Newly Elected PORs

[Stosh 3452]

As I have expressed in other posts, I do not promote a "top down" approach to leadership -- SM passes information to the SPL who passes to the PL who passes to the patrol members. To me this is adult led troop method. Instead the highest ranking officer in my troop is the PL. He runs his patrol independent of the others. He teaches, plans, and runs his program with his 6-7 boys. Below these PL's are the troop officers who support him in his patrol work. If he needs equipment for an outing, the QM is there to assist. If he needs to coordinate his program with that of another patrol, the SPL is the go-between. If he needs coaching in teaching, advancement, etc, he is supported by the TG. If any of the troop officers need guidance, support, assistance, they have the adult leadership under them for support.

 

With the situation described by Padilan, I think he would do well thinking of himself as a person of support to others regardless of his "elected position". In an adult led troop method program these POR's are for show and not necessarily very functional anyway. Simply doing the bidding of the adults isn't functional leadership. If one wishes to be helpful (i.e. refer to Scout Law) take on whatever support role they feel most comfortable with. If one ends up the troop "buffoon" because they are always willing to do the dirty work that no one else wants to do, they'll never get elected to a POR, but they will learn servant leadership far better than anyone else in the group. When that person ages out of scouting, that troop will suffer a major hit in leadership because no one will want to fill the shoes of a "buffoon" and many of the necessary jobs of the troop will collapse. 90% of the work is done by 10% of the people and I'll guarantee those 10%ers are seldom shown on the leadership roster, but they are the true leaders.

 

Don't allow oneself to be fooled into thinking the boys don't know what's really going on.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad 2779]

From Kudu:>> But as you have discovered, people do not vote in their own best interests, they always vote for the most amusing personality (see "Bill Clinton" and "George W. Bush").> Simply doing the bidding of the adults isn't functional leadership. If one wishes to be helpful (i.e. refer to Scout Law) take on whatever support role they feel most comfortable with. If one ends up the troop "buffoon".

[Stosh 3452]

From Stosh:>> Simply doing the bidding of the adults isn't functional leadership.

 

I find it difficult to try and explain myself any more clear than this. To have the adults directing, orchestrating, leading, delegating, etc. all of the functions of the troop will in fact remove any responsibility on the part of the youth to develop leadership of their own. If one wishes to have functional leadership on the part of the scouts, they have to be given the responsibility AND authority to decide, direct, orchestrate, lead, and delegate the activity of the patrols. If they don't or if someone else(like adults) does it, the potential leaders will have missed their opportunity to lead.

 

My apologies to anyone who thinks that as childish philosophy, so be it. If it is offensive, one may wish to reconsider the approach they have towards their definition of adult vs. boy-led units.

 

If one wishes to be helpful (i.e. refer to Scout Law) take on whatever support role they feel most comfortable with. If one ends up the troop "buffoon".

[Kudu 186]

 

For the benefit of Padilan and any other Scouts who may be reading, "Eagledad" is using a technique called an ad hominem attack. The basic idea is to keep people from thinking about the issues by making fun of someone.

 

This is an important thing to know about because it happens all of the time. For instance the incident that sparked this thread was ad hominem in its purest form:

 

The boy against me was a boy who joined the troop two months ago, only went to one campout, and his speech was "Vote for me 'cause I'm taller then Andrew."

 

Eagledad's post uses the same technique, although Andrew's opponent was probably in a nicer mood

 

Eagledad writes:

 

"I feel like it must be the childrens day out today."

 

The idea here is to insult an adult by comparing him to younger people. As Stosh points out, this is a rather odd choice of put-down in a forum about "boy-led" programs.

 

"We cant just read a few words that might make us think and carry on the discussion; we have to plow through venting intended to offend anyone with a different approach"

 

This is an example of an ad hominem subset called "projection." Projection is when someone accuses you of something that they are secretly guilty of themselves. For instance, "Eagledad" could have chosen my examination of leadership in Baden-Powell's Patrol System as a point to debate, but instead he chose to "vent" and "offend" someone who advocates a "different approach."

 

An awareness of "projection" can be a lot of fun if you discover it while you are still in high school because very often when another adolescent boy accuses you of some nasty practice, it is actually something that he hates himself for doing, or at least hates himself for thinking about way too often!

 

"or even worse, just isnt happy with life in general this week"

 

and

 

"So you had a bad week did ya?"

 

When an odd accusation like this comes at you from out of nowhere, it almost always "projection." The mature thing to do is to realize that poor Barry Eagledad is having a very rough week and needs our sympathy.

 

"your attacks and unproven philosophical blather."

 

Here is yet another good example of ad hominem "projection." Barry's post is obviously a personal "attack," and since it does not refer to anything specific it is itself an example of "philosophical blather."

 

As a side note, I do not agree that using Patrols as mills to teach business theory is any kind of virtue just because it is "proven". Scouting is a game, or at least it was before the "Scout Way Method" ("Scouting is a Game, NOT a Science") was removed from the Methods of Scouting in 1972 to make room for its polar opposite, the new "scientific" Leadership Development Method.

 

"condescending baggage" and "untested philosophical chat"

 

OK Scouts, by now you can probably recognize ad hominem attacks all by yourself.

 

"and already have t-shirts that say 'been there and done that'."

 

Just to indulge in some ad hominem myself: Guys who wear "Been There, Done That!" T-shirts are always complete idiots!

 

Kudu

 

[Stosh 3452]

The use of servant leadership in the BSA is not an attempt to replace anything in the scout program up to that point. What Greenleaf identified was not oriented to any one field of leadership, i.e. business. He has chapters in his book that deal with religious, trusteeships, military, and youth organizations. The business world jumped on the bandwagon only after they began to see the merits of this type of leadership. BP would not have had a problem with any of it. As a matter of fact his vision for Scouting was based on it. All the dynamics of duty to God and Country, helping others at all times, etc. all fit into the legitimate dynamics of servant leadership with no problem at all. As a matter of fact they function better under it.

 

On the other hand, heavy handed, top-down leadership styles of delegation, directive, orders, etc. all are counterproductive and often times disruptive to the goals of the scouting program. Teams that have a dictator for a leader seldom win games and the participants seldom have fun. I used the business model only because most people recognize its references better than say another organization.

 

I think Padilan's problem lies in the dynamics of a leadership model that does not allow for the validity of the individual's leadership unless he has a patch on his shirt. All the authority lies in the hands of a few "running the show" rather than in the work of the team on the working level of the unit i.e. all those that don't have patches. Padilan was hoping for a "promotion" into a troop level leadership position and was disappointed when he didn't get it. My scouts would be disappointed more with not being reelected a PL. That's where the leadership is focused and that's where the boy can really show what he's capable of. Each member of his patrol, properly developing the dynamics of servant leadership themselves, allows them the expertise of eventually legitimately lead a patrol of their own. Serving others and being served at the same time by others around oneself is what teamwork is really all about. Any time one sees a boy needing help and another scout "coming to help him" is demonstrating servant leadership. (Help other people at all times)

 

While BP always referred to Scouting as a Game, didn't mean that everything has to be fun, exciting, or even interesting. To know what to do in an emergency and save someone's life is not fun, not exciting and emotionally disruptive to one's own life. Yet, BP would be the first to say that's what a scout is getting prepared for. Helping other people at all times isn't always a game, it can be difficult, demanding, and just plain hard work.

 

Boys who have mastered the concept of servant leadership then can take on the support/serving roles of troop officers. They assist the PL's and their team members as they lead by example what service to the patrol means and help to coordinate the patrols and combine their talents to tackle bigger processes by working/serving together with multiple patrols.

 

And Kudu, just remember, who holds the real power when it comes time to telephone call the Senior Vice-President and CEO of a multi-billion dollar international corporation and see how long it takes you to get by his secretary. :^)

 

Stosh

[NeilLup 13]

Hello Padilan

 

Have you enjoyed watching the sparks fly?

 

Let's consider, for a moment, the swamp that you started out to drain. You tried for a Position of Responsibility and were not selected. People whom you feel are unqualified or less qualified than you were selected. That happens. Life is unfair.

 

But you do need a position of responsibility if you are going to advance. There are a few possibilities, some of which you can control, some not.

 

There is no limit to the number of Troop Instructors that a Troop can have. Ask your SM or SPL to be appointed a Troop Instructor.

 

You could be a Den Chief or Webelos Den Chief.

 

You could ask to be a Troop Guide.

 

If you are an OA member, you can ask to be Troop OA representative.

 

And there are others. That way, you get to show leadership and you get credit for advancement.

 

Best wishes,

 

Neil Lupton

[Padilan 10]

Thanks. The campout just ended, and I desided to help the QM. Of course, he ended up showing up after the work was done, but it doesn't matter. We ended up having a fun campout and enjoyed it. I desided just to let the whole thing blow over. Once next elections arrive, I'll know what to do.

 

Thank you all,

 

 

Padilan

 

PS. Did you havana to get int

all that ad homien stuff? It got pretty confusing...

[Anonymous 10]

From the mouths of babes........