would have a hard time giving it up, and the new guy would need the lack of rivalry to earn the respect and support of the troop.