Is This True

[fgoodwin]

thebigguy writes:I would give the scout credit for the one job he did well, but not give him credit for the other.You know, that certainly sounds fair, doesn't it? But suppose instead of two PORs, the boy holds three (after all, if there's no rule against two PORs, where's the rule against three?).

 

Or suppose he holds four PORs, or more? If he succeeds at one POR but fails at all the others, does he still get credit?

 

Because there is no downside for failure, isn't that an incentive to try multiple PORs, hoping to get credit for one?

 

And since one is all he needs credit for, is it too much to ask the boy to pick one POR that he thinks he can do well and concentrate on doing the best job he can on that one POR?

[Stosh]

I have often thought of leadership training as trying out a task to see how well it fits. Kinda like MB's. First Aid doesn't make one an EMT, but it does give a boy some insight into the nature of the beast. Why is it different with POR's? Can't a boy give it a try? If he doesn't meet expectations, were they spelled out for him? Was he supported by the adults in his efforts? What was going on with the situation?

 

Gotta love all this failure conversation. With a POR it's all about doing the job or not doing the job. There's no succeed/fail about it. If we as adults were judged on success/failure we'd all be out of a job eventually.

 

I have always viewed my POR's as functioning positions. Does the boy function as expected in that position? If he's not functioning well or at all, there's a reason other than failure for it. Maybe a SM conference is in order to clarify the differences in expectations. Tell him what's expected, let him give it a try and coach and support him in his efforts. What's so complicated about that?

 

Stosh

[fgoodwin]

The "pass / fail" I refer to is giving the Scout advancement credit for his service in a POR.

 

So Stosh, you would give a Scout advancement credit for his POR, regardless of how well (or how poorly) he did it?

 

Where's the learning or leadership in that?

[FScouter]

The "failure" to which I was referred was that of the SM being unable inspire and guide the dual-positioned boy to adequately fulfill the expections of two jobs. (be successful?) Absolutely give the boy a chance at a position, but why is is important to give him two chances simultaneously?

[Oak Tree]

fgoodwin asks "you would give a Scout advancement credit for his POR, regardless of how well (or how poorly) he did it?"

 

My answer - yes, I would, because that is the BSA position on the matter as well. I want to teach them, encourage them, support them - not punish them. I view it like wages for a job - you either fire the guy, or you pay him. But you don't get to the end of the month, tell him he didn't do as well as you wanted and so you're not going to pay him.

 

FScouter says "I'd go back to the SM Handbook and read up on double positions". I hunted through and couldn't find anything. Do you have a specific reference?

 

I can't see making a big deal over this. I would not normally give a boy two positions, except for den chief, and I'd certainly not have any problem with doing it then. I'd also do it if someone wanted to be the bugler, and no one else did, even if the first boy already had a position.

 

I want my Scouts to succeed. I assume that they want to do a position or they wouldn't take it. On the Theory X / Theory Y continuum, I'm on the Y side (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X).

 

If a Scout says he won't do a job, then fine, he can be removed. But if he's giving it a shot, I'm not going to go looking for reasons to shoot him down. I'm with Stosh on this one.

[FScouter]

"I hunted through and couldn't find anything. Do you have a specific reference?"

 

That's the point. Double-up positions is not BSA supported. They can't help much with home-brew.

 

Observing the troop I serve over the years, rarely have I had a boy that fully and completely did the best possible job with the one position he had, thus I counsel ways to improve - not tack on another position. I have had boys want to take on another position mid-term. Invariably they found their current position not to their liking and wanted something different. Hence Fred's scenario.

[evmori]

"I hunted through and couldn't find anything. Do you have a specific reference?"

 

That's the point. Double-up positions is not BSA supported. They can't help much with home-brew.

 

How does not finding anything translate to not supported? There is nothing about adults holding multiple positions yet it happens all the time! Not sure I see the correlation.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Stosh]

"So Stosh, you would give a Scout advancement credit for his POR, regardless of how well (or how poorly) he did it?

 

Where's the learning or leadership in that?"

 

Yes, I would. If the boy held the POR it's all that is required by the rank advancement. He does not need to succeed at it, just hold it. To give dual and then not give credit is the same thing as holding a position and then putting extra expectations on the requirement that is not spelled out in the book. Now if after 2 months it isn't working for him, I may drop him out of that position or put him somewhere else, but he still held the position and will get full credit for it for the time he held the position.

 

Learning? A boy can learn that this job just isn't his thing. How is he to know that without trying it? Leadership? Would it be better to have the boy hold a POR with no duties to it just so he can advance? Where's the leadership in that and name me a troop that hasn't done just that. I have a boy with a learning disability that denies him the possibility to doing a POR. So, I'm taking the alternative track and he's doing a couple of special projects instead. I'm not expecting him to take 6 months to do the projects, but I'm expecting him to fulfill his expectations. It sure is more honest than giving him a POR patch with no expectations just to pass him through the ranks.

 

Stosh