Directive Style Of Leadership??

[evmori]

Amazing!

 

"Time to get up"

 

Direction from PL to his tent mate.

 

"You cook breakfast I'll do the dishes"

 

Direction for a PL to another member of his patrol. The Scout on cleanup was sick & still in bed.

 

"Ok everyone, time to eat. Get you cups & have a seat!"

 

You assumed (and we all know what this causes) I said this. Wrong again, Bob. The SPL said it. All the scouts were sitting around the campfire.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Eagle74]

Situational Leadership - Four Examples, the first of which is Directive:

 

"Follower" - First year Scout, very new, no previous Scouting experience.

Task - Build a (lashed) Towel Rack

 

Task Knowledge - Low, has never seen one before, has never built one before, has never seen anyone else build one.

 

Transferable Skills - Low, can do square knot and tautline hitch, but hasn't yet learned clove hitch or lashings.

 

Motivation Level - High, wants to do it, willing to learn anything.

 

Confidence - High, "I can do this".

 

Developmental Level of Scout (based on evaluation of the four criteria above) - Developmental level at 1 or low 2 on a scale of 1 to 4.

 

Appropriate Leadership Style (based on developmental level of Scout and criteria above) - Directing

 

Directing Style of Leadership

High in Directive Leadership (task-based leadership) "First we need three sticks about this long. We lay the sticks out like this. At the two spots where the sticks intersect, we start with a clove hitch; and the lashing is done like this. Now that the lashings are done we simply stick it in the ground and Behold! A towel rack. Good Job! you really learned that quickly. "

Low in Supportive Behavior - The Scout is already motiviated and confident. We still support, but the concentration on supporting need not be as focused as if the scout is either not at all motivated or not confident is ability to complete the task.

 

#2

Now, since the Scout knows how to build a towel rack, "We need one at each of three wash stations. How about it?"

 

Task Knowledge - High

Transferable Skills - High

Motivation - High

Confidence - High

Developmental Level - high 3 or 4

Appropriate Leadership Style - Delegating (Low Directive, Low Supportive)

 

#3

The Scout has been instructed on how to build a towel rack. "We need one at each of three wash stations. How about it?" "Mr. Patrol Leader, I don't understand the clove hitch and lashings. And besides, I just did one, why can't somebody else do the rest of them, I want to go fishing."

 

Task Knowledge - High

Transferable Skills - Low (still not does not have the skill set)

Motivation - Low

Confidence - Low

Developmental Level - 3

Appropriate Leadership Style - Coaching (high directive and high supportive)

 

#4

#3

The Scout knows knots and lashings, has seen a towel rack before. "We need one at each of three wash stations. How about it?" "Mr. Patrol Leader, why can't somebody else do the rest of them, I want to go fishing." "Our campsite inspection is in 30 minutes and nobody else is available right now to do it; they're all busy doing other things."

 

Task Knowledge - High

Transferable Skills - High

Motivation - Low

Confidence - High

Developmental Level - high 3, maybe low 4

Appropriate Leadership Style - Supporting (low direction, high support. (motivating))

 

Task Knowledge - High

Transferable Skills - Low (still not does not have the skill set)

Motivation - Low

Confidence - Low

Developmental Level - 3

Appropriate Leadership Style - Coaching (high directive and high supportive)

 

I think part of the stigma here about "Directive" style, is what it is being called. "Directive" implies "an order". More correctly it is called the "Directing" style of leadership, with the implication being task-level instructional is needed. The directing style is most properly used when both the task knowledge is low and transferable skills are low.

[Eagle74]

Sorry, I have no idea what happened to the description of #4 in my post above - maybe a directing or coaching style of leadership from someone would be appropriate! Here is what it was supposed to be:

 

#4

The Scout knows knots and lashings, has built a towel rack before and is good at pioneering. "We need one at each of three wash stations. How about it?" "Mr. Patrol Leader, have somebody else do them, I want to go fishing." "Our campsite inspection is in 30 minutes and nobody else is available right now to do it; they're all busy doing other things. Can you help me out?" "Only if I have to, I've been busy all day, I want to go fishing."

 

Task Knowledge - High

Transferable Skills - High

Motivation - Low

Confidence - High

Developmental Level - high 3, maybe low 4

Appropriate Leadership Style - Supporting (low direction, high support(motivating))

[Twocubdad]

Hi guys, I joining this thread late, so do you mind if I review where we are?

 

Original question/hypothesis: check

Round of ration/logical discussion: check

Diversion onto secondary topic: check

Hair-splitting debate over the proper meaning of a common word: check

Diversion into yet another secondary topic: check

Sarcastic replies: check

Offense taken at sarcastic replies: check

Sarcasm degenerate into personal attacks: check

Personal attack responded to in-kind: check

Short return to rational debate: ??

Primary participants get disgusted/bored and stop repsonding: ??

Thread finally runs it's course: ??

 

Since we seem to have the sarcasm and personal attacks out of the way, let me make a few observations. And I want to preface this with by saying that I'm not familiar with the BSA/One Minute Manager program, although I have had a number of other leadership courses over the years.

 

First, you guys need to re-read DSteele's posts. He's making sense. All the courses I've had emphasize that every approach is "correct" in it's proper place.

 

Second, I don't hear much about teaching. Except for Eagle74's #1 scenario in his last post, all of this is way too reliant on a sink-or-swim approach to teaching. You assume that the boys have the skills to develop a WORKABLE schedule and then stick to it. It also assumes that a negative outcome will result in positive changes the next time out. That will happen only if the boys are taught the proper skills to make positive changes.

 

An element of that is what happen to the junior members of the patrol while the the PL and SPL are learning to lead? How many activities do they miss and how many ruined meals to they eat before their leaders get their acts together? How many miserable campouts do they endure before they decide Scouting is for the birds?

 

The third aspect has to do with enforcement and compliance. All your scenarios end with the Scout seeing the error of his ways and walking the straight and narrow. "Gee, Mr. Cleaver, the other guys were sure sore at me for missing the hike. Next time I'll bring an alarm clock!" It doesn't account for the rebelliousness and general orneriness of your average 14-year-old male. Maybe the two breakfast cooks have decided their late-night game of Magic was a fair trade for missing the morning hike. Or maybe they think bucking the system is just cool. Who ultimately enforces the agenda and duty roster?

 

 

[dsteele]

Eagle74 and Twocubdad -- thank you for pointing out what needs to be pointed out.

 

to all: Let's not get stuck in the thought that styles of leadership are personal styles. All four are commonly used and should be adapted to the need of the group and the follower.

 

To use my own personal example when I came here as Assistant Scout Executive:

 

I had run 4 membership campaigns successfully as a Field Director. Membership to me was second nature. All I needed from my Scout Executive was to know the idiosyncracies of the new council. Then get out of the way, Sir, and give me the funds to do what I need to do. (Delegating)

 

I had several years of camp experience, but had no desire to direct Day Camp or spend much time at Scout Summer Camp promotions, but it was part of my job. (Scout executive, you'd better coach/motivate.)

 

I had a pretty good idea how to run an FOS campaign from the council level, but hadn't really done it. Part of my new job. (Scout Executive had better offer suggestions, give ideas, and guide me a bit more.)

 

I had absolutely no clue how to run a popcorn and/or council wreath sale. I'd seen it done, but wasn't the guy ordering product, ordering extras, guessing how much we'd make, how much we'd spend, etc. (Scout Executive needs to direct on that one or we'll all fail.)

 

I got the leadership I needed and we all had a pretty good year.

 

In the above situations, as long as the needs of the follower are met by the leadership style of the leader, all are good. It's when we get a mis-match that we get into trouble.

 

To further illustrate at the troop level and address a couple of very legitimate points (although there are subtle shifts at the youth level) it is the Scoutmaster's job to apply the leadership skills to meet the Senior Patrol Leader's needs. It is the SPL's job to meet the needs of the patrol leaders.

 

Not that that is easy . . . but it's the job.

 

DS

[Bob White]

Twocubdad, We original four posters and others all agree that each style has a purpose and a place. One poster has tried to insuate that we see three styles as good and one as bad. That is just his misunderstanding, not what the BSA teaches or what any of us said.

 

#2 All four are about teaching, certainly "coaching" is the most obvious, but all four styles can be used in developing skills, knowledge, and values, which is what we are here to teach.

 

#3 If you lead properly, enforcemnet and compliance is voluntary and self-imposed. The four styles of leadership focus on how to select the right style for the specific person and task so that cooperation results. Punishment, negative reinforcement, forced compliance is not a element of leadership, in scouting or out of scouting.

 

Bob White

[evmori]

I am probably the one who got this topic off track. I apologize. From what I read, it seemed that some posters were stating that the directing style was a neagative style that should only be used as either a last resort or when someone was in danger. Other posters understood this the same way. My only intent was to give examples of when the directing style can be positive and productive. If I digressed, for that I am sorry.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[fotoscout]

Hi guys!

 

Here is (are?) my 2 cents. The hypothetical situations threw this thread off base. Each time I went back to see what was happening, the situation changed. YOU CANNOT TALK ABOUT LEADERSHIP STYLES OR APPROACHES, IF YOU CONTINUE TO CHANGE THE SAMPLE TASK!!

 

So, pick a task and stay with it. For example, one of the earlier tasks was to set up the tents before 5:00, the SPL needed to have the PL do the job. What style(s) should the SPL use get this done?

 

It started out just fine, we had arrived at camp and the troop was setting up, then we needed to deal with the PL who was not getting his patrol setup. FROM THIS SITUATION YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD AND DICUSS VARIOUS LEADERSHIP STYLES.

 

HOWEVER, you went back and introduced the weekly troop meeting, preplanning activities, and other events that proceeded the moment in time when the SPL realized that he had to take some action. You changed the situation and created a free-for-all. You are trying to hit a moving target, and for instructional purposes this just doesnt work.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

 

 

[mk9750]

TwoCub,

 

What a terrific timeline explaination for most of these threads! It is so accurate, I disturbed someone else laughing while I read it!

 

If I can try to rephrase Eagle74's post so that my pea brain can understand it:

 

The style of leadership imployed depends on the circumstance. If the person to be lead has no need to be taught, coached or convinced that the leader should be the leader, or that that task must be done, directing can be an expediant way of accomplishing the task.

 

If the person to be led doesn't know how to complete a task, doesn't want to do it, doesn't understand the reson behind it, or doesn't accept the authority (I'd like to have used a different word here), then one of the other styles of leadership is better. In any of these cases, Directing may still be the expediant way to accomplish the task, but there is no value other than task completion.

 

If I have this right, I agree 1000%.

 

Mark

[Eagle74]

In a nutshell that's pretty much it.

 

Just realize that the goal (usually) of directing is to move the learner (or subordinate) to the next level of development which allows the leader to move on to a higher - less directly engaged and usually more efficient - level of leadership. Unfortunately, some followers/learners never move forward in their developmental level - they always need to approached with a directing style of leadership. And conversely, some leaders never move out of the directing style - they are often called micromanagers.

 

Also, the style of leadership usually needs to change as a leader "moves up" the leadership position ladder. His mentors will initially deal with the NS Patrol Leader at a directing level. As the Patrol Leader comes to understand his leadership role and is trained to understand expectations, his mentors change their leadership style.

 

The New Scout Patrol Leader is typically dealing with Scouts at a low development task level. As the New Scouts learn the tasks/learn the system, the Patrol Leader switches tracks to a coaching or supportive style. This is why junior leader training, early on, is crucial.

 

As the Patrol Leader moves on to ASPL or SPL, he would hope to be leading in a supporting or delegating style because his Patrol Leaders are functioning at a higher developmental level.

 

Adjustment of leadership styles sometimes occur over time, but sometimes need to occur in an instant. In my example above, the mentor appropriately changed from directing style to delegating style within the course of say 30 minutes (example 1 to example 2). Leadership style needs to be fluid - constantly adjusting to the circumstances and the developmental level of the follower.

 

The importance of matching leadership style not just to the circumstance, but also to the developmental level of the learner cannot be overemphasized. Think about the last time someone read a PowerPoint presentation to you word for word, covering a topic that the audience already has extensive knowledge of. This is an example of using a directing style of leadership (teacher (leader) vs student (follower)) in an inappropriate manner. Both sides suffer - the teacher looses control or interest of the students, and the students pay no attention to the teacher. And ultimately the goals are not met.

[Eagle74]

My apologies mk9750. I just had time to reread your post thoroughly. It would actually be just the opposite.

 

"If the person to be lead has no need to be taught, coached or convinced that the leader should be the leader, or that that task must be done, directing can be an expediant way of accomplishing the task." This would indicate any of the styles other than directing. The simple way to think of it is that directing is a task-level, hands-on, instructional approach. In your example, you would take a "here's the goal/objective, make it so, let me know how it goes" approach.

 

"If the person to be led doesn't know how to complete a task, doesn't want to do it, doesn't understand the reson behind it, or doesn't accept the authority (I'd like to have used a different word here), then one of the other styles of leadership is better. In any of these cases, Directing may still be the expediant way to accomplish the task, but there is no value other than task completion."

In this case directing or supporting would be best. Remembering that directing is usually task-level, if they don't have the knowledge or skills, directing is the best and most expedient approach. If they have the knowledge and skills, but not the motivation, supporting (motivation) is the better approach.

 

I hope this clarifies rather than adds confusion. Take a look at the following link and it may be more clear. It has a short, but pretty good description of Situational Leadership.

 

http://www.peak.ca/articles/situational.html

(This message has been edited by Eagle74)