Methods of PL / SPL selection

[Beavah]

Our Troop recently did a "reboot" to mixed age Patrols. So far so good. The old SM appointed the new PL's (with an eye for temperament toward working with the personalities in question --and they look like good picks). Now they are proposing APL elections, the elected APL works for 6 months and moves up to PL and a new APL is elected. What do you think?

 

Yah, this question came up in da parent thread, and I didn't want it to hijack Twocubdad's discussion. It also might be a good question to ask everyone how they approached PL / APL or SPL/ASPL selection in their troop, depending on whether their patrols were age-based or vertical. Let's all share some thoughts on what we've seen work or not.

 

As to this question, I'm all for helpin' the kids think through things and letting 'em experiment with structure. I think yeh only have real youth leadership when da youth are allowed to decide not only what they do, but how they do it. So if this is comin' from da kids, I'd give it a whirl.

 

That having been said, I think when yeh have mixed-age patrols, there tends to be one or two obvious older-scout leaders, and in fact that's sorta da strength of the system. The older boys in the upper ranks have the skills to plan outings and to lead younger boys, and the younger boys naturally look up to 'em. And older boys respond to that, eh? They live up to it.

 

So if yeh put in place a system that forces a high rate of turnover, yeh are likely to disrupt that healthy dynamic. What you're proposing is that boys grow into leadership positions on a regular 6-month schedule, and I just don't believe that's true. Boys don't do anything on a schedule. So I prefer the lads to do somethin' that feels more natural and fits where each patrol and each boy are at. Often, too, a lad needs 6 months just to get knocked about a bit and grow into a position before he's ready to really make it hum, and lettin' him have da opportunity to make it hum seems an apt reward for the 6 months of learning.

 

Where this can make a bit more sense is in ASPL/SPL succession, and I've seen that work just fine. I think in healthy, youth-run troops the boys tend to work somethin' like that out on their own often enough, so even if yeh don't make it formal, the ASPL often is "next in line" for the SPL job. But not always, eh? Some ASPL boys tend to be good staff folks who don't really want to be line officers, and that's OK too. So I guess yeh lose that possibility in da automatic system - the possibility that a shy-but-organized lad might make a great and supportive ASPL, but not want or be da right sort of successful personality for the SPL role.

 

What other sorts of selection methods have folks tried/seen/comments about?

 

Beavah

 

[shortridge]

Six-month terms seem to be most common in units I've encountered. I'm guessing that's because it's the minimum term for PORs for Life and Eagle. I happen to think it's an awful idea, as it forces boys out right around the time they're getting their feet under them. Terms should be for a minimum of one year, IMHO.

 

I also think we get too stuck on the idea that every troop has to have an SPL. It detracts from the role the PLC is supposed to play, and makes the SPL - not the PLs - the most important job in the troop. Not all troops should have an SPL, especially young, small troops with just one or two patrols.

[eolesen]

Sorry, didn't see this thread. I just explained our way of doing it in the parent thread...

 

We do the full year as opposed to six months -- ASPL is elected, and then promoted to SPL after six months, giving them a full year to learn and grow.

 

It works for us, and has given us some fairly effective SPLs, since the ASPL sees firsthand what happens when you choose your friends to be the PLC vs. the guy willing to do the job.

[Tampa Turtle]

Beavah,

 

Thanks for thread start, I tend to spin off in many directions easily.

 

I agree one year is superior to six months. Six month is a product of the POR pressures. Shades of Vietnam --officers getting their ticket punched! Maybe we can extend it, I dunno. This change was sprung on me by the SM and CC.

 

We are trying to meet POR pressure by expanding other POR slots and making boys work them. For example, we have 2 historians and with so much going on that is working quite well. We also have multiple QMs (1 Main guy and 5 super-Patrol QMs) as we shifted to Patrol-based equipping. So those guys put in a lot of time. We have an adult assigned as a resource but it has shifted much work to the boys than adults, thank goodness.

 

We are doing mixed ages for our 5 regular Patrols (and 1 High Adventure). So far I would say 3 of 5 Patrols are doing well, 1 is struggling, and 1 needs reminding to include the young guys. I think the 15-18 year old PL leading a bunch of younger guys is, at least here, pretty idealized. The older guys are hitting high school and other activities (usually school related rather than sports and girls) do not leave them with much time. I would say the older guys only show up for 1/2 the camp-outs and meetings and that leaves quite a PL hole. So the "middle-year guys" (I'd say around Star) seem to be PL material --they have some skin in the game but have some experience. They seem to still have enough free-time to take on the responsibility. The older guys seem to be more and more Instructors, Troop Guides.

 

We elect the SPL every 6 months as well. We had one SPL for a year and he was great. Then a 6 month SPL who did not show up for 3 months. Now the SM vets the candidates and they have to have their parents approve them running for SPL because of the time commitment. We typically have 2-3 candidates.

 

The last SM made 5 ASPL slots -what a disaster! Don't get me started. SPL is late who is in charge?

 

Beavah,

 

I agree about line-officer and staff-officer. I am most comfortable being staff -I see too many shades of grey. I once was a director of a group of 14 but that was the limit of my span of control. I need a lot of relationship building. So I encourage the boys and adults to realize that there are lots of different types of boys and skill sets.

 

As to if the SPL detracts from the PLC; I have not seen it. The buck has to stop somewhere.

[Beavah]

I would say the older guys only show up for 1/2 the camp-outs and meetings and that leaves quite a PL hole.

 

Yah, I think this is typical of a troop transitioning to mixed age patrols. The older boys are stuck in the ethic that they learned as they grew up in the troop. It takes a few years and some real adult mentoring to establish a true servant-leader ethic. Having clear expectations, making PLC membership "special" and not automatic, and including APLs in da PLC so that they serve as learning co-PLs and can take over when a PL is sick or has to miss all help. Yeh can start that effort with your middle/Star boys, but it won't be complete until your first years who grew up in the system and really looked up to their older patrol leaders move into the position.

 

B

[Stosh]

I always ran the program under the direction that the patrols come up with their own leadership team (PL/APL). They could elect, appoint, railroad, or whatever they wished. The "term" was for as long as the patrol decided. Being a patrol-method troop, each patrol was autonomous and ran their own show. It was up to the PL/APL team to determine how that patrol was to fit in with the other patrols. Until the communication between PL's became difficult, there was no SPL facilitator needed. The highest ranking officer in the troop was the PL.

 

I work for a multi-billion dollar, global corporation. The emphasis that is promoted every day is the fact that the worker on the line making the product for the customer does not work for the company, the company works for the worker to insure he gets the resources to get a good quality product out to the customer.

 

In my troop, I always figured, it was the patrol members who signed on for the program and all the officers worked to provide it for them.

 

To spend a lot of time worrying about hierarchy structures of leadership, elections, performance, politics etc. doesn't do one bit of good towards providing a quality program for the boys in the trenches.

 

I never held election, but when the boys asked for advice on how to select a PL, I simply asked them, "Who do you want to be your leader?" (Notice it was not phrased, "Who wants to lead the patrol?")

 

The second thing I always followed up with with the new PL's, "Unless you are planning on being a PL for the rest of your scouting career, you had better start training your replacement."

 

After that I didn't worry about it anymore, the boys seemed to do just fine without a ton of rules and regs on how to select leadership.

 

Stosh

[Tampa Turtle]

Well we are in year 2 of the "revamp". Last years 1st years were grilled mightily about how it was THERE responsibility to keep track of advancement, get your book signed, etc. And sure enough that group does it great where the older boys are more dependent. So change does occur.

 

As we become more boy led the source of resistance seems to be some "super achiever" dads and a lot of moms who seem troubled by the chaos. This resistance extends over to critiquing the method of PL/SPL selection if it does not result in the selection of the "best", most organized boy.

[shortridge]

Color me confused, but some statements here have left me befuddled.

 

happens when you choose your friends to be the PLC

 

making PLC membership "special" and not automatic

 

Since shen does the SPL appoint the PLC? It's the Patrol Leaders' Council, which means the PLs, the SPL, and perhaps the troop guide. It's not the Troop Leaders' Council - it doesn't automatically include the quartermaster, historian, scribe, webmaster, etc.

[ADCinNC]

"The members of each patrol elect one of their own to serve as patrol leader. The troop determines the requirements for patrol leaders, such as rank and age. To give more youths the opportunity to lead, most troops elect patrol leaders twice a year. Some may have elections more often."

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/PatrolLeader/s1.aspx

 

APL Should not be elected, but appointed by PL.

 

Journey to Excellence FAQ's

In requirement No. 4 on the troop scorecard, what is meant by youth officer elections?

Every troop should hold elections for the position of patrol leader and up to senior patrol leader so that the troop is truly run by the boys.

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/mission/JTE_FAQs-Unit.pdf

 

 

 

[Tampa Turtle]

Ah but they do elect their PL their future PL by electing their APL.

 

I am all for sticking to "the method" but if BSA is advocating MORE frequent elections than I think that is just ill advised.

 

Also some SM put up the slate of SPL candidates and the boys elect them. Is that really more democratic?

[ADCinNC]

"Ah but they do elect their future PL by electing their APL."

 

No, not really.

 

From the Scoutmaster handbook:

 

"Each patrol leader appoints an assistant patrol leader to serve with him"

 

Becoming an APL should not be a guarantee to be a PL, just like being an ASPL is no guarantee of becomimg SPL.

 

 

[qwazse]

Ah, but TT made a practical tweak. And using the EDGE method, enabled his boys to follow it. Since that method doesn't require reading any reference, in a couple years the boys may never know their doing things differently!

 

Regardless, you get the "super achiever" parents. Even doing it "by the book", I still hear a little of "so-and-so" needs to be APL/PL/ASPL/whatever. I'm not sure there is any good solution but to hold the boys to their decisions and work with them to smooth out the rough spots.

 

Listen at the SM conferences for the upper ranks. Ask about the quality of your election process. If a boy suggests trying something different, you may want to give it a go.

[Stosh]

WHAT???? Have the boys make suggestions and run the show!? Bite your tongue!

 

Stosh