Why are SEs not promoted from within?

[shortridge 184]

 

Several professionals have told me that councils are not allowed to promote a Scout Executive from within the ranks of the council's professional staff. Can anyone provide some insight as to why not?

 

Many other organizations do promote from within. They nurture local talent with roots to the area. That keeps junior and mid-level executives motivated at the prospect of upward mobility. Such methods provide stability for a leader's family, too.

 

Scouting's system seems to guarantee that every few years, the top leader of the council will pretty much have to start anew, meeting volunteers, getting up to speed on the personalities, putting his or her stamp on the professional staff, developing relationships with big donors, etc. Why not promote the Director of Field Service or Support Services Director or Senior District Executive to that job instead?

 

I could understand this policy in light of some of the more troubled councils. In a place where there's been widespread cheating on membership numbers, you might want to clean house and get someone new on board. But in most places, wouldn't it make sense to develop leadership and have someone with those local connections?

[Beavah 205]

Yah, shortridge, yeh would think this sorta thing would be common-sense, eh?

 

What yeh need to understand is that the BSA national office functionally runs a union-like seniority employment system, and requires council corporations to participate in it. So da reason a Director of Field Service can't be promoted to Scout Executive is that in national's employment system he or she doesn't have da seniority for the position. Might have da skills, experience, established trust and contacts, and 100% support from da council board, but that doesn't matter. The next step up might be to SE, but only to a smaller council somewhere else. A Senior District Executive ain't anywhere near the seniority status for SE.

 

Personally, I think da council exec boards could push this issue, and that it would be helpful for U.S. Scouting if they did. National's system creates a genuine conflict of interest for da professional staff, who have a duty to their employer (the council), but whose long-term employment prospects depend on a different corporation (national). No employee should ever face that kind of conflict of interest, and in da rest of the world it would be considered an ethical violation.

 

More important, it really hurts scouting in the ways that you describe and more. To "move up" an SE has to leave da state for a bigger council somewhere else... leaving behind contacts, displacin' their family. Same with all the lower levels. That results in poor service, as well as us losin' good people who just don't want to keep displacing their families.

 

Rumor has it that da proposed mega-council for Michigan is goin' to address this somehow, but from what I've seen I'm skeptical. Da system is deeply ingrained in da BSA.

 

Beavah

 

[Kahuna 172]

Another BSA rule that has its roots in James E. West. He felt that professionals would be tempted to undermine their SE if they thought they could succeed to his job. Probably some truth to that in the early days. Today, I think it's more what Beavah says about the National system.

[BadenP 93]

Yea Beavah got most of it correct, I would just add the way National sets it up it is they who initially commission all DE's, and all professional scouters are totally dependant on National for promotions really making them the primary employer, as opposed to the council. An executive committee member or members approve the hiring of all professional staff, however if the SE has already made up his mind he wants the person the exec committee approval is usually little more than a rubber stamp endorsement, that is the reality of the system in place.

 

As a DE when I went to training at National it was ingrained in us to be prepared to relocate every 3-5 years to assure steady promotions. It was also said that a DE after 3-5 years hustling in the field for numbers and money usually had worn out his welcome in that district in that time and moving on and putting a new DE in would be a "fresh start" for both the professionals and districts. While I saw some validity in the idea I still thought it was a crazy way to run the professional side of scouting.(This message has been edited by BadenP)

[Oak Tree 15]

There are some other arguments in favor of this approach, too.

 

Our church has a rule that you need special approval to promote an assistant pastor to be the main pastor. I think there are several reasons why they do this: 1. they don't want the normal situation to be that the most senior local guy is the one who expects to get the top job - don't want anyone to take the position for granted; 2. there is likely to be some good talent outside the local organization and they want you to look for it; 3. it can be difficult for someone to become the boss of all of his or her former co-workers (this is true in my work environment too - we don't normally promote people directly one step up there either).

 

There is also value in having people get experience in multiple councils so that they can bring more background to their position. Constantly moving new blood into councils might prevent some from developing their own dysfunctional culture (this is not foolproof, as Abel can attest). In the workplace I've seen a geographically isolated site really go astray and it would have been great to intermix their management with a bunch of other groups to fix that.

 

That said, I agree there are a bunch of negatives to forcing the system to work the way it does.

[Eagle92 110]

Ok I don't know why. Kahuna's idea might be the reason.

 

Beav's might be another reason.

 

I do know that BP hits the nail on the head: be prepare to move every 3-5 years. If you don't move that often A) it may look bad job wise when you do want to move and/or get a promotion, and B) promotions WILL come slower.

 

My FD was a DE for about 9-10 years before becoming a FD. he wouldn't relocate as his wife was the breadwinner, and had an established medical practice. Another FD I knew was a DE for over 10 years, sorry don't know the exact time, and then a FD for 10 years, all because he refused to move. He retired from his first job, and his wife was a senior administrator with the school system.

 

Now the reason why I was told the DFS doesn't move up is because national reviews the strengths and weaknesses of the council, and selects a candiate pool that puts those who can turn around the council's weaknesses. For example, My council had membership issues at one time, and one SE was a membership guy who fixed the problem. My council has had a program problem, and a program guy is now SE. So our program is gathering strength.