Requirements Leadership and Management

[asm 411]

So in the thread that this was spun from there are currently 61 postings. Mostly it is about Scouters being wrapped around the axle about being active and scout spirit.

 

What if we approach if from the standpoint of solving the problem by making those things easy to accomplish in the program. Not reducing the requirements, not falling back on some lame definition (registered = active) but presenting a program to the Scouts that makes it easy to complete. Similar to making the community service requirement easy by making sure there are so many hours available that the Scouts typically have way more than "required" because serving the community is what we do every month several times. Instead of trying to enforce participation and Scout spirit make them a nature part of what happens.

 

Here as some of my thoughts perhaps please add to them.

 

----------------

My definition of a leader is someone who develops a vision or identifies the direction for the group based on values

----------------

Over the past few years my vision has been for our troop to be doing things that are so interesting to the Scouts that participation is something they want to do. Therefore fulfilling that requirement is not an issue. They are not being dragged to the meetings but are dragging their parents out of the house to be on time because they don't want to miss anything.

 

I believe Scout spirit is something they learn while participating so my participation vision feeds into making that one come naturally as well.

 

--------------------------------

My definition of a manager is someone who develops a mission or plan based on a leaders vision and implements it

-------------------------------

 

So to manage my own vision keeping the meetings and events extremely interesting is to have the Scouts pick and run the activities. This seems to be a no brainer for those who hang out in this forum all the time.

 

So how do we as Scouters make sure there is big enough pool of really cool things to do so the Scouts are so interested that they come as often as possible.

 

1) Have the PLs ask the Scouts what they want to do. Not just for the yearly planning sessions but perhaps as much as every week. Adapt current plans if there is great enough interest.

2) Have the SPL start a conversation with the older Scouts about the most interesting things they have done in Scouting. Have him take notes and use them for planning. This can be done in preparation for monthly planning. For instance have him start a converstation with "Hey we are doing pioneering next month what are the coolest pioneering things you have done or seen?"

3) As Scouters talk to other Scouters at round table, at work and training session to ask what the best attended events are that their troop does. Then discuss this list with the SPL for him to sell the ones he likes to the PLs at the PLC. (Save the list for future use and add to it)

4) Lastly inject our own interests into the troop. For example I like cycling and backpacking so by talking with the Scouts about my interests it may spark interest in them. I believe this should be in casual conversation not to the troop. I think nothing kills a Scout meeting faster than an adult talking to the troop. My personal belief is there is one minute allowed for adults to talk the troop and that minute is reserved for the Scoutmaster to pass on some wisdom.

-----------------------

 

 

How do you keep things as interesting as possible in your troops?

 

 

 

[Stosh]

No one seems to be jumping in on this so I'll put a couples of cents into the ante.

 

"My definition of a leader is someone who develops a vision or identifies the direction for the group based on values."

 

I guess I look at it quite a bit differently. A leader for me is someone who is able to identify the needs of the group and works at assisting them in fulfilling those needs. Yes, a vision and directives are important, but if that vision and directive is only for the leader, then he's going to have an uphill battle convincing others of their importance. If the group has ownership in their needs and don't have anyone to assist them in attaining some satisfaction of those needs, they will seek out someone who will.

 

"My definition of a manager is someone who develops a mission or plan based on a leaders vision and implements it."

 

Here again I focus more on the needs of the group in relationship to management. Is the leader able to identify the needs and then devise/implement a plan of action to accomplish meeting those needs. Is the plan able to assist each group member with their specific problems? Is the leader able to manage the task/plan that is necessary and can he find the appropriate resources to apply to the group. Can he problem solve the issues and devise ways that may work? Managing requires a dual effort of managing people to organize into problem solving and managing the tasks necessary to attain the goal of having the problem solved.

 

I guess in the long run I don't see leadership as working in the ownership of the leader's visions/goals as much as I do working with the ownership of the group's visions/goals on their behalf.

 

I find a bit more validity in the leadership if the group is taking some ownership in their problems and looking to the leader for assistance rather than having the ownership in the hands of the leader and then trying to coerce and direct the group to do follow along with issues that they don't care about.

 

Just my 2-cents worth. Maybe it'll get this thread rolling.

 

Stosh

[asm 411]

So are you saying that getting buy in or ownership is what you do to keep the program interesting to the Scouts. It certainly makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Thinking about it, isn't that what the Patrol Method is all about. Having a small group taking ownership of there lives. Being responsible for not only their stuff but their time as well?

 

(This message has been edited by ASM 411)

[evmori]

A good leader should be a good manager but a good manager isn't necessarily a good leader. A leader is a person people look up to because of their character traits & abilities. A manager is more like a boss than a leader.

[John-in-KC]

Here is the definition now used by the US Army:

 

An Army leader is anyone who by virtue of assumed role or assigned responsibility inspires and influences people to accomplish organizational goals. Army leaders motivate people both inside and outside the chain of command to pursue actions, focus thinking, and shape decisions for the greater good of the organization.

- Field Manual 6-22, Leadership, October 2006

 

Stripping the militarese out:

A leader is anyone who by virtue of assumed role or assigned responsibility inspires and influences people to accomplish organizational goals. Leaders motivate people both inside and outside their work group to pursue actions, focus thinking, and shape decisions for the greater good of the organization.

 

The current model defines ATRRIBUTES:

- Person of CHARACTER

- Person with PRESENCE

- Person with INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY

 

It also defines CORE COMPETENCIES:

- LEADS

- DEVELOPS

- ACHIEVES (gets results).

[Stosh]

I have had experience in both business and military management and neither is guaranteed to produce the results necessary to satisfy the group being led.

 

I find that unless there is some awareness on the part of the leader to recognize the aims and goals of the group and the group's interest, the group will not follow unless forced to. If the group does not feel their leader is leading them towards a goal they feel is important/necessary, they will not follow unless coerced. If it is a leader's responsibility to teach compass knowledge and all the boys want to do is go camping, unless the leader can problem solve the situation and show how important compass work is to being able to go camping in new and exciting places, the boys will not hunker down and work on the compass. Unless the leader can assist the boys in recognizing the importance of eating well on their campouts, they aren't going to jump in and learn how to cook. It is the responsibility of a good leader to help the group see how each of these tasks are in their best interest and meeting their needs.

 

Too often business management and/or military command is given a task and must pass it on to others and the attempt is done without giving appropriate explanation. If the group doesn't understand the why's and wherefore's they are more reluctant to pitch in and do the task. Measurable goals with everyone's knowledge and understanding fare much better than just going through the motions. It's a little bit more understandable when the Grubmaster asks some scout to, "get some water we'll be needing to clean up afterwards," than to just say, "Go get some water for me." If the task being done can quickly be translating into something that's going to benefit me, it's going to be done quicker and better with far less resistance.

 

Eventually if this process is followed initially, eventually the group will trust that the non-explained request may indeed be in their best interest and will do the task without complete explanation. These boys that have laid the groundwork of trust will fare much better than the domineering directive of a leader the group feels or even suspects might be clueless.

 

Even the military knows that a soldier will follow a trusted leader into hell if he knows the officer is doing his utmost best to keep them safe and wouldn't be asking unless it was absolutely necessary.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

This is a great discussion and everyones contribution is thought provoking. I teach leadership more under Johns definition of a leader inspires and influences people to accomplish team (organizational) goals. Im not sure that creators of vision are always great leaders. But I do believe great leaders have to believe in the vision to do their job well. I also agree with Stosh that the best leaders are true servants of the team. I do not believe that the leader must have the same skills of the rest of the group, but instead needs the skills for inspiring and influeincing.

 

I also like the definition that a good manager is one who develops a mission or plan based on a leaders vision. A manager may or may not be a good leader, but a good leader knows their limitations and is humble enough to build a team to compensate for those limitations.

 

Some folks dont understand the importance of the vision, but there is a book out (cant remember the name just now) that is basically a conclusion of a study of successful companies. It summed up that the most successful Fortune 500 companies are the ones who only hire employees that believe in the company vision or mission.

 

Great discussion folks.

 

Barry

 

[asm 411]

This is a great discussion of what management and leadership is. I really appreciate everyone's view on that topic but I was hoping to get responses to my question -

 

"How do you keep things as interesting as possible in your troops?"

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

The first and foremost question that has to be is: "What are the boys interested in?" This places the onus of any subsequent goals and vision development on the boys themselves. I run a boy-led, patrol-method program and I still get the "I'm bored" response from the boys. They lack the leadership that can take any interest they find and develop it into a program that the boys want. I constantly ask, what is it you want to be doing and what's it going to take to get you there? Then by breaking it down into small steps, the boys can start working towards those things that they already have an interest in.

 

It's a little like herding cats, however. Not all boys are interested in the same things and a good leader does well to prioritize these interests and to balance them out so everyone gets a stake in the process. One boy likes camping, another likes visiting museums. Well, how about a trip to the museum that involves an overnighter. This way both boys get what they want and each can focus on those areas that interest them. A good leader will be able to organize and delegate the goals/tasks to the correct boys and make a good outing for both.

 

Stosh