Do you count Librarian & Historian as RESPONSIBILITY?

[FScouter]

MidwestMom - I wasn't trying to be critical, just pointing out for those readers that may not know that BSA has included job descriptions in the Training Kit.

 

Ultimately, the Scoutmaster is accountable for the amount of work accomplished by the boys holding positions of responsibility.

[acco40]

FScouter - I don't want to sound negative but your statement "Ultimately, the Scoutmaster is accountable for the amount of work accomplished by the boys holding positions of responsibility." is something I disagree with. I know some fully believe it and obviously you and possibly BW and others are in that camp but not me.

 

For me, ultimately, the Scout is accountable for the amount of work he accomplishes. I have seen too many posts state that no matter why a "failure" occurs, the pat answer was that the Scoutmaster did not train the boys sufficiently. While this may be true in 99% of the cases it is not true in 100% IMO.

 

Yes, the adult leaders are responsible for coaching, teaching, mentoring, etc. but is a students failure always the fault of the teacher? Is a teams failure always the result of a coach?

 

Ideally, we should not be in the business of finding fault but in the business of trying to find out what works. Maybe I get too defensive but I don't like to see a de facto conclusion of the "leaders failed" when things go wrong. I know coaches sometimes take this tact publicly but privately I know the athletes get a different perspective! Allowing things to "go wrong" can be an excellent learning tool and I use it judiciously.

 

Now in this specific examples, it is the ASPL who is responsible for making sure that the Historian and Librarian are aware of their designated duties and assist them in carrying them out - not the Scoutmaster directly. It is the Scoutmaster(s) job to make sure the ASPL understands his ASPL duties. In reality, it is the responsibility of both to make sure these junior leadership position responsibilities are well defined, communicated and the Scouts responsibility that they are carried out. I also like to let the Scout holding the particular position to tailor the position responsibility to his strong suits.

 

I think we are all in agreement that it is a team effort but in my book the ultimate responsibility lies with the person holding the "job." Similarly, if I fail in the SM position, the ultimate responsibility for that falls with me, not the CO, the committee or the district training staff.

 

[Eagledad]

Great Monday All

 

>>I also like to let the Scout holding the particular position to tailor the position responsibility to his strong suits.

[FScouter]

Yes, I agree that the boy must be accountable. Several posts here have had the tone that once a boy has a position, he can coast through his six months without doing much work. The point I wanted to make is that the SM has a responsibility to train and guide the boy such that the boy can do justice to the position. The SM needs to work with the boy during the boy's tenure to ensure he performs in a satisfactory manner. Should the boy still decide to shirk his duties and do nothing, the SM is still accountable as to whether or not he accepts the performance of the boy as meeting the requirement for rank advancement.

[acco40]

We are in violent agreement on that one FScouter!

[BPwannabe@137]

The requirements state position of responcibility, not leadership.

 

There are several things to take in mind,

 

Not everyone is a leader. That is not a bad thing, nor should everyone be a leader. Also, sometimes, the popular boys win elections, and they may not be good leaders. Also, in a large troop, if you hold elections every six months, how can every boy get a chance at a leadership position. Therefor, to qualify for the rank, you must assume a responcibility role in the troop.

 

Without a doubt, SPL is the hardest role. Is ASPL as hard as SPL. No way. Does that make the position "less important". No. In my old troop, the ASPL was in charge of the leadership corps. Librarians, Historians, Scribes, Den Chiefs, and QM's (a thankless job) all have responciblities that are pretty hefty. (remember, these jobs are troop level, not patrol level) Any scout that properly does the job shows responcibility and deserves the qualification in rank.

 

I rmember way back to the days we wore olive (sniff, tears to my eyes) and my friend wanted to be the chaplin's aid. We thought it was a BS job too. Well, he worked with the parish priest to develope prayers for our COH and special meetings, put together universal services for Sundays at Camp (including readings and music), and became the coordinator for the religious awards programs, for all faiths. He even acted as a shoulder to cry on for scouts who needed spiritual assistance. That is responcibility and in a sence, he took leadership of that position.

 

My recommendation is to have guidlines written out for these positions, and if needed, add additonal requirements such as merit badge instructor, to beef up the positions. Have check list, evalution forms, ect. When you are done, the scribe ends up doing as much as the SPL, and contributing as much to the troops program.

[Eagledad]

>>Without a doubt, SPL is the hardest role. Is ASPL as hard as SPL.

[Eamonn]

"Not everyone is a leader. That is not a bad thing, nor should everyone be a leader.

Much as I hate to be disagreeable, I really do have to say that there is no way I will accept that statement.

We believe that Leadership is a skill that can be taught. Look at one of the final requirements for Eagle - Yes it's a Leadership Project.

Sure a troop might make the wrong choice when electing the SPL, but they learn by their mistakes and we the adults know that if we work with and support a Lad who may at first have seemed like the wrong choice all sorts of surprising things can happen.

It is the job of the Scoutmaster to train the SPL, ASPL and the Patrol Leaders. To say "Not everyone is a leader. That is not a bad thing, nor should everyone be a leader." Is a total cop out.

Eamonn.

[Bob White]

"FScouter - I don't want to sound negative but your statement "Ultimately, the Scoutmaster is accountable for the amount of work accomplished by the boys holding positions of responsibility." is something I disagree with. I know some fully believe it and obviously you and possibly BW and others are in that camp but not me."

 

Unles you are OGE or Eamonn it is best that you try to "guess" at what I think. They rarely miss because they have the pretty much the same understanding of Scouting that I have.

 

No I do not think the Scoutmaster is accountable for the amount of work accomplished by the boys holding positions of responsibility. What the program teaches is that the Scoutmaster is respponsible for making sure the scout knows what the job requires and that the scoutmaster teaches the scout the tools he needs to succeed in that job. The scout still need to do the work. But if thew SM understands the needs and characteristics of eacj scout then he can use the proper leadership skills to help the scout meet the challenge. To say the responsibility lies entirely with the SM is as incorrect as saying it lies entirely with the scout.

 

So please do not venture a guess on my behalf. If you want to know what I think just ask me.

 

 

[Bob White]

My apologies, I was running out when I posted this and missed some typos, please allow me to correct them.

 

 

"I don't want to sound negative but your statement "Ultimately, the Scoutmaster is accountable for the amount of work accomplished by the boys holding positions of responsibility." is something I disagree with. I know some fully believe it and obviously you and possibly BW and others are in that camp but not me."

 

Unless you are OGE or Eamonn it is best that you not try to "guess" at what I think. They rarely miss because they have the pretty much the same understanding of Scouting that I have.

 

No I do not think the Scoutmaster is accountable for the amount of work accomplished by the boys holding positions of responsibility. What the program teaches is that the Scoutmaster is responsible for making sure the scout knows what the job requires and that the scoutmaster teaches the scout the tools he needs to succeed in that job. The scout still needs to do the work. But if the SM understands the needs and characteristics of each scout then he can use the proper leadership skills to help the scout meet the challenge. To say the responsibility lies entirely with the SM is as incorrect as saying it lies entirely with the scout.

 

So please do not venture a guess on my behalf. If you want to know what I think just ask me.

 

Thank You,

BW

[evmori]

I gotta agree with the "not everyone is a leader" statement. Sure leadership can be taught but not every Scout wants to learn it! Nor should they have to to succeed in Scouting. There are POR's that don't require leadership. And there is nothing that states a Scout must be a PL or ASPL or SPL to advance.

 

Not all Scouts are leaders.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[BPwannabe@137]

"Not every boy is a leader". This statement was made by myself after years of experience and studies (yes, academic-I am a sociologist by training). In groups of men (or in the case of BSA, boys), anyone can be taught to be a supervisor. Supervisors are nothing more then trained workers, who know the job or operation well enough to make sure it runs smoothly and gets the task completed. Good employees generally don't need supervisors; they go about their business and do their job as assigned. A PL or SPL can be trainied to be a supervisor.

 

A person can be trained to be a leader, but only those with it trully inside of them can rise to the occasion and make men follow them. Without being dramatic, a good supervisor can lead a squad of men into a combat zone, but a leader can get them to follow him into a machine gun nest.

 

You can see who are leaders in the scouting world, the work force, and the military. The young scoutmaster with no square knots, the old army NCO, the teacher who should be working in a better school for better pay; they are all leaders without the marks of supervisors.

 

Sorry Eammon, leaders are born, not trained.

[Bob White]

What???

 

BP are you actually saying, as a Sociologist, that a newborn regardless of his upbringing or environment will become what he becomes based only on his inherent nature?

 

That would pretty much negate the need for sociologists wouldn't it?(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[BPwannabe@137]

Bob White

 

Maybe I am too quick on the draw.

 

Of course a persons upbringing, schooling, moral and social interactions with both the larger and smaller group will influence his/her overall personality. By the time a person is around middle school, you can begin to see many different personality traits developed. Some can be developed more, others can be changed. However, I believe, and again this is a school of thought, that certain things can't be schooled, they are just born in you.

 

For example, every human can draw a picture. Some might look like a chicken drew it with a pen in its rectum, others might look OK. But only the artist, someone with the passion and the true ability to draw (or paint) can produce a work of art. Yes, people do go to art school and study, and practice, but do thye trully produce the work of art?

 

Out of all the men who held he highest office in the nation, are they all true leaders? Without a doubt, most of these men were elected for their charisma, charm, speeking ability, service records, fat pocket books, or whatever. Although they can run the nation, are they all leaders? Coolage as President on the eve of WW2 ? Martin Van Burean during the Civil War ?

 

There is something in certain people that make them rise to the occassion. To take charge, to lead by example, to stir the blood of their fellow men and make them follow. Young men and women are trained to be leaders at West Point. They are chosen because they have already shown leadership ablility. However, only a few rise to the rank of General.

 

So yes Bob White, I do agree that you can teach boys to be leaders. The BSA has done so (Steven Ambrose uses that illustration as to explain why the GI and Tommy were better then Hitlers troops, Boy Scouts vs. Hitler Youth)and will contine to do so. But its those youth who has it in them to take what we teach them and apply the knowledge. It is the application of that knowledge and the fire inside that brings the leader to the top.

 

Call me a romantic. We have all read read about these leaders of men, heard the stories. I have witnessed it first hand, many times, and believe it. So are born leaders.

[BPwannabe@137]

PS Bob White,

 

"negate the need for sociologists"

 

Like lawyers...way too many with too many opinions. Present company included.

 

(Insert smiley face...still can't figure out how to do that)