Who is an SPL "in charge" of?

[Beavah]

My confusion? Da SPL in the cabin I believe was Robert's example of how he would behave with an SPL on a campin' trip, eh? Rather than bein' directive, he'd use a coachin' style.

 

Jblake responded

 

I guess I'm not that keen on that much pre-directives to the boys, not even the SPL. Too often these directives can be seen as adult-led and I'm constantly working to make it boy-led....If I am making pre-decisions, giving guidance, determining outcomes or prodding along the way, then I AM THE LEADER and am taking a leadership opportunity away from the boys.

 

Jblake's response is consistent with da BSA literature and trainin'. Rather than da coaching style, we recommend a persuasion or delegatin' style would be more appropriate for this kind of task. That's not "throwing away" da Styles of Leadership, eh? It's tryin' to choose the style which is most appropriate for the task. When knowledge is high, as it should be for an SPL dealin' with a simple camping chore, then the persuasion or delegation styles are more appropriate.

 

Doesn't matter whether the example is fictional or not, eh? Da way to think about it is the same. And it gets back to the OP's original notion of whether "in charge" reflects the sort of spirit of servant leadership appropriate for Scoutin'. A coach is an "in charge" leadership style.

 

Can't see where anybody was talking about First Class Emphasis in this thread. Can yeh explain what yeh mean?

 

Beavah

 

[Stosh]

Sorry Bob, Beavah is right, My apologies if my comments were not very clear. I had evaluated the situation and felt your "style" of giving direction, even if in the form of polite questions, all seemed a little condescending to me. First of all, cleaning this ficticious cabin was not the SPL's responsibility and therefore the SM shouldn't even be discussing it with him. Had the trip been planned out appropriately (Be Prepared), the PLC would have worked out the logistics before they left (duty rosters) and it would have been the PL's responsibility to complete the tasks responsible to his patrol. The SM and SPL have no part in the process except to be available to assist any PL who may be having difficulty fulfilling his patrol's assignment (servant leadership).

 

I guess appropriate preparation is done for outings, negates any necessity to use persuasion, delegation or direction giving along the way. If plans are made prior to the outing and everyone knows their responsibilities, then what direction is needed? What delegation is needed? What persuasion is needed? None.

 

On the other hand if during the outing, someone like the SM begins to question whether or not everyone remembers their assignments, he is in fact making an announcement that he doesn't trust the leadership to fulfill their assignments before they even have been given an opportunity to do so. He is in fact attempting to take control of the situation and lead.

 

I found the comments that were quoted in the dialog between the SM and SPL seemed to have the SM directing the conversation in line to the goals he was expected to be fulfilled. If answered correctly by the SPL, then it was assumed that the SPL would take responsibility to follow through. This is classic adult-led, i.e. adult directed style of leadership. If the SM or ASM are delegating responsibilities, they are in fact taking charge, thus removing an opportunity on the part of some PL to lead his patrol without adult interference.

 

I am a firm believer that the PL is the #1 key leader of any troop. He is responsible for 7 other boys and demonstrates his leadership by teaching, coaching, mentoring them along the way. At the same time he recognizes the fact that his patrol is not the entire community in which he functions and so he also plays a role on the PLC working out the dynamics and responsibilities of larger activities with other PL's. The SPL facilitates this intra-patrol discussion.

 

SM's and ASM's? Well, until someone calls 911, they are just there for their good looks. :^)

 

Stosh

[Eamonn]

Can't help thinking that the style of leadership will depend on where the team is?

The team leader is who?

The role of the SM is helping the SPL and the PL's develop leadership skills.

We talk a lot (Well I seem to!!) about:

"Train them, Trust Them, Let Them Lead"

We the adults need to be aware of how far along we are with the "Train Them"

The end results we expect from a newbie SPL would be very different than from an experienced one.

A Patrol or a PLC that had come together as a high performance team would act very differently than a team that was at odds (Storming).

The role of the SM is knowing where the team is and helping them move to the next stage, even if they have have gone in reverse. -That is to say maybe the team has changed and they are back to stage one: Forming.

There are so many variables that maybe there is no clear cut answer.

Doing our best to ensure that leaders understand what real leadership is about and is different from "Bossing" is the first step.

Eamonn.

[Stosh]

A leader leads. If the SM & SPL are delegating, directing, etc. they are "pushing". If they say, "Follow me boys, we got work to do," he's leading. If you aren't out in front showing the way, you must be behind pushing. :^)

 

Stosh

[Bob White]

 

 

Here is where we differ I guess jblake. You feel that saying to scout "the fireplace in the cabin we were staying needed to be cleaned out and swept." is less adult directed than asking the SPL what his pl;an is. I don't see how that is possible?

 

I think the SM saying 'somebody ought to do this' is telling them what to do. Rather than talk to the PL or SPL, you went to a scout and he took it like it was suddenly his job. Note the snappy comeback you got. So what does he do now go to another scout and say, Mr Scoutmaster says somebody ought to shovel out the fireplace. I am not sure you are any closer to getting the job done.

 

I went through the organization chart. I work through the SPL, the SPL through the PL, the PL through the scout(s) on the duty roster.

 

I didn't tell him what he needed to do, I asked him what his plan was. I didn't get the snappy answer. By asking the youth leader "what's next on your plan" he understands that it's still his show and that he's just not doing the things I want to do or doing them when I want them done, he is following his plan. If that is condescending I have never had a scout answer as if it were.

 

It's like... if it looks like rain, I don't tell the scouts to cover their firewood, I go have a chat with the SPL about some non essential stuff, like how's his mom and dad, then I excuse myself because it looks like it might rain and I need to cover my firewood.

 

Next thing I knew the SPL was standing near a patrol leader saying, I gotta go it might rain and I need to make sure that I cover my firewood. If the patrol leader is on his game he might go back and ask his QM to grab some plastic so they can ...cover their firewood.

 

Job done...if they want to do it...no telling. What if they don't do it, well if it rains some folks are going to have a fire in the morning sooner than others. But everybody learns to think about the weather and start to think ahead.

 

No telling. Not even saying, "Somebody ought to get this firewood covered".

If the SPL says to me "looks like rain", I'd say "I think your right, anything we should be taking care of before it does?" And he'd probably say he'll swing through the patrol sights and make sure the patrol leaders know, I say "that would be nice of you, thanks". Then I'd go make sure my firewood was covered. No telling him what to do, ask him what he thinks should be done.

 

Ask questions, acknowledge good answers, set an example, that is better than telling them what to do.

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, BobWhite, I think maybe we're not bein' clear enough for you. In terms of leadership styles, we have, in order of "directiveness":

 

Direct/Telling

Coaching

Persuasion/consensus

Delegation

Hands Off

 

What you're saying is that for a routine task like packing up in the morning or handling a rain shower, a good SM should use Coaching rather than Directing/Telling. So you're goin' one step down the list.

 

We're saying while that might be a step in the right direction, it's not the right style to stop at. Keep goin' down the list to get away from adult-run styles (of which Coaching is one). For a routine camp task, yeh should be all the way down at the end of the list, eh? Delegatin' it to the kids, and Hands Off!

 

Either that, or yeh should be asking why your scouts have low skills/expertise in such routine camp tasks, that they need hands-on adult coaching. The "telling" and "coaching" styles are only used for when folks have low skills, eh?

 

What I've often found is adults have a hard time lettin' go. They think they have to be doin' something. If they're not out their coaching, they don't feel right. It's a tough habit to break, which is why it's good practice to let the lads camp away from adults, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[evmori]

Ideally, don't we want the SPL to come to the SM & say

 

"Mr Scoutmaster, I would like to discuss my plan for breaking camp in the morning."

 

Once we get to this point, we have succeeded. How we get there will differ from Scout to Scout and unit to unit.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Stosh]

Bob, here's where we differ. My apologies for the extensive quoting, but I couldn't think of a better way to explain.

 

>>Here is where we differ I guess jblake. You feel that saying to scout "the fireplace in the cabin we were staying needed to be cleaned out and swept." is less adult directed than asking the SPL what his pl;an is. I don't see how that is possible?

 

No, I'm saying that the SM being involved in initiating the situation by saying anything, no matter how it's said is adult-led.

 

>>I think the SM saying 'somebody ought to do this' is telling them what to do. Rather than talk to the PL or SPL, you went to a scout and he took it like it was suddenly his job. Note the snappy comeback you got. So what does he do now go to another scout and say, Mr Scoutmaster says somebody ought to shovel out the fireplace. I am not sure you are any closer to getting the job done.

 

But your example shows clearly where the authority comes from, even if the authority is couched in a question still comes from the SM who initiates the situation seeking a solution. This is adult-led.

 

>>I went through the organization chart. I work through the SPL, the SPL through the PL, the PL through the scout(s) on the duty roster.

 

And here is exactly where you and I differ. The organization chart you are using is adult-led. You even indicate this by identifying yourself as the first step in the process and all delegation filters downward to the patrols who are to do the task you initiated. All leadership is directed/controled by the initiator, the adult.

 

>>I didn't tell him what he needed to do, I asked him what his plan was. I didn't get the snappy answer. By asking the youth leader "what's next on your plan" he understands that it's still his show and that he's just not doing the things I want to do or doing them when I want them done, he is following his plan. If that is condescending I have never had a scout answer as if it were.

 

Once again, the whole dialog/situation is initiated and controled by an adult. If he was "running the show" he may initiate the conversation with the SM if he had concerns he might have had, but if he didn't have any, there would be no need for any adult interaction.

 

>>It's like... if it looks like rain, I don't tell the scouts to cover their firewood, I go have a chat with the SPL about some non essential stuff, like how's his mom and dad, then I excuse myself because it looks like it might rain and I need to cover my firewood.

 

Once again, the situation is again initiated and directed by an adult.

 

>>Next thing I knew the SPL was standing near a patrol leader saying, I gotta go it might rain and I need to make sure that I cover my firewood. If the patrol leader is on his game he might go back and ask his QM to grab some plastic so they can ...cover their firewood.

 

The SPL did what he was implied to him to do.

 

>>Job done...if they want to do it...no telling. What if they don't do it, well if it rains some folks are going to have a fire in the morning sooner than others. But everybody learns to think about the weather and start to think ahead.

 

>>No telling. Not even saying, "Somebody ought to get this firewood covered".

If the SPL says to me "looks like rain", I'd say "I think your right, anything we should be taking care of before it does?" And he'd probably say he'll swing through the patrol sights and make sure the patrol leaders know, I say "that would be nice of you, thanks". Then I'd go make sure my firewood was covered. No telling him what to do, ask him what he thinks should be done.

 

If it looks like rain, the PL's need to be on the ball and get their patrol wood undercover. If they don't they aren't taking care of their people. And why would the SPL be discussing what the PL's need to be doing to the SM? If he's concerned about how his PL's function and they aren't, maybe he ought to be talking to the PL's rather than chatting with the SM. If he is confident in his leadership, he doesn't need to chat it over with the SM unless he feels he needs some assurance from the SM.

 

>>Ask questions, acknowledge good answers, set an example, that is better than telling them what to do.

 

HOW one does it is really not that important, WHAT one does isn't important either, but WHO is directing the activity is, because it identifies who's really leading.

 

Just for fun, take your organizational chart off the easel for a moment, turn it upside down, put in back on the easel and take a serious look at it.

 

At the top of the chart is NOT the SM, but the PATROLS (patrol-method). The PL is the most important position on the chart. These are the leaders that are in primary direct contact with the boys. These are the ones that know their boys, knows what they need, and working with them builds the team.

 

Next under them is the PLC lead by the SPL. He's there to assist whenever possible any support any of the PL's might need. He has a corps of top leaders in the troop to be able to teach, coach, mentor any of the PL's as they work with their boys.

 

Supporting the troop corps are the adults, at the bottom, that react to any and all "911 calls" that arise to support any of the weak links in the chain WHEN ASKED.

 

All activity is initiated at the patrol level by the boys, (Boy-led, Patrol-method) "My patrol needs two Dutch ovens for the campout this weekend." SPL to QM, "Do we have them? are they ready to go? Patrol A needs two of them this weekend." End of discussion, Patrol A is ready and supported.

 

If anyone wishes to know how the cabin fireplace fits into this process. At the PLC meeting where the PL's gather to coordinate their patrol's part in the outing, the roster needs to be made out and Patrol A has taken on the task of making sure the fireplace is cleaned up at the end of the event. They put their name on the roster under Fireplace Cleanup. End of discussion. There is no need for the SM to be talking to the SPL on Saturday night checking up on whether or not something's going to be done. Trust your leaders to do what they say they will do.

 

Boy-led, Patrol-method. You can turn your organizational chart back over now.

 

Stosh

(This message has been edited by jblake47)

[Bob White]

Sorry Beavah but there is no such thing in Boy Scouting as the Hands-off leadership style, delegation is as distant as you get.

 

I am saying that no matter how simple that task the SPL does not need to be "telling" scouts what to do. In fact the smaller and less important the task the LESS telling you want to do.

 

The other styles interplay depending on the task and the skill and experience of who you lead.

 

[Stosh]

No Ed.

 

>>Ideally, don't we want the SPL to come to the SM & say

 

Ideally we want the SPL and the SM standing around waiting for a PL having a problem to come and ask for some advice, guidance or assistance.

 

"Mr Scoutmaster, I would like to discuss my plan for breaking camp in the morning."

 

And the SM says, the PL's have already made out a roster and let's just stand here and watch as they work their patrol teams and see if there's anything we might suggest to help them with their patrols next time.

 

>>Once we get to this point, we have succeeded. How we get there will differ from Scout to Scout and unit to unit.

 

Once you get to this point, you have strong PL's with great patrol teamwork and great supporting corps of troop leaders waiting, observing and learning how to help the patrols get even better next outing.

 

And the SM wanders off and gets another cup of coffee knowing his boys are doing a great job being lead by competent PL's. Or maybe he'll have a nice chat with his SPL about how he's doing on his Eagle Project plans.

 

Stosh

[BrentAllen]

Beavah,

Where did you come up with that list, and who put it in order? How did "Coaching" end up where it did? The key concept that separates "coaching" from other leadership styles is letting go and enabling success.

 

In my view, Bob is Guiding/Coaching his SPL in preparing to depart the cabin camping trip, exactly as he should. He is discussing a plan and a process, allowing the SPL to figure out any missing steps. He is ready to Demonstrate if needed, and he then Enables the SPL to do his job.

 

OTOH, if jblake is standing there beside a Scout and "observes" the stove needs cleaning, he has just told/"directed" that Scout to clean the stove, in so many words - the Scout even recognizes this, and asks why he is always being picked on. This is not coaching while discussing a plan or a process, this is giving the Scout a specific task that needs to be done, which is about as Directive as you can get. I don't expect jblake to follow the BSA Leadership Styles, because I don't think he follows the BSA program. If he did, he would have made that observation to the SPL, instead of another Scout.

 

(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[Venividi]

Match the particpants in this discussion with the leadership style(s) they are using.

 

(Yes, I realize this is a discussion, but so is the conversation between SM and SPL.)

[Stosh]

I was surprised to see in the comments the reference to the US Army training material as it relates to BSA program. For a long time I often wondered who borrowed from whom. They are both so closely related with even key phrases copied it was surprising. We have been using both resources for our youth, both on the Scouting and Venturing levels.

 

For those who don't think I follow BSA processes, ask yourself why does the Army promote "An Army of One", if it wasn't to teach leadership from the "bottom up" rather than the "top down"? The do it this way because they know that leadership that leads to teamwork begins at the base level where the real activity of the group is being worked.

 

As other resources, look at the major shifts in leadership dynamics with the Servant Leadership style of business and the One-Minute Manager style of individual empowerment. Surely when you combine all these resources (with BSA has done) and applies them to youth groups, there are great benefits to the changes.

 

Adult-led units tend to be no bigger than about 15-25 scouts because group dynamics have proved that, depending on the leadership of the one individual i.e. SM, that's about all they can handle at one time. I have seen this over and over where a troop of 40 boys on paper has only 20 showing up. Yet on the Cub level where Dens seldom get as big as 20, still have Packs of 100+. The reason? Because it is broken down into small autonomous dens of workable size.

 

If we were to teach our scouts to function like "adult" den leaders (PL's) then troops could easily handle far more boys than they currently do with the leadership focused from the SM to the patrols.

 

The dynamics are there, the reality is not. Ask yourself, how long would a 100+ cub pack last if the CM had to run the show every week instead of relying on his DL's. It wouldn't be very long before a mass exodus got the pack down to a workable 20-25 cubs.

 

For those who say I don't follow BSA processes, I beg to differ. I just watch and observe how and where they work best and use those dynamics in the troop. Show me a troop where there are more than 25 active boys and I'll show you a patrol-method troop, because that's the only formula that can work with a larger group. Now the question remains, are those patrols run by PL's or ASM's? That will tell you whether it is boy-led, patrol-method.

 

Stosh

[BrentAllen]

The Troop I left had over 70 boys registered. Around 35 - 40 would show for meetings, and we had 50 go to Summer Camp. They would argue until they are blue in the face that they are boy-run, boy-lead. Sadly, that is simply not the case, and that is the main reason we left. A program can be more like a social camping club and serve a large number of boys. Size is not an indicator of a boy-run, boy-lead troop. I know this first-hand. They had not patrol identity whatsoever.

 

I have one question: If a Troop had a camping trip planned, say backpacking, and one of the patrols had planned to go camping at a local state park that same weekend, what should happen?(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[Ohio_Scouter]

Brent,

 

In my opinion, every effort should be made to accommodate both. Our troop would try to insure that both activities happened.