Evaluating Scouting Positions of Responsibility

The new Guide to Advancement repeatedly emphasizes that we are charged with helping individual Scouts succeed.

Mentoring, coaching, advocating for the Scout, establishing and defining reasonable expectations are all aspects of Scoutmastership the guide mentions again and again.

I am convinced that anyone who follows the polices and procedures in the guide carefully will strengthen their program and be a real force for good in the lives of the Scouts we serve.

I will have to make a couple of course adjustments, as will many of us but I am energized and excited about them One frequently debated area of advancement is evaluating the requirements for positions of responsibility. The new guide goes to some length to make it clear exactly how this is to be accomplished. Here’s a look at the entire section (I have removed some references to other resources to make the section easier to read and have added emphasis to some words and statements I think are crucially important.) This simple statement clears up a lot of common questions: 4.2.3.4.2 Meeting the Time Test May Involve Any Number of Positions. The requirement calls for a period of months. Any number of positions may be held as long as total service time equals at least the number of months required.

Holding simultaneous positions does not shorten the required number of months.

Positions need not flow from one to the other; there may be gaps between them.

Standards are equally clear and, no surprise, highly individual 4.2.3.4.3 Meeting Unit Expectations. If a unit has established expectations for positions of responsibility, and if, within reason based on his personal skill set, the Scout meets them, he fulfills the requirement. When a Scout assumes a position, something related to the desired results must happen. It is a disservice to the Scout and to the unit to reward work that has not been done.

Holding a position and doing nothing, producing no results, is unacceptable. Some degree of responsibility must be practiced, taken, or accepted. How, exactly, are these expectations to be set? 4.2.3.4.4 Meeting the Requirement in the Absence of Unit Expectations. It is best when a Scout’s leaders provide him position descriptions, and then direction, coaching, and support.

Where this occurs, and is done well, the young man will likely succeed. When this support, for whatever reason, is unavailable or otherwise not provided—or when there are no clearly established expectations—then an adult leader or the Scout, or both, should work out the responsibilities to fulfill. In doing so, neither the position’s purpose nor degree of difficulty may be altered significantly or diminished. BSA literature provides the basis for this effort. So the expectations are clear, support and mentoring are provides with an eye towards making the Scout successful.

Sometimes, though, the expectations are not clearly established; what then?

Under the above scenario, if it is left to the Scout to determine what should be done, and he makes a reasonable effort to perform accordingly for the time specified, then he fulfills this requirement. Even if his results are not necessarily what the Scoutmaster, members of a board of review, or others involved may want to see, he may not be held to unestablished expectations. What if a Scout is not meeting the responsibilities of his position? 4.2.3.4.5 When Responsibilities Are Not Met. If a unit has clearly established expectations for position(s) held, then—within reason—a Scout must meet them through the prescribed time. If he is not meeting expectations, then this must be communicated early . Unit leadership may work toward a constructive result by asking him what he thinks he should be accomplishing. What is his concept of the position? What does he think his troop leaders—youth and adult—expect? What has he done well? What needs improvement?

Often this questioning approach can lead a young man to the decision to measure up. He will tell the leaders how much of the service time should be recorded. Ask questions and work with the Scout; together you decide a way forward (sound familiar?). So what if this doesn’t work? If it becomes clear nothing will improve his performance, then it is acceptable to remove the Scout from his position.

Every effort should have been made while he was in the position to ensure he understood expectations and was regularly supported toward reasonably acceptable performance. If there has been an ongoing dialogue, if the Scout does not respond then he is removed from the position. But he is not ambushed at the end of the time period and told he was not performing to expectations. This has always been unfair, now it is against clearly worded policy: It is unfair and inappropriate—after six months, for example—to surprise a boy who thinks he has been doing fine, with news that his performance is now considered unsatisfactory. In this case, he must be given credit for the time. Only in rare cases—if ever—should troop leaders inform a Scout that time, once served, will not count. If a Scout believes he has performed his duties satisfactorily, but his leaders disagree, then the possibility that expectations are unreasonable should be considered. Just because this is written it doesn’t mean everyone will follow the policy. So what can a Scout do when he feels he is being treated unfairly? If after discussions between the Scout and his leaders—and perhaps including his parents or guardians—he believes he is being held to unreasonable expectations, then upon completing the remaining requirements, he must be granted a board of review. If he is an Eagle candidate, then he may request a board of review under disputed circumstances. A Scout can still take his case to a board of review, and they can make a final decision whether or not he can advance.

Finally this section notes that not all Scouts are required nor should they be expected to be charismatic leaders: 4.2.3.4.6 “Responsibility” and “Leadership.” Many suggest this requirement should call for a position of “leadership” rather than simply of “responsibility.”

Taking and accepting responsibility, however, is a key foundation for leadership. One cannot lead effectively without it. The requirement as written recognizes the different personalities, talents, and skill sets in all of us. Some seem destined to be “the leader of the group.”

Others provide quality support and strong examples behind the scenes.

Without the latter, the leaders in charge have little chance for success. Thus, the work of the supporters becomes part of the overall leadership effort Some scribes and quartermasters may be eloquent, admired leaders some may not. The point being made is are they making their best attempt to be responsible? That’s what really matters.

Guide to Advancement 2011 PDF file