Is every boy a leader?

[shortridge 184]

 

Kudu raises an interesting point in the other thread, one that I've been turning over in my head for some time. Scouting promotes "leadership skills" as a primary objective. But is every boy really cut out to be a leader? Certainly not every man or woman is. Some people are better - and happier - as followers, or as executive officer, behind-the-scenes types.

 

Does the same apply to boys? Should we be pushing every Scout to be a leader in some form, beyond roles as teachers or instructors of subjects or skills they're highly talented at? Should we be (some may say forcibly) rotating positions of responsibility to Scouts who may not want them or be ready for them?

 

I'm not arguing any point of view, just genuinely interested in the feedback.

[diogenes 10]

Not every boy is a leader, just as not every boy is a genius or a jock or a musician. However, they can still learn leadership skills and benefit from the experience. If nothing else, they become better followers by understanding what leaders have to deal with.

 

There is enough variety in the PORs for a boy to gain leadership experience in a way that suits them best. This may take some trial and error, but they'll find a spot. They may even find that they can do it once they try it and gain some confidence. That's exactly what happened with me in Scouts, band, and JROTC. Started off shy, and after being nudged/shoved/thrown in I gained experience and confidence and was able to do a variety of jobs. I discovered I work better as an XO than as a captain, but I can do just fine as a captain if needs be.

 

It is up to the adult (and senior boy) leaders to decide how much nudging/shoving a boy is ready for to move them from their comfort zone to their grwoth/learning zone.

[GernBlansten 10]

I'm in the camp that leaders cannot be made, they are born. The rest at best can be managers. To think that you can take any boy and apply enough training and responsibility he will eventually become a leader is like giving a boy enough piano instruction and practice time and they will eventually become a musician.

 

You hone leadership. You shape it. But you cannot create it.

 

That's where I come down firmly behind Kudu. Scouting should give those natural born leaders the opportunity to master their skills, preferably in the wilderness, not some church basement. The rest can come along for the ride, but to expect them to also become natural leaders is a bit ridiculous.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I thought the The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

 

The Aims are:

Citizenship

Charactor Development

Personal Fitness

 

Now the eight methods are:

 

1. Ideals

2. Patrols

3. Outdoors

4. Advancement

5. Personal growth

6. Adult association

7. Leadership development

8. Uniform

 

Aha, yes leadership development is mentioned, but as is often commented, no method is more important that any other method. Advancement is not the sole reaon for scouting, the uniform is a method of scouting, but not any more important that any of the other seven. Boys attain the higher ranks by in part by being succesful in Positions of Responsibility, not Positions of Leadership, a key difference, I think. Just as I would hope no Troop would set out with a goal of making every boy an Eagle, the unit makes the opportunity available I dont think think it proper to think every boy will be a leader either, although the opportunities may be present as well.

 

 

 

 

 

[sheldonsmom 10]

Just a random thought on the topic....

Every one must lead something at some point. A husband will lead his family, a father will lead his children. Leadership is a skill that can be taught. A great leader is not born being a great leader; he must learn somewhere. No man is worse off for the training acquired in scouting.

[Kudu 186]

The theory that all of the Methods are "equal" was introduced in 1972, presumably to garner respect for the questionable new "Leadership Development" Method of Scouting, in an attempt to elevate it to the same status as Hillcourt's two Methods of true Boy Scout leadership: Unsupervised Patrols in the great Outdoors.

 

It is interesting to note the other primary Method closely identified with Green Bar Bill, the Uniform, was demoted from Method status at that time and redefined as a "Program Element" for the rest of the decade. Obviously the Uniform was not considered "equal" by the office manager experts who invented the "equal Methods" concept for their "Seven Methods of Scouting."

 

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

 

If the Outdoor Method was really equal to Leadership Development, it would not have been removed from Wood Badge. If the Patrol Method was equal to Advancement, it would not have been removed from summer camp.

 

Nor do the Outdoor and Patrol Methods play an equal role in the new Chief Scout Executive's 1972-style racial make-over of the BSA. If you study his recent media statements you will find that he considers "Character and Leadership" to be the aims of Scouting. And these, he says, can be learned by playing soccer; or by sitting indoors "side by side with adults of character."

 

Positions of Responsibility, not Positions of Leadership, a key difference, I think.

 

I think not. If there was any real distinction between the two, then we would not have taken the Patrol Leaders' position-specific training away from them and forced them to sit through the same lame "leadership can be taught" lessons as the Troop Librarian and Troop Bugler.

 

The destruction of the Patrol Method and Outdoor Method is intentional now, just as it was in 1972. The racial motivation is the same. The only way to counteract these powerful forces on the unit level is to shield your Patrol Leaders from too close an identification of their tenure with POR credit (why force all Patrols to hold elections at the same time?); and restore position-specific training, just as we do in both cases with BSA Lifeguards.

 

Unit-level position-specific training for Patrol Leaders:

 

http://inquiry.net/patrol/green_bar/index.htm

 

How many of you hold regular six-month popularity contests for BSA Lifeguard?

 

What is good for BSA Lifeguards is good for BSA Patrol Leaders.

 

Kudu

 

[BDPT00 41]

How did you ever get through that whole thing without mentioning 300 feet?!

Good for you.

BDPT00

[Kudu 186]

BDPT00 writes:

 

How did you ever get through that whole thing without mentioning 300 feet?!

 

Since you insist: Baden-Powell's minimum 300 feet between Patrols during multi-Patrol campouts is, I think, a reasonable compromise with Green Bar Bill's minimum standard for a "Real Patrol," namely unsupervised hiking and camping.

 

Because "every boy a leader" took Green Bar Bill's position-specific training away from Patrol Leaders and turned them into office managers, it is unreasonable to expect much from them in most Troops.

 

If we allowed Leadership Development to do to BSA Life Guards what it did to BSA Patrol Leaders, then we would be forced to dumb swimming down to the same Cub Scout level: Family baby pools like the family campground Patrol Method we have now.

 

BDPT00 writes:

 

Good for you.

 

So you tried it? Good for you.

 

Kudu

 

[evmori 11]

Not every boy is a leader. I do feel to be a good leader one must 1st be a good follower.

[BrentAllen 10]

I defer to someone with far more experience on the subject - Green Bar Bill.

 

"Leadership, then, is the ability and disposition to inspire confidence in others, over a period of time, and to cause them to act and think in the way the leader desires them to act and to think. The quality of leadership is partly born in a person but is also largley determined by training and development. The only way a boy can develop leadership is by practicing it. It is usually true that leaders exceed those in their group in almost every characteristic. But it is just as true that leadership is partly a product of the group in which it operates. The group's expectation stimulates the leader."

 

The characteristics he mentions preceeded that paragraph, being personality and popularity, physique and health, age, tenure in Scouting, intelligence and Scoutcraft knowledge, initiative and energy, common sense and self-control, helpfulness.

 

The next section is "Determining Leadership Ability" I'll try to add some of that section to the discussion as time allows.

 

To add my answer to the question, how will you know until they are given a chance?

[xlpanel 10]

Being a leader is not a true sign of success. Being the force behind the leader is.

 

When McCain and Obama were running for the presidency, what were they actually doing? Reading speeches, stating views, arguing each other in debates etc.

 

But, you look behind them, behind the scenes at the managers and strategists. They are the ones who wrote the speeches, told the candidates how to state their views, and were on the mic to the earpiece of each candidate during debates.

 

They are the true leaders. The "leader" is actually just a figurehead for the strategists and minds behind him.

[evmori 11]

They are the true leaders. The "leader" is actually just a figurehead for the strategists and minds behind him.

 

Do you really believe that? If the leaders are the strategists, why are they in the background?

[Kudu 186]

BrentAllen writes:

 

To add my answer to the question, how will you know until they are given a chance?

 

Brent, note that with the invention of specific "Positions of Responsibility" (POR) in 1965 and "Leadership Development" in 1972, the meanings of words like "leadership" have changed since Green Bar Bill used them.

 

When you ask "how will you know until they are given a chance?" I too must add a question: "A chance at what?"

 

Maybe the answer is obvious these days: "A chance to 'be a leader'." or "A chance to learn 'leadership' for later business and family purposes," or "A chance to practice EDGE theory in an outdoor classroom;" or just "A chance to earn POR credit."

 

But Green Bar Bill's answer to your question would be a chance to regularly lead Patrol Hikes without adult supervision with the goal of leading Patrol Overnights without adult supervision.

 

The difference is values: Traditional Scouting "leadership" involves specific "values" expressed as managed risk. But "modern" leadership usually ends up with discussions of future moral values ("ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes").

 

That is why so many people laugh at me when I insist on a specific "value" like 30 or 300 feet.

 

But if you teach your Patrol Leaders to manage real risk, then your question when applying Green Bar Bill's "leadership" might be:

 

"How will I know if EveryBoy might possibly turn out to be a good leader until I trust him with the lives of seven other Scouts, without my supervision?"

 

The last remaining position of real responsibility in the BSA is BSA Lifeguard. Whenever I visit a BSA waterfront, I also hear values expressed as specific numbers because, like Green Bar Bill's Patrol Leaders, they must be trusted to manage real-world risk: "Jump into water over your head and swim 100 feet..." or "Everyone swim to that floating dock and wait for me," etc.

 

I do not hear many parents plead to allow a questionable swimmer become a BSA Lifeguard because he might posibly learn on the job if we just trust him with the lives of other people's children.

 

The degree to which a Scoutmaster is open to leadership surprises is inversely proportional to the responsibility he gives his Patrol Leaders as measured by the frequency of adult-free Patrol Hikes and adult-free Patrol Overnights and/or the distance between Patrols at adult-supervised Troop campouts.

 

I'm off to Colorado with my Troop for summer camp! I hope y'all have this question solved by the time I get back

 

Kudu

 

[xlpanel 10]

Because they are smart enough to stay in the background.

 

When Bush Falls off his Segway, who gets blamed? Bush

When Bush read a book upside down in a picture, who gets blamed? Bush

When Bush decides to invade Iraq, who gets blamed? Bush

When Bush says he knows about the internets, who gets blamed? Bush

When Bush does anything, who gets blamed? Bush

 

Of course, it is his campaign manager/strategist/chief of staff or personal advisor that told him to:

 

Ride the Segway

Take a picture reading to kids

To invade Iraq

To talk about the 'internets'

To do whatever he does

 

But does the chief of staff or strategist get blamed? No, that blame solely goes on the figurehead leader. Thus, the guy who made the bad decision gets off scott-free, while the figurehead takes all the blame. Smart.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Actually I thought Karl Rove got blamed for all that because a certain segment of the population doesn't think Bush thout at all...