Some Common Traits of Successful Troops

[Hunt]

I, too, think that you need to think a while about what you mean by "success" before you make your list. I think Bob White truly believed that a troop that did everything by the book would grow and prosper, but he also believed that a troop that didn't do so couldn't grow and prosper, which I think is where Beavah's list comes in. I think a troop can be very successful in terms of growth and retention, but not very successful in terms of help boys develop good character and leadership. The following is my suggestion for a list of traits that you can observe upon a first visit that are likely to indicate a troop that would be successful in helping a boy grow in this way:

 

1. There are boys of various ages in the troop.

2. The boys of different ages appear to enjoy being together.

3. The boys seem to be in charge, and the adults are in the background.

4. The boys--not just the adults--welcome and include visiting boys.

5. The boys tell the visiting boys about all the cools stuff they do and try to convince them to join.

[DanKroh]

Brent, just as an aside, since your comment caught my attention:

 

"Regarding trained leaders, who here would send their kids to a school with untrained teachers?"

 

Actually, lots of people do. It's usually called homeschooling.

[BrentAllen]

"Regarding trained leaders, who here would send their kids to a school with untrained teachers?"

 

Dan,

In that case, they wouldn't actually be "sending" their kids anywhere, would they?

[Hunt]

"Regarding trained leaders, who here would send their kids to a school with untrained teachers?"

 

Maybe not a school, but plenty of people would send their children to extracurricular activities with untrained (or minimally trained) leaders. A prime example is a rec sports team, where the coach is a parent. It seems to me that a troop is somewhere between a school and a rec sports team--and different troops are at different places on that continuum.

[OldGreyEagle]

This may have to do with geography, but with all the Rec League sports that my son was involved with, all the coaches had to attend a "coaches seminar" before they could coach. In soccer the rules and strategy were emphasized, in baseball, having all the kids play was the biggest issue but overall if you didnt attend, you were not the coach and oddly enough, every coach attended. Now, your experinces may be different

[Hunt]

I have received a message asking me to edit the following statement I made in a prior post: "I think Bob White truly believed that a troop that did everything by the book would grow and prosper, but he also believed that a troop that didn't do so couldn't grow and prosper, which I think is where Beavah's list comes in." While I think this is a pretty fair reading of what his posts typically intimated, perhaps it presumes to read his mind too much, and should say something more like, "I think Bob White truly believed that a troop that carefully and faithfully followed teh prescribed BSA program would grow and prosper, but his criticism of those who deviated from BSA's rules and program suggest that he also believed that a troop that deviated couldn't grow and prosper, which I think is where Beavah's list comes in.

[Eagledad]

>>I have received a message asking me to edit the following statement I made in a prior post:

[Its Me]

He is a lurker.

 

 

 

 

 

watching your every move.(This message has been edited by Its Me)

[BrotherhoodWWW]

I think the Bob White list is a good one and most of the time Troops with those attributes will be sucessful on paper and perhaps even have high advancement numbers. That said there are plenty of other benchmarks one could use to guage success as others have posted. IMHO success should be defined so that boys grow into men of high morals and good leadership skills. Success also means older boys stay in the program or an offshoot, aka Venturing, but enough older boys stay involved to lead and teach the younger scouts how to not only be proficient in scoutcraft skills but also learn to be leaders. Adults are in the program to support the boys and catch them when they fall, offer advice, encouragement, and direction. Many times IMNSHO adults do far too much in Scouts. "Never do for a boy what he can do for himself" should be the adults motto.

 

My only run-in with Bob White was distasteful but thats not to say that nothing of what he has written has merit; some does. Even though some have found his posts annoying, for lack of a better word, I think he should consider adding to the online discussion.

[dScouter15]

I would agree with the comments calling Bob White's list condescending and unrealistic. Personally, I don't miss Bob's contributions to this forum, as it seems that, when confronted with friendly conversation, Bob would jump in and start splitting hairs, make harsh, condescending posts, and repeat the same mantra about following the BSA program word-for-word. The reason I've lurked so long without posting was fear of getting put down for asking a question that Bob felt should have been covered in a training course that I may or may not have taken. Granted, Bob is definitely a very knowledgeable Scouter, and I'm sure that he's a great asset to the units, districts and councils he has served.

 

I think the biggest problem with this list is that it does not give any kind of metric for defining what success actually is. For instance, did Bob compile this list by observing several troops that were successful, and noting that they shared many of these characteristics? Or, is he defining a successful troop as one that follows these rules? In the first case, there may be some validity to this list, but I really doubt Bob actually did an objective study to get those kind of results. The second case is a circular argument. It seems much more likely that Bob made a list of rules, and defines a successful troop as one which follows them. Thus, they are not "traits" of a successful troop, but rather components of his definition of "success."

 

So, for my definition of success: A successful troop operates a fun, safe program that is tailored to the needs and interests of their scouts. The operate using the aims and methods of Scouting as guidelines. The scouts are having fun, and enjoy attending meetings and activities. The adult leaders care for the scouts, and there is mutual respect between Scout and Scouter. The scouts are given a safe, fun and education environment to grow and develop ethics, outdoor skills, leadership skills, and friendship.

 

So, what how does a troop facilitate this? In my opinion, what differentiates a successful troop from an unsuccessful is the overall process the troop continually goes through. It can be measured in short, objective criteria such as "They use the patrol method for everything." Rather, a successful troop strives to use the patrol method as much as possible, and continually works to strengthen each patrol. A successful troop is not necessarily 100% uniformed 100% of the time, but continually works with each scout to encourage proper uniforming. A successful troop doesn't have each scout reach 1st class within one year, but continually strives to provide advancement opportunities specific to the needs of each scout. A successful troop continually works to recruit new scouts and strong leaders, etc.

 

So, as some have pointed out, this kind of metric is not some kind of Bob White-esque checklist that you can run down in a few minutes, but what's the point of that? It seems Bob would like to separate troops into "By The Book" and "Not By The Book," and this check list is the best way to do it. However, if we're looking at identifying and creating successful troops, we need to recognize that the process is everything. Its not just something that you decide to do one day... If you want a successful troop, its a continuous effort to always improve, not just to meet a couple guidelines.

 

Standing by for the rebuttal... :-)(This message has been edited by dScouter15)

[Beavah]

Yah dluders, glad yeh stopped lurkin'. Nothing but agreement and applause here. Great post.

 

I was kinda intrigued by this comment:

 

Bob White's list is one you can use to walk in on a couple of Troop meetings and see whether those traits are present. Beavah's would be nearly impossible to figure out.

 

So I was noodlin' about that and dluder's comments about a list with some validity. Here's just a few ideas:

 

1) When dealin' with youthful (mis)behaviors, the adult(s) almost always Praise in Public and Reprimand in Private. Rambunctious lads get a gentle word, a look, a bit of time chattin in a corner. Not much yellin' goin' on. No Scoutmaster's Minutes that are really lectures on behavior.

 

2) There is some tangible sense of purpose and a hint of an underlying plan, but it aint scripted. Theres also a lot of serendipity and structured chaos. Its active and a bit messy.

 

3) With minimal prompting, da Scoutmaster will expound on all the things they do for junior leader training, on a regular and ongoing basis, and how it fits in with and drives the program.

 

4) You observe older scouts step in and correct/help/cheer up younger scouts, without any adult tellin em to, pretty frequently.

 

5) There is lots of program, achievement, recognition and praise happening that has absolutely nothing to do with advancement.

 

6) There is excitement and a sense of freshness in both the boys and adults. Both talk about some new thing theyre trying; some new trip they just did. Theyre reinventing and improvin what they do on an ongoing basis.

 

7) If yeh ask a boy above 2nd Class how to do CPR, he can tell you without lookin it up.

 

8) Its impossible to tell which kid is the Scoutmasters son (or any ASMs son) because theyre all treated the same.

 

9) The boys seem to genuinely like and want to be around the scouters. They seek out the SM to tell him/her about something they did that week just because they want to share.

 

10) The adult leaders get together in a regular, informal way to talk about scouting. Standing "coffee" appointment after the meeting, regular once a month diner breakfast, whatever.

 

 

I'll think about it some more, eh? I'm sure I'm missin' a bunch of things. Anybody else want to join in?

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle]

you know, for a guy who hasnt posted here since 9/28/2005 he certainly egenders a lot of emotion yet.

 

Obviously he has moved on, should we not do the same?

[Eagledad]

Not meaning any offense OGE, but I kind of feel like your statement is the most emotional of all the post. While there may have been a couple opinions given of BW, they were usually followed by logical comparisons between two different list, not two different people. In fact the whole discussion has pretty much been a positive discussion on elements of a successful troop. I dont think the discussion would have changed much if Kudu had created the list instead of BW. OK, bad example. Lets say if I had created the list. I think we've had a good discussion thought might encourage some to understand the elements of a successful program. If it would make you feel better, I guess we could rename Bob Whites list to Brand X.

 

Barry

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Perhaps I was emotional, the guy hasnt posted in nearly 2 years and his name is bantered about like he posted 15 minutes ago. I apologize

[Eagledad]

Gonzo posted the list to provoke a positive discussion for traits of a successful troop program. He didnt know BW or his reputation. Im am sure BW feels honored to have something he created so long ago used to motivate a discussion. I think most of us would like to be remembered the same way long after we are gone. No doubt BW has been smiling through the whole discussion.

 

Barry