Do You Like to Pick and Choose Your Projects?

What the PMI Code of Ethics Says May Surprise You

As a Project Manager, you know the feeling. A new project lands in your lap which is either a cutting-edge AI technology implementation, a shiny digital transformation or something that will look brilliant on your CV and that you know you can deliver. You're energised. You're in. Then there's the other kind. The project that is deep in the red, the one nobody else wanted, the rescue mission with a sponsor who is already frustrated, a team that is burnt out, and a timeline that was never realistic to begin with. Suddenly your diary looks very full.
We have all been there and tempted to lean toward the good ones and push back on the hard ones. It's human nature. But before you do, let's talk about what the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct actually says because most practitioners have never taken notice to that relevant section.
So if you had to choose between the good project and the hard one, which one should you take?
The answer that the Code points to is the one that we are qualified for which may be the hard one. And here's why.
The Code of Ethics does not give you the right to cherry-pick assignments based on what looks good for your career or what feels manageable for your stress levels. Think about what the four pillars actually demand in this situation.
Responsibility means taking ownership including the decision to avoid a project that genuinely needs you.
Respect means valuing the organisation, the team stuck on that struggling project, and the stakeholders counting on someone capable to step up.
Fairness means not using your seniority or positioning to grab the good ones and leave the hard ones for others.
Honesty means not manufacturing reasons to avoid a difficult project when you know full well you are qualified and competent to lead it.
The uncomfortable truth that the Code asks us to sit with is this: “a project manager who only delivers when conditions are favourable is not demonstrating competence they are avoiding the test of it”.
But there is a provision that lets you say no but it's not what you think.
Now here is where it gets interesting, because the Code does provide a legitimate basis to decline an assignment. It sits in the Responsibility chapter of the updated 2025 PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (version 8, effective November 2025), in Section 2.2.3 it reads:
"We accept only those assignments that are consistent with our background, experience, skills, and qualifications."
Most practitioners who know this line assume it covers situations like the ones above the difficult project, the unwanted rescue, the high-pressure delivery. It doesn't. This is a competence obligation, not a comfort obligation.
The Code is protecting the profession and the client from a Project Manager who takes on work they are genuinely not equipped to lead. Taking on a highly specialised regulatory compliance program, a complex sovereign cloud migration, or a safety-critical infrastructure project when that domain expertise is genuinely beyond their capability without telling anyone is an ethical problem the Code is addressing. Not a project with a difficult sponsor or a red RAG status.
Also the clause most practitioners have never read that makes this provision even richer is the commentary that follows it, which the vast majority of PMPs have never encountered:
"When we are considering a developmental or stretch assignments, we ensure that key stakeholders receive timely and complete information regarding the gaps in our qualifications so that they may make informed decisions regarding our suitability for a particular assignment."
This is the stretch assignment clause. The Code explicitly contemplates that you will sometimes be asked to lead work at the edge of your capability and the ethical response is not automatic refusal. It is transparency. Be upfront about where the gaps are, what support you will need, and let your stakeholders make an informed call. That is Honesty and Responsibility working exactly as the Code intends.
What about the project with no requirements?
This is where even experienced practitioners get caught out, and it comes up regularly during the PMP training exam simulators for good reason. If you are assigned a project with poorly defined or missing requirements, is that grounds to refuse the project?
The answer is No. A project with ambiguous requirements is a project condition to be managed, not a competence gap to disclose.

So next time you feel the pull toward the safe win, or the resistance to the rescue project, ask yourself one honest question: Is this about my competence, or my comfort? If it is competence speak up, be transparent, and let your stakeholders decide with the full picture. If it is comfort take a breath, lean in, and lead. That is what the profession asks of us.
Have you ever said no to a project that you were fully qualified to lead and if so, was it really about competence, or were you protecting yourself? Have you ever watched a colleague grab the good projects and leave the hard ones for others and said nothing? Now that you are aware of what the PMI Code of Ethics actually says does it change how you see those moments?
Please share your thoughts below.
More information please refer to the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/ethics/pmi-code-of-ethics.pdf?rev=e7713058411741c78fe3c4f77040895c