Troop Elections

[Mafaking]

 

 

Why will troop elections often elevate one of the least qualified scouts into a position of responsibility? The scouts when asked, crave order and structure during meetings. A SM conference question about how the troop could improve usually gets a reply that the scout wishes the troop wasn't so disorganized and chaotic during troop meetings. Then when given an opportunity the scouts votes the weaker of the scouts eligible into a position of responsibility. With this, the recess mentality continues.

 

 

[Eagledad]

Just make sure the scouts get what the asked for.

 

Barry

[Lisabob]

This came up recently in a BOR. Scout was asked about his patrol and he responded that the PL wasn't doing his job. (Not surprising - the PL is a royal pain in the neck when he's there, which, happily, is only about half the time. He never follows through, can't be trusted, is manipulative, the last one to raise a finger to help, etc.) BOR scout's response? He was the only scout in the patrol who wanted the job! All the other, more responsible scouts, had PORs already.

 

Sigh.

[Venividi]

You dont say whether scouts with better leadership skills are running, and the scouts elect lesser qualified scouts instead, or if the better scouts are not running at all.

 

If it is the later, a culture can develop where PL and SPL is seen as an undesireable position because meetings are chaotic and unorganized, and the stronger scouts dont want to take a postition where the other scouts are being unruly because they dont see the possibility of being able to change it; or because those positions are seen as extra work that they don't need to do if they already have completed a POR for their next advancement.

 

If the former, then I suspect that the scouts, though they crave order and structure, vote the person that they perceive would be the most "fun", and the person that will bring order and discipline is usually not seen as the "fun" one. Think Lord of the Flies on a small scale.

[Mafaking]

 

Fair question Venividi. We are not at a point where it is undesirable to be a PL or a SPL. Qualified candidates ran. I would have liked to have seen more qualified scouts run but some of the scouts who I thought were qualified didn't run. They told me latter that they wanted to gain more experience.

 

I think to some degree it is the "fun" vote running the troop. Maybe it should be that way to some extent. The scouts I would like to see elected are the more mature scouts who take training well and follow the program (think program features and strong patrols). But that's my perspective.

 

What's the best part of a young boys day? Recess! What is a kid's favorite element during soccer practice? The scrimmage. The scouts are voting their recess captain but I am looking for an assistant coach. The job qualifications for each are different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Eagle732]

Last election no one wanted to run for SPL. Finally one of our Committee members, an Army Ranger and past DI stood up and said (in his DI voice) he would love to take the job. The first item on his agenda was GI hair cuts for everyone and PT every meeting! I agreed that we would have an adult led troop and that our Army Ranger should be the SPL if no Scout wanted the job. Within 2 minutes we had 5 Scouts running for SPL!

[Venividi]

Yes, recess sounds good until that is all there is. At my first PLC as a new scoutmaster, the scouts said that they wanted to have an "unplanned" campout; i.e., they didnt want to plan any activities in advance. Needless to say, it was one of their worst campouts. It didn't stop them from proposing future campouts with no plans; to them not planning was easier than planning.

 

A suggestion(s): between now and the next election have frequent short talks with the scouts that show promise. Tell them you have confidence in them, praise them when you see them showing initiative, and a few weeks before the election, encourage them to run for (choice of leadership position here).

 

In the meantime, spend extra time with the current leadership and let them know that you are disappointed in what they have done so far, that it shows that you and the other scouters need to work with them on their leadership skills, and that you are expecting more from them in the coming weeks. Also consider meeting with the PLC for a half hour before each troop meeting, where they discuss their meeting plans with you. Make sure that they know that you expect them to come to this meeting prepared with a plan, and if they do not, that you will have no choice but to ask them to step down. A day or two before meeting day, call the SPL and review his plan in advance, ask him to call his patrol leaders to review plans, and to call you back once he has done so.

[frank10]

Is this question limited to scouts or can we include national and state elections??

[Kudu]

Mafaking writes:

 

Why will troop elections often elevate one of the least qualified scouts into a position of responsibility?

 

The answer should be obvious to anyone known as "Mafaking"!

 

Baden-Powell sent to his publisher the final manuscript of his military book Aids to Scouting in the very last mail pouch to leave Mafeking before the siege.

 

"The Siege of Mafeking was the most famous British action in the Second Boer War. It took place at the town of Mafeking in South Africa over a period of 217 days, from October 1899 to May 1900, and turned Robert Baden-Powell into a national hero" (wikipedia).

 

Aids to Scouting became a best seller as British boys used it as a handbook to play army. When Baden-Powell returned from the Boer War he wrote a boy's version in which citizenship is taught through outdoor adventure in independent Patrols.

 

To do that safely, the most qualified Scout must be Patrol Leader. In the real Patrol Method, he has real-world responsibilities similar to those of a lifeguard. To accomplish this Baden-Powell met with each Patrol and appointed the most qualified leader, balancing the recess impulses of boys against their shared desire for order and safety.

 

In the United States, the Young Men's Christian Association organized a national monopoly on Scouting that taught citizenship in indoor adult-run Citizenship Merit Badge classes.

 

The BSA Scoutmaster handbook warned adults not to give Patrol Leaders any responsibility what-so-ever:

 

"Care should be taken by the Scout Master that the patrol leaders do not have too great authority in the supervision of their patrols. The success of the troop affairs and supervision of patrol progress is, in the last analysis, the responsibility of the Scout Master and not that of the patrol leader. There is also a danger, in magnifying the patrol leader in this way, of inordinately swelling the ordinary boy's head. The activities of the patrol should not be left to the judgment of any patrol leader, and if the Scout Master wants to delegate the work of the patrol and troop, the whole group should reach a decision in regard to the plan." See:

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/methods/1st/index.htm

 

Since BSA Patrol Leaders were systematically kept powerless, boys could hold elections to "practice democracy" and elevate the most popular but least qualified Scouts because in adult-led Scouting there is no downside to incompetent Patrol Leaders.

 

After James West took over from the YMCA's Edgar M. Robinson, he introduced in the 1920s a watered-down version of Baden-Powell's Patrol System called the "Patrol Method." He appointed the young William Hillcourt to implement it. The BSA had systematically stamped out the Patrol System in the United States, but Hillcourt was able to bring to the task actual experience both as a Boy Scout Patrol Leader and then as a Scoutmaster in his native Denmark where Baden-Powell's Patrol System was still alive and well.

 

Under Hillcourt, BSA Patrol Leaders were finally taught their real job: To organize their own hikes and overnights without adult supervision.

 

It takes Hillcourt a thousand pages to describe the Scoutmaster's role in all of this, but the "Patrol Method" session of the current Scoutmaster-specific training course does not even once mention a Patrol Leader! So if you are at all serious about Patrol Leader competency you should purchase Hillcourt's two volume Handbook for Scoutmasters to see how it is done. You can find used copies for less than $10 per volume at AddAll. IMPORTANT: To find the correct edition, look for "Volume 1" or "Volume 2" in the description, starting on "page 2" of the following URL!

 

http://tinyurl.com/5sjvz3

 

If you read between the lines, both Lisabob and Venividi point to the real reason for incompetency: Position of Responsibility (POR) requirements.

 

POR requirements were introduced the year Hillcourt retired. Leadership Development experts gutted Hillcourt's life work and lumped Patrol Leaders together with Librarians and Buglers to teach them business manager theory in place of Hillcourt's position-specific Patrol Leader Training course:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/green_bar/index.htm

 

You may have noticed that Lifeguard is not listed as a POR even though it is the only remaining position of actual real-world responsibility that the vast majority of Scouts ever see. To understand how POR requirements work to destroy the Patrol Method, simply imagine what would happen if we elected and trained Lifeguards the way we do Patrol Leaders.

 

So you have a big decision to make: Do you agree with the anti-Baden-Powell & anti-William Hillcourt modernists that the purpose of the Patrol Method is to teach management hyped as "leadership," or do you see the position of Patrol Leader as similar to that of Lifeguard: A competent gatekeeper to safe adventure?

 

If you hold the old-school safe adventure position, then you can get there in three steps:

 

1) Decouple POR Credit from Patrol Leadership: The most important route to competency and the order and structure that both you and the Scouts crave is to decouple the position of Patrol Leader from 6 month POR credit.

 

The quickest way to do that is to "forget" to hold regular elections. Every Troop culture is different, but usually it is the adults who drive the hype and artificial enthusiasm of all that rah-rah stuff. Before specific POR requirements were invented, there was no such thing as regular six month "Troop Elections." A Patrol elected a new leader when it needed one, and the Patrol Leaders in turn selected an SPL only if and when they needed one. There is still no BSA regulation that requires regular Troop-wide elections (or SPLs, for that matter).

 

2) Be Active in Recruiting Leadership: You must follow through on "The scouts I would like to see elected are the more mature scouts." To do that talk to the mature Scouts on a regular basis and be honest and persistent about what you want and why you need their talent. Sometimes I just ask point blank, "What would it take to get you to run for Patrol Leader?"

 

Point out the problems in their Patrols and ask them individually for advice, in private at first and then in front of the other Scouts so that everyone notices whose judgement you consider to be worthwhile. When an incompetent Patrol Leader gets tired of the job, and you have meanwhile convinced the the most mature Scout to run, then visit the Patrol and discuss what you as Scoutmaster consider to be important qualities in their choice of a new Patrol Leader. If you are active rather than passive about competent leadership, a Patrol will usually make what you consider to be the correct choice.

 

In a perfect world, nobody would want to be SPL and you could leave the position empty. Baden-Powell considered it optional. One of the Patrol Leaders can always fill in when they need someone to coordinate things at a campout or an indoor meeting.

 

If the Patrol Leaders decide they need an SPL, then the second best situation is to get a big blow-hard to serve as SPL. A second-rate leader who understands that his job is to do what the Patrol Leaders have decided to do is perfect. Always make it clear that the Patrol Leaders, not the SPL, run the Troop, and the Patrol Leaders always have more votes in a PLC.

 

The reason for big puppet SPLs is that in most groups of 25 Scouts there is seldom more than one exceptionally gifted natural leader (In an adult-run Troop with regular elections, he is usually the ringleader of the disruptive older Scouts in the back of the room). If the very best natural leader is one of the Patrol Leaders, then the other Patrol Leaders will compete to make their Patrols as good as his once they see from his example how a Patrol is supposed to work. If you have one good Patrol Leader, then testosterone works much better than EDGE theory.

 

Sooner or later, however, in a competency-based Troop the best leader usually wants to be SPL. Then your Patrol Leaders will usually let him run the Troop and the Troop will shift around from competitive Patrol Leaders to the Troop Method where the SPL calls the shots. That can be fun too if you allow the SPL to assume a position as one of your de facto Assistant Scoutmasters. A talented teen-aged natural leader is far superior to most adult volunteers except for experience and judgement.

 

3) Adventure: If Lifeguard was a POR, then we would have to either allow accidental drownings to show the Scouts the downside of popularity contests, OR dumb swimming down to baby pools just like Leadership Development has done to "modern" Patrol camping where most Patrols of teenagers now camp close together, Cub Scout style.

 

So if your Lifeguards were trained with EDGE theory, how would you ever trust them with Scouts in water over their heads? The same way you should introduce the adventure of Patrol Camping back into the Boy Scout program: Gradually.

 

A good compromise with the very high standard of leadership before "Leadership Development" was invented, is to postpone Hillcourt's definition of a BSA "Real Patrol" (one that hikes and camps once or twice a month without adult supervision). Instead, use Baden-Powell's standard for multi-Patrol camping: a minimum of 300 feet between Patrols. I usually start a Patrol at 30 feet (10% of B-P's minimum standard) and gradually allow the more competent Patrols to camp a little further away each month as they prove their maturity and finally reach the minimum 300 feet.

 

The point of 300 feet is not to keep adults from interfering. The point of separating the Patrols is to provide adventure.

 

Kudu

 

One of our methods in the Scout movement for taming a hooligan is to appoint him head of a Patrol. He has all the necessary initiative, the spirit and the magnetism for leadership, and when responsibility is thus put upon him it gives him the outlet he needs for his exuberance of activity, but gives it in a right direction.

 

--Baden-Powell, from the article "Are Our Boys Degenerating?" circa 1918

 

 

(This message has been edited by Kudu)

[Mafaking]

 

Kudo,

I have the natural leader you described. He is a temperamental fella and has a somewhat anti-establishment attitude. The younger scouts gravitate to him like a mouth to a flame. He sits in the back grumbles a lot and makes fun of the adults. He used his sway to influence the elections away from his peers and adversaries toward the younger less capable scouts. He is now lord and master with no real POR. He controls the group but not through the formal organizational scheme.

 

My current experience is that it is the 8th & 9th grader who make up the heart of the leadership group. Below eighth grade and they just aren't ready and above 9th and their interest is waning.

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Mafaking)

[Mafaking]

 

 

Kudo as far as your other points:

 

1) Decouple POR Credit from Patrol Leadership:

 

Not likely to happen. I would strongly expect some parent would be in the COR's face or calling their local council office, submitting that the troop has strayed away from the program.

 

 

2) Be Active in Recruiting Leadership:

 

This one I now believe I fell short on. I left too much to chance. I should have better inspired those who I thought would make good leaders and provide better description to the troop on what we needed in our leaders. The down side to this is that one has to be careful not to point out the short comings of the previous PL ability. I don't want to go before the scouts and state the failings of an 11 year old PL. I'll brush up on my straw man speeches.

 

 

3) Adventure:

 

I know that the scouts are capable of planning their own trips (read my paintball comment). The trouble with the troop system is that the troop camps as a unit. A 13 year old may be able to organize his 5-6 buddies to go on an outing but not a troop 5 times that size. I'll have to assess how we plan trips to better provide the scouts with the opportunity to lead trips. No ownership no interests.

 

 

 

[Kudu]

Mafaking writes:

 

I have the natural leader you described. He is a temperamental fella and has a somewhat anti-establishment attitude. The younger scouts gravitate to him like a mouth to a flame. He sits in the back grumbles a lot and makes fun of the adults. He used his sway to influence the elections away from his peers and adversaries toward the younger less capable scouts. He is now lord and master with no real POR. He controls the group but not through the formal organizational scheme.

 

Yeah, that's your guy, the hooligan that Baden-Powell is talking about. Usually they have high IQs, adult-level verbal skills (which when used to make fun of adults get them plenty of detention time at school), and a natural sense of fairness when adults treat them as equals. Of course to harness his talent, a Scoutmaster must genuinely admire his obvious abilities and not try to use applied psychology on him. In the long run it is much easier to get a hooligan to act like a Boy Scout than it is to prop up some nice kid who always wears his Uniform correctly but has no idea how to handle 30 other boys.

 

Mafaking writes:

 

My current experience is that it is the 8th & 9th grader who make up the heart of the leadership group. Below eighth grade and they just aren't ready and above 9th and their interest is waning.

 

I agree on the low end, but not the high end. Teenagers loose interest when the adults insist on monthly Webelos III camping.

 

Mafaking writes:

 

KudU as far as your other points:

 

1) Decouple POR Credit from Patrol Leadership:

 

Not likely to happen. I would strongly expect some parent would be in the COR's face or calling their local council office, submitting that the troop has strayed away from the program.

 

What program? Every Troop is different but there are plenty of ways to game your Troop's culture if you know what it is that you want. As long as everyone thinks of Patrol Leadership only in terms of six month POR credit, things are always going to suck. Period. No leadership secret is ever going to change that.

 

Mafaking writes:

 

2) Be Active in Recruiting Leadership:

 

I'll brush up on my straw man speeches.

 

Forget the leadership speeches. Every gifted leader is different and the only thing that matters is what you say to each one of them individually.

 

Mafaking writes:

 

3) Adventure:

 

I know that the scouts are capable of planning their own trips (read my paintball comment). The trouble with the troop system is that the troop camps as a unit.

 

That is why Baden-Powell kept the Patrols apart. How do you know that won't work unless you try it? Start with your best Patrol camped 30 feet from everyone else. You do not need to start with separate Patrol trips just to have an adventure.

 

Mafaking writes:

 

A 13 year old may be able to organize his 5-6 buddies to go on an outing...

 

That is human nature. Everywhere Baden-Powell went in the world, from England, to India, to Africa, he observed that human boys group themselves into Patrol-sized units.

 

... but not a troop 5 times that size.

 

That is not true. A gifted teenager can certainly handle 30 other boys. Just from your brief description, I'm sure that your "problem" Scout is perfectly capable of that.

 

Mafaking writes:

 

I'll have to assess how we plan trips to better provide the scouts with the opportunity to lead trips. No ownership no interests.

 

Trips are nice, but monthly Troop camping is a perfect place to provide Scouts with that opportunity.

 

Object of Camping

 

The object of a camp is (a) to meet the boy's desire for the open-air life of the Scout, and (b) to put him completely in the hands of his Scoutmaster for a definite period for individual training in character and initiative and in physical and moral development.

 

These objects are to a great extent lost if the camp be a big one. The only discipline that can there be earned out is the collective military form of discipline, which tends to destroy individuality and initiative instead of developing them; and, owing to there being too many boys for the ground, military drill has to a great extent to take the place of scouting practices and nature study.

 

So it results that Scouts' camps should be small -- not more than one Troop camped together; and even then each Patrol should have its own separate tent at some distance (at least 100 yards) from the others. This latter is with a view to developing the responsibility of the Patrol Leader for his distinct unit.

 

Baden-Powell

 

 

[sandspur]

Why does the less qualified scout get elected?

Well, we adults do this too (see any national or state election).

But more to your point, we need to remember that in spite of the ideal of the boy led troop, scouts are boys, not mature adults (and, as observed above, even we screw it up).

The most popular scout running gets elected. As long as we have elections, and not appointed leaders, that will happen.

So, require certain qualifications for SPL. Maybe Life Scout, attended/passed leadership training, others?

Use a JASM to backstop a weaker SPL. After all, you can appoint a JASM.

If unqualified PLs are elected, work with them to improve their skills. If they do not improve, remove them and elevate the APL.

And I agree that it is about time we differentiated between the leadership positions and the PORs.

 

[Kudu]

sandspur writes:

 

The most popular scout running gets elected. As long as we have elections, and not appointed leaders, that will happen.

 

You write that as if it were good thing

 

So, require certain qualifications for SPL.

 

Yeah, its called gaming the system.

 

Adults do that all the time to keep the most talented natural leaders out of office, so they can teach business manager skills to a greater number of Scouts. Of course the central contradiction of Leadership Development is that business managers are appointed, aren't they?

 

Use a JASM to backstop a weaker SPL. After all, you can appoint a JASM.

 

That is what I would do in this situation. As Mafaking notes, the Troop's natural leader "is now lord and master with no real POR. He controls the group but not through the formal organizational scheme." So why not appoint him JASM to "backstop" the SPL?

 

If unqualified PLs ... do not improve, remove them and elevate the APL.

 

Yeah, I have done that to get my way when the more qualified leader is appointed to an assistant position by the winner of a popularity contest. Basically if the SPL and the Patrol agrees that the APL is better than the incompetent PL, the SPL uses the Peter Principle to "promote" the PL to the meaningless position of ASPL.

 

But of course you realize that elevating an APL (or for that matter allowing an ASPL to serve in the SPL's absence) gets us right back to appointed leaders, doesn't it?

 

And everybody knows that is WRONG!

 

Kudu

 

[Twocubdad]

Always interesting to hear a historical perspective.

 

But for those operating within the current program here are some thoughts from my experience.

 

One of the things I do is prior to elections spend a little time and talking (teaching?) about the election process. Most elections these guys have ever participated in has no meaning -- student council and other baloney school stuff. They need to be educated. Explain to the Scouts they need to vote for a leader who they will be willing to follow. On a cold, rainy Sunday morning, who will motivate the patrol to get up and start the fire? Who can you count on? Who has the skills to get the job done? Don't vote for someone because it's his turn or he needs the POR for advancement. These guys may be suffering through a "fun guy" PL who can't get anything done, but sometimes they still need to have the dots connected for them.

 

I've dealt with this literally since our very first troop meeting. My oldest son's new Scout patrol elected the popular jock as their first patrol leader. He attended one more troop meeting before dropping out in favor of AAU baseball. My son was APL and the then troop leaders left him in limbo for several months before addressing the leadership situation. It was a very frustrating experience him and the whole patrol. I've used that story a number of times when trying to make the point.

 

Secondly, the Scouts have to have a viable alternative to the cool guy who will only lead them to the dark side. They need to see that the nerdy nose picker really knows his stuff and can deliver a hot breakfast on a cold rainy morning. If the "better leader" is only a better leader in the eyes of the adults, that's probably as good a reason as any to vote for someone else.

 

That means growing good leaders. It's taken about three years, but this past term our regular patrols (well, 3 of 4) finally have solid, mature PLs who are really leading their patrols. All three are former "cool guys" who have finally seen the light. As much as I would like to take all the credit, much of it is that they're more mature and willing to take the responsibility. Instead of immaturely bucking the system, they now are willing to accept that many of the techniques and skills they saw as lame really make their jobs easier, like planning, communicating with their patrol members, delegating jobs to other but following up to make sure it gets done.

 

These guys are now +/- 15. Prior to the last election I sat the group down and flat-out told them it was their time to step up. It was really encouraging to see them step up. All had served as PLs previously, with varying degrees of success.