Change in ASQ Code of Ethics

[Tim Folkerts]

Has anyone noticed that the ASQ Code of Ethics has changed? I have no idea when it happened, but I noticed it as I was looking at other document on the ASQ Website. Googling "ASQ Code of Ethics" produces numerous hits to ASQ sections with the old statement for comparison.

The new statement is streamlined, with about 1/2 as many words as before.

We are no longer specifically expected to:

• earnestly endeavor to aid the work of the Society.
• be dignified and modest in explaining my work and merit.
• indicate to my employer or client adverse consequences to be expected if my professional judgement is overruled.
  
• endeavor to aid the professional development of those in my employ or under my supervision (although there is a statement about the professional development of "others" in general).

On the other hand members are now expected to:

• perform services only in their areas of competence.
• act in a professional manner in dealings with ASQ staff.
  

Yes, that's right. It is written into the Code of Ethics that we deal professionally with ASQ staff (in addition to employers, customers, and clients; but interestingly not specifically with peers or the public). Now, dealing professionally with ASQ staff is, well, the professional way to behave, but it seems a little much to explicitily write it into the Code Of Ethics.

It is also interesting that "dealings with ASQ staff" is in the section "Relations with Employers and Clients", not the section "Relations with Peers". So ASQ staff are like our bosses? Not like our peers? Not like our employees?


Tim F

[Craig H.]

Be careful, Tim. Guess who gets to define "professional"? Is it possible that even gentle criticism is not?

[BSpitler]

I too was surprised to find that the code of ethics had changed. I noticed it on the back of my last cert. I have been a member for years but don't remember being notified...

[Wes Bucey]

Ah, brethren! It is I who is more guilty than you all. It is I who has consistently denigrated and derogated the efforts, albeit however small and ineffectual, of the paid ASQ staff in the upper pay grades, while lauding the efforts of the low pay grades who grind out the effective delivery system of the publishing arm of ASQ.

It is I who created a backlash of response by upper level paid staff to my continual stream of ridicule and invective for the idiotic precursor to the current (still a joke) ASQ Forum.

It is I who was largely responsible for the revolving door of "managers" who held the position of titular boss of the ASQ Forums. I recall one of those "managers" being so upset, he publicly threatened to ban me from the ASQ Forums. He found other employment within two weeks of that threat.

It is I who have been most forthright in saying we needed an entire change of elected officials so we could throw out the entrenched bureaucrats making more than $300,000 per year plus innumerable perks.

The bureaucrats were so fearful of losing their jobs (despite being largely responsible for the apathy of ASQ members who choose to drop membership rather than swim in the bureaucratic Jello) that they cobbled together ethics changes aimed at vocal and written rebuke from the members and stuck the changes in front of the clueless Board members to sign.

Despite being a large part of the reason for the ethics change:

• I do not apologize, but instead call for you all to join me in pointing out the process "gaps" for which the high paid ASQ staff are largely responsible;
• I do not apologize, but instead call for you all to join me in stamping out the apathy about events at ASQ which seems to have gripped our members;
• I do not apologize, but instead call for you all to join me in spreading the word that spending time and effort in improving quality of goods and services actually DOES pay off in the long run;
• I do not apologize, but instead call for you all to join me in mentoring newbies and dispelling the notion "operator error" is a valid excuse for nonconforming goods or services;
• I do not apologize, but instead call for you all to join me in finding and nurturing strong candidates for regional and national ASQ office who really want to promote the Society instead of merely adding a line to their resumés.

Has anyone noticed the criteria for being named an ASQ Fellow have evolved more and more to honor consultants, authors, and educators, and less and less to honor the work-a-day guy who leads his organization to Quality excellence? Odd, isn't it, the segments of our Society who benefit most from being able to tout themselves as ASQ Fellows to get consulting jobs, speaking gigs, tenure at schools, and jacket blurbs for their books are the ones who also make up the bulk of new Fellows?

[Jim Wynne]

I sure don't have dog in this fight, but y'all have done a great job of reminding me why I don't.

Originally Posted by Wes Bucey

but instead call for you all to join me in mentoring newbies and dispelling the notion operator error is a valid excuse for nonconforming goods or services;

I think your boy WED said it might be a valid excuse about 15% of the time, no?

[Tim Folkerts]

After a little more checking, the Code of Ethics was changed by the Board last May. The board minutes simply report:

"Danny Duhan presented the revised Member Code of Ethics that the Ethics Committee submitted for Board approval.
Upon motion by Ron Atkinson, duly seconded, the Board of Directors . . .
VOTED to approve the ASQ Member Code of Ethics. Motion passed (26 ayes, 2 nays)."It would be interesting to know why two board members voted against the change.


Also, from a Document Control perspective, it seems like more effort should be made to inform the various branches that their webpages contain the wrong code of ethics.

Tim F

[Jennifer Kirley]

Originally Posted by Craig H.

Be careful, Tim. Guess who gets to define "professional"? Is it possible that even gentle criticism is not?

Well then! As I understand it, now those who behave "unprofessionally" to ASQ staff can be, in a sense excommunicated. I suppose this is meant to keep peace, but I the Orwellian in me worries the result is that the Emperor will always be wearing the finest clothes in the land.

[Wes Bucey]

Of course, Deming may have implied 15% of nonconformance was NOT due to management ineptitude, but that did not imply it was operator error. the bulk of the 15% was attributed to Force Majeure and natural variation, while the balance was due to "errors" when an operator experienced a lapse due to

• misunderstanding the training or instruction,
• being tired from either too much of any activity or poor nutrition,
• previously undetected physical, eyesight, or hearing deficiencies
• distraction due to off-the-job issues (maybe some on-the-job issues like pay, benefits, nagging boss, etc. which can't be detected in an audit.)
• sabotage - his own or someone else's to make him a victim. (you have to ask the motive for sabotage - sometimes it is almost justified in the eyes of some as a type of guerilla warfare between management and labor.).

If the operator is simply incompetent and unable to perform the task, that is a management error in approving the employee to work at such task before determining competency. Distraction on-the-job merely means the management did not provide a distraction-free work zone.