Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CNYScouter

No youth willing to be Troop Quartermaster

Recommended Posts

dcsimmons, I agree there is a modicum of leadership with the historian, but it begs the question of who is he leading? From what you have described, this boy would be an excellent manager and to me that is what a large portion of what a POR is all about. I think the terminology used by BSA is correct. Position of Responsibility or Position of Leadership. To me there is a significant difference.

 

A Scribe, Historian or Webmaster have far less need for leadership than say a PL, SPL or TG. Scribes, Historians and Webmasters have certain tasks spelled out for them that measure their responsibility. You gave an excellent job description for Historian. Everything listed there can be done alone, but the boy, with no one else around required to be led. A Webmaster can sit in his bedroom and do his work with no one else around. On the other end of the spectrum are the PL's. What is their defining duties? WAY TO MANY to enumerate. Instead his duty is to build relationships, assist and help his assigned boys be successful and make sure everyone is having a good time. That is a lot of leadership and not much tasking. Yes to a certain extend a good leader does have some management skill to go along with his leading people. A PL wouldn't have a job if it wasn't for the people following him. On the other hand a Webmaster doesn't need anyone or anything else, but the task at hand.

 

All POR's have a varying amount of management tasks assigned to them, but some have very little leadership expectation. In all seriousness an APL has more leadership expectations than say the Webmaster or Historian or Librarian.... Heck the Grubmaster has more leadership requirements than the Historian or Librarian. DC on the otherhand is ALL leadership, pure and simple. "Hey, boys, let's go over here and play a game while the DL gets things ready!" He has no idea what his "job" is going into a den meeting, but he still leads (the boys are looking for him to follow) the moment he walks through the door.

 

Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a more basic question: Why did that 12 year old have to be FC before he "stepped up"? There is NO rank requirement for POR. There is a POR requirement for certain ranks. They are not the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BINGO Torchwood! My "SPL" at summer camp last summer hadn't earned his TF yet. Did a great job!

 

Too often adults get in the way and start muddling things up. There is nothing wrong with a TF being QM. He doesn't get credit for it for advancement, but then one can hold a POR just for the experience of holding a POR!

 

Okay, you have 4 patrols and no QM. Each patrol then designates one member to be a QM for the patrol. Of course they can all be TF because it's not some sort of advancement, big shot position that's adult designated FC or above that's on everyone's radar. Then the patrol QM's hold a mini-QMC (Quartermaster Council) and they divvy up the equipment as needed for the outing. Those four kids all learn how to do the job so that when they all get FC they get to fight over who going to get the troop QM position and get some advancement credit.

 

Okay I have 6 Life scouts sitting on their hands doing nothing and a TF that wants to be QM. I have no problem with the TF doing the job. Give me one kid with interest in the task and heart for the job and he'll do far better than anyone else who's going to just sit around on their hands and do nothing.

 

Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And this makes my point exactly! One does not need a Position of Responsibility to be a practicing leader!!!! at 7:00 am, the Bugler is the leader. At 7:30 am, the Chaplain's Aide is the leader. At 8:00 am the Grubmaster is the leader, at 9:00 am, the Activitymaster is the leader. at 12:00 pm, the Grubmaster is the leader once again except for a brief moment when the Chaplain's Aid steps up for Grace., and this continues throughout the day for the patrol. As each leader assumes his leadership role, he is the one serving the needs of the patrol. As they take turns doing their serving, it's called teamwork and everyone has a part whether there's a POR patch or not. The kid that gets up, stokes the fire for the Grubmaster, gets his buddy up and fills the water jug, and then goes and goofs off until breakfast is a far better leader in my book than a Troop Historian with a POR patch.

 

If what a boy is doing does not fit the definition of "Taking care of the boys," it is not leadership in my book. A leader needs people to lead, not a task to do. Position of Responsibility is management of tasks, not the leading of people.

 

Stosh

 

My oldest got his Eagle about a year ago. He always has a position of responsibility, but not always an official one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are two reasons why this Scout was 1st class before he became QM

The SM feels that the Quartermaster position needs to be held by an older Scout

 

I also know the SM didn’t think this boy was a good fit for the Quartermaster position.

 

The Scout is lucky if he makes half of the Troop meeting and outings. He is not very responsible and was pretty immature.

 

The Troop uses E-mail and Facebook for its primary mode of communication – his family has neither.

 

I know the Patrol Leaders should be calling each patrol member but it has been really tough to get them to follow through with this so he never knows what is going on.

 

It’s just as much this Scout’s parents than the scout – they just are not reliable to get the Scout to activities

 

When an adult said he would take over as the new equipment manager and mentor this Scout the SM said OK to him being QM.

The SM is hoping that now the Scout is older he can handle the position.

 

It hasn’t started out very good.

 

Right after this Scout agreed to be Quartermaster there was an equipment work day.

With walk-ins and crossovers we had this year we have 12 new scouts we added a 5th new scout patrol.

 

Another patrol box was needed to be put together for the new scout patrol.

The Scout didn’t show nor did be call to say he wouldn’t be there.

He then missed the next 3 Troop meetings.

 

I have little faith in the new equipment manager.

It was discovered at the work day that ½ the propane tanks were empty.

When we got to the campout two weeks later they still empty – he just left it to the people on the campouts to get them filled after we got there….and the 5th patrol box was never put together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a little off topic, but your mention of the "immaturity" of the Scout in question is key. There's a point, different for each boy, where they go from "just showing up and hoping something good happens" to understanding they can actually do something before the activity to make something good happen. Sometimes this moment happens when they are 19 or 20, but it does happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be the first to admit that some of the best lessons in life I have learned in the past 64 years have been my failures. So the new kid shows up with empty gas cylinders. So what. The back lash he got from his buddies will set the record straight for next time. So for one outing the boys needed to do their cooking on charcoal or wood campfire. Be prepared! This is scouting. The PL needs a lesson on basic problem solving. The chain reaction of problems might be just the thing to get the boys in gear to start making better decisions than just whining about how the new QM screwed up.

 

My SMC with the new QM would simply start out, "Is this a good way to be taking care of your boys?" His excuse is of no real value, but what he does next time will probably be a bit different, maybe he'll forget to check the Dutch ovens..... or there will be more boys than tents. Any and all of these issues create challenging problem solving opportunities for the boys. Quit wasting time looking backwards to the mistakes and start looking forward to the solutions.

 

I still think a newbie, untrained, semi-motivated QM is better than nothing.

 

Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I think there are two reasons why this Scout was 1st class before he became QM

The SM feels that the Quartermaster position needs to be held by an older Scout

 

I also know the SM didn’t think this boy was a good fit for the Quartermaster position."

 

 

Maybe one ought to un-wad one's briefs and loosen up on the adult-led reins here. Now that we have established what the SM wants, let's spend a little time figuring out what the boys want, after all it's their program. I do believe the recommendation is that the SPL assigns the QM, not the SM!

 

Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Position of Responsibility or Position of Leadership. To me there is a significant difference.

I think we can all agree that leadership is a responsibility, and so all Positions of Leadership (SPL, PL, ect.) are also certainly Positions of Responsibility.

 

But do all Positions of Responsibility require leadership?

 

Well I think it depends on your definition of "leadership."

 

To me a leader is somebody who organizes a group of people to achieve a common goal.

 

There are face-to-face leaders -- the ones who directly manage, guide and direct other people. The SPL and PLs are these types of leaders. They lead meetings, they directly interact with and manage other members, they direct and led events and activities, they build social relationships, and often will act as a spokesman or a figurehead for the group, etc.

 

But there are other types of leaders -- administrative or "behind the scenes" leaders -- the ones who may not directly manage other people, but they are still providing leadership to organize and manage a group.

 

A Webmaster can sit in his bedroom and do his work with no one else around.

I disagree! Yes, a webmaster can do all his "work" at 11PM while sitting alone in his bedroom... but he's not doing it with no one else around. He's got the whole troop (Scouts and parents) and even the larger community as an audience. A webmaster may not be leading the troop in a face-to-face manner but a good webmaster is certainly leading the troop (from his bedroom at 11PM).

 

Sending out a reminder that permission slips are due next week and effectively communicating that to all the members of the troop... that's leadership. Sharing the troop's latest accomplishments on social media and thus building community awareness and raising Scout spirit... that's leadership. Coming up with a fun and effective way to get Scouts excited for summer camp, engage members, communicate plans, and maybe even recruiting new members... that's leadership. Coordinating information from the PLC (working with the Scribe and SPL and PLs and others) to get information for the website... that's leadership. Working with the historian and others to get pictures, quotes and other content... that's leadership. Developing creative ideas and solving problems... leadership.

 

A Scout simply pressing "upload" to a file that someone else created or doing copy-and-paste data-entry... that isn't really leadership. A Scout posting an announcement to a Facebook page that has zero followers or adding photos to a website that no one in the troop ever looks at is not really providing leadership either. Nor is it what a good webmaster should be doing.

 

A Webmaster who develops, creates and posts website and social media updates that communicate the plans for upcoming event is providing essential guidance and leadership to the members in his troop.

 

A Scout can sit in his bedroom and create beautiful and detailed photo albums of pictures from every troop outing and event with no one else around (and keep them all on a bookshelf in his bedroom with any other eyes seeing them). That does not make his a good Historian. A good troop Historian should be sharing what he does (make a slideshow to show at the next court of honor; create displays and presentations to share and promote the troop's accomplishments), and he should be engaging others (collecting pictures, conducting interviews, ect.).

 

A Scribe that sits in the corner of the PLC meeting, writes everything down and then hands the paper to the SPL at the end of the meeting is not a leader... they're a stenographer. But a Scribe can be a leader if he keeps and shares minutes, co-ordinates information with patrol Scribes, engages with members to track attendance/advancement/financial records, collects and organizes paperwork, creates and develops forms and announcements, works with the Webmaster and Historian on communication efforts and with the Librarian and Quartermaster on record keeping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little off the topic, but relevant with regard to this new QM: The Troop needs to make sure that they capture everyone in how they communicate. If one patrol has a member without email or Facebook, then that boy's PL may need to go the extra mile. How about a phone call or printing the email and making sure that a schoolmate gets it to him. This isn't rocket science, it is a PL doing his job and taking care of the boys in his charge. I also agree with Stosh that this Troop appears to be too adult-led. The SM shouldn't be appointing POR. You have a boy who has offered to step up when others wouldn't. Do everything you can to make him successful. If the SM doesn't know how, maybe he needs to repeat SM training. These are the building blocks of a successful boy-led Troop. Not allowing them to develop into good leaders is short circuiting the program and short changing the boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that leadership is a responsibility, and so all Positions of Leadership (SPL, PL, ect.) are also certainly Positions of Responsibility.

 

And this is how many justify the misunderstanding of the two by attempting to blend them together into one. I for one see a clear line of distinction between the two and while they can on occasion work hand-in-hand with each other, they can also work independently of each other.

 

But do all Positions of Responsibility require leadership?

 

Well I think it depends on your definition of "leadership."

 

To me a leader is somebody who organizes a group of people to achieve a common goal.

 

And this is a classic example of how the two are attempted to be blended. The word "organizes" is 100% a management word, not a leadership word. Organizing a group of people is a task and "achieving a common goal." is also a task. What this definition is demonstrates what a manager (management) would do. He could also do this by force and intimidation and the only reason the people are organized is because they are too afraid not to. That would accomplish the task but not require any leadership. It is what was once referred to as Theory X of management. Either you do your job or you're fired! It works, but it doesn't empower the person to really want to "follow" this person as a leader.

 

 

There are face-to-face leaders -- the ones who directly manage, guide and direct other people. The SPL and PLs are these types of leaders. They lead meetings, they directly interact with and manage other members, they direct and led events and activities, they build social relationships, and often will act as a spokesman or a figurehead for the group, etc.

 

But there are other types of leaders -- administrative or "behind the scenes" leaders -- the ones who may not directly manage other people, but they are still providing leadership to organize and manage a group.

 

Again, "manage", "guide", "direct" are all words from the world of management, not leadership. "Interact and manage other members"? The definition of leadership being proposed is riddled with management verbiage.

 

I disagree! Yes, a webmaster can do all his "work" at 11PM while sitting alone in his bedroom... but he's not doing it with no one else around. He's got the whole troop (Scouts and parents) and even the larger community as an audience. A webmaster may not be leading the troop in a face-to-face manner but a good webmaster is certainly leading the troop (from his bedroom at 11PM).

 

:) He is not leading anyone from his bedroom. But what he is doing is fulfilling a simple communication task for the troop. His work pretty much is troop PR for the rest of the people to see, kinda like a modern electronic newspaper or newsletter. I for one have no idea who 99% of the newsletter compilers may be, but it basically I react to the information of interest regardless of who wrote it. There is no leadership personality involved. If Activity X looks good and might be fun, I really don't care who wrote the article. Now if PL Johnny is going to be running the activity, and I llke PL Johnny because he makes activities fun, then I'll go. And now you have a leadership component involved but it has nothing to do with Webmaster Freddie.

 

Sending out a reminder that permission slips are due next week and effectively communicating that to all the members of the troop... that's leadership. Sharing the troop's latest accomplishments on social media and thus building community awareness and raising Scout spirit... that's leadership. Coming up with a fun and effective way to get Scouts excited for summer camp, engage members, communicate plans, and maybe even recruiting new members... that's leadership. Coordinating information from the PLC (working with the Scribe and SPL and PLs and others) to get information for the website... that's leadership. Working with the historian and others to get pictures, quotes and other content... that's leadership. Developing creative ideas and solving problems... leadership.

 

Yes! you are correct that these are excellent leadership dynamics and if they are in the newsletter from Webmaster Freddie, they should be duplicates of what PL Johnny should have already done. That's why his responsibility is to be Patrol LEADER. If he isn't taking care of his boys he is not leading. If he is getting the job done (tasks) but not taking care of the boys he is being a good manager but not a leader.

 

 

A Scout simply pressing "upload" to a file that someone else created or doing copy-and-paste data-entry... that isn't really leadership. A Scout posting an announcement to a Facebook page that has zero followers or adding photos to a website that no one in the troop ever looks at is not really providing leadership either. Nor is it what a good webmaster should be doing.

 

A Webmaster who develops, creates and posts website and social media updates that communicate the plans for upcoming event is providing essential guidance and leadership to the members in his troop.

 

A Scout can sit in his bedroom and create beautiful and detailed photo albums of pictures from every troop outing and event with no one else around (and keep them all on a bookshelf in his bedroom with any other eyes seeing them). That does not make his a good Historian. A good troop Historian should be sharing what he does (make a slideshow to show at the next court of honor; create displays and presentations to share and promote the troop's accomplishments), and he should be engaging others (collecting pictures, conducting interviews, ect.).

 

A Scribe that sits in the corner of the PLC meeting, writes everything down and then hands the paper to the SPL at the end of the meeting is not a leader... they're a stenographer. But a Scribe can be a leader if he keeps and shares minutes, co-ordinates information with patrol Scribes, engages with members to track attendance/advancement/financial records, collects and organizes paperwork, creates and develops forms and announcements, works with the Webmaster and Historian on communication efforts and with the Librarian and Quartermaster on record keeping.

 

SMMatthew, here is where we differ. All these things the Scribe is doing is taking care of tasks, taking care of business and doing paperwork. It simply can be done in a vacuum without anyone around. Yes, somewhere down the road someone's life is a bit easier because he did his job, but doing one's job is not leading.

 

Look at it this way.

 

Position of Responsibility - A position which requires the ability to respond.(respond-ability) It is reactionary to the needed tasks at hand. If we need equipment, the QM is in a position where he is able to respond to the need of equipment. Only after the task has been defined (We need 2 Dutch ovens) is the QM able to respond. He MANAGES these tasks that meet the needs of the present time. Remember management is after the problem has been identified, it's reactionary and his focus is on the task of getting 2 Dutch Oven ready. He is simply responding to a task, not to people directly. If QM shows up with 2 Dutch ovens at a defined place, it makes no difference who shows up to receive them.

 

Position of Leadership - a position of leading. Now, in no way is this placement behind any identified issues or tasks. No, a leader is someone out front of a problem, not reacting to a problem. And a leader also has an even more important component involved. It's not leading tasks (management) but it is more specifically leading people. Others need to be at hand and choosing to follow before the title leader can be bestowed. If a leader is expected to take care of his boys, this simple lesson is what leadership is all about. No one in this world is going to not follow someone they know and trust that will take care of them. If PL Johnny isn't motivated to take care of me, why in the world would I follow, he's not a leader and more importantly he is not MY leader. Leadership is not assigned, but it is bestowed by those who will follow a particular person.

 

This is why putting a PL patch on a boy doesn't make him a Patrol Leader in any sense of the definition other than as a title. It's not even an issue of liking the person. People will follow a leader they trust whether they like them or not.

 

Does one have to know what the task is that the group is reacting to (management) as long as they trust their leader is going to take care of them in the process? (leadership)

 

One can see this most evident with military examples. If the leader is someone the soldiers trust to take care of them the best he can, they will follow him anywhere regardless of the mission.

 

Leadership is not tangible, is out front of problems and people, and is bestowed by the followers.

 

Management is tangibly definable, is reactionary to the task and may nor may not involve the necessity of other people. Even then the task could be filled through directives, assignments and delegations.

 

I hope this helps to understand how I see the differences.

 

Stosh

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of "leadership vs management" descriptions on the web. One idea is that leaders focus on people while managers focus on tasks. Focusing on people brings them together with a common vision, or takes care of them in Stosh's words. Focusing on tasks means get things done, with less concern on how it impacts the people. They both have tasks to do but the leader is more interested in how those tasks impact people. Obviously people would rather follow a leader than a manager. The two groups have different personalities. Leaders are going for the big picture and are willing to take risks whereas managers are more risk adverse. Leaders do it for excitement while managers do it for $10/hr.

 

I have a new QM that fits the leadership model. After years of just trying to get anyone to do the bare minimum we have a scout that we can't get out of the way fast enough. But it's nothing we did. This scout just wants to lead.

 

The challenge I run into with scouts is getting the scouts to be willing to have an impact on other scouts. Most 13 year olds are trapped by peer pressure to never rock the boat. It's a lot easier to do as you're told than to figure out what's right and that's a big hump to get them over. I want patrol leaders to focus on delivering the promise of scouting to their patrol. What I don't know is how to change the rewards to encourage that. In all honesty a patrol leader can have zero impact on a patrol and the patrol can still have some fun camping. The scouts have enough experience to muddle through and they're used to it. I'd like to sit down with the PLC each month and ask them what they want to do that will have an impact on their patrol, and then give them credit if they make an honest go of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The challenge I run into with scouts is getting the scouts to be willing to have an impact on other scouts. Most 13 year olds are trapped by peer pressure to never rock the boat.

 

Wow - in my opinion, this is a really important point. It's like they're in a trench in World War I - the first guy to poke his head up is likely to get it handed to him.

 

I have heard boys who are born leaders called "bossy" and so forth, mostly by other parents, who also don't appreciate leadership. Some of them may have deserved it, but learning to be a servant leader is a process, and a "bossy" kid is more likely to be able to morph into a servant leader than a kid who is an introvert or completely uninterested. [i dodged a bullet this spring when a dad who called another kid in his son's Den "bossy" went to another Troop. Whew!]

 

Boys have to be made to feel as though they can "impact" other boys without seeming "bossy" or "mean" etc. Parents need to understand that this process takes time, mistakes will be made and that boys are never too young to start learning it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Scoutergipper, but I'm going to challenge you a bit on the introvert vs. "bossy" as which would make the better servant leader. First I would like to modify the word "bossy" because that for me seems to fit more into the definition of Theory X management. :)

 

I had two boys in my troop, both working on Eagle at the same time, one was quiet and introverted and the other confident and charismatic. They were actually very close friends.

 

BOTH boys came into servant leadership with the same amount of intensity. The charismatic scout would be an example of the dynamic, rah-rah, "Follow me, boys!" kind of leader. No one ever questioned his leadership ability. He seemed to pull others along in his wake and it worked really well. He was the first one there to give a hand and made sure everyone was having a good time, etc. No one would not define him as a leader.

 

The introvert was quiet and reserved. He was a PL for a while and eventually the TG for the new boys. He would work diligently with each boy helping them all to work through orientation to the troop and organizing as a patrol and helped them with TF-FC advancement. The boys loved him and he genuinely like the boys. They all wanted to make him their PL, but he quietly declined because he said the next group of new scouts would be needing him for their first year.

 

The first boy seemed like Captain America and the second one like a mother hen. Which boy was the "better" leader? :)

 

Every boy has the potential for leadership, and it has nothing to do with their "personality". The only requirement they need to fulfill is a genuine desire to want to help others. If hat be the case, they will have no problem gathering a following..

 

Stosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For most positions of responsibility -- from Quartermaster and Scribe all the way up to SPL and Scoutmaster -- you can have individuals who are truly leaders... and you can also have individuals who are simply good managers or task-masters doing the job.

 

I know there are plenty of examples out there of troops run by Scoutmasters and/or SPLs who are "one-man-shows" and complete all the tasks to put on a "good-looking" program while not giving any actual leadership to anyone. Likewise, you can have Quartermasters, Webmasters, and Historians who are just "task-completers"... or you can have individuals who step up and bring real leadership to their role and the troop.

 

​A Troop Webmaster (to return to that example) can simply manage the troop's online communications (posting pre-written blurbs written by the SM or SPL; pushing out information given to him by others and working diligently to get the job done)... or he can lead the troop's online communications (engaging with others to develop amd improve communication methods and online social experiences; pulling information and ideas from others and working with others to get the job done). It all depends on the limitations, expectations, guidance, and direction you give him.

 

So yes, if the Webmaster goes online, posts a photo to get everyone's attention and then copy-and-pastes an announcement from the SPL about an upcoming campout he is not giving leadership... he's performing a task (sharing an announcement). Likewise if the SPL stands in front of the troop, puts up the sign up to get everyone's attention and then reads an announcement off a flyer about an upcoming campout he's not really giving leadership either... he's just performing a task (sharing an announcement). But just as a SPL can take on leadership to promote an upcoming event at a troop meeting and to the individual patrols and members in a troop, so can a webmaster take leadership to promote events to the troop. It all depends on if the webmaster is simply managing the troop's online presence, or if he's leading it.

 

A Troop Historian who is simply a "lone-wolf" and a "photo-album-maker" and a "one-man-show" is not a leader (he is a task-completer) - he is simply managing the collection and storage of photos and data. But a Troop Historian who engages with others and leads a team to document, share and celebrate the troop's accomplishments is a leader (maybe he assigns a different Scout from each patrol the task of being "patrol photographer" for each outing and works with them to capture moments from each event; maybe he organizes everyone to get a big group photo on each campout; maybe he works with the troop Scribe and Webmaster to document and share the troop's accomplishments in creative ways to engage Scouts/Scouters/parents/friends/neighbors in seeing what the troop has done; maybe he works with other Scouts to develop and share creative presentations at a Court of Honors about the big trips that the troop went on; maybe he reaches out and helps a soon-to-be Eagle Scout gather relevant pictures from his Scouting career to share at his Eagle Court of Honor; etc.) He can simply manage the documenting of troop history, or he can lead the effort.

 

If a troop quartermaster is just a troop supply "go-fer" (running to get and prep Dutch ovens when you call on him) and a troop documenter (counting and reporting the number of good tents you have on hand)... that's not leadership. That's being a gear manager. But a good Troop quartermaster shouldn't just be managing the equipment, they should be leading the Scouts in using and maintaining it too. He should be leading the patrol quartermasters in their job (just as the SPL leads the PLs); he should be listening and responding to the needs of individual Scouts and patrols; he should be coordinating with others and communicating the supply needs and resources available for particular events and outings; he should be organizing and leading gear inventory and cleaning days or efforts with others (not doing it single-handedly); he should be educating others on using and caring for troop gear; he should be making recommendations to the PLC on equipment purchases, policies or practices; etc.) He should be a leader.

 

A quartermaster who takes all the tents home at the end of a campout (or comes to the troop supply room before a troop meeting) and airs out any wet tents, repairs any rips or broken poles, cleans out the tents and logs their condition is not a leader, he is a servant and a task-completer. But a quartermaster who educates the troop on good tent care and recruits, organizes and leads a group of Scouts in drying, repairing, repacking and inspecting all the tents on a Sunday afternoon or one night before a troop meeting, is showing leadership.

 

Likewise a Life Scout who builds a beautiful garden at a school all by himself has not completed an Eagle project (which is a leadership project)... the Scout needs to show leadership and led others in building the garden (building a garden and completing the task is not the goal... exercising leadership is). Same with a "Position of Responsibility" vs. a "Leadership Positions". A good Quartermaster shouldn't be measured on how clean the Dutch ovens are... he should be measured on his leadership (having clean Dutch ovens and simply completing the task single-handedly is not the goal... exercising leadership is).

 

So yes, simply building a website and publishing announcements is not leadership, nor is taking pictures and putting them in a book, nor is it recording attendance and taking meeting minutes, nor is it cleaning Dutch Ovens and counting spatulas, nor is creating a menu and cooking breakfast, nor is giving a presentation on the rules of Totin' Chip, nor is saying grace before a meal or a prayer before a Court of Honor... those are simply responsibilities (tasks) of certain jobs. But when overseeing a good Webmaster, Historian, Scribe, Quartermaster, Patrol Leader, Troop Guide, Chaplin's Aide, or whomever, you should shouldn't be focused simply on task-completion...you should be encouraging them to demonstrate leadership in completing their responsibilities. They should be taking on leadership to complete their tasks and they'll be 1,000-times more effective than if they just managed the job and completed the tasks all by themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×