Patrol Realignment

[JerseyJohn]

Greetings Scouters,

 

I am looking your objective comments and advice. I am SM for a troop of 65 scouts. I have eight patrols, and I'll try to make a long story short....

 

Two patrols from last years crossovers, Patrol A and Patrol B, each have seven scouts.

 

Patrol A - Four are 1st Class, one of which is up for BOR in April for Star) and motivated, the others are slackers or minimal participants.

 

Patrol B One is 1st Class and should be up for Star BOR in May, he is a real leader (his sister is GS Gold) and the balance of his patrol is immature and somewhat simply realying on him all the time.

 

My observations:

I have watched the strong try to motiviate, lead and get the others to do their duty. Rather than complain, they just get it done (leading by example), while some have a "free ride".

 

Thoughts:

The motivated are getting it done but are carrying extra weight, which is simply not fair to them as they complete their duties PLUS additional duties. It is challenging enough to be 11 or 12 and learn leadership but they are frustrated at banging their head against the wall learning, practicing, striving to develop a unified patrol and not seeing results.

 

The two motivated PL's and the SPL approached me about patrol realignment. The motivated from each patrol want to form their own patrol and leave the unmotivated, slackers. The are real go getters. They do their own thing, always operate on a business then pleasure principle.

 

Conflict:

If I leave it as is, the motivated will continue to carry the load and possibly be "dragged down" and at the same time, the slackers will learn nothing because "somebody else will do it"

 

If I realign,

Patrol A will operate very well and succeed in a Participative Leadership style while Patrol B would then be be in a leadership vacuum, left to sink or swim.

 

What would you do?

 

I appreciate your input.

YIS,

John

 

 

[LongHaul]

Sometimes we give an answer and sometimes we ask questions to help the person arrive at the answer themselves. What is the past practice of your troop? Does the troop allow realignment of patrols upon request? If the other six patrols came to you and said we want to do a "Fire drill and everybody change seats would you allow it? I go to the extreme because it is easier to identify the tolerance level. If you say yes the boys decide the make up of the patrols then Id say yes let the motivated group together and the ride alongs decide what to do. If you said NO then apply that to the current situation. Going contrary to established practice creates a special circumstance and that creates problems of its own. You let THEM do it.

LongHaul

(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[Eagledad]

Just because they are go-getters doesnt mean they are doing it right. Or that you are doing it right. To me the question isnt whether you should let the PLC realign the patrols or not, the question is why arent the patrols working better as a team and how can we get there?

 

The way I see it, the go-getters are not learning the leadership skills of delegation and the non go-getters are not learning anything about working as a team. Whose job is it to get over that hump?

 

Remember, adults have to learn more, faster, so that they dont hold back the scouts growth. In this case, you have an opportunity to try new ideas to help the scout to work better as a team. At the same time you are going to learn what works and what doesnt work.

 

Every boy has a button, find their buttons.

 

Barry

 

[Stosh]

In the midst of this discussion two issues are being ignored.

 

1) What do the boys want to do?

 

2) Only the patrols involved should be part of the process.

 

If your group of boys is truly scout-led and patrol-method, then it's no one's business except those boys involved.

 

Obviously no one wants a department manager from the other end of the building coming over and making decisions about your work process in your department.

 

Part of leadership building is decision making, problem solving, and living with the consequences. The best you can do is SUPPORT THEM IN THEIR DECISION and stay out of the process as much as possible. Otherwise, the boys will learn (what they already have figured out in this example) if you sit on your butt long enough someone else will step up and do the work. Sounds like the PL's are looking for someone else to make pertinant decisions regarding their patrol. Not a good idea.

 

Stosh

[JerseyJohn]

WOW - that was quick...Thanks

 

Longhaul,

Thanks for the fire drill perspective. Realignments had been done in the past for reasons of drops or add's, therefore, it is not unusual to have 2 to 5 boys move each year.

 

Eagledad,

Trouble is that the go getters are doing it right, they would make an exemplary patrol. I agree on the leadership / delegation issue.

 

Jblake,

What do the boys want? The motivated want to get together and expressed it at Green Bar last night. I feel it necessary to have the SPL, and two ASPL's involved with the process as it is their troop and if I allow two patrols to do what they please, it would undermine the authority and position of the SPL & ASPL's.

 

YIS,

John

 

[LongHaul]

Text Book Approach; The patrol is the base unit of the troop. Patrols come together to form Troops. Troops do not divide mambers up into patrols. Example the USA. States came together to form the union. We do not redivide the whole to create seperate smaller elements. If Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana,and MIchigan got together and decided to redraw state boundries around Lake Michigan I think the Feds would want a say even though we want to protect State's rights.

 

Looking for the "buttons" means the motivated wait for the ride alongs to get with the plan. What do we do with the "gifted" in the patrol while we are consentrating on the "slow learners"? Is it the responsibility of the 12 year old PL to find the button? The 14 year old SPL? the 16 year old JASM? The ASM for New Scouts? Does the ASM for new scouts go directly to the "ride along" or does he go through the SPL? PL? I ask these questions because I've had a tough time getting boys to step up and take responsibility in my own troop. Waiting for someone else to do it or accepting that what ever it is isn't going to get done or happen seems to be a popular attitude with my group.

LongHaul

[scottteng]

These two patrols were last years new scout patrols. How full are the other patrols? We always pull star and above out of the patrols to be JLC, their own patrol under the SPL. Now is the time to break up the NSP's and shuffle them into the other patrols. Take the leaders and assign them as guides to this years NSP's, and shuffle the others into your other patrols to make up for attrition. I have seen it suggested to put the scouts in name only in their own patrol so that the active patrols are not short on campouts. You could ask who for switching volunteers also. We will have two new scout patrols this year I hope we are in your predicament this time next year.

[Stosh]

Breaking up patrols and realigning them according to arbitrary rules created for the welfare of the troop is definitely not the patrol method.

 

My NBP was told that this group will be together until they decide differently. They named themselves, picked out a yell, and began the process of binding themselves together with the appropriate esprit-de-corps and teamwork. Ok, now once they are good pards and have been together since first grade tigers, we're going to break the group up and redistribute them into other patrols who are losing members to girls and cars. What a totally bogus dynamic! And then the SM wonders why his older boys dump the program!

 

If a patrol is struggling they have the option to deciding themselves what would be best for them. IF they ask the SPL for help, fine. If they don't the SPL and ASPL's are to stay out of the affairs of the patrol. That's why they are not in a patrol in the first place. They are there to help if asked, but never to step in and take over.

 

The NBP in our troop is no longer the NBP when the next group of Webelos crosses over and takes over the NBP title. But regardless of their rank, regardless of their age, regardless of what the adults think, regardless of any outside influence. This is not an issue of safety, it's an issue of patrol autonomy.

 

With that being said, if the boys within the two patrols wish to realign on their own without any outside interference, fine. This is their decision, their directive, their call.

 

If this "undermines" the authority of the SPL, TOO BAD! The first page of the SPL handbook states the SPL should apply the principles of servant leadership. He's there to help if necessary, but never to dictate. One does not serve by dictating.

 

The troop is there to serve the patrols, not vice versa.

 

"Jblake,

What do the boys want? The motivated want to get together and expressed it at Green Bar last night. I feel it necessary to have the SPL, and two ASPL's involved with the process as it is their troop and if I allow two patrols to do what they please, it would undermine the authority and position of the SPL & ASPL's."

 

If you allow the patrols to do what they please, you will have a functional patrol method troop. If one thinks the authority and position of the SPL and ASPL's are threatened, then they are functioning incorrectly. They are to attend to the affairs of the troop, not interfere in the affairs of the patrols. Otherwise the method being used is the troop method and I find nothing in the scouting literature that supports that.

 

The patrol method does indeed work and in the case of this example may show it more effectively if the SM and PLC keep out of it.

 

We have allowed our patrols to function independently. If one patrol is better run than another, the others see that and step it up. If the slaggards of one patrol end up missing out, then they miss out. It's their choice. If they want to step up their game, then the patrol method works.

 

My patrols are always asking, "How come the other patrol gets to do that?" and the standard answer is, "Who said you couldn't do it too?"

 

Patrol competition doesn't just happen at camporees, it happens at each and every troop meeting when the boys have a chance to compare notes as to who's doing what. Lead by example! It applies to patrols as well as individual scouts. The patrol method works, but only if the troop, the PLC and adult leaders don't interfere. Unless it's an issue of safety or scouting principles, the troop, PLC and adults stay out of it and let the boy-led patrols use the tried and true patrol method to figure it out. That's how leaders are developed.

 

Stosh

 

Stosh

[BrentAllen]

Stosh writes: "Ok, now once they are good pards and have been together since first grade tigers, we're going to break the group up and redistribute them into other patrols who are losing members to girls and cars. What a totally bogus dynamic!"

 

Yes, that is what most troops around here do. Otherwise, you end up with Patrols all based on age, which can lead to competition problems. This method allows the younger Scouts to work with older boys in the other patrols, and see other styles of leadership. They learn how to work with others who haven't been their friend since 1st Grade. It also allows the troop to balance the patrols as boys leave. And yes, this method IS in the BSA literature - Scoutmaster Handbook, pg. 20

[Lisabob]

Not to mention that just because they've been together since (whatever) grade doesn't necessarily mean they're friends.

 

I'm all for letting the boys make their own decisions when it comes to patrol membership. Keep in mind, though, that the "laggards" may decide that THEY want to be in the other high functioning patrol too. Are you then going to tell them they have to stay together while the other guys split off? If no, is another patrol obligated to take them in? What if they don't want to?

 

To JerseyJohn: Are these other guys really uninvolved/uninterested, or are they just not focused on rank advancement? There are ways to be a strong part of the troop without that focus. Some guys just really want to go camping and have fun. Some want to work on MBs instead. Is there a possibility that this is the dynamic among your "laggards?"

 

Not to hijack the thread but I've wondered about this whole issue of patrol realignment myself. We've got several guys together in one (former) NSP who are hard to get along with, period. And they are like oil and water together. And having been together since (whatever) grade in school and in cubs, some of them really can't stand each other and would probably jump at a chance to redistribute themselves. But no other patrol wants to have any of them either because they're disruptive and obnoxious. Sooner or later someone has to make this decision. In most of the troops I've seen it would be either the PLC as a group (which might not work either if no one wants certain guys in THEIR patrol), the SPL, or maybe the SM. Jblake, in your set up, if the boys in the patrol can't agree on what to do then who decides? I'm not criticizing, I'm asking - so don't jump all over me here.

 

[Stosh]

"Yes, that is what most troops around here do. Otherwise, you end up with Patrols all based on age, which can lead to competition problems. This method allows the younger Scouts to work with older boys in the other patrols, and see other styles of leadership. They learn how to work with others who haven't been their friend since 1st Grade. It also allows the troop to balance the patrols as boys leave. And yes, this method IS in the BSA literature - Scoutmaster Handbook, pg. 20"

 

Competition problems? Older boys setting a good example of leading by example, and younger boys emmulating them? Why does the venture patrol get to do neat things and we can't? That policy is setting an example of double-standard hypocracy and kids see through that rather quickly.

 

And if you compare that principle against NBP, regular patrols and Venture patrols, how can you justify not have differing age groups? Then you have young scouts that aren't old enough to go on high adventure and older boys dropping out because they are held back by less experienced boys who are operating on a different social and maturity level.

 

If you have need of older boys working with the younger, that's what Troop Guides and Instructors are for. It also might mean an older patrol would work up a program of working with the NBP to spend time with their advancement. This is what the PLC is for. To work out the dynamics of inter-patrol activities. They should be able to do that without interfering in the autonomy of each patrol. For example: SPL: "The NBP has made a request for help with lashing. Any patrol interesting in helping out?" Patrol of older boys: "Sure, we'll meet as a patrol, get the program together and let the PL, Instructor and Troop Guide know when we're ready." This can all happen without SPL, ASPL, SM or anyone else for that matter feeling their authority to run the show being threatened.

 

Also the reference to this style of "leadership" doesn't come from the PL or ASPL hand book but the SM handbook. It sure doesn't seems to reemphasize boy-led where the only reference to such a practice comes from the adult handbook. Boy led is very difficult when the adults are stepping in and dictating policy and procedure. This is a sure guarantee that the boys will lose interest when it's the adult decisions that are being mandated, especially when those mandates and policies means they can't hang out with their friends anymore. Unfortunately they WILL hang out with their friends, but they won't be doing it in the scouting program.

 

Our boys are not age layered and it's not because an SPL or SM said so. Recently two of the patrols have experienced loss of membership and have just recently negotiated a merger of the patrols. This means they are, at their initiative and without any outside interference, have begun the process of renaming the patrol, ordering new patrol patches, getting a new yell and electing new officers. No adult or PLC member said they could or couldn't do this it was their decision. No SPL was bent out of shape for not being involved, the SM hinted to me it was about time they did it, and there wasn't so much as a ripple in anyone's ego. The new patrol seems very pleased with THEIR decision.

 

[BrentAllen]

"It sure doesn't seems to reemphasize boy-led where the only reference to such a practice comes from the adult handbook."

 

Try the Boy Scout Handbook, pg. 18.

 

I never said anything about putting 1st or 2nd year Scouts in a Venture Patrol. That patrol should only be older boys. I believe in boy-lead, as defined in the Scoutmaster Handbook. It doesn't sound like you put much weight in that book, since it is for the adults. Have you attended SM/ASM training? Does your district use the SM Handbook as part of the training curriculum? How do you conduct youth training in your Troop without the SM Handbook?

From the Troop Leadership Training Guide:

Module One - Introduction to Troop Leadership - conducted for youth leaders.

1. The Boy-Led Troop and Living the Scout Oath and Law - led by SM

Discuss chapter 3 of the Scoutmaster Handbook, "The Boy-Led Troop."

 

2. Discussion of a Boy-Led Patrol - led by SPL

Discuss Chapter 4 of the Scoutmaster Handbook, "The Boy-Led Patrol."

 

This all comes right out of the Troop Leadership Training Guide, used for training all youth leaders in a Troop and patrols. The training information on how a boy-led troop and patrol should operate comes right out of the Scoutmaster Handbook. I don't see how you can say the SM Handbook is just an adult handbook. It is THE source on training the youth leaders on how boy-led should operate!

[Stosh]

When a discussion goes against one's point, the next step is to attack the opponent.

 

1) Yes I have had training, Cub Fundamentals, Webelos Fundamentals, Webelos Outdoors, SM Fundamentals,, Venturing Fundamentals, hold a PhD in the University of Scouting and Wood Badge. I have also taught each one of those levels except Wood Badge. I have almost 20 years in scouting as an adult leader and I'm a professionally trained counselor.

 

2) A pedigree doesn't count. If a rookie SM sees himself stepping in too much and interfering with the operations of the boy-led patrol method, then he's got a leg up on most SM's who insist on doing such things.

 

The main point of my observation was simply an appropriate interpretation is needed, not just lipservice quotes out of BSA literature.

 

Not to pick on John, but his comment was what took me almost 10 years to correct and still fall prey to on occasion. He had two patrols wishing to realign. In order to "protect" his PLC and SPL, HE STEPPED IN!!! This is #1 problem. His interference did more damage to the integrity of the SPL's leadership and PLC's authority than the 2 patrols did. Every time the situation gets sticky and the leader steps in, they rob the boy of his opportunity to lead and undermines his authority in front of the other boys. ALL BSA literature has the adults coaching, supporting, never directing and never stepping in to correct.

 

If two patrols wish to realign, let them. If they don't leave them alone. Let the boy-led patrol be a boy-led patrol and keep others from stepping in and interfering with their work.

 

Please show me in any BSA literature where it says a SM steps in and runs the show when things get a little heated or when the troop wishes to mandate to patrols, thus undermining the patrol method.

 

The troop and adults are there to assist the patrols, not dictate to them nor direct them. That's what the patrol method is all about. The only consideration would be in terms of safety and/or scouting principles of the Oath and Law. Otherwise, let the boys lead themselves on the patrol level and support them with the PLC, Troop, and adult resources.

 

Stosh

 

(This message has been edited by jblake47)

[BrentAllen]

Yeah, and when someone finds their position might be wrong, the first thing they do is claim they are being attacked. I asked pertinent questions to this discussion.

 

You write: "ALL BSA literature has the adults coaching, supporting, never DIRECTING and never stepping in to correct." (emphasis added)

 

First page in the chapter on the Boy-Led Troop, SM Handbook, pg. 12:

"One of your most important challenges as Scoutmaster is to train boy leaders to run the troop by providing DIRECTION, coaching and support."

Yes, the SM DOES DIRECT.

 

Same page, under "Leaders of the Boy-Led Troop":

"A Boy Scout troop is a small democracy. With the Scoutmaster's direction, the boys are formed into patrols, plan the troop's program and make it a reality."

 

I think that is pretty clear.

 

 

 

[DugNevius]

JBlake, are yu really (another poster who used to post here)in disguise?

 

(lets leave the past in the past and learn to love the posters who participate now for their own uniqueness. OGE) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)