Your boss announces his plan for cutting some project costs during a team meeting. You realize that this planned activity cheats the client and is illegal, so you cheerfully point that out for that group. Right? Unfortunately it’s usually not so easy to raise ethical concerns. If you’re dealing with an ethical individual who would truly want to know that they are accidentally doing something they should not be, they may thank you. However, sometimes we deal with unethical people who know full well that what they are doing is wrong, and it can be unpleasant to say the least to have an unethical person angry with you for pointing that out. If you raise concerns about the ethics of someone’s behavior and they try to cause you harm in some way because of the trouble you are causing them, this is called retaliation. The fifth mandatory Responsibility standard in the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (http://www.pmi.org/PDF/ap_pmicodeofethics.pdf) is “2.3.5 We pursue disciplinary action against an individual who retaliates against a person raising ethics concerns.” PMI values an environment where people can raise ethics concerns without fear. If ethical people are afraid to do or say anything, unethical behavior can take root and flourish. As Edmund Burke said, “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” For this reason, retaliation is taken very seriously in the project management profession.
March 11, 2010
March 10, 2010
Rules, Regulations and the PMI Code of Ethics
“Ignorantia juris non excusat”—ignorance of the law is no excuse! This well-known legal principle states that we are held liable for laws even though we may not be aware of them. This suggests that it’s a good idea to be aware of the laws and other rules that directly pertain to our work. As a project manager, you may have access to legal counsel as well. The first mandatory Responsibility standard in the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (http://www.pmi.org/PDF/ap_pmicodeofethics.pdf) is “2.3.1 We inform ourselves and uphold the policies, rules, regulations and laws that govern our work, professional, and volunteer activities.” Although there are some activities that most of us can safely assume would be wrong to do, some policies and rules can be quite detailed and have nothing to do with ethics. For example, in a former place of employment, my organization was inspected and marked down for the way the toilet paper was hung in the bathrooms. Because many rules are not immediately obvious, we must educate ourselves on the different sets of rules to which we are held accountable.
March 9, 2010
Upholding the PMI Code of Ethics
In order to be a member of the Project Management Institute (PMI) one must agree to abide by the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. It establishes expectations for behavior and serves as guidance for members as they make decisions in their profession. The sixth aspirational Responsibility standard in the PMI Code of Ethics (http://www.pmi.org/PDF/ap_pmicodeofethics.pdf) is “2.2.6 We uphold this Code and hold each other accountable to it.” It seems redundant that the Code itself states that we are to uphold it, but the key here is that we are to hold each other accountable. So for your colleagues who have also agreed to abide by the code, it means you should remind them about the standards when they face an ethical dilemma and expect that they will hold you accountable as well. In order to do this, we must have a good familiarity with the Code, or at a minimum, be able to recognize that a situation or decision involves ethics and then reference the Code. This aspirational Responsibility standard is closely tied to the Mandatory Responsibility standards which require us to report, and even file an ethics complaint, when there has been a substantiated ethics violation.
March 8, 2010
Listening and the PMI Code of Ethics
Listening carefully in order to understand someone is a practical skill for everyday life, but it’s also considered a matter of respect, and is so listed as the second aspirational Respect standard in the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (http://www.pmi.org/PDF/ap_pmicodeofethics.pdf) as “3.2.2 We listen to others’ points of view, seeking to understand them.” During a conversation, it can be easy to concentrate more on what we’ll say next rather than focus on the meaning of what the other person is saying. Not paying attention at all conveys that the other person and their thoughts are not important to us. Just because we understand someone’s view doesn’t mean that we’ll agree with it, but we have to first understand in order to decide whether or not we agree. Also, as project managers, we can save ourselves much trouble if we seek to understand what key stakeholders want for the project and if we listen to the people in the trenches when they warn that there are some additional considerations.
March 5, 2010
Opportunity Fairness and the PMI Code of Ethics
Who will get that great, new opportunity within your organization? Perhaps the daughter of the top salesman, or the young lady that was in the same sorority as the CEO? The fourth aspirational Fairness standard in the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (http://www.pmi.org/PDF/ap_pmicodeofethics.pdf) is “4.2.4 We make opportunities equally available to qualified candidates.” Not everyone has the needed qualifications, so opportunities should not be equally available to unqualified candidates. But the pool of equally qualified candidates should all have the same opportunity. Some people deliberately use their position of power to show favoritism, but what is difficult about this standard is that someone can have every intention of trying to do the right thing by “helping someone out” without realizing that it is precluding the opportunity for other individuals. This standard asks us to think through our actions to ensure that they are fair.
March 4, 2010
Solving Conflicts and the PMI Code of Ethics
“Can you believe that guy? Sales is my area—he’s just trying to make me look bad in front of the boss.” Conflicts and disagreements are commonplace in the workplace. It is to everyone’s benefit if they are quickly resolved. The third aspirational Respect standard in the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (http://www.pmi.org/PDF/ap_pmicodeofethics.pdf) is “3.2.3 We approach directly those persons with whom we have a conflict or disagreement.” This standard sounds more like practical advice than an ethics standard, but here it is being considered a matter of respect to directly approach someone rather than resort to other less productive behaviors. It can be easier to complain about someone else’s behavior to your friends at the office and have them agree with you that so-and-so is unreasonable or worse. Unfortunately, it likely will make the problem worse rather than resolve it. It may not be all that difficult to approach a subordinate to discuss something you disagree on. However, sometimes it is very stressful to approach a superior with whom you have a disagreement. In TAPUniversity’s Conflict Resolution course, we discuss approaching people respectfully, being logical, and listening carefully to their perspectives when we have a disagreement. As a leader, if people are unafraid to share (in a respectful manner) a view that conflicts with yours, it can lead to valuable information and opportunities.
March 3, 2010
Information Access and the PMI Code of Ethics
Knowledge is power. Individuals who serve as gatekeepers of knowledge are in a position of power, and that power can be abused by unfairly exercising control over who knows what. The third aspirational Fairness standard in the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (http://www.pmi.org/PDF/ap_pmicodeofethics.pdf) is “4.2.3 We provide equal access to information to those who are authorized to have that information.” We must first know who is authorized to have the information. I remember being told once by a colleague that if I needed certain information, just wait until the student office worker was there, because she would tell you anything when the other people in the office knew we weren’t entitled to the information. Apparently no one had told this young lady who was authorized to have access to certain types of files. Once we know who is authorized, we must allow them the same access. So if we have a useful piece of information, it isn’t right to quickly let our friends know and only tell the other authorized people if they directly ask. The emphasis here is on treating people fairly regarding information.
March 2, 2010
Errors and the PMI Code of Ethics
Uh, oh. You found a mistake in your report that was already sent out to key stakeholders. People can have a range of reactions at this moment of realization. Some will shrug it off and tell themselves that everyone makes mistakes. Others may feel devastated over the error and obsess about it.
As hard as it may be, what we should not do is blame someone else for the mistake, attempt to cover it up, or hope that it will disappear on its own. The fourth responsibility aspirational standard in the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (http://www.pmi.org/PDF/ap_pmicodeofethics.pdf) is “2.2.4 When we make errors or omissions, we take ownership and make corrections promptly. When we discover errors or omissions caused by others, we communicate them to the appropriate body as soon they are discovered. We accept accountability for any issues resulting from our errors or omissions and any resulting consequences.” If people are making decisions based on the inaccurate information in your report, the problem is going to quickly get worse rather than go away. So we are urged to promptly correct the problem.
In another scenario, you find a mistake in a report, but it was not you who made the error. This is not the time to stay quiet because you don’t want to cause problems for the person; nor is it appropriate to broadcast your evidence of how incompetent the individual is. We need to be logical about informing people of what they need to know so that corrections can be made and the project can move on. Ideally as a project manager we do what we can to make team members comfortable with bringing errors to our attention. Being afraid of the boss’s reaction can be strong motivation to keep mistakes quiet and cover them up.
March 1, 2010
Conflict of Interest and the PMI Code of Ethics
Conflict of interest was discussed in the last posting on the second aspirational fairness standard in the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (http://www.pmi.org/PDF/ap_pmicodeofethics.pdf). The first and second mandatory fairness standards in the code of ethics address conflict of interest more directly.
A conflict of interest situation occurs when we have competing loyalties. We all play multiple roles and have multiple loyalties that extend beyond the workplace. Although sometimes we can make decisions that support multiple loyalties at once, sometimes roles conflict and we must make a decision that does not support all our loyalties. For example, have your parents wanted something and your significant other wanted something else? When your boss wants you to work extra hours during your child’s sporting event, there is a conflict between your role as an employee and your role as a parent. If you’ve become friends with one of your subordinates, conflicts may arise between your role as a boss and that of a friend.
The first step is to be open about the conflict of interest—not just when someone asks, but taking it upon ourselves to inform others. Section 4.3.1 of the code states “We proactively and fully disclose any real or potential conflicts of interest to the appropriate stakeholders.” If a situation is not disclosed and others discover the potential conflict, it can appear that we have a reason to be hiding something.
Once stakeholders are informed of the situation, the second step is to excuse ourselves from the decision-making process unless or until we have the permission of the stakeholders to participate and a plan. Section 4.3.2 of the code states “When we realize that we have a real or potential conflict of interest, we refrain from engaging in the decision-making process or otherwise attempting to influence outcomes, unless or until: we have made full disclosure to the affected stakeholders; we have an approved mitigation plan; and we have obtained the consent of the stakeholders to proceed.” Project managers preparing for the PMP Exam® often believe that we must excuse ourselves permanently from conflict of interest situations, but this is not always the case. With stakeholders’ permission and a plan, we may participate.
For example, as a teacher’s assistant in college I graded papers and maintained the grade books for certain courses. I remember informing the professor that one of his students was my roommate. He trusted that I would grade fairly, so I had his permission to grade her exams as well. I was glad I had disclosed the information after my roommate did exceptionally well on the test—the professor may have been suspicious if he later found out she was my roommate.
February 26, 2010
Conflict of Interest–The Second Aspirational Fairness Standard in the PMI Code of Ethics
Conflict of interest situations can be commonplace, and have been regarded as one the biggest problems in the field of project management. The Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (http://www.pmi.org/PDF/ap_pmicodeofethics.pdf) contains comments on some standards, and the second aspirational Fairness standard includes the comment “the subject of conflicts of interest is one of the most challenging faced by our profession. One of the biggest problems practitioners report is not recognizing when we have conflicted loyalties and recognizing when we are inadvertently placing ourselves or others in a conflict-of-interest situation.”
The standard drafted to confront this problem is the second aspirational Fairness standard: “4.2.2 We constantly reexamine our impartiality and objectivity, taking corrective action as appropriate.” This standard does not simply say what we will or will not do like many other standards, but consistent with the problem that project managers may not even realize that they are in a conflict of interest situation, it states that we “constantly reexamine.” For example, a relative to the person making the procurement decisions may submit a proposal. If coming under-budget for a project is rewarded financially, decisions may be made to reduce costs in a way that compromises the quality of the deliverables. What appears to be a gift may be a subtle bribe. Many situations can arise in which we have multiple interests, so project managers first of all need to maintain awareness to assure that they act in a fair manner.
tapuniversity
dkohrell