To be trusted?

[JMHawkins]

I think "trust" is the right word, but for me it's characterized as "do I trust XXX to make the right decisions for the good of the program?"

 

There are three requirements for a "yes" answer.

 

1 - do I trust the person to have the right priorities? (e.g. personal finances, status or private agendas are not more important than the program*).

 

2 - do I trust that the person has accurate information to base a decision on? (e.g. Wilton125's comment about logistics at Jamboree).

 

3 - do I trust the person's general level of intelligence, competence and experience to, given the right priorities and information, make a good decision?

 

In all three cases, the farther away, the harder it really is to trust folks. Budgets and egos tend to get bigger as you go higher in an org, so it's easier for folks there to cast their priorities in a negative light (intentionally or otherwise). They're farther away from me so it's harder to believe they have accurate information about my experience as a grunt. And finally the farther up the more complex the challenges ought to be, requiring more wisdom and experience to handle the job...

 

Bottom line, it's natural for there to be less trust as you go up an org (BSA, or any other - business, non-profit, government, church, etc), and there's no way to avoid it completely. Excellent communication skills help, but the best way to minimize the fallout from "mistrust due to distance" is to keep power as decentralized as possible.

 

If you look over the standard "evergreen" complains on these forums, the ones about National tend to be in cases where something is centralized. G2SS rules against laser tag, eliminating Patrol Outings, WB21C course content, training mandates, etc. Of course some of that is unavoidable due to other centralized functions (if National pays for insurance, then it has to own G2SS too...), but overall it's worth keeping the problem in mind. Don't centralize anything that doesn't have to be.

 

* - regarding the finance and status part, while it is necessary for there to be paid professionals in a non-profit organization, I think it would be wholly inappropriate for pay and perks to be on par with for-profit corporate standards in an organization where 99+% of the work is done by volunteers.

 

[edit: fixed a typo](This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

[FScouter]

Somebody has to be the whipping boy; someone must be blamed for all the ills of Scouting. The evil "national" serves the purpose perfectly.

[TAHAWK]

Interesting. "trust" "trustworthy"

 

1. Does he do what he says he will do? (Within reason. Being hit by a car is an excuse. )

1b. If he can't keep a commitment, does he give reasonable notice?

1c. Does he work to overcome barriers to keeping commitments?

 

2. Does he tell the truth? ("Truth" is a matter of honesty. Everyone can get facts wrong.)

 

3. Given a choice, will he likely do the "right thing" (Subjective standard, but so what? We all think some positions are beyond reasonable dispute. "Choice," unlawful acts aside, means he has the power within Scouting to make the "right" decision.)

 

Those of us who have been around Scouting in this area for some decades agree that a "trustworthy" paid Scouter is remarkable. In fact, they are remarked upon. Unfortunately, they, like the untrustworthy ones, tend to leave Scouting. In the last year, the consensus two most trustworthy paid Scouters here left Scouting. The SE seems remarkably honest about some issues, but one has so little contact with him that it's hard to say more.

 

Volunteers/parents are sometimes trustworthy and sometimes not.

 

National is a puzzle palace. They are not frank. Sometimes they are not honest. They have a different agenda. Spin; spin; spin. Three words: "In School Scouting"