Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lisabob

leadership development

Recommended Posts

For the most part I agree with Lisabob's and Kudu's assessment that classroom leadership training is not the most effective tool in our arsenal. Like a SM's minute, a short and sweet observation on what seems to be working and what isn't (and why) is more likely to turn on a light bulb in a scout's mind.

 

An after-action review would be another approach to teaching the theory using examples fresh in everyone's mind from some activity to reinforce the more abstract concepts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much misundwerstaning oand corruption of or concepts going on. first congrats top Brent and Avid for their understanding of the topioc at hand.

 

Someone define "Conceptual Bankruptcy" please.

 

No one, not even the BSA, says group indtruction is the most effective tool. it is simply one step in the learning process. It is one tool of many. Tell me. in a carpenters tool box what is "the most effective tool"?

 

The purose of the SPL and PL handbook is not just as a learning aid on leadership styles, it also contains infornation on ubnit organization, unit operations, program planning, and job overviews.

 

Judging the effectiveness of the leadership training be what page the words "leadership style" appears on is as silly as when another poster based a books effectivenes on how many time a word appeared.

 

Whoever wrote the critique on "servant leadership" has the wrong definition of it to begin, with so the critique is flawed from the beginning.

 

In a "master/servant" model, the servant reacts to the commands of the master for the benefit of the master. In a "servant leadership" model the leaders purpose is to help the people he or she leads to succeed and grow.

 

A servant leaders concern is the welfare of those they lead rather than for their own glory.

 

It's Me, do you believe that concept to be "conceptually bankrupt" as the author you quoted does?

 

If so I would like you to explain what you see as the flaw in the lives of Moses, Jesus Christ, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, and the scores of other people in a multitude of cultures, that based their lives on servant leadership.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Been to woodbadge, been to management school, been to Dale Carnegie, been in corporate America for 20 years.

 

Yes BW I believe that servant leadership is situational ethics and will lead to poor group performance. That if we tell a young leader he must do what the group tells him to do we will have an under performing patrol. I also believe that participative leadership and servant leadership are as different as a bagel and a Beagle.

 

I think that the reason servant leadership is pushed on the scouts is that then they are not leading but following and are thus not held responsible for their group's performance. Its comfy for the adults that the group won't hold their boy responsible for the patrol's under performance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you look at the lives of the people I mentioned who practiced servant leadership could you please explain how they were followers and not leaders?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Moses was the exact opposite of "servant leadership." He said, "Do this . . ." and everyone did it. Sure he invoked the name of Yahweh but the words were coming out of his mouth. Was throwng the golden calf into the fire an example of concensus building? Nah . . . he was a leader.

 

Jesus was always telling his followers what to do. Steal a donkey. Sell your cloak and buy a sword. Do this in rememberance of me.

 

The important point is that any effective leader, even a dictator, looks out for the well being of his followers.(This message has been edited by Gold Winger)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one said directing was not one of the stuyles of leadership or that it did not have appropriate applications. That has nothing to do with servant leadership.

 

Was Moses having the Israelites follow what he said in order to enrich himself or did he lead the isrealites in order that they would benefit.

 

Your understanding of the new testament is just as shakey it would seem. Was Jesus' purpose as a leader to enrich himself or to benfit those he lead? Servant Leadership.

 

You will also see that Jesus only rarely used the directed leadership style. In fact if you follow the development of the Apostles as a team you will see not only the Storming, Forming, Norming and Performing stages of team development, but you can see the transition in leadership style that Jesus uses with them as he goes from Directing, to Coaching, to Pursuading, to Delegating, matching his leadership style to the stage of development of the team. Its really quite interesting.

 

But of course in order to see those changes you would need to understand the concepts that define them.

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Putting the biblical discussion aside.

 

Here is what I am saying.

 

 

One I agree with those who have said that the structure of passing down decisions from SM to SPL to PL does not develop leadership skills but is rather management process.

 

That EDGE is not a true academic description of leadership style but a dumbed down version the a hybrid and weak somewhere between participative and Lassie-fair.

 

That the servant leadership style leads is not and can never be the one style fit all. That there is no real leading in the servant style only facility. That overemphasizing this style to youth leaders is a disservice.

 

And finally that the instruction material used to teach scouts both the PL books and the training manual for the SM are woefully inadequate and in fact are better off just mentioning and setting aside. They are boring in their presentation, redundant to a lot of what is already in the scout book, and a really ineffective at teaching either leadership that we are striving for the top down management that we in fact employ.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your understanding of the new testament is just as shakey it would seem. Was Jesus' purpose as a leader to enrich himself or to benfit those he lead? Servant Leadership.

 

His purpose was neither. His purpose was to pay for our sins which He did with His life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You avoid the point of the discussion ed in that the method of leadership he used was one of servant leadership he coached and mentored those who followed him for the purpose of their benefit and not his own.

 

While I do not disagree with the theology of your post it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be very interesting to know how many of the people talking about servant leadership have actually read anything on the subject or are merely speculating what they think it may mean. It is obvious from the comments that this research/understanding has not occured.

 

Let's start with the basics: Who was the man who has spent most of his life in the field of management research, development and education. Since his retirement as Director of Management Research for A.T. & T, he was very active in teaching and consulting. He was held teaching positions at Dartmouth College and Harvard University. His consultancies include Ohio University, M.I.T, Ford Foundation, R. K. Mellon Foundation, Lilly Endowment, Brookings Instituteion and the American Foundation for Management Research?

 

If one can identify who this man was, understands his approach to leadership management, then feel free to list one's credintials if one still wishes to trash his concepts of servant leadership in the world of business, church, academia and science.

Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be Robert Greenleaf and we now see where AT&T went. :-)

 

However, what I've read about servant-leadership says nothing about the leader not being in charge or responsible. It is mostly about the leader wanting to ensure that the group succeeds and that they have the resources that they need.

 

To me that describes any good coach, combat leader, or boss. Or as the old adage says, "take care of your people and they'll take care of you."

 

It doesn't say anything about a leader having to follow the whims and dictates of the followers.(This message has been edited by Gold Winger)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not the whims and dictates, but it surely requires the leader to constantly consider the needs and welfare of the members.

 

How many of the top-down leadership styles where outside forces dictate what the group will do? Does that in anyway take into consideration the needs of the group? If the patrol's decisions are constantly being overruled by the SM or PLC, I will guarentee that no one in that patrol will develop leadership and will eventually seek out a group that will better meet their needs, whims and dictates, i.e. girls, cars, sports and any one of a hundred other options out there that for some reason the boys always leave scouting for. One would think that eventually someone might want to consider asking why we continue to be source of disappointment for our youth. Ever notice that there seems to be a lot of boys out there that remain in scouting not to serve, but to "get their Eagle"? They really don't care to serve, just to be served and have a significant note on their resume and college application.

 

Sorry, I'm still a fan of group dynamics that work. Call me old fashioned, but I think that the Citizenships, Lifesaving, First Aid, Emergency Prep, MB's are more than just rank advancement, these are skills that BSA teaches for the betterment of someone other than the scout.

 

It might be a bit more helpful to not have to pick apart everything in a post. Sometimes it's even helpful to actually build upon what someone has posted. After all MIT, Dartmouth, Harvard, etc. are all still around doing just fine. I am employed by an international, Fortune 500, multi-billion dollar company that simply went out of existance last Friday. I'm still employed by an international, Fortune 500, multi-billion dollar company. Its the nature of business today and means nothing but a condescending slam to someone's post. Most of the big business companies of 50 years ago have disappeared, but it has nothing to do with the quality of work those companies provided. As a matter of fact the good companies are the one's being bought up. People know better than to buy junk. :^)

 

Stosh

(This message has been edited by jblake47)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It doesn't say anything about a leader having to follow the whims and dictates of the followers."

 

Where exactly did you get that idea from>? No one has posted any such thing. So far every time you post on this topic you change the premise.

 

The only person who has said that servant leadership is about following the dictates of the followers is you. And that is totally erroneous to what servant leadership is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus led by example. He didn't alter his style to fit the group, the group was forced to fit His style. And you could also say Jesus was an excellent follower. He followed exactly what His Father wanted Him to do.

 

To be a good leader, one must be a good follower.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it rather strange how there seems to be a lot of posts that deal with this whole area of leadership development, loss of membership, discipline problems, etc. when everyone out there is doing such a fine job delivering the BSA program. 1) Either they are not delivering the program or 2) there's something seriously remiss with the BSA program. Now, IF neither of these two dynamics are a problem can anyone explain to me why so many boys drop out of scouts?, why the percentage of boys reaching Eagle is measured in single digits?, all these other activities draw our boys away, the boys become bored, etc. etc. etc.

 

The reason I ask is not to stir the pot, but because I don't seem to have these problems as serously as others seem to experience and the boys I lose are because of moving out of the area, scouting isn't their thing, parents want their boys involved in different areas, they joined because their buddy did and he dropped out, or the parents expected me to continue when I wanted to quit after Cub Scouts, etc., many things that aren't a direct result of the program.

 

I've always been a student of the adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But what if it is?

 

Stosh

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  

×