Leadership and the "Chain of Command"

[Stosh]

We have all experienced the process whereby the boys are always go to and asking the adults to solve their problems or get information. Sure, why not? Go to the top and get the right answers right away. It's how everything is done in the non-BSA world. If you're having trouble with the bank, don't talk to the teller, go right to the president, after all who best can solve my problem?

 

This process goes on all over the place including, if you don't like what dad says, go to mom.

 

When we set up the traditional SM -> SPL -> PL structure, it's only natural that if they have an ineffective PL they go straight to the SM.

 

In our troop we make it clear that the PL's are the highest ranking officer in the troop, not the SM or even the SPL. The PL's make the decisions for the boys and are the repository of the information they need for their patrol activities. Both SM and SPL are instructed to always refer and/or take the boy back to their PL for resolution for their concerns.

 

We find that this reduces the number of boys coming to the adults for decisions and information.

 

Is the SM -> SPL -> PL model the best solution for dealing with the consistent habit of always going over the leadership's head when they have a question?

 

Stosh

[Eagle92]

YES! With the exception of SMCs and emergency situations, things should go through the PL-> SPL-> SM CoC, or some variation of it. And even in the emergency I vaguely remember best, I was the victim so I was confused at the time, it was the scouts who handled the situation and not the leaders present.

 

As for going over people's head, when I was asked questions as both an ASPL and as an ASM,I responded, " what did your PL say?"

[Eagle69]

Back when I went through Woodbadge 30 years ago that was exactly the chain of command taught. If you went up to the SPL and asked him a question he would refer you back to your PL.

[Twocubdad]

We've kicked around the idea of printing adult t-shirts with "Ask Your Patrol Leader" on them just to save time.

[Eagle92]

2cub,

That reminds me of a patch I picked up in the UK and had sewn on my old green uniform. The patch had a leader with hands in the pocket and the words " Don't ask me, I'm only the Leader."

 

 

GREAT now I got to go up in the attic now and get that patch

[evmori]

When I was a SM that's what we did! It really empowers the youth leadership.

[Crew21_Adv]

Stosh and Fellow Scouters,

 

 

Greetings!

 

Is the SM -> SPL -> PL model the best solution?

 

Yes, I believe so.

 

Within my troop, the SM/ASMs take it a step further. In today's era, many parents are virtually hooked to their laptop, *berry, cell phone and etc.

 

Just a week after PLC, It is ironically humorous and disappointing when a PL or ASPL arrives to a troop meeting as ask "what are we doing tonight? or What am I doing tonight"

 

Meanwhile, the parents, that don't talk to their sons, ask the SM/ASM team "what is happening" on a regular basis. Well the SM/ASM have come around to sending out short monthly agenda notes (since the troop scribe usually doesn't have access to a computer or is too busy doing homework).

 

The beginning of explaining the monthly agenda usually starts with a few lines of carriage return-space, followed by.

 

If you don't know what's happening, ask you Scout (son). He should know.

 

If your son does not know what is happening, he should ask his Patrol Leader.

 

If his Patrol Leader does not know what is happening, he should ask the Senior Patrol Leader.

 

If our Senior Patrol Leader does not know what is happening, we are all in trouble.

 

(This is followed by many (carriage return) space. Then the SM/ASM briefly highlights the monthly plans, dates, times, locations, and cost.

 

 

All this to say. It doesn't only happen with our Scouts. Even the parents find it easy to send an email to the SM/ASMs. But after 30, 40, 50 emails before a weekend. Its easier to be proactive and tell everyone what to expect, and ask them to dialogue with their own Scout.

 

Scouting Forever and Venture On!

Crew21 Adv

[Stosh]

So this begs the question if the structure is SM -> SPL -> PL there's always a possibility in everyone's mind that they can always go to a higher authority, thus the jump in "rank" for answers.

 

If the structure was PL -> SPL -> SM, then the highest authority would rest in the PL and the SPL and SM would not be able to "rank" over the PL.

 

So the question: are the PL's really empowered to do their responsibility or is it always subservient to the SPL and SM?

 

I always get the feeling that the PL's really aren't running any show when their decisions, actions, plans, etc. can always be trumped by the SPL/PLC and/or SM/ASM. If they really are not running the show, then why not go directly to the person who makes the decisions, i.e. the SM?

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

>>I always get the feeling that the PL's really aren't running any show when their decisions, actions, plans, etc. can always be trumped by the SPL/PLC and/or SM/ASM.>If they really are not running the show, then why not go directly to the person who makes the decisions, i.e. the SM?

[scoutmaster52]

The first thing we teach new adult leaders is the question: Is this something that you should be asking your PL or SPL?

[SR540Beaver]

The boys get it. The parents.....well, some parents are a different story. We have one mom who has a 12 year old 2nd year scout and a 17 year old Eagle Scout son who has served as SPL before. She is constantly coming up to the SM, ASM's and CC asking questions for her sons. We constantly and consistently tell her it is her sons responsibility to ask questions of their PL's.....not hers. But she has been doing this since her 17 year old was 11 and joined the troop. You can lead a horse to water.......

[Stosh]

In my mind there is a world of difference between responsibility and authority when it comes to leadership. With a SM -> SPL -> PL model, the processes means the responsibility is delegated down to the next level with PL on the bottom. Sure, he has all the responsibility, but no real authority. That remains with next level up.

 

Let's put question out there. Can a PL of an older boy patrol after conferring with his members decide to go to a different summer camp than the one the SM decide it would be better because it specializes in NSP concerns? Or when all is said and done and the dust settles, the SM says all the boys have to go to the same camp and it's up to the SPL to convey this to the PL's who have to comply. The PL has a responsibility, but no real authority.

 

There is nothing worse for undercutting a PL's empowerment than to jerk the rug out from under him by a "higher authority" by countering his decisions. If this be the practice, why discuss with the PL anything when in the final say-so whatever the patrol decides under the PL's guidance is going to be negated at a later date? Why not just go to the real decision makers and quit frustrating the subordinates?

 

If the SM guides/advises/dictates/directs/coaches etc. the SPL to do it a certain way and then the SPL guides/advises/dictates/directs/coaches etc. the PL's who are limited in their choices and if after discussing it among his members that they wish to go to Philmont instead of summer camp, the SPL says, let me check with my "superiors" and it goes up the "chain-of-command" to the SM who gives a thumbs up or down. I wonder if the PL really has the authority and is empowered to actually fulfill his leadership or is he merely puppeting back what he's been delegated by the "higher ups" as his responsibility.

 

If all authority is perceived by the boys in the hands of the SM, then just cut to the chase and ask him directly because he's the one making the final decisions. When the SM then says go to your PL who has no authority to make decisions and ask him. I don't see that process being very productive. I know what it's like to be placed in a position of responsibility and no authority to do the job. It ain't a warm fuzzy feeling. If one is selling $1M pieces of machinery to a prospective customer, they may have to talk with the secretary who's going to place the order, but they had better be talking to the general manager who's going to make the decision or there isn't going to be any sale.

 

My "chain of command" is PL -> SPL/PLC -> SM. Unless the PL plans involve unsafe or irresponsible decisiosn, the SM isn't involved in the functioning of the patrols. The SPL/PLC is then a clearing house of information to keep other patrols aware of what's going on and work together if necessary to accomplish the goals of multiple patrols, but the patrols themselves remain autonomous.

 

When boys come to me and ask something, I send them back to the PL because it's the patrols and their PL's that are making the decisions, not me. Once they realize that I'm not the final authority in the functionality of the patrol, they start to ask the PL's first. The SM is clueless on what the PL has planned so it's a waste of time to ask him. I'm not clueless, I have all the PL information passed to me, I take notes and then conveniently leave it in an inconvenient place so it's quicker to ask the PL than wait for the SM to go find his notes.

 

Stosh

[NJCubScouter]

Stosh, what's YOUR answer to your question about the older-boy patrol that wants to go to a different summer camp? And while you are answering that hypothetical question (assuming that it's hypothetical), here are one or two more: What about adult leadership? As far as I know, every BSA summer camp requires a group of boys to have adult leadership. Apart from the summer camp scenario, a patrol CAN go on a camping trip without adult supervision, but only if the SM approves. And, back to the summer camp situation, what about cost? Do the parents get some say, if it's going to cost more and they are paying for it?

 

More generally, I think the situation is more complex than you suggest. For one thing, I think you are mixing "information flow", decision-making, and guidance, which can be three different things. Just to keep the examples within the "youth" area, I would say that if a patrol member asks the SPL a question, yes, the SPL should refer the Scout to the PL. But what about an SPL who sees a patrol doing something unwise -- let's say it's not dangerous, just non-productive or something that is not going to achieve the purpose of the activity -- I don't think there's anything wrong with the SPL taking the PL aside and asking some "leadership-type questions" or making some subtle comments to try to guide the PL onto the right path. And then if the SPL sees something dangerous or abusive happening, I think he has the right -- actually the obligation -- to put a stop to it immediately, without worrying about whether the "chain of command" is right-side-up or upside-down.

[Stosh]

Stosh, what's YOUR answer to your question about the older-boy patrol that wants to go to a different summer camp? And while you are answering that hypothetical question (assuming that it's hypothetical), here are one or two more: What about adult leadership?

 

>> First of all they don't have to go at the same time, so the adults could if they had time, do both. What's wrong with a SM going and focusing on training with the NSP at a mess hall summer camp and then a few weeks later going and having a ton of fun hanging out with his older boys doing patrol method in-site cooking or some high adventure option provided by the camp? Otherwise when the SM gets to camp with both patrols he has to choose between the two and miss out on one or the other. I can see more problems trying to please everyone and no one ends up getting what they want vs. letting the patrols be more autonomous in their program selections.

 

As far as I know, every BSA summer camp requires a group of boys to have adult leadership.

 

>> Yep, that's part of the responsibility of the adults to provide it.

 

Apart from the summer camp scenario, a patrol CAN go on a camping trip without adult supervision, but only if the SM approves.

 

>> So the PL has responsibility but no authority except from the SM so then it means that we expect our scouts to be responsible without authority. In other words follow the directives of the adults. Where's the leadership in that? That's the classic example of adult-led.

 

And, back to the summer camp situation, what about cost? Do the parents get some say, if it's going to cost more and they are paying for it?

 

>> Hmmm, let see $200+ for summer camp, quite a bit less depending on travel expenses for BWCA. If the venture patrol boys sell a ton of popcorn, this argument goes out the window. Assuming of course the venture patrol boys are being responsible.

 

More generally, I think the situation is more complex than you suggest. For one thing, I think you are mixing "information flow", decision-making, and guidance, which can be three different things.

 

>> In my original post it was both problem solving and getting information. Information flow: who knows best? the PL of course. Decision-making: who knows the most about what his boys want/need to get out of scouting? Guidance: If the PL is only following the "guidance" of the SM/SPL then he isn't leading anything. If then there's a question, he's not the one to go to.

 

Just to keep the examples within the "youth" area, I would say that if a patrol member asks the SPL a question, yes, the SPL should refer the Scout to the PL. But what about an SPL who sees a patrol doing something unwise -- let's say it's not dangerous, just non-productive or something that is not going to achieve the purpose of the activity -- I don't think there's anything wrong with the SPL taking the PL aside and asking some "leadership-type questions" or making some subtle comments to try to guide the PL onto the right path.

 

>> So then the SPL has more authority than the PL. If the issue isn't dangerous, but the boys want to do it does the SPL have the authority to stop it? I have NSP patrol right now getting TLT training and the other patrol of older scouts doing a merit badge. The scouts decided what they wanted to be doing. Of course I have the authority to dictate that all the boys take TLT and merit badges have no place being held during the troop meeting, but then I'm trying to have the boys take the responsibility and they have the authority to do so.

 

And then if the SPL sees something dangerous or abusive happening, I think he has the right -- actually the obligation -- to put a stop to it immediately, without worrying about whether the "chain of command" is right-side-up or upside-down.

 

>> No problem there, anyone in the troop from the IH to the patrol member can stop a situation that is dangerous. Not a problem. As a matter of fact even parents have the authority and responsibility to step in with a dangerous or unsafe situation.

 

>> There's no problem in thinking up hundreds of different excuses for requiring responsibility and withholding authority in the troop. However, according to definition responsibility means the ability to respond (i.e. FOLLOW), and authority means the authorship, originator of ideas and the empowerment to act on those ideas, (i.e. LEAD). I know a lot of scouts that are masters at following along with what they are told to do, but I find very few of them that are capable of initiating and leading.

 

>> If the coach sends in a play to the quarterback and when they come online the QB realizes the play will run straight into the strength of the defense and he makes a decision and changes the play on the line. If the play is successful and the team wins, the coach will laud the boy as a creative and bold leader, but if the play is not, he will be chastised.

 

>> How many SM's can allow themselves the ability to give up some of their authority so the PL's can actually be empowered to lead their patrols? Once the boys see where the empowerment resides, they will quit going to those who are not the final say-so in the issue and they won't have to be told to go talk to their PL's. Until then, they will go to the SM. They aren't stupid, they know who's running the show.

 

Stosh

[Twocubdad]

Stosh wrote: "In our troop we make it clear that the PL's are the highest ranking officer in the troop...."

 

I'm not sure what that means. Do patrol leaders appoint the Scoutmaster? Can they remove him if they don't like the job he's doing? Must the SM consult the PLs before appointing ASMs? What if, Stosh, instead of wanting to go to the high adventure camp, your older patrol wants to go to a video gaming camp for a week? What if the camp is coed or open to adults or sells alcohol in the camp lounge? Or what if you are a LDS troop and your CO requires the troop to be back in the ward for Sunday services. But your patrol really wants to go to an event which extends over a Sunday morning. Does your PL's authority supercede the policy of the CO?

 

Everyone operates within both the responsibilities and authority that comes with their position. As Scoutmaster, I have certain responsibilities and authority which is granted as part of the BSA program. I have the responsibility to ensure policies outlined in the Guide to Safe Scouting are met. I have the authority to decide who in the troop may sign-off on advancement. I do not have the authority to add or delete requirements.

 

Patrol leaders operate within a similar environment. A patrol leader may have the authority to sign-off on basic requirements, however he is not authorized to sign advancement reports or Eagle applications. A patrol may be authorized to camp on their own, but the troop leadership may impose restrictions, such as requiring they camp as a BSA facility.

 

While you write of your PLs having both responsibility and authority, there is a third element -- accountability. Daddy always told me "everybody works for somebody. Even the President is answerable to the voters." You can draw your organization chart however you want, but like it or not, ultimate authority flows from both BSA and your chartered organization through the adult leadership. The adults are charged with the ultimate responsibility to see that the program and policy are followed consistent with the BSA and our COs.

 

Youth leadership is part of the game of scouting. While we may allow our patrols to play the game very broadly or more narrowly, there are limits to the game. Occasionally we have to call "out of bounds."

 

That said, it's a pretty sorry Scoutmaster who can't figure out how to keep the game going. A PL announces that his patrol has voted to spend a week this summer in Taihiti. "Great." says the Scoutmaster, "bring your travel plans to the PLC. Don't forget to include how your going to pay for it all." A quick look at airfares on the Internet nips that in the bud.

 

If a group of my Scouts want to go to another summer camp, I tell them to go for it. Come back with a plan. But there are real-world constraints including a couple levels of adult sign-offs on the plan. Logistics, cost, schedule, adequate adult leadership, safety.... Just because you label your Patrol Leaders the highest ranking officers in the troop doesn't mean they aren't accountable.