Servant Leadership vs. Rank Advancement

[Stosh]

While reviewing the current threads, the issue of Servant Leadership has once again made an appearance. Having thought about it a bit, it dawned on me that the "goals" of Servant Leadership seem to run contrary to the "goals" of rank advancement to a certain extent. How does one reconcile this or balance this in the troop setting?

 

Servant Leadership seems to focus on service to someone other than themselves, teaching, leading, guiding, mentoring others vs. the self-achievement focus of advancement. I see a lot of - getting one's Eagle so they can put it on their resumes and getting ahead on college applications, etc. While on the other hand, we seem to lose a lot of boys once they reach the rank of Eagle because they have little or no interest in "helping other people at all times". I got what I wanted and now I'm gone.

 

We hear a lot of accolades of how Eagles "give back" to their community, but we also hear of a lot of scouts going after the Eagle rank simply for personal gain.

 

Your thoughts?

[fred johnson]

Both servant leaders and advancement leaders happen. That's fine. People do things for many different reasons. That's fine. That's the scout's choice and the scout's option.

 

I sort of view it as at work. I know some managers who like helping their employees. They really like developing people and helping their people succeed. That's great. I also know managers who are only there because they get a bigger check or it paves the way for the next rung on the ladder. As with scout advancement, both are fine. We can never expect that every person out there will be altruistic.

 

My issue is when leaders manipulate the system to help a kid advance or manipulate the system to slow a kid down because they don't think he's giving enough back to the troop. Both are 100% inappropriate to me. Our job is to support the scout. Paving the trail and blocking the trail are both 100% wrong.

 

[perdidochas]

I don't see a servant leadership vs. rank advancement quandary. My observation is that most boys (and for our troop until recently it's primarily been 16 yo+) are on the verge of disinterest long before Eagle (exception being two of Troop's six Life Scouts). My son is one of the two, but he's younger than most (just turned 15) in that position. He is at the end of serving his term as SPL, but wanted to be QM (the most thankless Troop job, IMHO) for his next POR (not needed, as he will have done his POR for Eagle rank when he finishes the next two weeks of being SPL). My hope for the future of scouting is that a lot of these Eagles (or Life Scouts) decide to come back to help as adults. I'm thinking many of them will, but as teenagers they really don't know everything they need to be doing.

[Stosh]

Both servant leaders and advancement leaders happen. That's fine. People do things for many different reasons. That's fine. That's the scout's choice and the scout's option.

 

I sort of view it as at work. I know some managers who like helping their employees. They really like developing people and helping their people succeed. That's great. I also know managers who are only there because they get a bigger check or it paves the way for the next rung on the ladder. As with scout advancement, both are fine. We can never expect that every person out there will be altruistic.

 

My issue is when leaders manipulate the system to help a kid advance or manipulate the system to slow a kid down because they don't think he's giving enough back to the troop. Both are 100% inappropriate to me. Our job is to support the scout. Paving the trail and blocking the trail are both 100% wrong.

Some good points to ponder, but I'm a bit confused on the dynamics described. The helping managers have people that will actually "follow" their managers because it improves their employment situation. On the other hand who really follows the manager that is upward bound career climber? In my experience, employees that have managers like that are hoping and praying the person gets a promotion so they don't have to work with them anymore.

 

I would think that to a certain extent this might be happening in the troop. We got "stuck" with this SPL or PL or whatever, for a certain period of time. We have to tolerate him, but once his has his POR requirement time in, he'll move on and we won't have to put up with him anymore.

 

I'm really not seeing any leading and following in the corporate career model you describe. Am I missing something?

 

I totally agree that paving and blocking is 100% wrong and should not be tolerated by any troop or committee.

[Soon2Beagle]

In my experience as a member of my troop and from what my friends tell me of their troops, the smaller the troop the easier it is to encourage Service Leadership. In our troop the Eagle Scouts usually stay until they go to college/age out. In some cases if they decide to go to tech school they will still come camping and teach scout skills. I'm from a smaller troop so everyone knows each other well, and even among us boys those who are in scouts only for the 'Eagle' designation are looked down upon. My friends in larger troops tell me that most of their fellow scouts leave soon after getting Eagle. I think at some level it is because in smaller troops older boys can feel as if they are making a difference and it is easier to connect to a troop as a whole. I've never been in a large troop (my troop has had a max of 7 people until last year) but from what I've been told smaller cliches form, and boys tend to hangout with a core group of friends. This lack of social mobility may make returning to the troop less desirable.

Another thing I've noticed is that there are only seem to be two types of boys who get Eagle Scout, those who have been in it for the Eagle from the beginning and are highly motivated for it, and those who love scouting, and gradually gravitate toward eagle, eventually working to complete it. The first usually earn it earlier, leave the troop, and don't truly enjoy scouting because they are always looking for the next rank, the second tend to enjoy the experience, truly benefit from it, and generally are the ones who make scouting a part of their identity, and strive to live by scouting values. Obviously their are exceptions but in my experience this has been the case.

^all of this may be purely anecdotal, but it is based on my observations.

[5yearscouter]

In my experience as a member of my troop and from what my friends tell me of their troops, the smaller the troop the easier it is to encourage Service Leadership. In our troop the Eagle Scouts usually stay until they go to college/age out. In some cases if they decide to go to tech school they will still come camping and teach scout skills. I'm from a smaller troop so everyone knows each other well, and even among us boys those who are in scouts only for the 'Eagle' designation are looked down upon. My friends in larger troops tell me that most of their fellow scouts leave soon after getting Eagle. I think at some level it is because in smaller troops older boys can feel as if they are making a difference and it is easier to connect to a troop as a whole. I've never been in a large troop (my troop has had a max of 7 people until last year) but from what I've been told smaller cliches form, and boys tend to hangout with a core group of friends. This lack of social mobility may make returning to the troop less desirable.

Another thing I've noticed is that there are only seem to be two types of boys who get Eagle Scout, those who have been in it for the Eagle from the beginning and are highly motivated for it, and those who love scouting, and gradually gravitate toward eagle, eventually working to complete it. The first usually earn it earlier, leave the troop, and don't truly enjoy scouting because they are always looking for the next rank, the second tend to enjoy the experience, truly benefit from it, and generally are the ones who make scouting a part of their identity, and strive to live by scouting values. Obviously their are exceptions but in my experience this has been the case.

^all of this may be purely anecdotal, but it is based on my observations.

 

The bold certainly seems the case in most troops. My 17 year old son is the later version. He's served in positions or the fun of it, and for the personal motivation to see others learn more and do more. He just stepped up with just over 6 months left before he turns 18 to serve as troop instructor because he has seen scout skill proficiency take a nosedive, and watched the troop instructors who know just enough to be dangerous about some subjects (like a couple of weeks ago demonstrating ax useage he about had a coronary that someone was going to remove a limb from a body rather than a tree branch).

 

He's been very active in OA ceremonies, den chief, summer camp volunteer staff and paid staff, trying to ensure everyone in the troop learns what they need to know AND advance as well. He's actually been kind of bummed about earning Eagle. To him, true Eagles are the 2nd type, they are in scouting for the scouting and Eagle is not their goal but they usually earn it anyway with a bit of extra effort (like the Eagle project and maybe a couple of merit badges they have to push themselves to complete). Yet our troop is full of boys who are earning Eagle like it's a check box on a college application, they are in it for the potential scholarships and prestige and it makes him sad. He wasn't sure if he wanted to get his Eagle if he was going to be thought of as being "just like them."

 

As for servant leadership in the workplace, my husband works for a huge worldwide computer company and that is their new buzzword. The thought is that if you as a manager help those "below" you to grow in their postions, they will become a better asset to the company. Along the way, they realize that you can form a tight knit team that works well together, and on the move upward for the manager, he will often pull the rest of his team upwards with him, where they follow him upward to bigger and better things in the company. Who knows how well it really works on the corporate level, but it certainly can't help to have managers who are looking out for their team and helping them to grow--it should make for a better company to work for, eh?

 

 

[Stosh]

In my experience as a member of my troop and from what my friends tell me of their troops, the smaller the troop the easier it is to encourage Service Leadership. In our troop the Eagle Scouts usually stay until they go to college/age out. In some cases if they decide to go to tech school they will still come camping and teach scout skills. I'm from a smaller troop so everyone knows each other well, and even among us boys those who are in scouts only for the 'Eagle' designation are looked down upon. My friends in larger troops tell me that most of their fellow scouts leave soon after getting Eagle. I think at some level it is because in smaller troops older boys can feel as if they are making a difference and it is easier to connect to a troop as a whole. I've never been in a large troop (my troop has had a max of 7 people until last year) but from what I've been told smaller cliches form, and boys tend to hangout with a core group of friends. This lack of social mobility may make returning to the troop less desirable.

Another thing I've noticed is that there are only seem to be two types of boys who get Eagle Scout, those who have been in it for the Eagle from the beginning and are highly motivated for it, and those who love scouting, and gradually gravitate toward eagle, eventually working to complete it. The first usually earn it earlier, leave the troop, and don't truly enjoy scouting because they are always looking for the next rank, the second tend to enjoy the experience, truly benefit from it, and generally are the ones who make scouting a part of their identity, and strive to live by scouting values. Obviously their are exceptions but in my experience this has been the case.

^all of this may be purely anecdotal, but it is based on my observations.

 

The bold certainly seems the case in most troops. My 17 year old son is the later version. He's served in positions or the fun of it, and for the personal motivation to see others learn more and do more. He just stepped up with just over 6 months left before he turns 18 to serve as troop instructor because he has seen scout skill proficiency take a nosedive, and watched the troop instructors who know just enough to be dangerous about some subjects (like a couple of weeks ago demonstrating ax useage he about had a coronary that someone was going to remove a limb from a body rather than a tree branch).

 

He's been very active in OA ceremonies, den chief, summer camp volunteer staff and paid staff, trying to ensure everyone in the troop learns what they need to know AND advance as well. He's actually been kind of bummed about earning Eagle. To him, true Eagles are the 2nd type, they are in scouting for the scouting and Eagle is not their goal but they usually earn it anyway with a bit of extra effort (like the Eagle project and maybe a couple of merit badges they have to push themselves to complete). Yet our troop is full of boys who are earning Eagle like it's a check box on a college application, they are in it for the potential scholarships and prestige and it makes him sad. He wasn't sure if he wanted to get his Eagle if he was going to be thought of as being "just like them."

 

As for servant leadership in the workplace, my husband works for a huge worldwide computer company and that is their new buzzword. The thought is that if you as a manager help those "below" you to grow in their postions, they will become a better asset to the company. Along the way, they realize that you can form a tight knit team that works well together, and on the move upward for the manager, he will often pull the rest of his team upwards with him, where they follow him upward to bigger and better things in the company. Who knows how well it really works on the corporate level, but it certainly can't help to have managers who are looking out for their team and helping them to grow--it should make for a better company to work for, eh?

 

"As for servant leadership in the workplace, my husband works for a huge worldwide computer company and that is their new buzzword. The thought is that if you as a manager help those "below" you to grow in their postions, they will become a better asset to the company. Along the way, they realize that you can form a tight knit team that works well together, and on the move upward for the manager, he will often pull the rest of his team upwards with him, where they follow him upward to bigger and better things in the company. Who knows how well it really works on the corporate level, but it certainly can't help to have managers who are looking out for their team and helping them to grow--it should make for a better company to work for, eh?"

 

Isn't this a definition for the patrol method?? Take any reference to the manager's (PL) department/team (patrol) and company (troop) and apply it to the same conversation. I work for a multi-billion dollar international company that is also following these principles and low and behold, once the managers/supervisors quit trying to dictate to the workers and began to enable them, some really fantastic things are changing around here for the company.

[Stosh]

I don't see a servant leadership vs. rank advancement quandary. My observation is that most boys (and for our troop until recently it's primarily been 16 yo+) are on the verge of disinterest long before Eagle (exception being two of Troop's six Life Scouts). My son is one of the two, but he's younger than most (just turned 15) in that position. He is at the end of serving his term as SPL, but wanted to be QM (the most thankless Troop job, IMHO) for his next POR (not needed, as he will have done his POR for Eagle rank when he finishes the next two weeks of being SPL). My hope for the future of scouting is that a lot of these Eagles (or Life Scouts) decide to come back to help as adults. I'm thinking many of them will, but as teenagers they really don't know everything they need to be doing.

"My hope for the future of scouting is that a lot of these Eagles (or Life Scouts) decide to come back to help as adults. I'm thinking many of them will, but as teenagers they really don't know everything they need to be doing."

 

For me this IS the quandary. If boys aren't taught the skills of servant leadership and are only interested in self-achievement, why would they ever consider coming back to "help out"? Sure, once that Eagle has a son of his own, he will come back FOR HIS KID, but again, it won't be for the betterment of any troop he decides to register his son in.

[walk in the woods]

I figure that even for the Eagle-driven kids I get at least a few years to plant the seeds of servant leadership, personal development, etc. What they see as a check box today (As a first class scout complete 6 service hours.....) might grow into something bigger down the line. Regardless of what happens when they are 18, we never really get to see the results of our work until the "boys" are much older.

[Eagledad]

I said in another thread that for a troop to breed servant leaders, the troop must have a servant culture. Leadership is just one behavioral attribute of many a boy can develop in the troop. A servant culture is one where the scouts consider the team before themselves in all their decisions, whether they are leaders or not. Advancement is just a tool to develop growth and skills. It only becomes a problem when it becomes the vision for stature. First Class is really a set of skills that give a boy confidence to survive in the woods and be a productive part of the team. When advancement becomes a stepping stone of stature, then it will challenges the servant culture because the growth doesn't benefit the team. The worst leaders are the ones who don't try to grow from the experience. If you want a scout to age out of your troop, then use the program to constantly challenge him both physically and mentally at every point of his life. Advancment is one of many tools to do that. The problem with troops that loose scout after they get Eagle is they don't have a program for them after Eagle. Eagle is the goal, so the design of the program ended there. A troop that focuses on anThe troop set Eagle as the highest goal instead of one of many growth challenges. Barry

 

[Stosh]

I said in another thread that for a troop to breed servant leaders, the troop must have a servant culture. Leadership is just one behavioral attribute of many a boy can develop in the troop. A servant culture is one where the scouts consider the team before themselves in all their decisions, whether they are leaders or not. Advancement is just a tool to develop growth and skills. It only becomes a problem when it becomes the vision for stature. First Class is really a set of skills that give a boy confidence to survive in the woods and be a productive part of the team. When advancement becomes a stepping stone of stature, then it will challenges the servant culture because the growth doesn't benefit the team. The worst leaders are the ones who don't try to grow from the experience. If you want a scout to age out of your troop, then use the program to constantly challenge him both physically and mentally at every point of his life. Advancment is one of many tools to do that. The problem with troops that loose scout after they get Eagle is they don't have a program for them after Eagle. Eagle is the goal, so the design of the program ended there. A troop that focuses on anThe troop set Eagle as the highest goal instead of one of many growth challenges. Barry

Correct me if I'm wrong. What you are saying is the balance between SL and achievement is eschewed towards achievement rather than SL (service towards others)? If that be the case, how do the heavily achievement troops (Eagle mills) move towards either the middle or even better towards SL?

[Eagledad]

I said in another thread that for a troop to breed servant leaders, the troop must have a servant culture. Leadership is just one behavioral attribute of many a boy can develop in the troop. A servant culture is one where the scouts consider the team before themselves in all their decisions, whether they are leaders or not. Advancement is just a tool to develop growth and skills. It only becomes a problem when it becomes the vision for stature. First Class is really a set of skills that give a boy confidence to survive in the woods and be a productive part of the team. When advancement becomes a stepping stone of stature, then it will challenges the servant culture because the growth doesn't benefit the team. The worst leaders are the ones who don't try to grow from the experience. If you want a scout to age out of your troop, then use the program to constantly challenge him both physically and mentally at every point of his life. Advancment is one of many tools to do that. The problem with troops that loose scout after they get Eagle is they don't have a program for them after Eagle. Eagle is the goal, so the design of the program ended there. A troop that focuses on anThe troop set Eagle as the highest goal instead of one of many growth challenges. Barry

Sorry jblake, I don't understand the first question, isn't "eschewed" opposite of "toward"? I'm sure it's me, my English teacher son says grammer is not one of my strengths. The answer to the second question is that usally any kind of culture change requires new adult leadership. In fact, that is how several Eagle mills in our district proactively changed to move towards a more boy run program. The biggest problem I found with adult leaders of Eagle mills was the fear of doing anything different would risk scouts not getting the Eagle. That sounds obvious, but a lot of adults really can't grasp the concept of the scout controlling his destiny because they may not choose the Eagle. While I was SM, someone asked me why so many of our scouts didn't get Eagle until they were almost 18. I told him that they were busy. He said outside looking in, it could appear they were pushed at the last minute to get Eagle. I told him that percentage wise, we have more scouts age out of the troop than any other unit. Maybe they really are busy.

[fred johnson]

Both servant leaders and advancement leaders happen. That's fine. People do things for many different reasons. That's fine. That's the scout's choice and the scout's option.

 

I sort of view it as at work. I know some managers who like helping their employees. They really like developing people and helping their people succeed. That's great. I also know managers who are only there because they get a bigger check or it paves the way for the next rung on the ladder. As with scout advancement, both are fine. We can never expect that every person out there will be altruistic.

 

My issue is when leaders manipulate the system to help a kid advance or manipulate the system to slow a kid down because they don't think he's giving enough back to the troop. Both are 100% inappropriate to me. Our job is to support the scout. Paving the trail and blocking the trail are both 100% wrong.

It's really about style versus motivation. A scout can be motivated by self-less altruistic reasons or motivated by self-achievement. Same with a boss. He might be motivated by helping others or by promotion and money. Good leadership can be driven by many different motives.

 

It's not a one versus the other. And in fact, even self-less leader and ladder climbing isn't mutually exclusive.

[Stosh]

I said in another thread that for a troop to breed servant leaders, the troop must have a servant culture. Leadership is just one behavioral attribute of many a boy can develop in the troop. A servant culture is one where the scouts consider the team before themselves in all their decisions, whether they are leaders or not. Advancement is just a tool to develop growth and skills. It only becomes a problem when it becomes the vision for stature. First Class is really a set of skills that give a boy confidence to survive in the woods and be a productive part of the team. When advancement becomes a stepping stone of stature, then it will challenges the servant culture because the growth doesn't benefit the team. The worst leaders are the ones who don't try to grow from the experience. If you want a scout to age out of your troop, then use the program to constantly challenge him both physically and mentally at every point of his life. Advancment is one of many tools to do that. The problem with troops that loose scout after they get Eagle is they don't have a program for them after Eagle. Eagle is the goal, so the design of the program ended there. A troop that focuses on anThe troop set Eagle as the highest goal instead of one of many growth challenges. Barry

You got me curious. Eschew means to shun or avoid. I was using it to mean move "away from the middle of the road" balance kind of thing. Meaning moving off dead center (eschewing the center) towards achievement. Sorry for the confusion.

 

I think you are spot on with the adult emphasis. I'm a little bit in the Kudu camp on going with the boy-led thing and his emphasis on leadership vs. modern business theory. I use the terms leadership and management. Leadership means to lead people, which of course will eventually complete a task (people skills) , and management (organizational skills) which is simply accomplishing a task. I can force people to accomplish a task, but in my book that's really not leadership, it's dictatorship.

 

I think you are right in that many adults don't or can't trust the boys to make good choices on their own and thus they make them for them. Helicopter parents are extremely proficient in this process. You will get your Eagle if you are member of this troop, etc. On the other hand, there are those who try to develop what I think the BSA program, at least historically, is all about, developing leaders. The Good Turn Daily people, the help the old lady across the street person, the caring trendsetter (leader). How do we get the boys to be that way rather than just act that way to get a reward of some sort?

 

Advancement to me is more of a management issue. Here's what you do, when it's done, check the box. When all the boxes are completed, you get a pin/pat on the back/badge, etc. The focus is getting it done by the individual. Sure you learn along the way, but where is the character/leadership development in the process?

 

To a certain extent advancement is important. The boys need to learn the skills to be self sufficient. They have to be able to take care of themselves before they can turn their attention on taking care of someone else. That shift from one side (self) to the other (others), or maybe a balancing act between the two is where I started going with this thread. Is what we are doing developing tomorrow's leaders? or simply training them with a bit of management skills so they can check the box on the college entrance application or a footnote on a job resume?

[Eagledad]

Ah, I see where you were going. I don't look at advancement as balancing between self and serving others. I look at advancement as actvities for improving skills and character. From the day they joined, our scouts were taught to set small goals to acheive large task. Learn one knot and set a goal and create a plan to learn another. For me it was as much about learning to set goals and create a plan of action as it was to learn the knot. Do that all through the First Class requirements and scouts become very good at assessing large projects and developing a plan to achieve it. Character development also came in through the scouts responsibilities. Typically new scouts were given the task of Cheer Master or Grub Master. From there they were taught self reliance, independence, responsibility, AND service to others through the actions of the job requirements. The task were small, but challenging for the age and maturity of the scout. In fact, I had in my mind a purpose of character and leadership growth for every action a scout performed in the program. Rank was not my responsibility, building citizens of character and leaders of integrity, was my passion. I even told the scouts that if their was something they did that I couldn't justify in developing character, they could take it out of the program. LOL, uniform was the first challenge they threw at me. Kudu and I have compared programs for many years and really the only difference in our basic philosophy is that he thinks the leadership should go to the more natural leaders like Badon Powel did. I build a program of developing leadership skills for all the scouts and let them choose their paths. Otherwise, in my opinion our two programs side by side out in the woods look about the same.