TIME BETWEEN RANKS

[OldGreyEagle]

Good example of Directing Rudd, take a look at the thread on a Presentation of 4 leadership styles, I have three examples listed, your cliff example is an excellent fourth, or first either, I dont imply any order.

 

The problem with directing is its so easy, roll into camp at 9:00 pm on a cool fall evening, its pitch black, its so so so easy foe the adults to start giving orders, patrol boxes over here, you go light the lanterns, you go get water, hup to hup to. Its easy, but its 100 percent certifiable not boy scouts. The SPL is in charge of setting up camp. He has been trained to do so by the scoutmaster. He may have a checklist deveoped by the PLC under the watchful eye of the scoutmaster, but the SPL is in charge and its his words that carry the most weight.

[Fat Old Guy]

That wasn't directing, that was coaching. You are helping the SPL to find a solution to the problem. Directing would have been, "Mr. SPL, detail some boys to get this trash picked up."

 

Then again, all forms of leadership are directing in disguise.

[RuddBaron]

Ah, I see the problem! We're using different phraseology to say the same thing.

 

Your statement, "Then again, all forms of leadership are directing in disguise," expresses my point exactly. Coaching is fine, but the coach is still the coach. Just ask Bear Bryant.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

True, and on a Bear Bryant Football team you always knew who was the leader.

 

And in a Boy Scout troop, the leader is the SPL.

[Fat Old Guy]

In retrospect, I'm not sure that my expamle is even coaching. It is more of a teaching thing. Is your Chem TA acting as a leader when he says, "is your glassware clean?"

[RuddBaron]

"Is your Chem TA acting as a leader when he says, "is your glassware clean?""

 

Yes. If the answer is no, you must clean it. If you don't take the initiative, you will be issued a formal directive.

 

[mk9750]

In the example of the cliff (I am assuming this is a climbing / rapelling activity), using the directing style of leadership happened far later than the real leading activity should have.

 

The PLC, when they decided on such an activity, should have identified resources needed. One of these resources is proper training. During this training, all participants would have been taught (probably by a coaching method, but not necesarily) to stay away from the edge of the cliff.

 

If, in that scenerio, a directive style of leadership needed to be used, the proper leadership was not employed when it should have been.

 

Mark

[RuddBaron]

Close. I meant mountain hiking. At a stop, for instance, they might get too close to the edge trying to get a good view. Boys are still boys, and sometimes they get curious and need a little jolt of direction.

[Fat Old Guy]

"Yes. If the answer is no, you must clean it. If you don't take the initiative, you will be issued a formal directive. "

 

I guess college has changed. In my day, a TA couldn't give a "formal directive" to clean glassware. Why would he? The glassware didn't belong to him. The unclean glassware would only impact your experiments and if you returned it dirty at the end of the year, the supply department would charge you for it.

[RuddBaron]

It depends on the TA and school. Where I went they would indeed charge you for it and also perhaps give you a grade penalty. But, most of my TA's would not tolerate messes. Their method of coersion was the grade penalty.

[Eagledad]

>>Boys are still boys, and sometimes they get curious and need a little jolt of direction.

[RuddBaron]

>>> In your mind, does a boy ever become a man? My experience is, as long as adults think of boys as just boys, there leaves little room for boys to ever be treated as men.

 

Yes. Legally when they are 18, but the process of maturation actually continues on up. One must give boys more and more responsibility and privilege as they age, based on their demonstrated maturity. Yes, we're the adults, and we have a responsibility to control their environment so that they can mature without being given so much freedom that they can't handle it. Ever notice how kids who were extremely sheltered and never allowed to do anything suddenly go NUTS when they hit the freedom of college? They can't handle it. A child who is trained in an age-appropriate manner from childhood and given more and more experience as they age and mature will be less likely to do this.

 

>>>> In the example of the cliff, fear motivated the adults to react for the scouts safety. What makes the adults opinion (fear) more valid than the scouts?

 

Hmm...perhaps the fact that the adults are responsible for the safety of the children. I'm not a big fan of being over-protective. Scouts need to learn how to deal with danger. But, there is a HUGE difference between courage and stupidity. Sometimes boys' natural fearlessness leads them to do stupid things. Some of this is healthy, some is not. The adults supervising in theory have more experience and maturity (otherwise why are they leaders?), and it is their responsibility to step in when needed. A kid who knows how to ride a horse falling off a horse while riding might be an inherent risk. An adult leader might allow that activity. But, an untrained Scout jumping on a strange horse is stupid and might ought to be stopped.

 

>>>> You can order the boy to obey the adult with Move away from the edge before you fall or ask the young adult to respect our fears "Bob, I am uncomfortable with you standing that close to the edge, would you mind standing back for me? In the first example, the adult expects obedience simply because boys must obey adults. In the other example, the adult is asking for respect of the other persons fears or feelings.

 

Use whatever method you like. Whatever gets their attention. Remember...you have more experience than they do.

 

>>>> I find that adults who think boys are just boys also tend to think their way IS the BEST way.

 

You have taken my comment a bit out of context. As I mentioned, boys have a natural fearlessness in general. This is why we like 18 year olds to go into combat. Sure, we can hold back, but permitting extreme foolishness, regardless of what the kid might think is ok, is a gross negligence of OUR responsibility as adults. Sure, the boys might sometimes have a better way. Fine. Another example: The OA used to allow supervised use of gunpowder to light campfires around here. Dangerous, yes. But, it was done with safety in mind. Now, other boys thought it would be great to start a fire by chemical means that would, as a byproduct, release chlorine gas. Clearly, whether or not the boys are comfortable with the risk, that should not be allowed.

 

>>>>> By putting ourselves on the pedestal as the all-knowing adults, we tend to hold the program in our tight little box, which leaves little room for the creative minds of Boys to grow from their experiences and ideas.

 

Who said anything about a pedastal?

 

>>>> But I think you are not incorrect in thinking that that adults need leadership titles to be good leadership role models.

 

What titles did I say were necessary? You can call it "Leader," "Scouter," "Scoutmaster," or "Grand Scout Poobah." The adult is stil the adult.

 

>>>> Nor are you correct in thinking that boys need adults to run a good troop program.

 

Well then why don't we just all quite the program and let the boys run the whole thing on their own. Hmm...

 

>>> I know of a couple of troops that ran successfully without adults and the scouts from those troops are now some of the finest adults I know.

 

A troop without adults? Now how on earth was that allowed?

 

>>>> And I enjoy watching someone try an idea simply because they havent been polluted with experience yet.

 

Or until society crushes their creative spirit!

 

>>> Unlike adults, scouts dont have a lot of lifes experiences, so they dont have a lot to fear.

 

Which is why kids require a guardian....