SPLs: Pro and con

[Stosh 3452]

Sadly enough, I tend to agree with Kudu in much of the dynamics of what leadership development is all about. As one who is trained in management, I know the benefits of a well managed troop. It involves a lot of organizational skills directed at both the task at hand and the people involved with accomplishing the task. For expedience sake, it is far more feasible to have the adults organize and manage because of the experience in the skill sets they posses.

 

However, once one includes Kudu's 300' separation, the control of such managed operations is quickly drawn into question. Unless a scout is trained specifically in all operational mindsets for management of tasks it is easy to toss a wrench in the process and derail the whole thing.

 

Once one by-passes the management style of operation and replaces it with a leadership style which isn't designed along operational tasks and instead focuses on the personality of the leader and his followers, then that person is allowed to think beyond the box, so to speak.

 

Assume for a moment that the boys are going on a canoe outing. The SM has "counseled" the patrol leadership in all the tasks they need to accomplish, i.e. cooking, locating the campsite, etc. They should all have the skill to accomplish the tasks, the "leader/manager" simply coordinates the efforts.

 

Well, they leave in the morning, get 20 miles into the back country and as they are landing the canoes at the campsite, two canoes roll, dumping everything into the drink. The boys are able to salvage any thing that floats, unfortunately the chuck box is at the bottom of the lake. A manager does not have the skill set or experience to fulfill the task anymore.

 

A leader on the other hand possess all the same skill sets as the manager but now his only "directive" left as a leader is to "take care of the boys!" He must now create new tasks, new management alternatives, and an underlying desire to assist all the boys to make do with what they have. The management plan is tossed out the window and all the boys in a varying degree must recreate the trip for the benefit of each other, making sure everyone is taken care of. Joe's backpack sank, do we have clothes for Joe in someone else's pack? or is Joe going to wear wet clothes for the weekend? Let's first find Fred's medication, it's a safety issue! From that point onward a manager would be lost, but a leader would dig into his bag of tricks and make do and keep everyone safe. A Leader does not manage tasks, he leads people! How can he draw the best out of everyone to overcome a difficult situation?

 

The term patrol comes from BP's military background. It is a small group of soldiers that are trained well enough and have sufficient leadership to be able to separate themselves (sometimes more than 300') from the army and function under difficult situations to accomplish a task while insuring the safety and well being of all members. A leader is focused on the people under his charge and the task of the mission is secondary. A leader returning having accomplished his task but lost all his patrol members doesn't bode well for the next mission. If he returns having not accomplished the task yet has all his patrol members, he can be resupplied and sent out again.

 

Having studied the US Army leadership training manuals, it is remarkable how much duplicate verbage is found in the Hillcourt material, yet absent from the more modern BSA manuals.

 

Yes, we no longer follow military dynamics in modern BSA, but in many respects we have tossed out leadership, a anchor in military development of people, and replaced it with a business management style which teaches achievable goals, but often times requires no leadership at all.

 

Merit badge requirements: do these things and you will be successful! Follow all the instructions, do the task and you will get a badge. No leadership required.

 

If all the true leadership stays with the adults, the boys will only have the opportunity to follow. Telling the SPL what he has to do is not leadership, it is the SPL FOLLOWING the directives of the adults.

 

Most people can be taught to add 1 + 1 to get the result of 2. This is a task that most people can do in their sleep, but do they fully understand the theory behind arithmetic well enough to think outside the box and then add 3 + 4, and maybe understanding the theory behind it be able to add double digit, triple digit numbers, too?

 

A good SPL, or TG, or DC, will require the most leadership understanding to be good at it.

 

I met a boy at Jambo, he had been selected to be the PL over the four boys from my troop attending. One of my boys is ADD, one is autistic, one has auditory learning problems and the fourth one has a serious problem with authority and knows everything to know about anything.

 

At the end of the Jambo I went and personally thanked him for the outstanding job he did with his patrol. He couldn't figure out how I had come to that conclusion in that he said he had spent the whole time babysitting a bunch of screw-ups. I smiled and said, that's what makes you a great leader! He knew how to lead people!, not just manage tasks.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad 2777]

>>From his description, I reckon Eagledad's troop fell into da second to last group, eh?

[Kudu 186]

sherminator505 writes:

 

I think you're missing the point of this thread! We are talking about the necessity of having a SPL, not debating whether White Stag or EDGE or WB21 are valid.

 

Nobody knows who discovered water, but it certainly was not a fish.

 

Why are you so determined to shove an SPL down the throat of Troop with only 8 Scouts? Because like a fish who takes water for granted, you have never objectively examined the theory of Scouting that compels you to impose an SPL on even a single Patrol. And not just an SPL, mind you, but an "understudy" ASPL to boot!

 

As for your personal attacks on me, it is impossible to defend White Stag, EDGE, or post-1972 Wood Badge without eventually resorting to an ad hominem attack. We lost three million Boy Scouts because of Leadership Development's war on Scoutcraft and our Congressional Charter. The only way for office experts to justify the toxic effect that leadership theory has on Scouting is to attack those who stand in its way, starting in 1965 with White Stag's personal attack on William Hillcourt.

 

If your life would be more pleasant in a world where nobody questioned the necessity of office theory in Scouting, then simply click the "Ignore this user" link in the box to the left of this post.

 

Beavah writes:

 

Collaborative: Youth get to make up their own structure, and adults are just a part of it. Job descriptions and roles change according to da people in them. Youth routinely work together in ways that aren't top-down, and da adults fade more into the background as occasional collaborators.

 

This is an extraordinary post, Beavah, one that I will quote for years.

 

It is not just a useful way of looking at the stages of an adult leader's development, but it also measures how an experienced leader can move a "Troop in Trouble" from adult run to what you call "Collaborative."

 

I especially like: "Job descriptions and roles change according to da people in them." That neatly describes Stosh's world, I think. It is also the stage in a Troop's development where I shift theories of Scouting in relation to the strong personalities of the Troop's natural leaders. Sometimes a Troop is best served by Baden-Powell's Patrol System, sometimes William Hillcourt's Patrol Method, and sometimes (if my junior leader NYLT staffers insist), even the stuff we learn at BSA training (as long as the Patrols are physically separated as far apart as each Patrol Leader's abilities will allow).

 

Eagle92 writes:

 

Kudu, They have already watered-down BSA Lifeguard IMHO by removing the boating aspects, and, from what I've been told, the "hand to hand combat," i.e. escapes, releases, and holds of the old program...So please don't give anyone more ideas about BSA Lifeguard.

 

Sorry, Eagle, but Wood Badge has had their eyes on BSA Lifeguard for a long time because swimming is still popular. It is a "position of responsibility" so it rightfully belongs to them, and it is only a matter of time before they do to BSA Lifeguards what they did to BSA Patrol Leaders: Take away their position-specific training and replace it with EDGE:

 

EXPLAIN to the victim what it means to not be drowning.

 

DEMONSTRATE to the victim that you yourself are doing fine.

 

GUIDE the victim through some team-building exercises.

 

ENABLE the victim to now go save himself!

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

[allangr1024 71]

"Collaborative: Youth get to make up their own structure, and adults are just a part of it. Job descriptions and roles change according to da people in them. Youth routinely work together in ways that aren't top-down, and da adults fade more into the background as occasional collaborators." Beavah.

 

I have a bit of a problem with this statement, especially the part about youth making up their own structure. What does that mean to you, and what does it mean to the scouts. The BSA gives us the structure of our scouting experience, defining and describing to us our aims and methods, our adult leadership positions, the nature of a troop, membership, activities, and awards. I can imagine what would happen if I told the scouts to invent their own structure.

 

If I told my scouts to make up their own structure, they would abandon the whole concept of the Patrol, since they believe it is more efficient to camp and cook as a troop. They would probably not choose to hike, cook, do service projects, but would wholeheartedly vote to do Paintball and laser tag for 8 months out of the year. They would throw most of the work load on the adults, and likely abandon the use of uniforms, which they see as childish. Merit Badges? Naw, we get that kind of stuff at school. Eagle project?? Who has time. Let girls in the troop? why Sure.

 

There is a limit to how far a troop can be "boy led". Leadership requires a vision of what can be done in a group, and determination to mold the group to fit the vision. In a scout troop this vision must fit into the BSA defined structure. I have not found teenagers who have much vision like this, at least until the end of their tenure in their elected positions. My past SPL's don't really start gaining vision until they have been doing it for a year. And then it is time for a new election. All that time the adult scouters are making sure the aims are in sight, the methods are being followed, and that the boys are doing scout activities.

 

I see a progression in leadership from small things to larger responsibilities. A scout is in charge of a campout cooking crew. He is encouraged to try other positions of responsibility, progressing from APL, PL, troop level positions, and finally a run for SPL. This is a process of exposure to different jobs at different levels. It is very difficult to guide, especially when the scouts themselves elect some of these positions. Some of my leaders in the past have acted like little Stalins, and had to be reigned in. Others where too timid and had to be prompted. They are all so different.

 

 

[Stosh 3452]

Structure? Vision? etc.

 

I see a problem arising in that I'm thinking people define these ideas differently and thus misunderstandings arise.

 

I have a boy-led program. There are parameters set down by BSA they must stay within. They can't do sky-diving, for example. Yet within those parameters they are allowed to build whatever "structure" they wish to make.

 

Suppose for a moment a troop wished to schedule a dance for next Friday night. (I'll wait for the air to return to the room, that was quite a gasp!)

So what if the boys decide to invite the neighborhood Girl Scout troop over for an evening of sharing scouting and having some music play in the background? Venturing Crews do it all the time!

 

However, those adults inclined to maintaining control over the program and its structures find this quite difficult for them to let lose of. Somehow they have the idea that if left to their own recourses they're going to go off and commit some crime somewhere. It's like some Baptist grandma that finds a deck of cards in her grandson's possession and immediately the assumption is he's got to be a professional gambler that needs to be rehabbed.

 

If a scout is to be given the opportunity to be trustworthy, the adults need to give them enough rein to prove it.

 

It is my experience that given enough rein, the boy very seldom disappoint me and more often than not impress me with what they are able to do without adult "supervision", aka interference.

 

What I'm hearing Beavah suggesting is that the more the adults learn to trust the boys, the less their involvement is needed. A poke here or there, a tuck a time or two, but nothing heavy handed is necessary.

 

What a glorious day it would be for the SM to find out that after all he's done for the boys, they no longer need him at all! That's my goal for the boys! It's called growing up and a good SM knows he's been a great value to that boy especially when the Eagle mentor pin is pinned on him at an ECOH.

 

Stosh

 

(This message has been edited by jblake47)

[HICO_Eagle 93]

Suppose for a moment a troop wished to schedule a dance for next Friday night. (I'll wait for the air to return to the room, that was quite a gasp!)

So what if the boys decide to invite the neighborhood Girl Scout troop over for an evening of sharing scouting and having some music play in the background?

 

Just for the record, my troop, another troop and a couple Girl Scout units scheduled an interScout dance back in ... 1980? 1981? It wasn't the end of the world. Some of us even made Eagle a year or two later.

[sailingpj 18]

"EXPLAIN to the victim what it means to not be drowning.

 

DEMONSTRATE to the victim that you yourself are doing fine.

 

GUIDE the victim through some team-building exercises.

 

ENABLE the victim to now go save himself!"

 

 

Kudu, thank you, that is the funniest thing I have heard all day.

[Beavah 205]

Jblake gives a good example of something I'd consider a bit further up the chain... Trusting youth with planning tasks. Great example, BTW!

 

I'm talkin' a bit different, along da lines of this thread. Does the SM require there to be an SPL, and define the role of the SPL for all boys who ever hold that position? Or do the PLs get to decide how they want to structure their PLC this year, and choose not to have an SPL? Does there have to be a PLC meeting each month after the meeting, or can da PLC decide to conduct business via Facebook and only get together when they feel the need? Does da SM hand each POR a job description and then explain what he is to do (or have da ASPL explain what to do), or does a scout see a need for the group and step in to fill that need, developing his own scope of responsibilities along da way in collaboration with other scouts and their scopes of responsibility?

 

Yah, yah, this is a bit like Kudus challenge, eh? Is it more like a group of buddies on a high adventure outing who figure out how to work together to do something great, or is it more like da kind of things adults do in a corporate office? And if it looks like da latter, yeh know where it comes from, eh?

 

Yeh often hear da objections of allangr1024, eh? That's where adults are at one of da other levels and are content to stop. They believe the youth can't be trusted further. I've never found that to be the case. It just takes work and faith to get there. Da BSA program materials provide suggested structural outlines for programs, eh? But that's all they are. Yeh have to give novice leaders some overview of possible ways to run. Like any adult overview, da BSA uses language and structure familiar to adults. I'm not as upset as Kudu about that, because I reckon it saves training time and confusion. But then yeh have to let da kids adapt that to kid-dom.

 

Can it be done? Sure can. I've seen troops where da lads plan and run their own summer camp, and troops where da boys change the jobs and da structure of the troop operations every year. Boys who look on their own at a big group of incoming new scouts and brainstorm up "lets handle it by structuring patrols in this new way." Just did an EBOR a bit ago (in the field... I always love doin' that) where the boy talked about how he and his patrol mates were running 3 different adult free trips on their own outside of scouting this summer. No committees, no agendas, just friends who know da jobs that need to be done and split 'em up and do 'em according to their interests and abilities. If I remember right, at least one of those was a week-long international backpacking trip.

 

That's what we can achieve in scouting, eh? That and more. It's an awe-inspiring thing when yeh see it happen in a troop. Yeh come to know that da youth of tomorrow can pass us by and do a better job than we did.

 

I like da units like that best, eh? I think that's the fullest use of da scouting program. And I think the best way to get to those levels is da sort of full implementation of da Patrol Method and the outdoors that Hillcourt and Kudu and jblake and others discuss. That's a bit different than da focus on youth leadership which is part of the earlier levels, though that too is a component.

 

But it's not to say that the other troop implementations are wrong, or that they aren't good programs, or aren't real scouting, or aren't doing good things for kids. Da other stops along the continuum also have active youth and caring adults and rich, fun, programs. I don't think their leadership is fake, and I love talkin' with their youth, too. I just think yeh get deeper, better scouting and kid outcomes as yeh move up da chain.

 

Beavah

 

[sherminator505 10]

"Nobody knows who discovered water, but it certainly was not a fish."

 

We are talking about SPLs here. Not White Stag or WB21, and certainly not fish!

 

"Why are you so determined to shove an SPL down the throat of Troop with only 8 Scouts? Because like a fish who takes water for granted, you have never objectively examined the theory of Scouting that compels you to impose an SPL on even a single Patrol. And not just an SPL, mind you, but an "understudy" ASPL to boot!"

 

Who said I was trying to shove anything down anyone's throat? As I tried to explain, the SPL would be the patrol leader by default. Whether you call him a Patrol Leader or an SPL is really irrelevant for the scenario I described. It's just terminology.

 

"As for your personal attacks on me, it is impossible to defend White Stag, EDGE, or post-1972 Wood Badge without eventually resorting to an ad hominem attack."

 

I'm not defending any of those things. If you consider expressing my frustration with your attitude an attack, then I strongly suggest you grow a thicker skin.

 

"We lost three million Boy Scouts because of Leadership Development's war on Scoutcraft and our Congressional Charter."

 

More accurately, we lost those folks when we tried to "modernize" Scouting and de-emphasize the outdoors. I'm not sure how much White Stag had to do with this.

 

"The only way for office experts to justify the toxic effect that leadership theory has on Scouting is to attack those who stand in its way, starting in 1965 with White Stag's personal attack on William Hillcourt."

 

Again with the "attack" jargon? You seem to want to refight this fight on every thread you enter! Honestly, if Bob Mazzuca were to appear on the Today show with a coffee stain on his uniform, and someone started a thread expressing dismay and soliciting comments, I honestly believe you would find some "connection" to White Stag!

 

"If your life would be more pleasant in a world where nobody questioned the necessity of office theory in Scouting, then simply click the "Ignore this user" link in the box to the left of this post."

 

Nah. This is much more fun! Look, the SPL has been a part of Scouting for most of Scouting's history, certainly longer than William Hillcourt's Wood Badge course, much less the White Stag course that replaced it.

 

For someone who fancies himself as some sort of modern-day Baden-Powell, you have a very keen ability to gloss over decades of history when it doesn't suit your argument.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[Eagle92 110]

I said some things in Scoutfish's spin-off thread, so please bear with the repetition.

 

The BSHB gives us the foundationof the entire scouting program: the patrol. Everyone else is just support: QMs, instructors, Buglers, SPLs, SMs, District folks, ad nauseum. If a troop is not large enough for support roles or you don't need them, then don't use them. If your troop is large enough for them or you need. then use them

 

And to define need, I am not talking for advancement purposes, but for keeping the patrols in your troop functioning well.

[Kudu 186]

sherminator505 writes:

 

We are talking about SPLs here. Not White Stag or WB21, and certainly not fish! ... As I tried to explain, the SPL would be the patrol leader by default.

 

A Troop of eight Scouts needs an SPL like a fish needs a bicycle.

 

sherminator505 writes:

 

Whether you call him a Patrol Leader or an SPL is really irrelevant for the scenario I described. It's just terminology....Look, the SPL has been a part of Scouting for most of Scouting's history, certainly longer than William Hillcourt's Wood Badge course, much less the White Stag course that replaced it.

 

The idea that words have no meaning is how we got into this mess. Yes, the BSA used terms like "Senior Patrol Leader" early on, but the "Scout Master" was clearly in charge:

 

The Patrol Leader and the Scout Master

 

Care should be taken by the Scout Master that the patrol leaders do not have too great authority in the supervision of their patrols. The success of the troop affairs and supervision of patrol progress is, in the last analysis, the responsibility of the Scout Master and not that of the patrol leader. There is also a danger, in magnifying the patrol leader in this way, of inordinately swelling the ordinary boy's head. The activities of the patrol should not be left to the judgment of any patrol leader....

 

http://inquiry.net/adult/methods/1st/index.htm

 

Until Hillcourt's third edition in the late 1930s, the purpose of the SPL in the Handbook for Scoutmasters was to carry out the Scoutmaster's plans:

 

Senior Patrol Leader: Preside at meetings. Lead games. Carry out plans of the Scoutmaster. Supervise and direct work of Patrol Leaders and Scouts (Handbook for Scoutmasters, second edition, page 255).

 

"We lost three million Boy Scouts because of Leadership Development's war on Scoutcraft and our Congressional Charter."

 

sherminator505 writes:

 

More accurately, we lost those folks when we tried to "modernize" Scouting and de-emphasize the outdoors. I'm not sure how much White Stag had to do with this.

 

White Stag had everything to do with this. It used "Urban Scouting" as an excuse to remove Scoutcraft from Wood Badge training and replace it with leadership theory. Then it destroyed Patrol Leader Training and replaced it with generic leadership theory so that Patrol Leaders were in the close physical proximity of adult helicopters, rather than out in the woods conducting independent Patrol Hikes and Overnights.

 

If we took away BSA Lifeguards' position-specific training like we did to BSA Patrol Leaders, then BSA waterfronts would be scaled-down to baby pools and splash pads. Office theory safety experts would teach Lifeguards the EDGE method and then rightfully express horror at the idea of allowing teenagers to swim in water over their heads. They would then write the consequences of leadership theory into the Guide to Safe Scouting just as they are reportedly now doing to Patrol Outings (which were the goal of Patrol Leader Training before White Stag).

 

"The only way for office experts to justify the toxic effect that leadership theory has on Scouting is to attack those who stand in its way, starting in 1965 with White Stag's personal attack on William Hillcourt."

 

sherminator505 writes:

 

You seem to want to refight this fight on every thread you enter!

 

Yes, the use of BSA training to destroy the Patrol Method is the only topic I consider important enough to debate: You are what you train for.

 

sherminator505 writes:

 

Honestly, if Bob Mazzuca were to appear on the Today show with a coffee stain on his uniform, and someone started a thread expressing dismay and soliciting comments, I honestly believe you would find some "connection" to White Stag!

 

You are correct. I would certainly take the opportunity to remind everyone of what Bob Mazzuca appeared on the Today Show to say. This year his goal is to commit "major resources" to hiring translators so that he can recruit 100,000 Hispanics who hate camping:

 

Camping is not necessarily a big thing with them, as a matter of fact in some cases it is not big at all. So we need to kind of think about, is it more important that we reach that child with the kind of things we have for children and we have for families in character development and leadership skill growth and all of those things? Or is it more important that we get them in a tent next week? And so I think the answer to that is fairly obvious to us.

 

...when we say 'we want to take your twelve-year-old son but you can't come' we're making a mistake there. We have to engage an entire family... For example one of our pilot programs over the last recent years has been Scouting and soccer...

 

It's crucial to us that we recognize the importance of hiring bilingual staff ... to give traction to these programs, and that's a major resource issue for us and one that we are willing to invest in as we go forward... We are deadly serious. We are absolutely serious about this.

 

See:

 

http://inquiry.net/leadership/sitting_side_by_side_with_adults.htm

 

This is exactly the same direction Wood Badge took in 1972 when we lost three million Boy Scouts:

 

In general, Patrol Leader training should concentrate on leadership skills rather than on Scoutcraft Skills. The Patrol will not rise and fall on the Patrol Leader's ability to cook, follow a map, or do first aid, but it very definitely depends on his leadership skill.

 

See:

 

http://inquiry.net/leadership/index.htm

 

For someone who fancies himself as some sort of modern-day Baden-Powell, you have a very keen ability to gloss over decades of history when it doesn't suit your argument.

 

This form of personal attack is called an "Appeal to Ignorance." I said that Baden-Powell considered SPLs to be purely optional. In return you move the discussion to your emotional projection that I fancy myself to be "some sort of modern-day Baden-Powell."

 

Again with the "attack" jargon?

 

Yes, the function of your ad hominem attack is to talk about people's feelings rather than addressing the obvious issue: Why would a major-general not base Scouting on a "chain of command"?

 

My topic is the history of the Patrol Method. I post in forums so that thousands of readers can point out any factual errors that I may not be aware of. For most people it would be more productive to pick one of Beavah's leadership styles and then explain why they need an SPL to implement it:

 

Adult Run: Adults do most of the day to day tasks, with youth "helpers." Cooking, cleaning, setup. Sometimes that's all they know how to do; sometimes it's because they kinda think like Engineer61 and think it's da best way.

 

Adult Led ("youth run"): Kids get to do the day to day tasks, in a "chores" sort of way. Assigned cooks, assigned cleanup. They have some real responsibility, but the direction is mostly from the adults. Where there is youth leadership, it's more as a mouthpiece of the adults, and it'll tend to be just one or two boys (SPL), not a group of boys.

 

Adult Directed ("youth led"): Youth get to lead and are responsible for all of the day to day tasks and the basic outing stuff. They get to make choices within adult limits; they have annual planning conferences that might be a bit adult driven. Yeh see adults actively coaching youth leaders in a hands-on way; SM-to-SPL, ASMs assigned to PLs. The adults still hold on to a lot of things that they feel are beyond the boys - planning, making reservations, safety, budgeting etc.

 

Adult Structured ("youth led"): Here da youth may be trusted with things like planning, safety, and other things, eh? Just as long as it fits within the adult structure. Adult-style job descriptions, and committees, a top-down approach of da adult mentoring the SPL who mentors the PLs.

 

Collaborative: Youth get to make up their own structure, and adults are just a part of it. Job descriptions and roles change according to da people in them. Youth routinely work together in ways that aren't top-down, and da adults fade more into the background as occasional collaborators.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu