You Can't Fool All The People All The Time.

[Eamonn]

I really would like to give the rules, regulations, by-laws, uniforms and socks a little rest.

While all the above are important, in the thread that I spun off from, the conversation got around to good leaders.

While it can be said and I would say it that all the stuff in BSA publications does and should come into play. I feel that just having all this knowledge doesn't necessarily make someone a good leader. I have known some very shall we say "Book-smart" Scouter's who were dreadful leaders. I have known people who were skilled at outdoorsmanship (I don't think that is a word!!) and Scoutcraft who still weren't good Boy Scout Leaders. In fact I'm unsure if they would be good leaders at anything.

I really think a good leader has to care about the people he is leading. Even if at times this leadership means that he does have to say no.

I honestly believe that our Scouts have a sixth sense and can sniff out a person who really cares.

I have met the guys who are full of hot air and full of themselves, I have met the leaders who promise the world and then don't deliver and while these guys might ride high in the popularity ranking for a while, in time our Scouts see them for what they are.

I feel much better about allowing my kid to go away with a caring leader any day of the week over the flavor of the month.

Eamonn.

[Bob White]

I do not disagree in the least Eamonn. An excellent point. I would add though that a convincing aurgument could be made that a truly caring leader would do their best to deliver a real scouting program in order that they might give the scouts the best possible scouting experience they could. That is why I think the selection of the Scoutymaster should not be taken lightly by those who are charged with that duty.

 

BW

[madkins007]

I agree. I also think that this is a great example of why a unit needs a good network of leaders. If your 'perfect' CM/SM has weaknesses, ideally an assistant or committee member is available ot support it.

 

It would be nearly impossible to find a person who is good with the Scouts, knowledgeable in all things outdoors, fantastic at planning, tops in recruiting (youth and adults), on top of the paperwork, etc., etc., etc. On the other hand, pretty much each of these elements is a duty shared by someone else in a well-structured unit.

 

In some ways, the CM/SM job is almost a puppet dictatorship with much of the work being done by others behind the scenes to make the leader and the entire unit look good.

[Bob White]

In the best troops I have seen it's the scouts who look good, and the SM is standing so far back observing that most don't even see him at all.

[evmori]

Excellent post Eamonn! I completely agree. We (adults) are here for the kids not ourselves.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[johndaigler]

Following Madkins "team" approach a bit further . . .

 

In the few Units I've observed, I see an emphasis on the present; an applaudeable effort to do the right thing the best way we know how - today. To be specific, we start thinking about who would make good leaders on the day we find out we're losing one of our leaders.

 

This is an OK approach, particularly if you've got good leaders today. However, IMHO, Units would be well served to focus equally hard on the long term.

 

If we can see ourselves not just as leaders for today but as Stewards for tomorrow's Scouts and Program, we can act in the long term interest of the Unit, the Program and the Scouts who will be here 10 years from now. Th vital importance of training, consistent structure (and rules), and Madkins' Assistants becomes obvious. If every major Adult Leadership role is supported by an "assistant" - someone learning the ropes, and ready to step in when the present leader steps away - the Unit is better prepared for the future. They're less likely to suffer the travails of poor leadership, empty leader roles, inconsistent decision-making, and reinventing wheels. This also creates opportunities for additional parents to be involved on a more organizational level without feeling like they've been thrown (however politely) into the deep end of the pool.

 

I agree that the "caring" adult is the one I want to be around my sons, so hopefully all the people we recruit fit that description to a great extent. But for the long-term benefit of the organization, I'd welcome the others, as well. Give me a book-smart rule book reader; a rough around the edges, non-pc, outdoorsman; and even a person who disagrees with me all the time. They're not necessarily the ones I want spending the most time with my sons, but for the long-term good, I'll take and use their skills to help round out the holes in the "caring" adults resumes.

 

When the organization focuses on it's long-term health, the value of good leaders is enhanced and the negative impact of "less good" leaders is minimized. Specifically, the boys themselves will learn to gravitate to the right adult at the right time for the right benefit. We just give the boys better, more consistent, more varied, choices; and we give the Unit a strong future will fewer hills and valleys - giving everyone more time to help the boys hike, grow and live through their hills and valleys.

 

jd

[packsaddle]

I am reminded of the poem:

 

SUCCESS

 

To laugh often and much

to win the respect of intelligent people and affection of children;

to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others;

to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or redeemed social condition;

to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived.

This is to have succeeded.

 

Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Eamonn]

Hi,JD

A little time back I posted how we need to look upon what we do as stewardship, in that thread I was mainly going on about Packs.

This year we had one troop that didn't recharter. It died a slow painful death.

The Scoutmaster at one time was about the best at providing a great program for the Scouts. They without a doubt were the most active, best uniformed and had a Troop pride that was second to none. The church that chartered them was happy the Troop mowed the grass around the church and took care of the cemetery.

The SM was also the Cubmaster and his ASM's and Troop Committee were hand picked by him. About ten years back he gave notice that in two years he was done. No one thought he would go, he had been so active and done so much. But he went.

The District really went above and beyond to try and save first the Pack and then the Troop.(This was the Troop in which our DE's son had become an Eagle Scout) The church had a change of preacher twice, each new one seemed less interested in Scouting than the one before. The Committee, there was only one for the pack and the Troop comprised of parents who no longer had sons in the Troop, most had aged out and this band were the group that the SM liked.

When I met with them, which I did a lot everyone sat around telling me how great things once were and it seemed they were hoping that one day the SM would return. Of course he never did.

Last year a chap who had been an ASM did return and started a Venture Crew. But at this time there is little or no hope about restarting the Pack Or the Troop.

I thought it was strange before they closed their doors for good they invited a number of Eagle Scouts back, the old SM didn't attend.

The newspaper reported that the Troop closed due to not having a feeder pack and that kids are not interested in Cub Scouting any more!! The pack half a mile down the road has over 90 Cub Scouts!!

I really liked and still like the old SM. I can't help thinking what his legacy will be?

Sure to a lot of people he will be the greatest Scoutmaster ever, but to a lot of people he will go down as the guy who left 111 in the lurch.

Eamonn.

[Eagledad]

>>Sure to a lot of people he will be the greatest Scoutmaster ever, but to a lot of people he will go down as the guy who left 111 in the lurch.

[SeattlePioneer]

Wow, Eamonn, that story of the Death Of A Scouting Program is a real downer, and too common.

 

 

While the Scoutmaster seemed to have everything arranged to his taste, it seems that the Troop Commmittee Chair failed to provide the leadership necessary to bring the Troop into a new generation of leadership. This is 'way too common.

 

Last fall, the DE asked me to work with just such a unit. The Cub Master had done "everything" which meant that few other people had done much of anything.

 

We managed to continue an excellent program and recruit some fine new leaders. This weekend at the Cub Pack Overnight, we have an hour of Scout training layed on for parents, followed by some intensive efforts to recruit new adult leaders to carry out the Pack program.

 

If it works the way I imagine it will, we will have rebuilt the Pack program on a solid and broadly based foundation of leaders.

 

This leads me to suppose that units MUST expect most parents to take leadership responsibilities in their unit. They must do something and be ready to do what they are asked to do by unit leaders. If that isn't the way things work, you are setting yourself up for failure as the leadership group becomes smaller and smaller and finally collapses.

 

It may be that unit leaders will decide to give a few families a pass on leadership obligations when there is a reason to do so. But that shouldn't extend to more than a handful.

 

Now here's a question: if you agree with that expectation, what means would you use to enforce it? Would you be willing to tell a family that begs off from contributing that they will either help or be dropped from the unit?

 

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[CNYScouter]

Excellent topic - excellent posts

 

A good book about leadership is:

The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership by John Maxwell

 

In this book he talks about how good leaders care for the people they work with and that a good leader should be grooming replacements even for themselves.

 

I would like to add a couple of more types of leaders I have seen - leaders who are leaders because no one else would and they got stuck doing it and the guys who what to be known as a Scouter but do not what to put any effort in.

 

Most leaders I have run into do not want to put any effort into putting together a good program. They dont want to take the time to do planning, everything is just done on the fly nor do they want to take the effort to be trained to learn how to present the program.

When I saw the suggestion to tell leaders one of the reason to take training was that by taking training it will cut down on the time spent planning things, I had to laugh because the leaders I knew where not spending any time planning things.

 

I see too many times, where we are just taking the easy way out. Just last month our Troop Treasurer, after being MIA for 6 or 7 months, let the committee know that she could no longer do the job due to her work schedule. The first person who volunteered to take the position, already an ASM, was given the job. Being new to the Troop I did not know many of the parent and what they did but have since found out that we have a couple of parents who are CPAs. No one on the committee knew what these people did as nobody had put in the effort in do a parent skill survey. (I think I will do something along this line for one of my Wood Badge tickets).

 

After spending some time on this forum, I learned that we should have taken the time to figure out if we had some one qualified for the position and approached them first before taking the first raised hand.

 

OK, Im done preaching to the Choir and Ill get down now and let someone else step up.

 

CNYScouter

[Student]

A comment and a question...

 

Clearly there is a need for sustained adult leadership development--equivalent to the succession plans used in businesses. Perhaps troop committees should be looking a bit farther into the future, identifying and then training future adult leaders, who can then "hit the ground running" when a vacancy appears. It seems time and a bit of the program is lost if each new leader (however talented) has to come up to speed after they are in office. This would also prevent any incorrect practices getting started by untrained volunteers.

 

Our troop has some adult volunteers of a different type than those mentioned in earlier postings. These are adults who want to be Scouts themselves. These adults cannot leave the Scouts to conduct the program, but are frequently jumping in to practice the skills, play the games, and do their sons' service projects. Unfortunately, this includes our committee chair. Your recommendations?

 

Student

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello, Student,

 

 

Having adult Boy Scouts is a common enough problem. Your first line of defense is a Scoutmaster who will keep the adults out of the hair of the Scouts.

 

But other leaders, such as Troop Committee members, can work to minimize this problem. One way might be to encourage the adult Scouters to form their own patrol, their own campsite, cook their own meals and have their own activities. Volunteering the adult patrol for a good trail maintenance project on the afternoon of a camping trip ought to leave them with less energy to interfere with the Scouts.

 

And adults need organization to go on camping trips, too, so it's a legitimate function. The adult patrol can have its own signups, menues, rosters and so on, as well as being developing it's own projects.

 

Your comments on the need for adult leaders to be constantly developing new leaders and leadership in depth are very well taken. That's what the Chartered Organization Rep and Troop Committee Chair ought to be doing (perhaps you can get him to work on this instead of playing Boy Scout?).

 

Unfortunately, it's all too human to worry about the problems that confront you today and ignore the ones that will be crippling you six months or a year from now.

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

 

 

 

[Student]

Seattle Pioneer, the adult patrol is an excellent suggestion. I can see it being particularly effective on camping trips. There is a fringe benefit in that the parents will not be embarrassed in front of their sons by any lack of skill. We'll give it a try.

 

Student

[Eamonn]

I think I might be guilty of splitting hairs. But I don't see adults as Patrol members.

I admit that when I was a SM, we never had and never went out of our way to encourage non-scouter participation at camps. We did have a couple of weekends where parents were invited to join in a program that was specifically designed around them being there and participating.

We might have also been guilty of over planning or over programing what we were trying to do. The idea being that if everyone knew what they were doing the better chance that it might get done.

First and foremost the reason for going to camp was delivery of the program to the Scouts.

While all the adults were expected to lead by example in things like neatness, keeping the site clean and behaviour. We were not there for the same reason as the Scouts were there.

Most times when we went away we took 4-6 leaders. I seen them and myself as the Leadership Team. We had Fred, who loved to cook. He was a very gifted and knowledgeable person. Who in his own way did like the Scouts, but he didn't have the patience needed to work with young Scouts, at least not in small groups. Fred couldn't understand why if he demonstrated a Lad how to tie a knot two or three times, why the Lad didn't get it!

Fred cooked for the leaders. This gave the leaders more time to work for the Scouts. Of course being that he wasn't doing much else when we broke for lunch or dinner the Scouts were starting from scratch and the leaders meal was ready. While the Scouts were cooking and eating, the leadership team would be busy preparing for the next activity.

There were of course times when some or all of the leadership team had nothing to do. Some of this time was used for just doing nothing or doing things like reading a book. Most times this time was spent thinking up some new or enhanced activity for the Scouts. I spent many happy hours making flour bombs and water balloons. Or setting out an orienteering course.

There were times when the Scouts were busy doing a pioneering project that we would just play with new ideas for the next pioneering project. The end result was at times some type of gateway, swing or tower.

Sometimes some of the leaders would go and hike the hike that had been planned before hand using a map, just to make sure it worked and ensure that there were no safety hazards.

In many ways we were very fortunate that we had a leadership team that consisted of leaders who were very experienced and for the most part knowledgeable scouter's. The least experienced member of the team was Pete our QM. I at times was a little unsure what he thought the most of the Scouts or the equipment? But even Pete was in his glory explaining the care and maintenance of a backpacking stove to a group of Scouts or how he expected tools to be returned.

There were times when we met for our Sunday after church before lunch drink that I would explain what had came out of the PLC the day before and I had to sell them on some of the ideas of what the PL's had come up with and there were times when they moaned and groaned and said that I was nuts and it wouldn't work, there were times when they were right!! It didn't work, but I think they knew why we had to try. The reason being that they cared for the Troop and the Scouts that were the Troop.

Eamonn.