empowering the SPL

[Lisabob]

We have some boys in our troop who are just difficult to get along with. While in some cases the boys in question have emotional and behavioral disorders that are part of the problem, regardless of the cause, the result is that the other boys find them to be obnoxious in a big way. By pure chance, three of our more challenging scouts ended up in a new scout patrol together when they crossed over a year ago and it has been oil and water since that time. It is really difficult for any other boys in this patrol because this is a pretty dysfunctional group and they feed off of each other's problems/goad each other a lot.

 

A couple of weeks ago the PLC met (w/out the SM, who was out of town) and decided to juggle patrol membership to split up these three boys. They did this without knowing some of the background to the boys, except what they see - that they are obnoxious, and worse when they're together. The SPL took the responsibility for deciding which patrols the boys would be re-assigned to, since none of the patrols actually wants any of these boys to join them.

 

A couple of committee members, all longtime Scouters, told the SPL he had over-stepped his bounds because there were things he didn't know about the boys' backgrounds and/or about balancing other patrols' needs. (Example: a boy in another patrol has had chronic problems at school with one of our challenging scouts, and putting the two of them in a patrol together would very likely cause this boy to drop out of the troop)

 

Watching this exchange, I saw that they were both "right." The SPL seemed deflated; he had taken responsibility for a difficult decision, done what he thought was best, only to have that decision remanded. If I had been in his shoes I probably would have resented this. The two Scouters who raised the point though, were acting on more info than the SPL had, and they're right that re-assigning some of these boys without careful consideration of all the facts is likely to cause as many or more problems than it will solve.

 

Without going on at length about who knows the theory of the patrol method better - spare me please - I'd like some practical suggestions for how one empowers the SPL in such situations, without radically disrupting the troop? It is one thing to say, well if the SPL makes a bad choice (not that I'm even certain he did make a bad choice, mind you) then the troop just has to deal with it, but it is another if that choice directly results in boys leaving the program. How do you balance these competing needs?

 

Oh, and no, I don't think the committee was the best place to handle this. But the SM wasn't aware of the decision prior to the committee meeting, either.

 

 

 

[FScouter]

My opinion is that it is grossly unfair leave such a behavior problem for SPL to figure out. If the adult leadership has failed to solve the issue, or at least work with it, how could it be expected the SPL be successful? This is a problem for the SPL and the SM to work with and come up with a plan. Whatever the plan is, the SPL needs to have the support of the SM, and the SM needs to have the support of the committee or the plan is doomed to failure, as this plan failed.

 

Perhaps the SPL has recognized the problems for a long time, and observed that the SM and other adults have failed to find a solution. Maybe he feels his hands have been tied and his ideas rejected. Perhaps with the SM out of town the SPL felt he had a chance to take action. Whatever, he felt empowered enough to take action and has been shot down for exercising his empowerment. Thats a good way to kill his spirit.

 

Once he has acted, properly or not, he needs to be supported in his decision. Deflated as he is feeling right now, it would not be surprising to see him back away from taking leadership actions.

 

So, as to a practical suggestion to empower the SPL, the SM should be talking with the SPL on a very frequent basis as to the direction the troop is headed and difficulties that exist. The SM needs to listen to all of the concerns of the SPL and help him develop a plan to address them. Then back him up.

 

Why was the PLC meeting without the SM?

[MarkS]

I see three mistakes that were made: 1. The SPL with support of the PLC and Scoutmaster can make this kind of decision but should have discussed this with the Scoutmaster first to see if the Scoutmaster had any advice or recommendations--they should have a good working relationship overall too; 2. The PLC meeting is the right place to make decisions on patrol organization but should only be held with a Scoutmaster and an Asst. Scoutmaster (two-deep) in attendance; 3. There were Committee Members at the PLC. There shouldn't of been. They don't belong there and as long time Scouters should know better. Committee Members have a role to fill in the troop and coaching, acting as informational resources or helping the PLC make the decisions that will enhance the program for the troop is not part of their role. They provide this kind of feedback via the Scoutmaster at Troop Committee meetings.

 

If you want to empower the SPL, simply make those three changes and you should be good to go.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[SemperParatus]

Moving a scout to a different patrol without discussing with him first is a pretty heavy-handed approach. Whether done by the SPL, the PLC or the SM, whoever acts in such a manner is bound to catch some flack at some point in time.

 

On the bright side, it should be encouraging that the SPL felt empowered to do this at all. Now, he is learning a very valuable lesson of leadership - its best to communicate with other leaders, obtain as much information about the situation as possible, and secure some consensus before making a decision that impacts others.

 

Now is the opportune time for the SM to sit down with the SPL and impart the leadership lesson(s) to be taken from this experience. For the meeting, the SM should have some other 'pending' troop issues at the ready to immediately discuss with the SPL and determine a plan for PLC action - i.e., gather facts, discuss and communicate, build consensus, decide and act. That will help the SPL get right back on the bike so as not to focus on the recent disappointment.

[Lisabob]

Mark, Fscouter, thanks for your feedback thus far. Just a couple of clarifications.

 

The PLC was held w/o the SM present because the SM wasn't able to attend. There is always 2 deep adult leadership but the ASMs present may not have been very actively involved and/or may not know the back story with regard to the boys in question.

 

Committee members do occasionally visit the PLC upon request, but that wasn't the case here. In fact the committee only got involved when the SPL was making his monthly report to the committee (I don't know if that is standard or not, but it is something our troop always does). At that point, which was - I'm pretty sure - also the first time the SM heard about it, some committee members told the SPL he was overstepping his authority. They did so nicely and explained why, but that was still the message.

 

Yeah, communication, right? That's been an on-going issue. If the SM and SPL don't communicate very well, it causes all sorts of issues. I wish I could wave my magic wand and help all adults learn to communicate better. But some simply don't have that as a strength, no matter how good they may be at other aspects of their position, and adults are a lot harder to teach new behaviors to than kids are.

 

Really, I'm not sure which part of this is bothering me. Is it that the SPL did what we try to teach the boys to do - he took initiative, showed leadership, tried to deal with an intransigent problem - only to have the rug pulled out from under him? Or is it that there doesn't seem to be a good solution to the patrol membership issue, since leaving the three boys in the same patrol doesn't work and splitting them up into other (currently stable, functional, happy) patrols causes a host of other problems? Or maybe, it is that we want our youth leadership to make (reasonably) good decisions yet we also feel a need to withhold key information. For example, the PLC is not aware of the various medical diagnoses of the boys in question for privacy reasons. Consequently they may view certain behaviors as just "bad" or "annoying" while, with a little more knowledge, they might view them with more patience.

 

Most likely it is all of these. I'm just thinking about how else one can handle such issues in the future.

[Lisabob]

Semper, thanks, I like that approach, will share it with the "powers that be."

[BrentAllen]

A WB CD from the old course told me just the other day about a scenario they used in the old course, very similar to this situation. Several days into the course, the SM (CD) and SPL of the WB course staged an argument in front of the participants (they didn't know it was an act). The SM was arguing the course wasn't going well, there were problems with some of the patrols and their members. The SPL counter argued. The SM finally takes over and tells everyone he is reorganizing the patrols. They are to line up and count off, with all the "1's" in a new patrol, the same with the "2's, 3's", etc. This CD said he served on staff for 6 courses, and in 3 of them, one or more of the participants had enough gumption to step up and say if you do this, I quit!

 

The point of the exercise was to let the adults see how the boys would feel if the adults in the troop took over and forced those kinds of decisions on them. They didn't like it, and it was a great way to teach the lesson that the boys wouldn't like it, either.

 

As for your particular situation, the SPL can still make the decisions, based on the new information he has. He and SM should discuss the possibilities, and with guidance from the SM, the SPL makes the final call.

[Beavah]

It is one thing to say, well if the SPL makes a bad choice (not that I'm even certain he did make a bad choice, mind you) then the troop just has to deal with it, but it is another if that choice directly results in boys leaving the program.

 

Is it?

 

Scoutmasters and other adults make wrong decisions all the time, some of which result in kids leaving the program. Yah, it's unfortunate. It's also life, eh? Trusting people, kids or adults, with leadership means accepting some mistakes and negative consequences.

 

If an SPL came to me with this idea, I'd say, "hey great job". If there were additional information that's relevant, the I'd apologize for not having shared it. Then I would sit down with da SPL, and together we'd decide whether the new information calls for a tweak of the SPL's plan, or whether it's really a show-stopper. If the SPL agrees it's really a show-stopper, then he goes back to come up with a different plan. It's still the SPL leading and coming up with ideas. Still the SPL empowered to deal with the additional information. It's all in whether you treat the boy like an adult colleague, or like a servant.

 

The committee members seem like the only ones who overstepped bounds here, stepping on the SM's and SPL's turf. Chances are the boys know more about boys' backgrounds and what's really necessary for "other patrols' needs" than committee members do. If there's some feedback or additional information to give, it's da SM's role, not the committee's.

 

Beavah

 

[Stosh]

With this being an adult-led troop, I'm sure it was not appropriate for the SPL to comandeer the procedings and make changes unilaterally.

 

However, had the patrol method been followed, the PL of the patrol would have had the opportunity to float by the supportive SPL and SM their ideas as to what they think might be a solution to the patrol's problem.

 

The boys could then have taken these suggestions into their own discussion and possibly resolved the issue from within, with little or no problems bleeding over into the other patrols.

 

However, this is pie-in-the-sky thinking for most today so I guess the standard approach would be for someone from the outside to step in, usurp the authority of the patrol leaders, disrupt the problem patrol and a few others along the way and by the time the smoke settles evaluate how successful they were with killing the mosquito with a 12-guage shotgun method.

 

Stosh

[Lisabob]

Yeah thanks, there, Stosh, for your helpful, friendly, courteous, kind feedback. That's going to go a long way toward helping me help the troop, eh?

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

I'm with Beavah on this one - the people who were out of line were the Committee Members. Patrol organization is not the purview of the Troop Committee. Nor is it the purview of the Scoutmaster Corps. It is the purview of the SPL and his PLC.

 

I have to say upfront that if I were in the SPL's shoes at this point, the Committee would no longer have to worry if it would lose little Joey because little Bobby, whom he doesn't get along with at school was assigned to his patrol - they'd have to wonder why their SPL has suddenly stopped attending meetings and outings and perhaps why they just lost their SPL to another unit - if not Scouting altogether. I think this would have demoralized me completely as I would have been quite proud to have solved a difficult problem like this with consensus from my PLC.

 

You may already have a ticking time bomb on your hands even if "Joey" and "Bobby" aren't in the same patrol - there will be plenty of opportunities for a blow-up to occur between them. If it's as bad as the Committee seems to think it is (and what they're likely hearing is reports from Joey's parents - which may or may not be entirely accurate - it's rather common that a 20 second shoving match one day ten months ago at a playground swing becomes in the eyes of some parents a bloody nose and black eye with a possible broken arm and keep that boy away from my boy attitude while the two boys have been tossing the football around every day at lunch) then I'm surprised that "Joey" hasn't already left the Troop. Have there been any incidents between the two at Scout activities? As Beavah says, chances are the boys already know more than the adults think they know, and may even know more that the adults do in the first place.

 

In my opinion, to empower the SPL, the Committee has to stay out of what is the SPL's/PLC's business, and Patrol Organization is one of those things that is the SPL's and PLC's business, and the SPL/Scoutmaster working relationship.

 

To re-empower this SPL, the Scoutmaster should admit to the SPL that sometimes adults make bad decisions themselves because they think they know better and reinstate the SPL/PLC's decision, and discuss the possibility of re-assigning either "Bobby" or "Joey" to another Patrol (the Scoutmaster should find out why the SPL re-assigned "Bobby" to the patrol he did in the first place - maybe that PL is more experienced and is the PL most likley to control/train/succeed with "Bobby"). The Scoutmaster should make sure s/he's communicating better with the SPL - the PLC can certainly meet without the Scoutmaster, but the Scoutmaster and the SPL should have spoken together before the Committee Meeting, thus avoiding a surprised Scoutmaster. The Committee Chair should make it clear to the Committee that if they have problems with decisions like this, that they take it up with the CC and the Scoutmaster - NOT go directly to the SPL. The Committee Chair should apologize to the SPL on behalf of the Committee for interfering and should publicly support the difficult leadership decision the SPL made.

 

Interesting that you have the SPL give a report to the Committee - I wonder how many other Troops do that. I've always operated on the belief that the Scoutmaster is the bridge between the Committee and the SPL/PLC and gives a report to the Committee about the activities of the Troop. Maybe ending this practice of the SPL giving a report to the Committee would help empower the SPL too - it seems like it could be confusing for the SPL to be giving a report to people he doesn't report to. The SPL should be responsible to the PLC and Scoutmaster, not the Troop Committee.

 

 

 

Just my 1 Swedish Kroner on this (I got one of these today as change - its about the size of a Quarter)

 

Calico

 

Lisa - I hope this doesn't seem to come across as harsh - I certainly don't intend it to be. I readily admit that it raises my hackles a bit (and in some cases quite a bit) when actions of adults in Scouting, even those actions with the best intentions, throw roadblocks in the way of the Scouts - and I see this as a roadblock that was tossed in front of what seems to me based on the limited info about him and his capabilities, an excellent SPL. (And I also know your just the messenger not the roadblocker). CP

(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

[Eagledad]

>>The committee members seem like the only ones who overstepped bounds here, stepping on the SM's and SPL's turf. Chances are the boys know more about boys' backgrounds and what's really necessary for "other patrols' needs" than committee members do. If there's some feedback or additional information to give, it's da SM's role, not the committee's.

[Oak Tree]

Lisa,

 

As with so many issues in a troop (or elsewhere), having clear communication and providing more definitive job descriptions can go a long way.

 

The balancing act of empowering the SPL while ensuring reasonable Scoutmaster guidance is a dynamic one, always subject to lots of local issues, personalities, and logistics. In your question of how to do this generally, it's ideal for the Scoutmaster and SPL to talk often, and for the SPL to run any potentially disruptive decisions by the Scoutmaster for guidance. Then the SPL can make and implement the decision, knowing that the Scoutmaster backs him. If the SPL makes a rash decision, the Scoutmaster can talk with him about it and they can decide what to do. I haven't yet had an SPL who resisted good policy advice from the Scoutmaster.

 

The committee is clearly far from their responsibilities here. The Scoutmaster Handbook isn't exactly clear on what method to use in forming patrols, but it doesn't involve the committee. "With the Scoutmaster's direction, the boys are formed into patrols, ..." Our committee wouldn't think of overruling the SPL - in the worst case, they'd come complain to me. Setting that expectation is an ongoing thing, where the Scoutmaster kindly reminds people of the troop runs.

 

One of the best things a Scoutmaster can do, in my ever so humble opinion, is to make sure that people know who is responsible for what. When people don't know who should make the decisions, they'll often jump in and make them. A Scoutmaster who doesn't set a clear vision can often end up with this type of frustrated decision-making process.

 

Oak Tree

 

P.S. MarkS, two deep leadership, while always a good idea, is not required at a PLC or any other meeting, only on trips and outings.

[ASM915]

Lisa,

 

The committee members in question, are either of them the parent of the scout that is supposedly having the school problem with the other boy with the issues?

 

If so, does this parent have a real concern, or is s/he just trying to keep the troubled scout out of their sons patrol?

 

Does the CM have a hidden agenda?

 

Does the SPL go to school with the two scouts in question, where he might know how the two of them really get along with each other?

 

Has there been problems between these two during Scouting Activities?

 

Everyone runs around screaming HIPPA, but if the Troop is going to have the SPL acting as the leader of the Scouts, why is the SPL not given the basic knowledge that these three Scouts have special needs, and then given some suggestions on how to deal with them, especially since he is at the top of the youth chain of command?

 

 

If the first two questions answer "YES", then the third needs to be looked into. If the third is "YES", then the CM's are definitely out of line.

 

If "NO" to the first three, then their concerns need to be aired to the SM, and they owe the SPL an apology.

 

If the SPL goes to school with these three SN Scouts and the other Scout in question, I'm sure he knows a lot more about what is really happening at school between them then the adults, unless the adults work for the system.

 

If there has been no confrontations at Scouting functions between the two in question, maybe the SPL feels that by having them in the same Patrol that maybe they can work at overcoming some of their differences, and actually in time become friends.

When my oldest son joined our Troop, his best friend at the time and another Scout had issues. Oil and vinegar didn't even come close to describing it. They had issues at school, Scouts and church. My son and the two served Mass together and was friends with both. The SM at the time purposefully put these two together every opportunity he had.

If one was SPL, the other was the ASPL. This way they had no choice but to work with each other. They both had issues. One being handled by the parents with what needed to be done, the other, if being handled, it was by a different route, and we still have Ego and control problems with him as an ASM. Needless to say, they learned to tolerate each other and how to work together for the betterment of the Troop. Unfortunately my son has distanced himself from his old friend, due to the control issues, and rarely talks with him.

 

As for HIPPA, I guarantee you, the SPL is not blind, and I'm quite sure knows that these three Scouts have issues. It is only right that he is informed, just like the adults, since he is their leader. How else is he suppose to hand situations with these three if he is not informed? I would go as far as informing the parents of these three, that for the Troop chain of command to work properly and effectively, that the PL thru the SPL need to be aware of their sons' collective issues. I would then request the parents permission to sit down with the PLC and inform them the best way to handle each of boys if he/they start acting inappropriately. Might make for a good intro for the Disability Awareness MB.

The key adult leaders and the different SPL's have always been made aware of how to handle my youngest with his behavioral handicaps. We just had a boy start attending meetings 4 weeks ago. He has the same issues as my youngest. Mom was concerned how he would be perceived by the other Scouts if and when he starts acting odd. I let her know that I had talked with her son, that he had informed me of his safe word that he uses if he feels that he is getting out of control, and that it had been passed on to the SM, the other ASM's and the SPL. The point is that the SPL is trusted to run the Troop, he also needs to be trusted with this special information.

 

Good Luck,

 

Eric(This message has been edited by ASM915)(This message has been edited by ASM915)

[Lisabob]

Thanks for all of the feedback - it's a gift, as John keeps reminding people, and I do appreciate it.

 

Barry, yes, this young man has been a pretty good SPL and it has been fun to watch him grow into the job. The people who spoke up at the committee meeting actually surprised me because one is a former SM who is usually the one pushing "boy led" and the other is a longtime ASM and probably a future SM (both are on the committee for now). Upon reflection my best guess is that they spoke up when and where they did because the SM did not. Maybe the comments they made were really more a nudge/push for the SM to do a better job of communicating with his SPL. Heaven knows, while our SM has many good qualities, communication and information flow are not his strengths. (Though I will say, in his defense, he's learning on the job too and while there are times we disagree on things, I've come to think it is a shame our troop has a tradition of people serving as SM for just two years and then stepping down. By the time they really begin to figure it out, they're just about done.)

 

Eric, I see where you are coming from. But no, the parents of these children have not been part of this particular conversation and I don't think the CMs in question have any agenda here (their kids are all much older). The parents of the boys in question are all supportive of scouting and they gladly pitch in where they are able, but they don't generally attend committee meetings. And the SPL does not go to the same school as the boys in question. My son and most of his friends in the troop do though, and what I hear unofficially from them (they tell me, I never ask) as well as what I see when I'm at troop events tends to back up the adults' perceptions of the dynamic between these boys.

 

Anyway, I agree completely that the committee was not the right place to handle this matter, and that having the SPL report to the committee opens him up to leadership challenges that otherwise wouldn't occur. At some point I'll have to have that conversation with our current CC and our incoming SM because my guess is that we do it this way simply because we've always done it this way.

 

Thanks again for your input. One thing I appreciate about this forum is that we can toss around situations and examples and think through "how might I handle this differently." It is something I've learned a good deal from doing.