Re: Mea Culpa - but I'd say it that way again until I knew anyways...
Bruce E. Cobern (bec@PIPELINE.COM)
Tue, 29 Dec 1998 19:34:03 -0500
At 05:35 PM 12/29/98 -0500, R.F. Locke wrote:
>Gee Tom, I think you may have been incorrect but, not wrong :^)
>Something bothers me about the message we're sending about
>maximizing the amount of reward while minimizing the amount of
>effort....
Because that is being EFFICIENT. Productivity is one of the major problems
in the work force today. Teaching the virtue of maximizing RETURN is
actually a very valuable lesson to teach.
On the other hand, if the purpose of the requirement is to demonstrate
certain skills or traits, how does insisting that they be displayed twice
accomplish anything? Has he proved he is better at being a crew
vice-president because he was there for a year instead of just six months?
If the purpose of the requirement is merely to make sure the unit has an
ample supply of "willing" officers, then maybe I can agree with you, but if
the requirement is geared to the Scout's abilities, then making him do it
for twice as long just because some other recognition also asks him to do
the same thing has no real useful purpose.
>Off to a bad start - maybe.
Or, maybe not.
>It's almost funny; fool around with a program for 30+ years and
>still haven't figured out what to do with the older guys.
Actually, with that I can agree. I have seen too many attempts at older
Scout programs and the fact that it has to keep changing says, loud and
clear, that they have not been successful. I'm not sure this latest
incarnation will be any more successful than its predecessors.
--
Bruce E. Cobern
mailto:bec@pipeline.com
