Scoutmaster Problem

[sandspur]

Herbie:

 

Others can probably answer the official pathway question. But this is political too. You dont want it to leave more of a bad taste in anyones mouth than you can help.

 

This is the way we handled it a few years back:

 

Since the commissioner and COR are on board, and you have said there is a new SM waiting in the wings, I would suggest a quick committee meeting with as many members as you can get a hold of immediately, the CC and ASMs and definitely the most active scouters in the troop (sounds like a small group in your case). In short, get the movers and shakers in the troop who are home at a quick meeting. SM in question not present.

 

Agree on the change needed (sounds like you have) and, then get a hold of the SM and politely suggest to him that we thank him for his service but the CO and committee would like to go a different way. Make a path for a graceful exit he can take. He sounds like a smart guy and will likely take the way offered. Publically, he can resign/retire for personal reasons, whatever. Thank him publically for his service and perhaps give him a nice parting token of appreciation as you would for any retiring SM.

 

The new SM is then announced by the COR and CC showing a united front.

 

[Eamonn]

"Our Commissioner & COR have been apprised of our problem. They both agree that a change is in order."

The Commissioner can agree as much as he might like.

But when it comes to a situation like this.

Other than maybe voicing an opinion, he or she is about as much use as pockets in your underwear.

 

"Can the COR make this change without a committee action?"

 

"I realize the normal procedure on SM selection is to work through the committee, but with the summer break it's going to be very difficult to get them together and this needs to be resolved quickly."???

 

If there is a break? Why the rush?

I would hope that the COR would want to talk to the Committee and the SM before he talks with the Executive Officer.

If I was a member of the committee and I found out that something as big as a change of leadership had happened without me being asked for my input? I'd be upset. I'd seriously think about resigning.

If I was the Head of the CO the last thing I'd want was the person that I'd approved to be the SM going around telling everyone that he'd been treated unfairly. This would put the organization in a bad light.

 

While of course I wasn't at the summer camp.

I have to admit to having a nagging feeling that there is another side to all of this.

A side that hasn't been posted.

I served as a SM for a good many years.

During that time I made more than my fair share of mistakes and I messed up a lot and often.

Through all this the guys who were my ASM's stood by me and supported me.

Sure when they felt I was out of line they let me know.

But never once did they try to oust me or try to turn the Scouts against me.

Sometimes the SM has to be the leader first and for a time he has to put being the "Friend of the Scouts " on hold.

Sure at times the Scouts feel that he is bugging them or even that he is not being fair. But to my mind he is the SM.

The role of the ASM?

Assisting him.

This goes hand in hand with a good many points of the Scout Law.

Could it be that this isn't a Scoutmaster problem? But in fact a problem with the ASM?

Eamonn.

[Stosh]

One has to understand the program AND the processes necessary to get the appropriate results.

 

As many on the forum know I have both a Troop and a Crew. I run them totally different and would never think for a moment that either of them should be run like the other.

 

I am 100% boy-led, patrol-method with my troop, but I run a military, iron-fisted, no questions with the Crew. The nature of the Crew is unique because of it's program (Civil War Reenacting) I am president/captain of the Chartering Organization and the boys "fall in" with the CO just like any other member of the group. The process of leadership works because half of my group's NCO's are from the Crew and are often better trained than the CO members.

 

Mentally I have to switch gears and understand fully what the emphasis/goal/aims are with the group I happen to be with. Many ex-military cannot make the switch and thus don't even realize that there is a difference. It's kinda like the military dad running his family like he does his squad. It just doesn't work. It may take a bit more than a cup of coffee and a chat to help these people see the difference.

 

Stosh

[Nike]

Maybe it's the military folks I've hung around with, but the vast majority of them are very good at patiently teaching skills to young Scouts and providing a role model for calm, composed, but firm leadership to the older boys.

 

Military folks who are screaming about "It's my site and I'm in charge no matter what" probably aren't the best leaders of men, let alone boys.

 

[shortridge]

Looking solely at this example --

 

"For example, he was really riding the SPL about getting the campsite cleaned for the day, after he had previously stated that he was going to let the boys be responsible and if the site didn't pass the daily visitation from staff, so be it. I quietly asked him to let the boy boy do his job, and he got in my face about how he was in charge when he was in the site & I should stay out of it."

 

-- it sounds as though the SM may have gotten some ragging from his fellow leaders from other units about the state of the campsite, embarassing him and making him reverse course. Might that be true, and a possible cause for this fellow's behavior - he was trying to look strong in front of his "colleagues? Maybe feeling like he had something to prove to his peers as a brand-new SM?

 

I'm not excusing his behavior, just exploring the motivations and circumstances a little bit more.

[Gunny2862]

Well, coming late to the discussion... (edit) I've been earning some extra income for a couple of weeks and then went to Summer Camp.

 

Directive Leadership DOES have its place, emergency situations, occasions when there isn't an emergency yet but will be if a time-line or sense of urgency isn't imparted, possibly a couple of others... But by and large, there isn't and shouldn't be a necessity for the SM to have the public my way or the highway conversation with anyone. Now in private - especially with the adults and the SM being the one willing to hit the highway???

 

But as John suggests, this SM may be yearning for days past and returning to a training methodology that he saw work with impressionable folk in the past - but has forgotten that a few of the basic premises of that model don't hold in Scouting.

 

(Key paragraph)

I would think the ASM's and the CC and possibly the COR ought to get together and provide a friendly gathering over a couple Cups of coffee and a Dutch oven dessert or A Canned Pork Chop and a Steak, and hash out perceptions of the SM's "tour of duty" to date. Don't forget to bring at least a couple of roses to the discussion (at a minimum at least one to start with and one to end on - as with hopefully all counseling sessions). Frankly I'd like my Committee to do this periodically for me - as John often states(and I concur) feedback is a gift.

 

As to tiredness, remember that in many Camp situations the SM doesn't have a normal support team of ASM's and may often be juggling; his administrative duties, mentorship tasks, health and safety concerns that may be transparent during normal outings, interactions with Camp Staff, providing for the wants/needs of parents who are staying over for a night and then trading out for another parent with different ideas/wants/needs (some of whom see this as their "alone" time with the SM to influence the program and attempt to monopolize his time) a single "grumpy" episode should be expected by the end of camp. But a pattern probably does need to be addressed...

 

 

Also, a question, IF the SPL started to let the state of the Campsite deteriorate over several days and gentle reminders failed to inspire a renewed sense of cleanliness - how far would a SM let it go before properly, ahem, lighting up(inspiring - breathing new life into) the PLC and/or the Troop?

(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

[desertrat77]

Military or not, the SM hasn't got the right disposition for the job.

 

There are civilian scouters like this too...mad at the world. So the one place they can wear a uniform with epaulets and patches of honor, and bark orders, is the scout troop.

 

Key question: Has anyone pulled him aside and given him an earful in private, one on one?

 

Even if he's a donkey, he should get the courtesy of a chat with a peer in the troop before a bunch other folks from district and council and chartered organization roll in.

 

If the internal ASM/SM talk doesn't work, then it's time to up the ante and get district and others involved, by all means.

 

And if he's career military, he's not going to respond to a lecture on Hershey/Blanchard situational leadership theory...he's probably been through professional military education (several levels) and knows it as well as you.

 

Give it to him with the bark on. Don't beat around the bush, get right to the point.

 

- Concrete examples of how his behavior stinks

- Specific effects his behavior is having on the troop

- A straightforward request for him to change his behavior, and the consequences you intend to follow through on if he doesn't change.

 

My experience, in military and in scouting, shows that the SM acts this way because he knows he can, and he's rarely confronted about it. Folks endure him and are miserable, but the donkey in question is rarely called on the carpet.

 

If a big meeting with several people in room is the first time he's confronted about his attitude, he'll fight like a cornered bear.

 

But if an ASM were to pull him outside the scout building and tear him a new one, you may be surprised how well he'd take it.

 

Best wishes...I hope he changes but if he doesn't please send him packing soonest.(This message has been edited by desertrat77)

[John-in-KC]

Any updates, Herbie, on this?

[herbie1234]

Here's the latest. The SM sat down with the CC, COR, and another committee member. He went on for quite some time about what happened at camp and throughout the year, and promised to do better. In the process he pretty much bad mouthed every other member of the troop. He had no plan, but the COR sent him on his way.

 

When other folks found out about this, there were many unhappy calls to the COR. The COR doesn't think he has the authority to remove him, so he asked for commitee meeting for a vote. There are some committee members, who probably couldn't pick out a single kid in the troop if they weren't in uniform, that think this is being handled the wrong way. The CC has followed the directives of the COR and District Commissioner and is getting beat up.

 

The vote could go either way and will likely damage the troop anyway. I'm taking the advice of desertrat77 and trying to set up a meeting one on one with him to see if we can resolve this.

 

If he doesn't agree to step down, we'll be looking at starting a new troop or transferring.

[emb021]

"When other folks found out about this, there were many unhappy calls to the COR. The COR doesn't think he has the authority to remove him, so he asked for commitee meeting for a vote. There are some committee members, who probably couldn't pick out a single kid in the troop if they weren't in uniform, that think this is being handled the wrong way. The CC has followed the directives of the COR and District Commissioner and is getting beat up."

 

Problem sounds like you have a committee that doesn't understand how things work.

 

The COR has firing authority over every adult in the troop. There is nothing the committee gets to vote on.

 

Sounds like that if there is a meeting, it should be geared NOT around 'taking a vote', but around how a troop committee really should operate.

 

[Beavah]

The COR has firing authority over every adult in the troop. There is nothing the committee gets to vote on.

 

Yah, I wonder what our Woodbadge and NYLT courses would tell us about da proper leadership style for cases where you have a highly skilled group (who knows more about Scouting than you do) and an important decision?

 

Da COR and IH have final authority on adult leadership decisions, eh?

 

But they absolutely can choose to exercise that authority through the troop committee, and in most cases they should. There aren't many CO's that believe in the dictator model of governance, or in unilateral action more generally. In most COs da IH him/herself is elected in some way.

 

A COR expecting a voted decision from the committee before confirming action is entirely proper.

 

For selectin' a new SM, I believe there should be good committee buy-in in the form of a consensus decision or vote on the recommended candidate. For a removal, how to go about things depends a bit on da circumstances, eh? An all-parent committee where da SM has both friends and detractors can easily get out of hand. A unilateral action by the COR/IH can alienate troop families. Sometimes even if they support the action they can be put off by the way it was done.

 

Hard situation all around, but I reckon you go with the decision of the folks who are closest to it and have da authority to decide, eh?

 

If yeh can get the SM to step down voluntarily "to pursue other interests," that's often best.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[John-in-KC]

From my study, if the situation is egregious enough (and what the SM did at "Thorns and Roses") comes awfully close, the IH and COR can act in the best interests of their Chartered relationship, thank the person for his service, and inform him (not the general public) that he's done.

 

It's a balancing act ... is the action or behavior such that it is a detriment to the growth and development of our young charges? It's also a gut call. Some places will be higher than others.

 

It's also the last resort, one step short of the IH calling the Council Office and asking the SE to remove the person from the Boy Scouts of America.

 

Beavah... WB/NYLT teach well inside the 70% curve of usual situations. The leadership skills are what's used normally, usually, and generally. Whether this is in or out of the curve depends on the folks setting the standards and the tone. WB/NYLT do not teach the kind of socialization and leadership needed for the current economic debacle, nor do they teach executive-directive leadership, where it falls to one man to make the big gut call.

[Beavah]

if the situation is egregious enough (and what the SM did at "Thorns and Roses") comes awfully close, the IH and COR can act in the best interests of their Chartered relationship, thank the person for his service, and inform him (not the general public) that he's done.

 

Situation doesn't have to be "egregious" at all, eh? The IH/COR can act however and whenever they like in the interest of their program. So can the Troop Committee, eh? Units don't have to wait for things to get awful to make a change, nor should they.

 

How they go about things is up to them. But I know very few CORs and fewer IHs who act unilaterally. Unless dat's really the style of their CO that everyone buys into, those that do act unilaterally tend not to have a troop for too long. And we've got to remember there are a lot of CORs-in-name-only out there. Tellin' them to act unilaterally is a disaster. Bit like da CCs who start thinkin' they're King.

 

Yah, I know a lot of folks 'round here are down on WB, eh? I still think we do a better job than what you're claimin' at WB21C and NYLT than what you're claimin'. We do teach when directive leadership is appropriate. Even spell it out a bit in our youth handbooks, and practice it in some first aid and emergency response drills.

 

In this particular case, da COR wants to work through the committee, eh? So that's where it should go. We might wish da COR was more a take-charge fellow, but then we also don't know if herbie represents a small group of loud disgruntled people either, eh? Is there another side? Is da COR tryin' to get the adults to act like adults and work it out themselves? Too hard to tell from afar.

 

I'm still with herbie and desertrat that a negotiated resignation is most desirable. Contentious committee meetings among parents on two sides of a SM-removal issue can really damage a program if people aren't acting like adults and the meeting isn't tightly run.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[John-in-KC]

B,

 

I'm not Rick. I'm a product of WB21C, and enjoyed my course. That said, the only time I saw executive decisionmaking was at that public PLC on Day 1, where the SPL (in our course, PD and CD-apparent) was running the show, period). Having spent my professional lifetime studying leadership psych and decisionmaking, the model BSA uses is designed for the normal situation being a working collaboration.

 

As we say so often here, BSA is not the Armed Forces. You want leadership psych and decsionmaking processes that are executive in nature, take the training the Army gives its commissioned officers, from second lieutenant up through colonel.

 

I also agree the best way is to find what it takes to ease this guy out. Sadly, it sounds like he acted rashly in front of the chartered partners people.

 

Having read Herbie's initial post and some of the follow-up, I sense this troop has a lot of strong personalities, and collaborative leadership among the adults is difficult at best.

[herbie1234]

Just to close this out, after an additional friendly meeting over a cup of Coffee, the SM agreed to step down.

 

However, he changed his mind and a Committee Meeting was required. After 2 hours of discussion, he did agree to resign.

 

Thanks to everyone for their feedback.