I recently spoke to an ethics officer who had just completed the new certification program offered by the Society for Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE). He was satisfied with the process and very pleased with his accomplishment. As we discussed certification and the “professionalization” of the position of ethics officer it got me thinking about an idea from years ago that I don’t think ever got much traction.

In the early days of what was then called the Ethics Officer Association (now the Ethics and Compliance Officer Association, ECOA), probably around 1992, a meeting was held with no more than 30 or so attendees. When asked how long they intended to continue in their new position several of them made the case that no one should stay in the position for more than a year or two.

They argued that if, on a regular basis, the position was filled by someone new, then eventually this would result in a growing cadre of leaders in the organization who had actually served as ethics officer. These alumni could then be expected to be strong allies of the program wherever their careers eventual took them.

Further, it was said that the ethics office would benefit from new perspectives. Some also noted that agreeing to serve as ethics officer might be a career ender, but, they argued, that prospect would be lessened if the position was established as a regular stop on all managers’ career paths.

I recall that a spirited discussion followed about how the new ethics officer would be brought up to speed, and what criteria should be established for creating the succession plan.

Years later I remember telling this story at a conference where many of the ethics officers from the original meeting were in attendance. They were all still in their positions as ethics officers. No one had implemented the plan. Instead they saw themselves as in it for the long-term, and many viewed it as the job they were likely to hold for the rest of their careers.

What had happened? Was the idea impractical and unwise from the beginning? Or did the position of ethics officer change in ways that made the idea of regular turn-over impractical or even unwise?

I suppose the original idea now seems a bit quaint, just like the notion of part-time citizen legislators. It used to be the norm for law-makers to have other jobs to go to and other professions that identified them. But today we have professionalized the job of legislator. I for one don’t see this as progress.

Does anyone know of an organization that has tried – or still follows the succession idea? Would it work? Or has the position of ethics officer become a job requiring special training, specific skills and even professional certification?