rotating adult leadership

[Lisabob]

In the original thread, the OP mentioned that her council encourages troops to rotate leaders every 2-3 years to keep things fresh. Some folks in that thread expressed great surprise.

 

My son's former troop tried rotating SMs every 2 years, currently on their 4th SM in 8 years. On the other hand, the troop he's part of now, has had the same SM for 6 years. Another local troop has had the same SM for more than 30 years.

 

As far as I can tell, there are both good and bad sides to a 2-3 year rotation.

 

On the good side:

It is easier to get folks to step up if they know there's a defined end to the commitment.

 

If a particular SM doesn't connect with some kids (or parents), they know another SM isn't too far down the road.

 

Kids see a variety of leadership styles and learn from that.

 

Different SMs bring different talents and perspectives.

 

Less drama about changing SMs, or SMs trying to build a fiefdom, since change is a natural and regular process.

 

On the negative side:

 

Many new SMs seem to want to reinvent the wheel, which gets tiresome when it happens every 2 years.

 

Webelos might be shocked to discover, shortly after joining, that the SM they thought they were going to have, is just about to step down.

 

If there's a big shift in personality or philosophical approach every 2 years, it can be really disruptive.

 

By the time the new SM figures out what they're doing, they're almost done.

 

You need a pretty deep bench of ASMs who work well together, to pull this off every two years.

 

 

What other pros and cons do you all see, here? Would you recommend this sort of rotation policy, whether for SMs or for other adult leadership positions? WHy or why not?

 

 

 

[Brewmeister]

I believe a unit benefits from a long-tenured SM, and particularly if that SM no longer has a boy in the troop, provided that (and this is a big caveat) the SM is willing to support the program the boys want to have. The risk with a long-tenured SM is you have someone whose wealth of experience is negated by his inertia.

 

[Papadaddy]

I've worked for military officers for most of my career...welcome to my world...

[fred8033]

Rotate when you need fresh ideas or new enthusiasm and energy.

 

Otherwise, I strongly prefer long-term scoutmasters.

 

- Personality. A major shopping point is the scoutmaster. A good match is important. A mediocre match is tolerable. A bad match drives scouts out. I'd rather find the good match and stick with it as long as possible. The key is that the personality of the troop is the personality of the scoutmaster.

 

- Experience. Scoutmasters need time to learn and experiment. Though it appears simple, scouting is not obvious. It takes time to learn how to make it work. Once they have been in it for a few years, they know the program and have dealt with dozens of experiences. A long running SM benefits from all those years.

 

- Mellowed out. Scoutmasters need to have dealth with alot so they can mellow out and figure out what's important.

[Eagledad]

My experience is troops that rotate SMs tend to have a consistent program that doesnt change much over the years because the ASMs basically all have the same vision. They lean just a bit more on the advancement side and less boy run. But, I wouldnt call them Eagle Mills, just less creative.

 

Barry

 

[Eagle92]

You saw my response to rotating SMs in the original thread. I'll quote Gen. McAuliffe once again:

 

NUTS!

 

I was fortunate in that growing up, my SM was an expereinced one. He served 25 years as SM before stepping down. I was forutnate enough to be the last Eagle Scout COH he attended stepping down.

 

Now only did the new SM who I worked with had some big shoes to fill, but also he was an ASM for a year before being approached to be SM, and then almost another year transitioning. Some hiccups did occur, but the transition was smooth, so smooth that the Scouts didn't know about the old SM stepping down until some things happended in his personal life that caused him to step down a few months early.

 

Part of the smoothness is a result of the PLC, and part was that succession planning did occur, and I bet if the family member's death didn't happen, it would have been smoother. Also while not an Eagle, the new SM was a Quartermaster, so he had a scouting background.

 

But the next two transitions did have plenty of hiccups. The troop started going more towards adult led, and just as the SMs were getting comfortable, they left. Don't know how the troop is now since Katrina, but htey did loose over 1/2 their numbers.

 

Right now I am seeing one troop having some challenges b/c of a new SM. Old SM started the troop, and it took him 5 years to get it boy run. Some issues have come up and he needed to step down. So the new SM has less than a year's experience as a Boy Scout leader, and I see the troop slowly turnign into Webelos III because they have a lot of former and current Cub Scout parents involved.

[CalicoPenn]

Scoutmaster's vision? Should the Scoutmaster's vision be "go with what the Boys want and mentor them through it" rather than some grand plan to move the troop in one direction or the other? A Scoutmaster is a weathervane - it points the direction the wind takes it - the Scoutmaster is not the wind, the boys are.

 

We rotate Scouts through POR's far more regularly and often - we shouldn't be afraid to di it with adult leader positions - a 3 year rotation seems about right to me - the 1st year the Scoutmaster perfects his skills, the second year, the Scoutmaster identifies his replacement, the third year the Scoutmaster trains his replacement, the 4th year, the new Scoutmaster, already trained, perfects his skills.

 

 

 

[Brewmeister]

The problem I have seen with rotation, in my admittedly limited cross-troop experience, is that rotation is often tied to the advancement of said SM's scout.

 

This leads the troop to focus on older scouts, and their advancement, to the detriment of the younger scouts.

[Eagledad]

>>This leads the troop to focus on older scouts, and their advancement, to the detriment of the younger scouts.

[Jeffrey H]

I think 2 to 3 years is long enough. Someone can take the reins without the concern of burnout and enjoy their tenure. The expectation is set among parents and ASM's that the duty of of an SM is 3 years max and succession plans are a normal part of Troop life. When it's time to rotate, the former SM can step into an ASM role or Committee member.

 

On the other hand, there is great merit with having a long-tenured Scoutmaster (10 years +) who is highly effective and exhibits strong yet humble leadership before the scouts. This person is rare but definitely "Gold" if you have him.

 

 

[eisely]

I favor rotation of adult leadership, but on a five year schedule. Two years is way too short.

 

One of the unmentioned keys to this is the troop committee which should select the new SM. Unless change is really on the overall agenda, one of the selection criteria should be an emphasis on boy led, and not on the selectee's vision.

[Oak Tree]

Every SM I have talked to says he strongly favors boy-led. And they all have very different versions of what that means.

 

How much failure will he tolerate? How does he favor doing an annual plan? What tasks does he want to give to the ASMs? How does he go about coaching the SPL and other youth? What kind of camping does he favor? How does he view risk-management? How will he handle parents? What is his philosophy on advancement? Who all will he allow to sign off on stuff?

 

The idea that you just need someone who will let the boys lead is an idea that will lead to terrible choices for Scoutmasters.

 

I think Lisa's initial list pretty much has the pros and cons correct. If you can develop a solid program where new SMs just keep it going, then you have a good situation for rotation. Prevents all the drama about trying to decide how to tell a Scoutmaster that he should move on. Gets some new perspective. And yet, with all that, you hate to force out a good SM, because you know that there is some chance that the next one won't be good.

 

Wood Badge rotates leaders every year. They do it by developing a very strong bench. I like that model, since it prevents the course from becoming an old boys' club. Most troops don't have the ability to develop a bench in that fashion, so I'm somewhere in the middle on the rotation idea. I think it might work well for some troops, and others would find it problematic. If I were to suggest doing it, I think I'd go for a three-year tour of duty.

[WasE61]

I would think that being as high maintenance as what a Troop is, that the adult leaders would become burned out pretty quickly.

 

The only static position in our troop appears to be the SM. All of the other Adult positions, including ASM's seem to flux every year or two.

 

[BSA24]

Change is painful and should have a purpose other than inducing change for its own sake. Life is not a slot machine, and we shouldn't be pulling that handle for no good reason because you don't know what will happen.

[OldGreyEagle]

Then why do we have a term limit on being President and some states limit terms of Senators and Congress?