Older Scouts

[Bob White]

I understand that my advice of servant leadership has caused a poster to vomit. What an unfortunate reaction to the teachings of Jesus Christ...(Luke 22:24-26)

A dispute also started among them over which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.So Jesus said to them, The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. Not so with you; instead the one who is greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the one who serves.

 

It is unfortunate that a poster would show that kind of reaction. Even worse that someone would use the forum for their own person vendetta rather than for the purpose the forum was designed for, and that it goes unchecked and unchallenged by so many.

[Fat Old Guy]

" What an unfortunate reaction to the teachings of Jesus Christ...(Luke 22:24-26)"

 

Christ was also nailed to a tree. Do you want that to happen to this Scout? If you want to follow the teachings of Christ, do you advocate selling your coat and buying a sword or, in today's world, a gun?

[acco40]

Boys, boys, simmer down!

 

FOG, don't have such a narrow view of "serves." For many a troop, the best leader is the one who "serves" the troop the best. To serve doesn't mean to be docile, subservient, etc. At a restaurant a waiter serves but does not necessarily serve the customer the best in the full extent. The manager, owner, or maitre de could all be labeled as the best "leader" because they really serve the customers needs the best, providing him with good food at a reasonable price in an enjoyable environment. The wait staff only delivers food.

 

Bob, maybe such postings go unchecked and unchallenged and by most because you do such a good job checking and challenging yourself the others get lazy.

[Fat Old Guy]

I find it amusing that one person (Wheeler) was blasted for quoting long dead people to support his position and but one who blasted him quotes not just a long dead person but someone who claims to have written down what the long dead person said. Interessant, nicht war?

 

" Even worse that someone would use the forum for their own person vendetta rather than for the purpose the forum was designed for"

 

You really have an inflated sense of worth, don't you?

[SR540Beaver]

FOG,

 

Perhaps a nice campout where you can commune with nature for a while is in order.

[Fat Old Guy]

"Perhaps a nice campout where you can commune with nature for a while is in order."

 

I chose the Navy so that I could sleep on a matress and wouldn't have to "commune" with nature. I leave the communing part to the guys who want to play Army.

 

 

[evmori]

There is nothing wrong with servant leadership. Actually, servant leadership is biblical. While Bob's statement of "The real leader is the one who serves others" is simplistic it is accurate.

 

I do, however, take umbrage at Bob White's use of a Bible passage to do nothing more than berate another Scouter. That's not what the Bible is meant for and that's how Christian's get a bad rap!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

Acco40

 

I do not know where these misconceptions come from.

 

"Bob, maybe such postings go unchecked and unchallenged and by most because you do such a good job checking and challenging yourself the others get lazy."

 

If you look back you will see that I have only responded to one of that posters missives since the 'squelch' feature has been added to the forum, which has been a number of weeks. Yet, I understand that my posts are riduculed by him on a nearly daily basis.

 

And still you have the impression that there has been a two-way conversation taking place, when there has not. Look back at our posts for the past several weeks and you will see that this is true.

 

I offered a leadership concept to help a poster resolve a problem. It was met with tasteless ridicule not because of the validity of the statement, but because of the poster's personal vindictiveness toward me. In doing so he allowed his hate to blind him to the the model on which this leadership concept is based.

 

I then posted the origin of that concept, and I understand his 2nd reply was as insensitive and tastless as his first. I did not berate the poster he did that to himself. I only offered the reference as to where the servant/leadership concept can be traced back.

 

It's unfortunate that others do not see, or are so willing to be bullied, by his sort of behavior.

 

As far as that posters comment regarding Jesus as a "long dead person" It is my understanding that he is still alive.

 

I guess that is just one of the many ways we differ.

 

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

" It was met with tasteless ridicule not because of the validity of the statement, but because of the poster's personal vindictiveness toward me."

 

Nah, I would have Ralphed no matter who had said it.

 

"In doing so he allowed his hate . . . "

 

Hate? You're still giving yourself too much credit.

 

"to blind him to the the model on which this leadership concept is based."

 

I wouldn't hold Jesus up as a great example of leadership. One of his followers denied knowing him. One of his followers sold him down the river. One of his followers refuses to accept his existence until he stuck his hand into the wounds. One of his guys almost drowned because he didn't believe. That's trouble with 33% of his followers. Sounds like he wasn't doing a good job.

 

"As far as that posters comment regarding Jesus as a "long dead person" It is my understanding that he is still alive."

 

Along with Elvis and JFK.

[Proud Eagle]

I am afraid I must agree with Bob on the issues of servant leadership and Christ still living.

 

FOG also makes good points. Leadership is a complex thing and cannot be easily summed up in any book or catch phrase.

 

However, both men show a lack of wisdom in dealing with each other.

 

Listen to their Scouting advice, but don't bother trying to figure out the disagreement between the two.

 

On the issue of who started the petty argument between the two of you and who is right, I won't get into that. Personally I think you both need to take a look at weather or not your words are in keeping with the Oath, Law, and various other moral and ethical standards you may choose to apply to yourself.

 

Now CW I must say I am somewhat impressed by your ability to handle being both SPL and Lodge Chief at the same time. Those are two duties I wouldn't really want to deal with at the same time, having held both positions at different times.

 

I think there is always a strain between the need to give new people a chance to gain leadership experience and the need to have the most qualified person fill the position. There must be a balance between the two. I would say once a person has mastered a position they should certainly move on to new challenges, otherwise they have only a limited ability to challenge themselves (N.B. mastery and perfection should not be confused). In some cases it may be necessary to deviate from this for various reasons, either by staying in a position longer, or by moving on sooner. I would say for troop youth positions the balance slightly favors allowing someone new to learn and grow. In adult positions, the balance is more in favor of keeping a capable leader in a position. For OA officers, the proper balance is probably between those of troop youth and adult leadership positions. In all cases, even if you intend to train the person in the specific skills needed, no one should ever be placed in a position they don't posses the basic talents and potentials for.

[Fat Old Guy]

How does one master leadership? A leadership situation is always presenting new challenges.

 

Let's look at other positions. Let's take a hypothetical Quartermaster (this is a real hypothetical situation, unlike those presented by others) who has spent a year first tracking down troop equipment that has gone astray, creating an inventory control system for equipemnt and then implementing that system. Should our QM then abandon the position to someone who will reap the benefits of his hard work or should he remain in the position and enjoy things for a while?

 

If you are constantly throwing steep learning curves at people, they'll get frustrated and quit. Imagine if an employer sent an employee to Microsoft Access training, allowed the person to become proficient with Access and then told him, "Okay, now that you know Access you won't touch it anymore. We're sending you to Photoshop training." I know that I'd ask, "Why am I being asked to learn skills that I cannot use?"

 

 

 

 

[Proud Eagle]

Your MSalagy is flawed. Leadership development is largely a cumulative process. Your quartermaster probably learned skills while in that position that will be helpful in carrying out other responsibilities.

 

To put it another way, lets say you do send the guy off to Access training. When he gets back you soon send to to Photo shop training. Now he knows two of the programs that make up the complete Office suit. Maybe a little later he can learn Power Point.

 

Sure, maybe some of the very specific skills such as the inventory system itself may only apply to the quartermaster's position. However, that inventory system is really more like learning Access than it is a leadership skill. Instead, the contribution to leadership development was in the areas of attention to detail, organizational skills, and problem solving.

 

As to what constitutes mastery of a leadership skill, that is hard to say. You are correct that there will always be some new challenge (or should be). However, do these challenges really cause any significant growth in the leaders abilities? Here is an example of someone who had mastered their leadership position- James T. Kirk, as a starship captain. In cases such as that, it is best to put the most qualified person in the position, because of the critical nature of the position. In a Scout troop, there is no position that is so weighty with responsibility as that of a starship captain. A troop can survive having a leader that is still learning. That is not so good of an idea when delicate diplomacy or complex combat may be part of the situation.

[Fat Old Guy]

"To put it another way, lets say you do send the guy off to Access training. When he gets back you soon send to to Photo shop training. Now he knows two of the programs that make up the complete Office suit. Maybe a little later he can learn Power Point."

 

However, the poor sod is not being allowed to utilize the skills that he has learned.

 

I get the feeling that you believe that boys should be rotated through positions as quickly as possible so others can step in and get their tickets punched. Maybe the guy likes being QM but you'd force him out after he straightend out the mess so someone else can have their chance to mess things up again. Might make sense to you but doesn't make sense to me.

[evmori]

Jesus is the best example of servant leadership ever! And He is still alive!

 

Fat Old Guy makes a good point about not being allowed to use the skills you have been taught. Think about teaching Scouts knots. They need to learn some for their rank advancement. And if they don't have the chance to use them they usually forget the skill!

 

Scouts shouldn't be rotated through leadership positions because they "need one for rank". Scouts should get leadership positions because they deserve them. I know Bob won't see this since he has me squelched, which I think is a bad feature to this forum, but that's another discussion, but I don't think he would agree with me. I think he feels Scouts should have leadership positions because they need them.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[dan]

If I take a class that my employers has paid for, I need to make sure that I take the time to not lose the skills. The analogy is flawed.

evmori

BW has NEVER said to give a scout a leadership position because he needs it. Where did you ever come up with this one? Or are you just throwing out a little chum?

I am pretty sure BW would say, that it was perfectly fine for a scout to go up to a newly elected SPL and say I really want/need this position so can you consider me for it?

But I am totally lost on this thread. It is up to the SPL and the scout if a scout gets the position for more than one term, so what in the heck are you people talking about?