Do Leaders need to Follow?

[evmori 11]

I'm not speaking for everyone else but I have never meant the term "follower" to be a bad term. To me a follower in a patrol is everyone but the PL. The patrol follows the direction of the PL who follows the direction of the SPL who follow the direction of the SM. Nothing derogatory.

 

"I see "follower" as members of the patrol who we develop as followers of the program. If the scouts I serve feel they are following me then I have done my job incorrectly. If they follow my example of scouting I have succeeded."

 

Following you IS following your example of Scouting. It's the same thing!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[NWScouter 9]

Bob,

Again you are giving power to a word way beyond its real power. You have demonized the word follower just like in an earlier thread you did with my (as in my troop). You have assumed that by using the term we are rejecting a whole lot of Boy Scout training. We are not. If you remember from training they discuss all kinds of leadership styles, the Boss style is one of them. Each have their place in the Leaders bag of skills and have their use and time.

If a Scout does not follow the direction of his leaders how can learn the Scouting program.

I said earlier that some Scouters have problems with new Scout patrols because young Scouts have problems being leaders. I said that the problem stems more with the other younger Scouts not taking leadership from the young Patrol Leader and following his direction. That is in all the types of leadership skills he uses. It is a part of the good citizenship that we learn both to be a good leader and a good follower. I think Scouting teaches both and at the same time.

This does not give license to all the things you list. We do not prejudge a young Scout but we nurture him to learn those skill that will help be a good leader.

 

[Fat Old Guy 11]

It is apparent that Bob White's entire experience with leadership and followership comes from watching "Apocolypse Now."

 

A leader worries about the welfare of his followers and puts their welfare before his own. A leader takes the blame for the failures of his unit and gives credit for success to his followers. A leader knows the strengths of his followers and uses them where they will best help the unit. A leader encourages his followers to succeed.

[Bob White 20]

No NWScouter, again you are not getting my point. The originator of the phrase we are debating did not introduce it to elevate the term follower, or to explain the skills of leadership. It was introduced as an excuse to avoid delivering the scouting program as it was designed. It was used as a crutch to avoid having to develop Troop Guides, avoid sharing leadership of the new scouts with an ASM, avoid having to give any responsibility to a scout under 12 years old.

 

If that poster were to agree that all it takes for a boy to lead is to recieve and understand training in the skills of leadership, then I would be happy take part in any irrelevent discussion on "if a leader is a follower, or a follower a leader".

 

But all we do by not acknowledging that leadership is the performance of a set of skills, and not a social position that one rises to, is fuel the fire for some adults to avoid training scouts to lead.

 

Bob White

 

To the previous poster. For what you say to be true one would have to look at scouts as their followers. Perhaps you do. I do not.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[SR540Beaver 116]

BW,

 

If my Dad read your posts he'd tell you what he used to tell me...."boy, you'd argure with a stump". Let's take a vote here. Who is suggesting that we not follow the program and who is making excuses to not train youth leadership in their units? When we refer to a follower, we do not mean a worshiper or a boot licker. We mean someone who has chosen to accept a person as a leader. In fact, often voted them into a position of leadership. Why would they chose to accept this person in that role? Usually because they display leadership qualities learned under the leadership of another person the leader had accepted at an earlier date. When a PL makes out a duty roster and gives the same guy latrine duty every single time, there is going to be a mutiny pretty soon. When a PL is fair and rotates the jobs among all patrol members, he will have people that accept his assignments. His good leadership skills encourage his patrol to accept (follow) his assignments willingly....even when it is a job they don't like. He decides (with consideration of his members), they accept (with trust). How does the successful PL win the approval of his patrol? Thru skills earned by both training and experience from being under other good or bad PL's. He had to chose to decide to follow the lead of former PL's. It made him a better leader by learning what to follow and what not to follow. It's really simple common sense and doesn't require a degree in philosophy.

[Bob White 20]

All possibly true Beaver. All good examples of poor scoutmastership. All unrelated to the point I'm trying to make here.

 

BW

[SR540Beaver 116]

BW,

 

It must be mighty lonesome being the only person on this forum to understand the scouting program and trying to straighten the rest of us out. But, somebody has to do it.

[Bob White 20]

You know Beaver, I read the posts from Eamonn, OGE, Matua, Mk9750 and DSteele and a number of others I don't feel the least bit lonely. I admit to the4 occassional passionate outbursts, but every now and then I get fed up with the few who don't follow the program, not because they don't know it, but because they don't want to do it.

 

Bob White

[NWScouter 9]

Bob,

It not that we disagree with the Scouting program but the glosses you place on it. You elevate the strangest minutiae to holy writ and in many cases only your interpretations of training materials. Your never admit they are opinion and could be incorrect.

All Zahnada asked our opinion on the quote Good leaders must first be good followers.

You condemn the quote because some leaders use it as an excuse for poor execution of the Scouting program. Therefore a leader to be a follower in any meaning of the word has no place in Scouting. The idea that good citizenship (which is one of the purposes of Scouting) has no place for following doesnt make sense.

I want you to know that more than just those who agree with you all the time care deeply about the Scouting Movement (those on your list have disagree with you on other threads and have not said anything about this one).

 

 

[Bob White 20]

Zahnada private mesaged me prior to originating the post. I am aware of where the phrase came from, and what it was in reference to. It is a convulusion of a discussion about leadership being a learned set of skills, while another poster sees it as the boss of followers, and feels that in order to be raised to that post you must first be a good follower for a couple years before he "allows" a scout to be elected. You might as well argue that to be a good fisherman you must first be a good fish.

 

Unchallenegd this thread will give that poster (and any others like him) all the ammo he needs to continue to ignore the elements of the scouting program. I do not expect him to change, but I cannot in good conscience let the premise go unchallenged.

 

You want to make cracks about me go ahead, I just want scouts to have a chance to experience scouting and not miss out on scouting opportunities because of silly cliche's.

 

Bob White

 

 

[Adrianvs 10]

I can use the phrase "A scout does not have to be a follower in order to be a leader." to justify all sorts of rejections of the program. It has nothing to do with the word or the concept. I'm sure the training session that attacked the word "follower" was very interesting, but you can't reject reason because the word "follower" has negative connotations.

[Bob White 20]

That's fine. That also has nothing to do with discussion. I am not arguing "follower" as positive or negative. My point is that skill of leadership does not depend on your ability to be a follower first. It depends on your ability to use the skills of leadership.

[Twocubdad 665]

"Must good leaders first be good followers?" was our original question posed. This was a good, though-provoking thread and I'd like to get back to the heart of it.

 

I think most of us agree that if by "followership" we are suggesting some sort of servile, subordinate role, then the answer is no. But if by follower we don't mean "subordinate," then how do we define follower?

 

Bob's earlier question, "Are you a follower of your state senator?" got me thinking about this. Heck no! I didn't even vote for him. But I do strive to be a good citizen, obeying the laws he and his other honorables enact and giving due respect to the office. If we substitute "citizen" for "follower" I believe we are much closer to what we mean. We hope our Scouts will be good patrol citizens, conscienciously voting for a good patrol leader, working to make the patrol successful, following the PL lead.

 

So do you have to a good citizen/follower to be a good leader? In this connotation I think so. I certainly wouldn't vote for a senator I didn't believe was a good citizen. I would hope our Scouts would select as patrol leaders those who demostrate themselves to be good patrol members and good Scouts generally. I'll allow that there are different circumstances which require different type of leadership -- some situations may require leaders with specific skills or those who can make quick decisions under pressure. But the senator and the patrol leader are examples of voluntary governance ("...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just poweres from the consent of the governed"). In that narrow situation, a good leader will be a good follower.

 

DSteele gave a good example of this leadership/followership in the thread about popcorn. I think his SE provided a good example of a good leader being a good follower by pitching in with Dave's popcorn distribution without interferring with Dave's leadership or methods.

 

As I said, this thread has been very thought provoking. How does this apply to the traits of a good leader generally? I'm not sure. I'm going to give it some more thought and listen to what the rest you think.

 

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

Excuse me Bob, but we are not privy to your private massages. Perhaps your responses should have been made in private to Z. We were responding with our opinions and experiences based on the first post in this thread. It is a horse of a different color than what you and Z discussed privately. You were talking apples while the rest of us were talking oranges. I respect your knowledge, experience and opinions....but I don't take them as gospel. If the BSA wants the program taught in a cookie cutter fashion, then they need to change their training and spell things out in detail with warnings not to deviate from the canned speech. I believe one of the key strengths of the BSA is in recognizing the varied and different strengths of individuals and what they bring to the table. The program framework and basics are there, but can be applied based on the individuals abilities. You think many of us are talking boss/employee followers. We are not. We are talking respect. Many of my previous bosses could tell me what to do and I had to do it or not get paid. However, over time I recognized the values they were imparting and saw them actually do what they had been taught when they were in my shoes. Rather than do what they asked because it was my job, I did what they asked before they asked because I bought into their way of doing things. They got my full support because of my respect. They had leadership skills. They had me following their example. They learned them the same way I did by following another leaders example. Thier way of doing things became infectious. In this case, I'm talking about a work ethic. They learned it and they passed it on. If they had never been taught or been willing to follow someone else's example, then they would have probably been a lousy leader and a poor example. But they followed and learned and became leaders themselves. I've taken many many lessons from many many leaders in my life and followed those examples. I pass that on to people who I am a leader to now. You can poo poo my experience all you want. It has been valuable to me and worked for me. Bob, you get hung up on philosophies, ideas and words and your interpretation of them and treat people on here like we are detremental to scouting. We have as many boys who appreciate the program as you do. Bob, I do respect you, but I do at times get annoyed at your high and mighty attitude that you have the answers and the rest of us are wrong. Usually, we are saying the same thing, but you get hung up on a single word and are convinced that you and only you are correct.

[Bob White 20]

I never said anything negative about any posters in general in this thread. I am warning you how this topic came up and how A poster uses it to avoid allowing scouts the full measure of the program. That supporting this psycho-babble of a cliche' only reinforces his behavior.

 

Everybody participates on this board for there own reason. Some to share information some to seek information, some to change the program some to support the program, and some to hurt it. I am here to support the program, and to help make sure that some of the misinformation shared is countered, not by personal opinion, but by references to the scouting resources. That really irritates some people. Good. They should be troubled about not keeping the promise made to boys in the BSA handbook.

 

I have a pretty good idea of who is irritated by what I post, and who isn't, and I make no apologies for the company I keep.

I find it ironic that you feel a good leader needs to be a good follower, unless what they follow is the scouting program, Then you find them acting high and mighty.

 

All I'm asking you to do is not justify this cliche', Scouts deserve better than that. I have said enough on this topic. You guys want to take pot shots at me have at it.

 

Bob White