Article View: bit.listserv.quality
Article #306Re: Monkeys "Joke"/Deibler reply to Neil Love (fwd)
From: Bill Casti, CQA (System Administ...
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 00:00
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 00:00
106 lines
5492 bytes
5492 bytes
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 21:38:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Deibler <Ssqc@cris.com>
To: TQM in Manufacturing and Service Industries Discussion List
<QUALITY@PUCC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Monkeys "Joke"/Deibler reply to Neil Love
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Neil Love wrote:
> Frankly I don't see anything funny about the "consultant joke" that was
> recently posted (see below). It is a put down.
Well Neil, I take full responsibility for posting this and am disappointed
at your reaction. I'm a full time consultant, and have been employed in
the software consulting industry since 1990. By the way, one of my
customers sent me this joke as a cute jab. They felt I would enjoy it and
I did.
> I for one have had it with gross generalizations and stereotyping people
> (e.g., lawyers, men, women, engineers, managers, etc.).
I find jokes that single out men and women, ethnicity, and religion to be
offensive, but I've always thought that jokes about a profession are fun
and often insightful.
> I saw a similar post on another email discussion group that offered a list
> of "jokes" about women. That set off a ton of emails.
See above.
> Yes, there are a few consultants that do not add value (the "joke" goes
> further and says worse - consultants don't do anything). And yes there are
> a very few unethical consultants out there. Probably the same % as any
> other group of professionals (inside or outside corporations) one would
> wish to focus on.
You've got to be kidding. Have you been in the business long? I see
you are based in San Jose, as our firm is, so I am surprised that you
would make such a naive statement. There are PLENTY of consultants that
are lousy. Generalizations often come about because of direct experience,
not just oral tradition.
> As a member of the Institue of Management Consultants (mostly solo
> independent consultants to management), I and the multi-thousand other
> members abide by the IMC Code of Ethics. Furthur, having passed a
> multi-month certification process like over a thousand other CMC's, we are
> committed to leading the way in making consulting a high value service to
> organizations.
First let me say:
I have no direct experience with your certification organization. But I
have found that certification schemes in general, do not provide much
more than a minimum standard for those registered to the scheme. A
generalization again, but I have direct experience in this area, as I've
worked on numerous national and international standards committees that
develop and implement such schemes.
Plenty of consultants have certifications out the wazoo, however,
that does not guarantee that they will have satisifed customers. A code
of ethics, for example, does not guarantee a conscience. Just observe the
many scandals that have cropped up in universities and institutions that
have formal honor codes.
> Most consultants work very hard to ensure they are adding value and being
> well received by their clients. For example, recently we engaged a firm to
> conduct a client satisfaction survey - 100% of our clients rated our
> services Excellent or Very Good.
You know, it's a very simple world we live in as consultants when you
think about it elementally. For example, although the Silicon Valley is a
large employment base, it's a very intimate and small community overall.
All it takes for a consultancy to commit employment suicide is to fail in
delivering the goods to a client. The word gets out very quickly that
the consultancy is inadequate and it spreads like wildfire. This is a
business of natural selection. Do your dharma and get your kharma, what
goes around comes around, etc.
Consultants come and go in the Silicon Valley, or anywhere for that
matter, at a rapid pace. Many of the newly unemployed suddenly become
"consultants" between jobs. It's an interesting title that many have
assumed.
> Please do not respond with the comment that I am thin skined - just think
> about what we are doing when we stereotype and put down - often
> unknowingly. Ask why are we doing it and what does it say about our
> paradigms.
>
> Neil Love
> Certified Management Consultant
Neil, I don't think you are thin skinned. I think you are very serious,
and that's what scares but also entertains me.
And by the way, a paradigms is a nickel short of a quarter.
Paradigms? :]
You certainly speak consultantese.
Teasingly,
Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Deibler <ssqc@concentric.net> SSQC
http://www.ssqc.com 2269 Sunny Vista Drive
Phone (408) 985-4476 Fax 248-SSQC San Jose, CA 95128
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<Pine.BSF.3.96.971103004236.847J-100000@cyberq.quality.org>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1159be,b6d391978bf7cbed,start X-Google-Attributes: gid1159be,public From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)" <help@quality.org> Subject: Re: Monkeys "Joke"/Deibler reply to Neil Love (fwd) Date: 1997/11/03 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971103004236.847J-100000@cyberq.quality.org> X-Deja-AN: 286699252 Sender: TQM in Manufacturing and Service Industries Discussion List <QUALITY%PUCC.BITNET@vtbit.cc.vt.edu> Comments: ******************************************************** Approved-By: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)" <help@QUALITY.ORG> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.quality