Lack of leadership for PL

[KoreaScouter]

Eammon;

 

I don't know, you tell me how much damage is too much. If one Scout is driven away from the program because of his PL's incompetence/attitude/performance, to me, that's too much damage. Moreover, the boy who left is going to tell his friends what happened, and now there's a recruiting spillover.

 

What's the tipping point? Every situation's different -- there's no cookie cutter template, and those judgment calls are what I get paid to make. They should be the very rare exception rather than the rule, but I don't think we should be afraid to do it when it's necessary.

 

What I fall back on is the argument (maybe mostly my argument, but no matter) that it's my responsibility to use all 8 methods to deliver the program. Just as importantly, to keep the 8 methods in some sort of equilibrium. For example, I'm a uniform advocate, wear it in full, and encourage everybody else to do the same. I don't send boys home if they're wearing jeans, however. I also believe in leadership development (the method we're focusing on in this thread, arguably), and follow all its precepts. That said, I don't allow the leadership development method to negatively impact the advancement method (if a Troop Guide is mailing it in), or the patrol method (if an SPL is planning in a vacuum and not involving his PLs). In short, when one method is not reinforcing the others, but degrading them, something's gotta change. The presumption is that I've done the training, conducted the conferences, given the personal attention, etc., etc., and it's not working.

 

I'm not trying to bash any lad, or paint with too broad a brush here. We've all seen the Scout who was out of his element in a particular position, but did well in another one. Or, the Scout who couldn't lead a dog to a Milk-Bone last year, but is doing a good job as SPL now. I think we have to keep it in perspective, stay flexible, and be prepared to do what we need to do. If I see a train wreck coming, and I can throw a switch to prevent it, I'm throwing the switch. We can still reflect and learn from the situation, without the consequence management that goes along with the wreck.

 

Just my opinion; I could be completely wrong...

 

KS

[Mike F]

CA,

You're right on track with the in-house leader training! Good luck!!

 

Eammon,

I really enjoy your posts and always learn something new, but I gotta agree with KS on this one about removing a scout from a position (as a last resort - when all the coaching and training has failed).

I will agree that if a scout wants the job and is giving it his best with the training and support of his SM (and others), it's not likely that he could do much significant damage. Others will generally understand.

But if after all the training, coaching, etc., you should consider removing the scout from his position if any one or more of the following become evident:

a. He refuses to take any action to fulfill the responsibilities of his job,

b. Other commitments consume so much of his time that he can't effectively accomplish the requirements of this job at this time (football season, etc.), and/or

c. He has a persistent bad attitude that affects others around him. (I don't mean just a bit of complaining - this one refers to persistent un-Scout-like actions, bullying, etc.)

 

Being removed from a job for lack of performance is hardly a military thing. How long will a successful business owner tolerate a manager who refuses to do his job? This is an early lesson in the real world. Better to learn it as a Patrol Leader than later as a Branch Chief.

 

[Eamonn]

KS

You and I are on the same page when it comes to the Methods of Scouting. There does need to be a balance and things need to be kept in perspective.

During my term as a District Key 3 member, there have been times when adults just can't get along. Some misguided souls are looked to me to fire, dismiss or get rid of!! Someone that is the cause of the problem. I explain that I can't fire anyone at the unit level and back this up by saying something like "You need to go to the person that hired them, they are the only person who can fire them"

Surely after a election the Lads have made their choice and the SM has to work with the people that he is given.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, which is one reason I'm not big on big books of rules. And there are nice ways of asking or telling a Lad that this isn't working out and maybe he needs to think about stepping down.

Maybe I'm just a big marshmallow and I'm scared of the harm that could be done if this wasn't managed right.

We ask everyone in this game to do their best,sure there are Lads that for some reason don't seem to have the skills needed, but if a Lad is doing his best, I sure as heck do not want to knock him down or harm him.

At some point I suppose we need to look at the individual Scout and what we are doing for him, not anyone else just him. Then we have to look at the group or the Troop, this is where the balancing act comes in.

Eamonn.

[Lynda J]

I would only remove a scout from an elected position if he is endangering other scouts. I would let the process run it's course. We had an SPL that wasn't worth anything. When it came time for OA elections, he was eligible. But guess what the rest of the troop let him know they were uphappy with his leadership by not electing him.

It wasn't that they were being mean. Simply didn't feel he had shown good leadership skills.

WHen he wan't tapped out he was hurt. I sat down and talked to him. I ask him why he thought he wasn't elected? His reply was that he hadn't acted very well as SPL. He understands what went wrong and is working hard to correct it. He wants to run again for SPL. He doesn't hold an office at this time but is working really hard to help the other boys on rank advancement. He is showing the rest of the troop that he can be a leader.

Boys learn from their mistakes. Both sides. The boys elected and they boys who elected him. Let the process work.

[Eamonn]

Lynda J

I can't help thinking that this Lad learned more by working things out for himself than if he had been removed from office.

Eamonn.

 

[Mike F]

I agree if they are really trying, you give them all the help/coaching they can stand and give them the benefit of the doubt. Lynda and Eamonn both gave examples of scouts that were trying, maybe even doing their best, but struggled. I agree that scouts in this situation have successfully completed their terms of leadership because they learned and grew in the process. Most cases of leadership problems fall into this category. The discussion which follows would be one of the exceptions Eamonn mentions.

 

I have occasionally run into a different situation where the scout was in the position because he needed it for his next rank advancement, but he didnt want to do anything except wear the patch for 6 months so he could fill the square and be awarded his next rank. These lads wont learn more by working things out for themselves because they arent working period. In these situations the patrol and troop suffer from his inaction and it sets a bad example if you let him remain in position for the entire term, then reward his disrespect for the program by awarding him his next rank. We have had numerous discussions in these forums about how to handle a scout who in the leaders opinions hasnt satisfactorily met the requirements while holding a position of responsibility. Without thrashing through the sordid details again, if the scout holds the position for the entire term but his performance is deemed unsatisfactory, there is a Pandoras Box of appeals through the District Advancement Chair that are usually ruled in the scouts favor. If a scout refuses to put forth any effort, he needs to be removed before his term is up and taught an early lesson in accountability hes obviously not ready for the lessons in leadership.

 

-mike