Is Leadership More than Wearing a Patch for 6 Months?

[alex gregory]

Ongoing disagreement in my troop. As a gung-ho scout dad and advancement chair, I would like to see guys in leadership positions actually lead, rather than just wear a patch for six months because that's what they need for rank advancement. Specifically, the problem positions tend not to be the SPL, ASPL, or PL. The Den Chiefs do a pretty good job of being actively involved with their respective dens. Everybody else, pretty much seems OK with wearing a patch for 6 months.

The powers that be always profess that "of course" the guys actually have to do something leaderlike, and of course nothing changes.

Any suggestions on how to improve the quality of leadership expectations?

[ThunderingWind]

As part of the Troop Committee, push the CC, and to some extent the COR and CO Exec to hold every adult to the proper standard. This includes providing the program as it should be.

Alos, do not be afraid to ask the boy "what did you do to earn this" if you happen to be on the BOR. After few BORs word gets out that Mr. Gregory expect boys to earn things. Attitudes will change but it will be slow.

I had to push back on my own CO to make the committee do thier job and set up a bank account. I am also asking them to help recruit a female leader. I have none right now. We are lucky in the I am the Dad of one girl and one of the Associate Advisors is the Dad of the other two. My wife is unable to help as she is serving "over there." The other Moms are out of the picture completely and the Dad has sole custody.

[smtroop168]

Any suggestions on how to improve the quality of leadership expectations?

Here's an idea. All the PORs "work" for the SPL. At the PLC have the SPL go around the table and have each POR give a verbal report on what they have done in their position, what they hope to do in the next month and how they can improve their role in the troop. The SPL can/should hold them to task and if they are not meeting the requirements of the position, he can "suggest" that they may not be retained in the position and hence not get their POR requirement signed off.

[Quailman]

Get the Troop Leadership Training program from your scout shop. Even if you don't go through the whole thing, give each person a Position Description Card* and review it with him. We completed the first module at our meeting last Monday and the boys who have had some of the positions were amazed at what it should have entailed. On the back there's a place for the position holder to write his vision or goals for what he will do to make the troop better.

Each person should set goals to achieve during his tenure. The Librarian may need to solicit donations of new MB books and update the website listing. The Historian may need to build/acquire shelving/trophy case for displaying troop awards, etc. First the boys get to know exactly what the position entails and have it in writing. Then they write down what they will do to fulfill their side.

One thing our SPL is doing that he hadn't in the past is to require a report from the OA rep at the second meeting (first troop mtg follownig the OA mtg) of each month.

* The cards are available separately, but are part of the TLT package, so you don't need to purchase both. The separate cards are a resupply item.

[Cowboy]

It should not be. Unfortunately, once a boy has held the position for 6 months, he has completed the requirement. This means that it is vitally important that the SPL, ASPL and adult leaders be on top of things. If a boy is nto fulfilling the requirements or at least making an effort within the first month, he should be pulled aside, spoken to and guided. If he still has made no progress by the end of the second month he needs to be removed. He should not be placed into a POS until he is ready to fulfill those duties. He has already "aquired" 2 months in a POS and now only needs 4 more. I have been on this soap box many times, so will not go there again.

[biglou]

I liked the title of this thread. It is definitely more than just wearing a patch. I have explained this to my Scouts and they are understanding. My SPL and ASPL have the next few meetings planned and ready to go! I also feel that after running the TLT program, the other youth leader's understand that their position is just more than the patch or title. I gave them the cards and told them to put it in their wallet. When they ask me or one of the other ASMs what their job entails, We ask them "Did you read their card" and when they say no we politely ask them to pull it out of their wallets and read them. We do make sure that they understand what is said and will help them out with their task. The hardest thing is removing a boy from a leadership position because of non-performance or other justifiable reasons, but if you have to do it, you have to do it.

[Cowboy]

This horse just keeps getting beaten, but then again it also continues to be a problem.
Rank Advancement requirements are worded the same for Star, Life and Eagle, the only difference being tenure: "While a [rank] Scout, serve [i]actively[i] in one or more of the positions of responsibility...." Italics mine. This does not say serve inactively. I know that the common translation of active is that they be registered, but that is not the definition that Webster uses. Active literally means doing something. In my opinion, if they have not been actively serving in the position the time does not count. If they are not doing the job then talk to them (SPL should go first). If they still do not do anything have the SPL "fire" them. They get to wait until they get a position that they can fulfill the duties of and start the time over. If it is the SPL it becomes more difficult, but they can be removed and replaced. Your definition of active is going to be different from mine, but I see absolutely no way that a Scout who is "absent" from meetings and outings 50% of the time is actually being active. Especially when they hold a position such as SPL, ASPL, PL, or Guide.

[kwildman]

leadership is what you make it and how you set your expectations. Have you done the TLT with your youth? Do they have a crystal clear understanding of what you expect them to do in their position? Do you meet with your youth and let them know if they are meeting expectations or need to improve? Too often I see the adult leaders complain about the youth leadership but they are not taking an active role in mentoring the youth and the youth have no idea what is expected of them.

You can be an active leader and not be at meetings. My youngest was patrol leader during football season he missed every meeting. He kept in contact with the SPL and was relaying info to his APL. It was probably more work for him to do then actually being at the meetings.

[alex gregory]

[quote="kwildman"]Too often I see the adult leaders complain about the youth leadership but they are not taking an active role in mentoring the youth and the youth have no idea what is expected of them.
quote]

Too often what I am seeing is adult leaders enabliing scouts not to be actually leading anything because mentoring the youth is so much harder than just sewing on a patch for 6 months.

[gwd-scouter]

From reading Troop websites in my District, the OA Rep POR is the pinnacle for 'wear the patch and get credit'. For the past year, older son was Chapter Advisor and younger son Chapter Vice Chief. Older son's mission for the year was to revive our chapter. Early in the year, he got the names of the OA Reps in every Troop from the Scoutmasters. Every month's chapter meeting saw my sons, the Chapter Chief and maybe one or two other members. NO OA Reps. Perhaps those boys holding the POR have already served their time for rank in another POR, but it sure would be nice if these guys were actually doing something - reminding members in their Troops about meetings, attending meetings, going to fellowships, helping with District events, etc.

The past year, our Chapter did put on the campfire program at the Fall Camporee and cooked a pancake breakfast on Sunday morning for everyone. First time I can remember our OA Chapter doing anything for District events. Hope this year's leadership will continue.

Maybe if the OA Reps did their jobs we wouldn't have so many guys go through Ordeal who are never heard from again.

Personal rant over.

[FrankJ]

I have a friend, when he sees OA rep listed a a POR will ask questions at EBOR about were the chapter meets & so on. He says it is amazing how many reps do not know the answer to the questions.

But that is really a fault of troop management as much as the scout.

I like the idea about the pancake breakfast. I think I will try bring it to my district.

[smtroop168]

But that is really a fault of troop management as much as the scout.

Of course it's the troop's fault. We don't expect any accountability on the scout's part any more.

[FrankJ]

To allow a scout to serve a POR and not expect anything is a management issue.
Too not let a scout know the expections of the POR is a management issue.

The scout not doing the position he commented to do is a scout issue.

[scoutaholic]

This horse just keeps getting beaten, but then again it also continues to be a problem.
Rank Advancement requirements are worded the same for Star, Life and Eagle, the only difference being tenure: "While a [rank] Scout, serve [i]actively[i] in one or more of the positions of responsibility...." Italics mine. This does not say serve inactively. I know that the common translation of active is that they be registered, but that is not the definition that Webster uses. Active literally means doing something. In my opinion, if they have not been actively serving in the position the time does not count. If they are not doing the job then talk to them (SPL should go first). If they still do not do anything have the SPL "fire" them. They get to wait until they get a position that they can fulfill the duties of and start the time over. If it is the SPL it becomes more difficult, but they can be removed and replaced. Your definition of active is going to be different from mine, but I see absolutely no way that a Scout who is "absent" from meetings and outings 50% of the time is actually being active. Especially when they hold a position such as SPL, ASPL, PL, or Guide.

"Be Active in your troop" is not the same as "Serve Actively" in a POR. Be active in your troop may be defined as "pay your annual registration fee", but Serve Actively in a POR actually requires that you do something.
If the boy knows his job (up to the troop leadership to teach him and set clear expectations), then he can be reasonably expected to DO IT (or at least make a good attempt). If he doesn't do the job, then he knows as well as the leaders do that he hasn't been serving actively. A trustworthy scout will not take credit for doing a POR if he knows he hasn't done it.

[Cowboy]

"A trustworthy scout will not take credit for doing a POR if he knows he hasn't done it." Very good point.
In making that commment you are circling right back to the origin of the issue though. A "good Scout" would be doing the job to begin with, and it would not be an issue of whether or not he gets credit for it. Let's face it. It does not matter what the "job" is, there will always be someone who is trying to slide through and get by without actually working at it. If all Eagle Scouts had actually worked for and completely EARNED the rank and honor, the term "Paper Eagle" would never have been coined.

[Nuts4Scouts]

If all adult leaders actually took training - paid attention - and ran a good program, we would not be having this discussion at all.

[smtroop168]

To allow a scout to serve a POR and not expect anything is a management issue.

Don't entirely agree. To not take them out of the POR if they're not performing is a SPL issue

Too not let a scout know the expections of the POR is a management issue.

Agree 100%

The scout not doing the position he commented to do is a scout issue.

I think you meant committed but agree

If all adult leaders actually took training - paid attention - and ran a good program, we would not be having this discussion at all.

And many other discussions. Plus it would put Wagion out of business.