POR contracts

[Mike F 10]

John in KC,

I haven't heard anybody say it was a one-way deal. I've been careful to say we use lots of coaching and mentoring along the way and there are no surprises. Feedback and teamwork start within boy leadership chain. They involve adults only when can't resolve themselves.

 

What if I had just said our guys and their immediate boss sign their job description after intial training to confirm it was completed and understood?

[evmori 11]

Why does anything need to be signed? If the SM is doing his job correctly, POR contracts are not needed.

[Mike F 10]

I promised myself I wasn't going to comment again, but here I am.

 

Ed,

 

Like I've said, if it were just the scouts, the signed job description is not very important. You just work with him until he gets it. About 98% of the time, the paper is irrelevant.

 

However, the signed job description is key when you have a parent appealing to District/Council because junior didn't get credit for rank advancement after 4/6 months wearing a patch.

 

A lot of leaders have discussed this exact problem in these forums for years. It may not be perfect, but this is a solution that works.

 

That little piece of paper has saved us all a lot of heartache. After a couple of appeals where the troop's implementation of the program was upheld at Council, all I have to do now is quietly show the paper to parents and tell them junior didn't fulfill his end of the deal, so he's not ready yet, but we'll continue to work with him to get him there.

 

Now the word's out and parents quit giving me grief when junior needs a little more time to grow to the next level.

 

Maybe we could do away with the signatures now, but I see almost no downside to having them sign their job description and I know it has been crucial when disputes have been elevated. I would rather spend my one hour a week working with the boys rather than dealing with irrational parents or going downtown to talk to Council.

 

As for source documents, the TLT syllabus has changed very radically over the last 35+ years since I started teaching it. I think the current stuff is some of the worst and you'd have a very challenging time training troop youth leadership with this alone. We have put together our own program taken from most recent TLT and going back years. It also includes some excellent leadership material from Venture Crew Leader training, NYLT, NAYLE, and the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS).

 

There's a lot to this leadership development stuff and our responsibilities as leaders. Is it really worth going into attack-mode over signatures on a job description?

[evmori 11]

Mike F,

 

A signed job description don't mean a hill of beans if it comes to an appeal. More than likely you will lose regardless of what you have the Scout sign. I see contracts like this as a way to "hold something over the Scout's head" not a way to assist with advancement.

[Stosh 3452]

Calico:

 

The projects for POR fulfillment is only for Star and Eagle. For Life one has to adhere to one of the listed POR's.

 

I presently have a Star scout who lined up Summer Camp and then stood in for a week as acting SPL, totally on his own. As a matter of fact, I didn't even ask him to do it, his older brother did it the year before and he just took over the project on his own. So he gets credit for 1 week of SPL.

 

He has done QM tasks by cleaning out the scout trailer and inventorying all the equipment. Add on maybe 5 days of credit for QM. He did this with the help of one of his buddies. The only involvement I had was providing the keys to the trailer when he asked for them.

 

He organized this past week's backpack outing in northern Wisconsin but had one of his buddies do acting PL to give him some experience at it. No credit for this one, because it usually means an adult does this for the average troop. And if one really wanted to get 100% technical about this outing it was not "approved" by the SM. When I was notified it was going to be happening, half the trip had already been planned out, menus, gear, location, campsite, hiking trail, etc. etc. A registered ASM and his wife went along as the 2-deep adult leadership.

 

Okay, add it up? 2 weeks worth of POR credit at best.

 

All this and what POR patch do you put on him to get him credit for 6 months of POR for his Life rank???? or ... what 6 months of effort should be used? all of it? part of it? This is definitely a square peg/round hold issue!

 

When this boy sits down with me for the SM conference for Life rank, I'm going to simply ask him what he has to brag about when it comes to taking the lead and showing initiative in the troop. I'm figuring I'm going to have to cut him off after 15 minutes so we can move on to the other requirements needed to be covered.

 

I have another FC scout that announced a couple of weeks ago that he is taking point on the Popcorn Sales this fall. He wanted to know if he could have a ride to the kick-off meeting so he can get all the relevant information. He got up at the court of honor last night and announced to the parents that this year won't be a hit-or-miss approach to popcorn sales, but that there will be an organized canvassing of neighborhoods to maximize the profits for the troop and boys. He even had ideas on how the money would be used to purchase new tents for the troop. Not bad for a boy who has ADHD... So, what POR does he wear? Fortunately I can slip him in under Star special projects on this one. Next rank?? We'll cross that bridge when we get there...

 

Stosh

 

 

[Kudu 186]

Twocubdad writes:

 

I don't know where Kudu is, but in the past he's been fairly adamant that Positions of Responsibility are creations of adult-led troop and the whole corporate Wood Badge establishment which has ruined Scouting anyway, if I may be so bold as to speak for Kudu.

 

Yes, the problem here is mixing "Positions of Responsibility" with advancement.

 

Without PORs, we could just ignore the Troop Method.

 

Introduced in the year of Green Bar Bill's retirement: A required POR is the tool by which "leadership" experts destroyed the Patrol Method, removed all camping requirements from Eagle, and replaced these two most fundamental Methods of Scouting with Fake Leadership.

 

I believe that the subsequent loss of two million Boy Scouts was perfectly acceptable to this cult of Fake Leadership, but Green Bar Bill was called in out of retirement to sprinkle some camping requirements back into the program.

 

That helped to bring some kids back to Scouting, but now any cupcake can wear an Eagle badge without ever walking into the woods with a pack on his back.

 

That is significant because, contrary to what you learn in training, the whole point of both Baden-Powell's Patrol System and Green Bar Bill's Patrol Method is to take a Patrol out on patrol.

 

Let me repeat that for the leadership impaired:

 

The purpose of a Patrol is to go out on patrol.

 

That is why Baden-Powell called them PATROLS: Because they go out on patrol.

 

Duh!

 

It follows then that the purpose of a Patrol Leader is to take his Patrol out on patrol.

 

Let me repeat that too, for the sake of all the Wood Badge idiots who are skimming this post looking for helpful tips on how to design a POR contract to turn a Troop into an SPL's corporate office:

 

The purpose of a Patrol Leader is to take his Patrol out on patrol!

 

So, why call it "Fake Leadership"?

 

Because if you look at the POR descriptions upon which POR contracts are based, the Patrol Leader's PRIMARY responsibility is missing:

 

Qualify to take my Patrol hiking and camping (Patrol Leader's Handbook, 1967, page 12).

 

Why do you suppose that is?

 

Because to "qualify," a Patrol Leader Course takes six months of hands-on training to teach even the Patrol's best natural leader how to take his Patrol out on patrol, and perhaps another six months of Patrol hikes to "qualify" him to take his Patrol camping without adult supervision. See the PLT course for what the BSA once called a "Real Patrol:"

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/green_bar/index.htm

 

When Fake Leadership's Troop Method was introduced in 1972, this Patrol Leader Training Course was discarded, a Patrol Leader's "Recommended Term of Office" was introduced (set at only six months to match the POR requirements), and so the primary job responsibility of a Patrol Leader, to "Qualify to take my Patrol hiking and camping," was removed (Patrol and Troop Leadership,, 1972, page 68).

 

So what's the point?

 

The "Purpose" of Scouting is to teach Scoutcraft, not "Leadership."

 

Forcing Scouts to sign a POR contract is to force them to admit in writing that adults trained in Wood Badge have the right to cheat them out of the Scoutcraft program guaranteed to them as American citizens by an Act of Congress.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

In case you missed it, a Patrol Leader's primary responsibility is to:

 

Qualify to take my Patrol hiking and camping (Patrol Leader's Handbook, 1967, page 12).

 

Qualify to take my Patrol hiking and camping (Patrol Leader's Handbook, 1967, page 12).

 

Qualify to take my Patrol hiking and camping (Patrol Leader's Handbook, 1967, page 12).

 

Qualify to take my Patrol hiking and camping (Patrol Leader's Handbook, 1967, page 12).

 

Qualify to take my Patrol hiking and camping (Patrol Leader's Handbook, 1967, page 12).

 

Qualify to take my Patrol hiking and camping (Patrol Leader's Handbook, 1967, page 12).

[CalicoPenn 729]

"What you're describing wouldn't even be good management theory"

 

There's two words that should never be uttered in a Scouting context. Management Theory? Is that what we're supposed to be about? Is that what the new Woodbadge is teaching? Is that what TLT is teaching? Is that what Scoutmaster training is teaching?

 

If that's the case, then forget the "3 G's" - Scouting is doomed.

 

I prefer the old-fashioned Mentorship Theory

[Stosh 3452]

I'm kinda fond of "Leadership Theory".

 

But then I'm kind of a loose cannon when it comes to my boys.

 

Kudu: does the planning and getting their buddies to Summer Camp, going on week-long hikes set up by the boys and such fit into what you call leadership or should we be doing more with POR's and having boys wear patches?

 

Qualify to take my Patrol hiking and camping (Patrol Leader's Handbook, 1967, page 12).

 

If the boys want to take canoes out does that count? Does backpacking count as hiking? If different boys are taking lead on different outings, does that mean one of them has to be an elected Patrol Leader? Can a patrol leader be elected weekly or does he have to sit around for 6 months before someone else can wear the patch? If a boy takes point on the Popcorn drive this fall, is that too much management? If one boy is getting the group ready for spring camporee is he the PL, what about the other boy that is working on getting the group ready for summer camp at the same time, can there be two boys getting PL credit at the same time when there is only enough boys for one patrol?

 

(I surely hope everyone feels these questions are really stupid!)

 

Love the way the program used to work! By the way, it still does, at least in my troop.

 

When it comes to our annual boy leadership training, my boys always opt for the Green Bar Bill material and then the TLT program. They have specifically said they want the TLT program so they can wear the "Trained" patch, but the other "stuff" is what they really want.

 

One of the biggest problems with a boy-led program is that once everyone catches on, one way or another they all shine as leaders and it makes it very disconcerting to try and give everyone leadership credit using POR's. Out of my 9 boys, only one (austistic) hasn't taken the reins on some project and followed through and served as PL for that activity...including my TF scout. (Caution: the chaos this generates will totally scare most adults!)

 

My boys quit scouting for two reasons: 1) they aren't interested in doing any work for their buddies or 2) their parents put them into troops where there is more adult structure that makes sense to them.

 

I don't know if I'm following Kudu's principles or not, but at least they make a lot more sense to my boys than the other stuff coming out of BSA designed for them.

 

At this past weekend's backpack outing, my ad hoc PL told the adult team that was with them that this campsite is for them. He then took the patrol off out of sight and there they set up their campsite. I don't know if he counted out 300' or not.

 

The one thing I do know, if the troop is truly boy-led, they more naturally seem to evolve into what Kudu and GBBB seem to identify as Scouting.

 

Stosh

[Kudu 186]

Stosh,

 

A "Real" Patrol Leader is the land version of a BSA Lifeguard.

 

All of your "Does it count?" rhetorical questions are based on "getting credit" for a Position of Responsibility.

 

POR "credit" is designed to poison the Spirit of Scouting.

 

Before PORs were required for advancement, Scouting worked just like you describe it in your Troop: A job needs to be done, so a man steps up to do it.

 

You know, just like we adult volunteers do!

 

What a role model, huh? A man with no stupid acronyms!

 

Just do what is needed.

 

My first year as a Scout I became Troop Scribe in what would now be called a "Mega Troop." Everyone paid a dime a week, so the math was easy. I got a cool patch, but more importantly I got to hang out with the older Scouts!

 

Then I became a Patrol Leader, then three years as SPL. I did it because it was fun to know what the Scouts wanted to do before they could put it into words.

 

POR credit seems like a good idea if you want to corrupt Boy Scouts by teaching them that their service has a specific value: To teach them to extract as much as they can for doing as little as possible.

 

That is why we need POR contracts, just so everyone agrees on the exact "value" of what should be "Service for Others" freely given.

 

You know, "Service for Others," what Baden-Powell also called "Practical Christianity."

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

The purpose of a Patrol is to go out on patrol.

 

That is why Baden-Powell called them "Patrols."

 

Therefore a Patrol Leader's primary responsibility is to:

 

"Qualify to take my Patrol hiking and camping" (Patrol Leader's Handbook, 1967, page 12).

 

Because the purpose of a Patrol Leader is to take his Patrol out on patrol.(This message has been edited by kudu)

[acco40 95]

I used "contracts" (I called them position expectations) but I did not require signatures. What I did require was for a Scout to get parental permission to seek a POR. The method to my madness was not to convey information to the Scout (I did that by my interaction with them) but to convey information to their parent(s) who it is not my job to train.

 

Most of my conflicts came from parents, not the boys. I know some have a "school before scouting" mentality but it shouldn't be either/or. If a Scout has a full week to prepare for a test on Friday and a full week to "get his patrol ready" for an outing on Friday and screws off for six days, I didn't give them a free pass so to speak if they used the "I had a test" excuse for being unprepared.

 

A patrol leader's primary responsibility is just that - to lead his patrol. How he leads doesn't matter as long as he does. If he organizes and instructor to teach a skill or he does hit himself - doesn't matter. There are many styles and ways to lead and yes, that is why introducing leadership training to the boys is not a bad idea.

[CHLees3rd 10]

Stosh,

 

Something about an earlier post of yours did not sound right so I checked it out. Scoutmaster-assigned leadership projects can only be used in place of a POR for the Star and Life ranks, not Eagle. I have a copy of the new 12th edition on my desk with Star requirements on p. 438, Life on p.439, and Eagle pg.440-1. Eagle candidates have to do hold a specific position.

 

Chazz Lees

[John-in-KC 311]

Acco,

 

I find myself agreeing with you.

 

Kudu...

 

When I was a FIST chief, I worked for my battery commander and my maneuver company commander.

 

Even a patrol leader (British Cavalry style) reported back to his Troop Commander and to the Regimental commander.

 

In every unit of the Armed Forces (which we agree, B-P modelled his organizational structure upon, albeit Her/His Majesty's Army, not the US Army), there are additional resources backstopping and support the line squad/patrol leader. Supply Sergeant, Cook, Quartermaster, armorer, signal officer... so yes, there is room in Scouting for the folks who provide specialized support to the PL.

 

That was even true in the US Army of 1916.

[Kudu 186]

acco40 writes:

 

A patrol leader's primary responsibility is just that - to lead his patrol. How he leads doesn't matter as long as he does. If he organizes and instructor to teach a skill or he does hit himself - doesn't matter. There are many styles and ways to lead and yes, that is why introducing leadership training to the boys is not a bad idea.

 

Thanks for the perfect example of leadership logic. You saved my bacon, acco, because now nobody can accuse me of making that stuff up!

 

Introducing leadership training to the boys teaches them how corporate leadership experts play word games to take things from people, from trillions in toxic assets to cheating Boy Scouts out of the Patrol Method.

 

If Wood Badge neutered BSA Lifeguards the way it neutered BSA Patrol Leaders we would hear exactly the same kind of word games:

 

"A lifeguard's primary responsibility is just that - to guard life. How he guards doesn't matter as long as he does. If he organizes a Neighborhood Watch because he does not know how to swim - doesn't matter. There are many styles and ways to be a guardian, that is why introducing guardianship training to the boys is not a bad idea."

 

Oh, and let's make swimming in water over our heads a violation of the Guide to Safe Scouting. The "Lifeguard Method" can be learned in baby pools and splash pads -- just as the "Patrol Method" can be learned without ever taking a Patrol out on patrol.

 

John-in-KC writes:

 

Even a patrol leader (British Cavalry style) reported back to his Troop Commander and to the Regimental commander.

 

In every unit of the Armed Forces (which we agree, B-P modelled his organizational structure upon,

 

Well, no John, we do not agree on that point:

 

1) Baden-Powell's form of reconnaissance patrol was a reaction against military drill training. It was controversial and not well received until the publication of one of his books just happened to coincide with six months of good headlines from the Siege of Mafeking.

 

2) The purpose of B-P's military patrols was to go out on patrol, not to stay with the regiment to hold elections and practice "team building" exercises.

 

3) Remember that B-P considered Senior Patrol Leaders to be purely optional. If used at all, they were selected by the interaction of the PLC with the Scoutmaster, as in Green Bar Bill's Patrol Method in which the Patrol Leaders selected the SPL. As a Major-General he could have based his Patrol System on our current Troop Method "chain of command," but he did not. See:

 

http://inquiry.net/traditional/por/groups.htm

 

John-in-KC writes:

 

Supply Sergeant, Cook, Quartermaster, armorer, signal officer... so yes, there is room in Scouting for the folks who provide specialized support to the PL.

 

Of course. Do we somehow disagree on that?

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

The purpose of a Patrol is to go out on patrol.

 

That is why Baden-Powell called them "Patrols."

 

Therefore a Patrol Leader's primary responsibility is to:

 

"Qualify to take my Patrol hiking and camping" (Patrol Leader's Handbook, 1967, page 12).

 

Because the purpose of a Patrol Leader is to take his Patrol out on patrol.

 

[Stosh 3452]

With every edition of the Handbook, it creates new headaches. Thanks for the clarification of what's vogue at this time.

 

Kudu, I hope you realize that those rhetorical questions were dripping with sarcasm. I look at people driving tasks, not tasks driving people, so the requirements even though quite useless in some cases, are required for the boy to advance in Scouting. A "contract" only emphasizes how desperate one gets when the job/task doesn't get done. Yes, a boy can attain Eagle and never camp which is quite ridiculous, but if that boy is a great natural leader and yet never gets a chance at a POR his Scouting career is jeopardized as well.

 

I have boys doing "jobs" normally assigned to the adult leadership. There's no such thing as a POR for organizing a camporee, or summer camp, or high-adventure trip, or even a day hike, let alone organizing the annual Popcorn fundraiser, or a boy that's not the quartermaster, organize and pull off a nice Christmas wreath sales so he and his patrol members can have new equipment isn't something that isn't available to many aspiring leaders. Only the adults get to really lead.

 

I don't think these things should be reserved for adults only and any boy wishing to step up and take point on these issues shouldn't have his scouting career thrown into jeopardy because he didn't have a POR patch on his sleeve at the time. Otherwise, for rank advancement, this type of leadership would be considered a waste of time.

 

When a boy lines up a camporee for example, he reviews the rank advancement of all boys in the troop, incorporating the NSP to come up with the menus so they can attain rank fulfillment, he instructs the NSP to make sure they have the right equipment and are properly packed for the event, maybe he has the older boys check out the tents to make sure they are ready for the event, organizes a patrol to head to the store and purchase the menu items the NSP has identified, etc. Each one of these things entails partial POR responsibilities, maybe as a TG or a QM or an Instructor or maybe some SPL chores as he has the different patrols taking different reponsibilities, or even as an ad hoc PL for the NSP, as he makes troop prep for the camporee. Because he has no "official" patch on his shirt, he gets no credit for any of his leadership.

 

To often POR's measure task accomplishments as reflective of the POR contract, but does nothing to identify and measure real leadership.

 

Quartermaster will do the following over the course of the next 6 months:

 

1) Inventory all the equipment.

2) Make repairs on all equipment that can be done.

3) Identify equipment that needs to be replaced and report to the SM.

4) Store all equipment in the storage closet, making sure the closet is clean and dry.

5) etc.

 

Every step of the contract requires the scout to FOLLOW, not LEAD! Where are the skills of problem solving, thinking on your feet, helping others, inspiring the boys to do better?????

 

Nothing there in the QM POR has much to do with leadership, only responsibility. Even the word smacks of a lack of leadership - response-ability. People who respond are followers, not leaders.

 

Whenever our troop is faced with some activity or task, I always ask the question, "Who's going to be taking the lead on this one?" Any boy in the troop can step up and give it their best shot. There is never a contract associated with it. When all is said and done, the boy knows where he has succeeded and where he has fallen short. A SM conference will help him sort it all out so he can improve next time he steps up.

 

Because this process works so well for our troop, the vast majority of the boys do not wear POR on their sleeves.

 

Stosh

[qwazse 4350]

I constantly remind my youth:

 

"Boyscouts ...

 

... Love ...

 

... Paperwork!"

 

They all now know that by the time they are SPL (or crew officer) I will think far less of them if their leadership style involves any form that needs to be signed.