The product, the package.

[Kudu]

 

"Natural leadership only means their character is one where folks tend to willingly follow, even if its off the cliff. Was Jim Jones a natural leader, I don't know. "

 

Back before the invention of Leadership Development drove two million (2,000,000) Boy Scouts out of the BSA, the Patrol Method was based on Patrol Adventure, which required finding the Natural Leader: The boy with the character a Patrol of boys willingly follow, especially off a cliff.

 

Leadership Development replaced Natural Leaders with disposable six month "great leaders."

 

A "great leader" is a boy who can write a common vision statement and use the EDGE Method to tie a square knot.

 

No more Green Bar Bill's position-specific "Intensive Training in the Green Bar Patrol," where the Scoutmaster spends six months (SIX MONTHS) (SIX!!!!MONTHS!!!!) personally training each Natural Leader to lead his Patrol off a cliff.

 

Our great success in replacing Patrol Adventure with office theory is due to our acquisition of the Holy Grail of business management: Congress picking the winners and losers among American corporations.

 

The socialist ideal.

 

If Congress had granted us a monopoly on baseball, then we "leadership skills" experts would hate Natural Athletes:

 

"Boy that Tommy has a great arm, doesn't he?"

 

"Yes, he reminds me so much of Jim Jones at that age."

 

"Oh, your son hates baseball but he needs to pitch for six months for his Eagle POR, right?"

 

"Right."

 

If Congress had granted us a monopoly on hostage negotiation, then we "leadership skills" experts would hate people with a Natural Gift of Gab under extreme pressure.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

[KC9DDI]

To be honest, I find these discussions on "natural born" leaders to be a bit irritating. What do we actually mean by "natural born?" Just based on the wording, I'd consider a "natural born" leader to be a leader based on something that they are naturally born with.

 

The Queen of England would be a "natural born" leader, because her entire claim to leadership is based on whom she was born to.

 

And I suppose some people are born with some natural talent or aptitude for leadership, much like some people are just born with an above-average aptitude for math, languages, music or athletics. But we don't talk about "natural born mathematicians," do we? No one can do multi-variable calculus straight from the womb, these skills must be learned, practiced, and even developed over time.

 

Much like leadership. I'm sure that some people are born with the personality and thought processes which give them an advantage when developing their leadership skills. Others might not be born with these same advantages, and have to work a little bit harder to become decent leaders. Still others, no matter how hard they try, might never become decent leaders.

 

So here's my question for everyone - Why are we so concerned with what our youth leaders are born with? By the time they're 15 or 16 or so, shouldn't we be more concerned with what they can and can't do at this particular moment, rather than what talents we suspect they may or may not have had at birth? It sounds to me like we should replace the phrase "natural born leader" with "good leader" in these discussions.

 

And, yes, I understand that the "real leader" in a group might not be the one with the position patch on his sleeve. Or that the one with the position patch might not be a fantastic leader at 12 years old. But, this is the Boy Scouts for pete's sake, not the Green Berets - there's some leeway for things to go wrong, for learning opportunities, and even for *gasp* leadership development.

 

All of this talk of focusing on "natural born" leaders (whatever we decide that actually means) at the expense of "potentially good" leaders makes me worry that we'll create a kind of caste system in Scouting, where those who weren't "born right" won't be given the same opportunities as those who were.

 

I believe that leadership is a skill that can be developed, just like music, math or athletics. And there is room for "leadership develop" in Scouting. I agree with the Kudu camp to the extent that I think the move away from a rigorous outdoor program and into the classroom is NOT the way to do leadership development in Scouting. But, that does not mean that better ways don't exist.

[Kudu]

 

KC9DDI writes:

 

"What do we actually mean by 'natural born?'"

 

Adding "born" to "Natural Leader" is the invention of our office management experts here who vilify boys who show a natural talent for leadership, by comparing them to mass murderers like Jim Jones: An homage to Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers."

 

KC9DDI writes:

 

" But we don't talk about "natural born mathematicians," do we?"

 

Yes, we do:

 

 

KC9DDI writes:

 

"these skills must be learned, practiced, and even developed over time."

 

Which is why "Leadership Development" screws Patrol Leaders out of Green Bar Bill's position-specific "Intensive Training in the Green Bar Patrol," where the Scoutmaster spends six months (SIX MONTHS) (SIX!!!!MONTHS!!!!) personally training each Natural Leader to lead his Patrol off a cliff.

 

KC9DDI writes:

 

"So here's my question for everyone - Why are we so concerned with what our youth leaders are born with?"

 

Setting the "born" red herring aside, you can probably answer that for yourself: Think back to the last six of your Patrols that set off on a Patrol Outing with no adult supervision. What concerns did you have, KC9DDI? Chances are the Patrol Leaders that you most trusted to get the boys back without injury or incident were a force to be reckoned with early on.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

One of our methods in the Scout movement for taming a hooligan is to appoint him head of a Patrol. He has all the necessary initiative, the spirit and the magnetism for leadership, and when responsibility is thus put upon him it gives him the outlet he needs for his exuberance of activity, but gives it in a right direction (Baden-Powell).

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/index.htm

 

 

[KC9DDI]

Kudu, while I can occasionally follow some of your posts, that one didn't make any sense.

 

Adding "born" to "Natural Leader" is the invention of our office management experts

 

Citation needed?

 

Which is why "Leadership Development" screws Patrol Leaders out of Green Bar Bill's position-specific "Intensive Training in the Green Bar Patrol," where the Scoutmaster spends six months (SIX MONTHS) (SIX!!!!MONTHS!!!!) personally training each Natural Leader to lead his Patrol off a cliff.

 

It doesn't screw anybody out of anything. I said "these skills must be learned, practiced, and even developed over time". You said GBB advocated Scoutmasters to spend six months personally overseeing the learning, practice and development of these skills. So where's the cause and effect relationship that you claim exists?

 

Setting the "born" red herring aside

 

My entire point is that "born" is a red herring. So what am I supposed to be setting it aside from in order to answer your question?

 

Actually, what is your question?

 

[Kudu]

 

My question:

 

Think back to the last six of your Patrols that set off on individual Patrol Outings with no adult supervision. What concerns did you have, KC9DDI?

 

Chances are the Patrol Leaders that you most trusted to get the boys back without injury or incident were a force to be reckoned with early on.

 

 

[KC9DDI]

Thank you for clarifying.

 

Think back to the last six of your Patrols that set off on individual Patrol Outings with no adult supervision. What concerns did you have, KC9DDI?

 

To name a few: I was concerned that the patrol leader have the maturity and experience necessary to effectively lead his group. I was concerned that the patrol be adequately prepared for the activity. I was concerned that the group dynamics of the patrol be such that the PL was respected by his patrol members, and vice versa. I was concerned that the patrol collectively have the physical and mental capabilities to successfully and safely complete the activity. I was concerned that the patrol collectively had an adequate understanding of Scoutcraft and other relevant skills to complete the activity.

 

But if I could also enumerate a list of things that I was UNconcerned with: the talents or aptitude that the PL (or anyone else) may or may not have been "born with." Why the PL is an effective leader, and how he developed into an effective leader. How hard the PL had to work at becoming an effective leader. Whether leadership comes naturally to the PL, or whether it's something he needs to focus on to do well.

 

In short, I care about the current capabilities of our youth. Some of them may currently be capable and skilled leaders - great, they're ideal candidates for leadership positions. Others may need more time to develop the appropriate skill set, and Scouting can help them do that. Whether or not they were "born leaders" straight from the womb is not at all relevant to me.

[Kudu]

 

KC9DDI, I agree with every one of those sentences.

 

I would add that like the PhD department head in Eamonn's team, the "Natural Leader" in a six month POR rotation Patrol may not always be the Patrol Leader, but he is the experienced "go to" guy if the Patrol courts trouble.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

[Eamonn]

I do think that some people are born with a natural talent.

Maybe everyone is?

Tiger Woods seems to have a natural talent for playing golf.

Still it didn't hurt that his Dad put a club in his hand at the age of three.

I wonder what might have happened if his Dad had forbidden him from ever playing golf?

I never played a game of golf until I was in my early thirties. I'm terrible! But I'll never know if I might have been better had I started as a three year old.

 

Up until a few years back, I never really thought of Leadership as being a skill you could really learn.

I was of course aware that some people had it, but I never really gave much thought of it being something you could develop.

I think maybe part of this was that back home in England many of the admired leaders were from the upper classes. Working class people never got that many opportunities to lead other than when they were rebelling against something.

Back when I was a Scout, the Patrols were mixed age Patrols. If possible the Patrol that you joined was the Patrol that you stayed with. There wasn't any elections or that sort of thing. Most of the time it came down to age, when the older guys left you moved up.

Some Lads were far better at being the P/L then others, some took to it like a duck to water, while others kinda grew into it.

Ea.

 

[BadenP]

 

I have to go along with much of Eamonns post. IMO there is no such thing as a natural born leader, rather a person who possesses a lot of common sense who listens to those around them and can take their ideas and their own and formulate a solid plan of action that appeals to others who will then follow that person, that is a true leader.