Patrol Leadership: Management Style Vs Scoutcraft Style

[Mafaking]

 

 

OGE writes "How many technical types out there know people who became a Supervisor based on being the bet engineer, best technician, best whatever the plant had ever seen and then failed miserably in the position because they didn't know how to manage?"

 

Few! Where did you get this premise? So under the same circumstance the guys from MIT are less successful at leading than the guys from North-East-West State college?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Look good posters I am not as angry as my posts may suggest nor am I as hard and fixed that this is completely an either or decision. What I am wrestling with is how to improve the patrols given a limited amount of time. I have given the leadership training in big and small doses but on a recent campout I detected that there is a weak point in the program we are delivering. Anecdotal evidence suggest that the scouts with the better scout craft skills beat out the intellectual gifted scout who had been trained on Patrol Leadership.

 

 

There is no denying that this occurred only why did this occur. There were some group dynamic going on but so to were these occurring in the other patrols. From a program delivery standpoint the only thing that separates these patrol leaders is there scoutcraft skills. He had all the tools to delegate and lead and he chose not to.

 

I suspect that if I pulled this scout aside and for five hours and powerpointed and group game-ed him until his eye bleed he would be no better as a PL. However, if I took that same amount of time and re-emphasized the first class requirements he would better off to lead his patrol.

 

Refining my post.

 

Is there program experience that one can comment on where the program went back and re-emphasized scout skills as a means to improving patrol leader success?

 

 

 

 

 

[Mafaking]

 

Jet526 writes:

"Of the three, scout-craft is much simpler to learn and to teach. Perhaps Mafaking is so hung up on this because anything more is beyond his skill set."

 

Perhaps! But my corporate position, and degrees on the wall would suggest otherwise. But hey who really needs to know that stuff anyway? As a matter of fact I do prefer to delegate.

 

 

 

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>Is there program experience that one can comment on where the program went back and re-emphasized scout skills as a means to improving patrol leader success?

[Beavah]

And that's usually the example I use to explain it. I couldn't solve a quadratic equation with a gun to my head. But the years I spent taking math taught me a method of logical problem solving I use everday.

 

Yah, but that worked only because both you and the teacher actually cared about learning how to work the quadratic equation at the time, eh? That's how you learned logical problem solving. Had you just taken a course on da theory of logical problem solving instead of taking a course on Algebra, my bet is that you never would have learned either skill.

 

Personally, I think the whole straw man of "management theory" is just tripe, eh? Almost all scout troops proceed in some version of what twocubdad or Eagledad or OGE describe. It's a mix of things. We teach scoutcraft skills, because learnin' scoutcraft skills is what gives them the tools they need as well as learnin' how to learn and think and become confident in their own abilities. We teach leadership and management and teamwork because those are skills that boys need to succeed in a patrol as well - and learnin' those things helps 'em develop morals and character and judgment.

 

Each thing in its place, in proper measure. We start with da scoutcraft skills primarily (T-2-1) and then incorporate more management and leadership skills as the boys need those.

 

Beavah

 

[GernBlansten]

OGE writes "How many technical types out there know people who became a Supervisor based on being the bet engineer, best technician, best whatever the plant had ever seen and then failed miserably in the position because they didn't know how to manage?"

 

Absolutely, I've seen it myself. I've also seen the reverse, managers who rise above their technical capability only to achieve failure, due to their lack of technical knowledge.

 

Great managers are first great technicians (think Gene Kranz, Apollo flight director). They have mastered their technical skills and know their craft. But they are also natural leaders. With some refinement, they become great managers. But you can't create a great manager from someone who doesn't have the basic skills. And some skillful craftsmen will never become great managers because they are not natural leaders.

 

I work for a very large engineering firm. The current attitude is that managers only require management skills and do not need technical expertise. In fact, technical expertise is considered a handicap as it impairs your judgement. We waste a great deal of money and time because of this. Good thing our primary customer is the US Government.

[evmori]

I've seen what OGE describes a lot! I like to call it the "Steel Mill Mentality". Promote those who do & know little & they are less likely to screw things up.

 

I would agree leadership & managing are different. A good leader should know how to manage but a good manager might not know how to lead.

[MarkS]

Beavah said, "Each thing in its place, in proper measure. We start with da scoutcraft skills primarily (T-2-1) and then incorporate more management and leadership skills as the boys need those."

 

A youth has to be first class and have attended two summer camps before taking NYLT. So there's an expectation of a certain level of proficiency in scoutscarft skills before attending the course. As an example, part of the NYLT curriculum is about understanding how to teach and share these skills to a patrol based on the ability to recognize a patrol's proficiency level.

 

I agree that it takes a balance of proficiency in scoutscraft skills, management, and leadership for an SPL, PL, and other youth leaders to maximize their potential for success. It's not surprising that BSA offers training in all three for both adults leaders who need to train the youth leaders and for youth leaders to supplement the training they've received in their unit...

 

Adults have basic training for their position, outdoor skills training, and Woodbadge.

 

Youth have their T-2-1 programs at summmer camp (with fancy names like Eagle Bound or Voyageur), TLT, and NYLT.

 

All have OJT opportunities created by their unit's outdoor and advancement programs, unit meetings, et al.

 

It's the package that makes the difference, not just one course.

 

I do not agree with the premise of this thread that one needs to choose between Management Style vs. Scoutcraft Style. I choose both.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[Stosh]

I still vote for neither. I don't care whether or not a boy develops a managment style or knows his scout stuff.

 

As an example:

 

Last night I was teaching the NSP flag folding. The older boys were out working on Pioneering MB. About half way through the demonstration, the boys were working on folding. My Star scout who has Asberger's Syndrom came in stood a few feet away and stared for a few seconds and then without saying anything stepped up and started assisting the boy with the folds. I step back and watched and finally one of the new boys said, "Mr. B_______ is this what you meant when you talked about the Buddy System being leadership and taking care of others?"

 

By the way, this boy couldn't do a POR for his Star rank and had to do a few special SM projects. Now he's OA Rep. Well, that's changed even more now, I know he can be a great leader. By the end of the meeting, the PL put him into APL of the NSP to assist him with the boys.

 

Cream rises to the top regardless of what management style they adopt and regardless of what scout skills they may know. Just give me a boy that cares about others and I'll show you a great leader. This boy also made Student of the Month in his HS for January.

 

This is the same boy who transfered over from an adult-led program because he was having all kinds of problems and not advancing. It was either transfer to my troop or quit.

 

Any leadership style can be taught, but if the boy doesn't care, then all that teaching is wasted.

 

Stosh

[asm 411]

Mafaking wrote:

"Is there program experience that one can comment on where the program went back and re-emphasized scout skills as a means to improving patrol leader success? "

 

In our troop we have our older Scouts teach the new Scouts their Scout Skills. In my opinion teaching others is the best way to learn ourselves. A secondary benefit of this is that the bonds between the teacher and the student are strengthened.

 

Now lets go a step farther have the PL teach his patrol a Scout Skill they are weak in. Make sure the skill is verified by the PL when he is done. Of course this is done by working through the SPL. The PL shows he knows something gaining respect from the patrol.

 

As a Scouter, with the SPL in tow, watch the patrols as they learn something from the PL. Discuss with the SPL what the two of you see as areas that the PL can improve. Then have the SPL work with the PL to get better.

 

Mafaking you mention a limited amount of time. Typically I have found that when we try and hurry in teaching the quality drops off. So if you want a quality product you must take your time. Remember we get each Scout for about 7 years.

 

I regular look over the Scouts we have in our troop. I then try to decide where they could use some help. Then I try to prioritize who to work with. Following the program can make this difficult because I have to work through the SM who has to work through the SPL who has to work through the PL in most cases. Depending on where the Scout needs to grow I sometimes do ASM conferences, just like SM conferences but with me. I work very closely with our SM and he is always in the loop.

 

I try to do this as little as possible because I truly believe that Scouts learn and grow better with each other.

[stevo0880]

I know exactly what you meen, I am extremely proficiant in pioneering, and am the spl, although it did help, knowing your troop is usually more effective b/c then they trust you more and connect with you.

[BrentAllen]

I came across a devotional on leadership in my Daily Walk Bible, between the books of Joshua and Judges. Joshua had to fill the big shoes left by Moses. I took the devotional and worked it into a Scouting lesson, as best I could. I delivered it as a SM Minute this evening, and it was pretty well received. Tonight was our first meeting with our first-ever SPL and new Patrol. They did a great job, and I didn't have to hardly lift a finger. Anyway, the message:

 

LEADERSHIP

 

Regardless of your present role of leadership or followership in the Troop, it is a worthy ambition to aspire to become a leader. But leadership is not for everyone. In fact, the qualifications may surprise you. They have nothing to do with your family wealth, your grades or the number of clubs you belong to. Leadership isnt something to be earned. It is a recognition of your spiritual maturity, proven character and the reputation you have developed both inside and outside the Troop.

 

If you aspire to help manage the Troop then ask yourself, How well have I managed the other responsibilities I have been entrusted with? Have I managed well my physical body?... my mind?... my money?... my family? my tongue?... my reputation? Am I worthy of respect? Am I self-controlled?... friendly? teachable? above reproach? mature? honest in all my dealings? If the answer to these questions is yes, then an expanded leadership role may be appropriate for you.

 

Regardless of whether an enlarged leadership responsibility may be in your future, the attitude of a servant-leader ought to be your ambition. Listen to this exhortation from the apostle Peter:

Be shepherds of Gods flock that is under your care, serving as overseers not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock

 

Taking the lesson to Scouting:

Be shepherds of the Scouts under your care, serving as overseers not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for praise, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the Troop.

 

Leaders like that are always in short supply perhaps because they are too humble to admit they have what it takes.

 

[Kudu]

The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

 

According to the BSA's REAL "mission statement" we are ABSOLUTELY a CAMPING CLUB!

 

As you can see, the so-called "Three Aims of Scouting" and the upstart "Leadership Development Method" are ONLY A THEORY!

 

The BSA's REAL "three aims" are to use the methods in common use by Boy Scouts on June 15, 1916 to:

 

1) To promote the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others.

2) To train them in Scoutcraft

3) To teach them patriotism, self-reliance, and kindred virtues

 

Most problems in Scouting today come from the limitations of the current Aims & Methods theory. A much better "Aims" theory can be found on page 13 of the 2nd edition of "The Handbook for Scoutmasters." It has TWO SETS OF AIMS, one for the Adults, and one for the Scouts.

 

In this model, Scouting is a "train" that runs on "railroad tracks" that NEVER intersect:

 

 

-----------------------------ADULT AIMS (Character & Citizenship)--------------------------------->

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Scouting~~~>

 

-----------------------------BOY AIMS (Pleasure & Interest)----------------------------------------->

 

 

"Only can the adult hope to effect his aims as he does so through the boy's interests. The 'train' of the adult program must 'run' on the 'tracks' of the boy's interests pulled by the boy's enthusiasm."

 

The idea that Scouting is NOT a "camping club" comes from Adults who promote manager theory, which (hyped as "leadership") has become an "Adult Aim" for them.

 

Mafaking, if you teach your natural leaders the Scoutcraft they need for the Scout Aim of OUTDOOR ADVENTURE, your adult Aims will take care of themselves.

 

Boy Scouts can learn all they need to know about "Citizenship in the Nation" by reading the Congressional Charter and then watching their Scoutmaster try to teach them EDGE theory

 

Kudu

 

[desertrat77]

It takes both technical and leadership skill to succeed as a patrol leader. Must be balanced.

 

Scoutcraft is good, but my ability to sharpen an axe, make a duty roster, or identify poison ivy didn't not spare me from some ugly leadership failures as a new PL. It's quite an adventure to quell a near mutiny of your patrol at midnight, thinking of one incident. Though I didn't ask them, I'll bet they didn't care about scoutcraft at the moment--mine or anyone elses. I needed to step up and lead, pure and simple.

 

 

But we figured things out as the months rolled on. My SM chewed me out at times, encouraged me at others. It's all about that safe environment to fail...that's where the PL will learn the most.

 

You can tie a one handed bowline? Great. How about keeping morale high during a 2 day rain storm? Or motivating the dishwashers to finish the breakfast pots/pans before lunch? Different skill set.