Behind closed doors: When decisions feel already made
|
The decision seemed straightforward, at least on the surface. A leadership role opened after the successful delivery of a project, and several team members demonstrated strong performance, commitment, and clear growth potential. However, when the announcement was made the outcome surprised many. Not because the selected individual lacked capability, mainly because the process lacked clarity. There were no transparent criteria, no visible evaluation process, and no opportunity for others to express interest. What was visible, however, was a prior relationship between the decision-maker and the selected individual. Intentionally or not, the perception of favoritism emerged immediately. This is how favoritism and nepotism tend to show up in project environments, not as obvious violations, but as subtle departures from fairness. Favoritism occurs when personal preferences influence professional decisions. Nepotism goes a step further, granting advantage to family members or close connections. In both cases, the issue is not always about competence, but about whether decisions are made impartially, objectively, and free from competing self-interest. From the perspective of PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, these situations directly challenge the core values: Responsibility, Respect, Fairness, and Honesty. Here is how each value comes into play: - Responsibility is about ownership, not just of decisions, but of their consequences. Leaders are accountable for how decisions are made and for ensuring they align with the best interests of stakeholders. Avoiding structure or relying solely on personal judgment can unintentionally create ethical gaps. - Respect goes beyond courtesy. It requires creating an environment where individuals feel valued, included, and able to contribute fully. When opportunities are not openly communicated, it limits participation and can undermine a sense of belonging within the team. - Fairness is where the tension becomes most visible. The Code is explicit: decisions must be made impartially, and opportunities should be equally available to qualified individuals. It also clearly states that we must not reward or deny opportunities based on personal considerations such as favoritism or nepotism. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest must be treated with care and transparency. - Honesty is about creating an environment where truth can be spoken and heard. This includes being transparent about how decisions are made and ensuring that information is complete, accurate, and not misleading. The consequences of overlooking these values are not always immediate, but they are real. For example: the high performer who disengages, the colleague who stops applying, the meeting where fewer voices are heard. Trust does not disappear overnight, and it gets slowly replaced by doubt. To be fair, leadership decisions are rarely black and white. Trust, experience, and working relationships matter. But ethical leadership requires more than good intent, it requires intentional processes. This means defining and documenting clear evaluation criteria before decisions are made, ensuring transparency in decision-making, involving multiple perspectives, and openly disclosing potential conflicts of interest when impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Even when decisions are ultimately sound, the absence of visible structure and transparency can weaken trust, create perceptions of bias, and discourage future engagement from team members who feel the process was not equitable. Because ultimately, the question is not just whether the right person was selected. It is whether the process reflects the values we claim to uphold. As the Code reminds us, every choice matters, and collectively, those choices shape the credibility of our profession. Have you ever experienced a situation where a decision felt influenced by favoritism, and how did it change the way you trust leadership? Share your thoughts in the comments and let’s continue the conversation References Link to PMI’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct: https://www.pmi.org/about/ethics/guidelines Link to PMI’s Ethical Decision-Making Framework (EDMF): https://www.pmi.org/ethics/ethical-decision-making-framework.pdf Link to PMI’s Blog on Ethics “Ethics Bistro”: https://www.projectmanagement.com/blogs/365304/ethics-bistro |
Cultural Shift: Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Project Practice
 We are now facing a new wave of transformation like the “webification” era two decades ago. This time, it is artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). As project practitioners, we must ask: how do these technologies reshape company culture, and how do we guide organizations through the turbulence? AI is not just another tool—it changes how decisions are made, how work is distributed, and how value is delivered. It can automate repetitive tasks, provide predictive insights, and even challenge traditional hierarchies by empowering data-driven decision-making. However, these benefits come with cultural challenges, including trust, transparency, and ethical responsibility. Cultural change is often the most challenging aspect. With AI, the stakes are higher because people fear being replaced. To make a seamless shift, secure senior management buy-in; without leadership commitment, AI initiatives stall. Start with a pilot project involving a small, willing team that can demonstrate clear benefits, such as faster reporting, reduced errors, or improved forecasting. Use advocates and let these satisfied users share their success stories, which build momentum and reduce resistance. AI adoption should feel like a snowball rolling downhill, gaining speed and enthusiasm as more people recognize its value. Benefits must be crystal clear, where “AI” alone does not mean business value. Identify specific improvements, such as automating workflows to reduce manual errors, enhancing project visibility with predictive analytics, optimizing resource allocation to lower costs, and freeing staff from repetitive tasks so they can focus on creative, strategic work. When AI is introduced only for marketing buzz or compliance optics, resistance will be stronger. On the other hand, the cultural shift becomes smoother as the first AI initiative demonstrates tangible benefits. Information must be meaningful. Too often, AI systems generate dashboards or reports that overwhelm rather than enlighten. If end users cannot quickly find actionable insights, they will revert to old habits. Communication is critical, as it explains what AI will deliver, when, and how it should be used. It also provides training to ensure staff understand the system’s strengths and limitations and utilizes pilots to refine usability before scaling. In short, AI should empower, not confuse. Cultural change is cultural change, whether it is the web or AI. Start with strategy: what outcomes does the company want? Then identify processes that are most critical to achieving those outcomes. Engage the knowledge workers who understand those processes best. Facilitate discussions on how AI can enhance their capabilities. This engagement ensures that AI adoption is not imposed but rather co-created. It keeps the focus on the value delivered, rather than technology for its own sake. Remember: technology is a means, not an end. Bring the human side of the story. Sometimes the simplest benefits win hearts. During the web shift, putting the phone directory online was a breakthrough. For AI, start with something equally obvious, such as AI-driven scheduling that saves hours of manual coordination, smart search that retrieves project documents instantly, and/or automated compliance checks that reduce audit stress. Do not sell paradigm shifts; just sneak them in through everyday wins. From these perspectives, several themes emerge:
As project leaders, we must not only deliver benefits but also safeguard ethical values, as prescribed in the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct and stipulated in PMI Ethical Decision Making Framework. Here are actionable steps:
In closing, AI and ML are reshaping it today, just as the web transformed project management two decades ago. The challenge is not only technical but cultural. By focusing on strategy, demonstrating clear benefits, and embedding ethics into every initiative, we can deliver projects that are both successful and responsible. Let us commit to being ethical while delivering benefits and consider these questions:
References: Project Management Institute. (2025 November). PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. pmi.org. https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/ethics/pmi-code-of-ethics.pdf Project Management Institute. (2025 November). PMI Ethical Decision Making Framework. pmi.org. https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/ethics/ethical-decision-making-framework.pdf ==== |
What is new in PMBOK 8 – An ethics perspective
Categories:
Ethics as a competence,
Values,
Behavior,
values,
code of ethics,
Ethical Leadership,
Decision-making,
Ethics Insight Team,
Ethics Bistro,
Business Ethics,
code of conduct,
PMI Talent Triangle,
Ways of Working,
Decision-making,
Values,
Business Ethics,
AI,
Project,
PMI Program Management,
Do the right thing,
Culture,
Ethical Dilemma,
respect,
Professional Responsibility,
Professional Conduct,
Honesty,
Respect,
Responsibility,
Project Management,
Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct,
honesty,
responsibility,
professonal conduct,
volunteers,
professional conduct,
Digital Transformation,
Ethics in Communication,
Agile,
Leadership,
Decision Making,
Ethics,
Diversity,
Organizational Project Management,
Information Technology,
Organizational Culture,
Governance,
Artificial Intelligence
Categories: Ethics as a competence, Values, Behavior, values, code of ethics, Ethical Leadership, Decision-making, Ethics Insight Team, Ethics Bistro, Business Ethics, code of conduct, PMI Talent Triangle, Ways of Working, Decision-making, Values, Business Ethics, AI, Project, PMI Program Management, Do the right thing, Culture, Ethical Dilemma, respect, Professional Responsibility, Professional Conduct, Honesty, Respect, Responsibility, Project Management, Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, honesty, responsibility, professonal conduct, volunteers, professional conduct, Digital Transformation, Ethics in Communication, Agile, Leadership, Decision Making, Ethics, Diversity, Organizational Project Management, Information Technology, Organizational Culture, Governance, Artificial Intelligence
 Imagine a team of explorers crossing a desert. No matter how skilled its members are or how modern their vehicles are, they may not succeed in reaching their destination without a compass. In project management, ethics serve as that compass, guiding decision-making, fostering trust, and ensuring accountability. For PMI Members, the compass is the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Developed even before the first edition of the Project Management Book of Knowledge, the Code was and remains the holder of the guardrails of the project management profession. PMBOK 7 replaced knowledge areas with performance domains. The 8th is more aligned with the Agile delivery approach, whilst retaining the importance of good governance. Like the previous version, the PMBOK highlights alignment with both internal and external environments. It is important to note the focus on artificial intelligence and sustainability. Principles of project management PMBOK 8 simplified the 12 principles from the 7th edition to create a more focused and actionable foundation for modern project management. The principles of project management are aligned with the values of PMI’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. They do not follow the same format, and they are not duplicative; rather, the principles and the Code of Ethics are complementary. ·Adopt a holistic view: Consider the project within its larger organizational and ecosystem context. ·Focus on value: Prioritize delivering tangible value and aligning project outcomes with strategic goals. ·Embed quality into processes and deliverables: Integrate quality throughout the project lifecycle, not just as a final check. ·Be an accountable leader: Take ownership and responsibility for the project's success and outcomes. ·Integrate sustainability within all project areas: Include environmental and social considerations in project work. ·Build an empowered culture: Foster a project environment that empowers team members. Enterprise environmental factors: Internal and external to the Organization ·The standard emphasises the impact of organizational culture, structure, and governance. Aspects like vision, mission, values, beliefs, cultural norms, leadership style, hierarchy and authority relationships, organizational style, ethics, and code of conduct remain critical success factors, as well as a framework for ethical decision making. Social and cultural influences and issues. External factors include political climate, regional customs and traditions, public holidays and events, codes of conduct, ethics, and perceptions. Artificial Intelligence (AI) AI ethical issues, especially the responsible use of AI tools and the negative impact on project team members, are an especially important aspect. Topics like data privacy and security can be addressed using technical controls. Issues like bias and fairness require special attention from project managers. Lack of clarity on who is responsible when AI-driven decisions go wrong can create confusion and an unending blame game. AI agents cannot be (yet) included in a Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, or Informed (RACI) matrix. Although their use is unavoidable, the responsibility and accountability remain with the human user. The use of AI is dependent on context, and it should be assessed for each project through a decision-making process to determine when AI can assist with tasks or provide more time for other valuable activities. The evaluation should be focused on the use of AI to produce project artifacts. Initiative-taking measures should be considered to identify and assess the risk of incorporating AI and determine if it is acceptable or it should be controlled. Below is a list of some ethical concerns related to the use of AI in projects
·Diversification of the data sets on which the AI system is trained; ·Periodic tests conducted on the AI system, with particular focus on bias; and ·Involvement of different teams in the development of the AI system. Procurement is another ethics area of focus that PMBOK 8 provides guidance on. In chapter X4.9.2, Sensitivity of Legal Actions and Upholding Ethics Codes, the standard provides considerations to avoid impact on project outcomes and stakeholder relationships: ·Nuanced communication. ·Escalation protocols. ·Confidentiality. ·Impartiality. PMBOK 7 explicitly references the PMI Code of Ethics as a complementary and essential guide for project professionals. This code provides the specific rules for ethical conduct, based on core values of honesty, responsibility, respect, and fairness.
|
Collusion in the Bidding Process—A Breach of PMI’s Ethical Foundations
| Collusion in the Bidding Process—A Breach of PMI’s Ethical Foundations
Source credit: istockphoto.com
In a recent workplace incident, Pamela, a project team member, conspired with Donald, a representative of an external vendor, to submit a bid with padded estimates. Their intent was to defraud the firm overseeing the procurement process by inflating costs and securing unjust financial gain. This act of collusion is not only unethical; it is a direct contravention and blatant violation of the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, which is built upon four foundational values: responsibility, respect, fairness, and honesty. 🔹 Responsibility Responsibility requires project professionals to own their decisions and uphold the integrity of their roles. Donald’s participation in the fraudulent scheme demonstrates a clear abdication of this duty. Instead of acting in the best interest of the organization and the project, he prioritized personal or external interests. By enabling inflated estimates, he compromised the financial stewardship expected of project professionals and failed to report unethical behavior—a core tenet of responsible conduct. 🔹 Respect Respect in project management means honoring the dignity and rights of all stakeholders. Pamela’s collusion with Donald disrespected the trust placed in him by his team, leadership, and the broader organization. It undermined the collaborative spirit of the procurement process and devalued the contributions of honest vendors who participated in good faith. Respect also includes fostering an environment where ethical concerns can be raised without fear—something this scenario clearly lacked. 🔹 Fairness Fairness is the bedrock of any competitive bidding process. It ensures that all vendors have an equal opportunity to win contracts based on merit, quality, and cost-effectiveness. By padding estimates and manipulating the outcome, Pamela and Donald created an uneven playing field. Their actions disadvantaged other vendors, distorted market competition, and potentially led to the selection of a less qualified or overpriced provider. This breach of fairness erodes trust in the procurement system and damages the reputation of the organization. 🔹 Honesty Honesty is the cornerstone of ethical project management. It demands transparency, truthfulness, and integrity in all communications and decisions. The deliberate inflation of estimates and concealment of collusion are blatant acts of deception. Pamela’s failure to disclose the true nature of the bid and his relationship with Donald violates the expectation that project professionals will act truthfully and avoid conflicts of interest. This dishonesty not only jeopardizes the project’s financial health but also tarnishes the credibility of the individuals involved. Conclusion: A Serious Ethical Breach This scenario is a textbook example of unethical behavior that contravenes every principle outlined in PMI’s Code of Ethics. It highlights the dangers of unchecked collusion and the importance of ethical vigilance in project environments. The consequences of such misconduct extend beyond economic loss, such as reputational damage, legal exposure, and / or erosion of stakeholder trust. Call to Action It is time for the project management community to take a stand. We must reinforce ethical education, implement robust checks and balances, and cultivate environments where integrity is non-negotiable. Fraudulent behavior like this must be confronted—not with silence, but with decisive action. Let us recommit to the values that reflect the highest standards of responsibility, respect, fairness, and honesty define our profession. Let us share best practices, strengthen oversight, and recommit to the values that define our profession. Fraudulent behavior must be confronted—not with silence, but with action. Together, we can build a project management culture rooted in integrity. Questions for the Project Management Community
References: Project Management Institute, Inc. (2025). Ethics. pmi.org. https://www.pmi.org/about/ethics Project Management Institute, Inc. (n.d.). Ethics Guidelines. pmi.org. https://www.pmi.org/about/ethics/guidelines Project Management Institute, Inc. (n.d.). PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. pmi.org. https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/ethics/pmi-code-of-ethics.pdf
|
Trust the Data - but Not Blindly: An Ethics Bistro on AI
|
It was a rainy Tuesday when the red flag popped up. The AI tool, designed to optimize resource allocation across our project portfolio, had flagged three critical projects for delay. The model’s recommendation? Shift half the team from Project Titan to Project Eclipse to balance out workloads. At first glance, it seemed logical. The resource allocation maps, and velocity graphs supported the reallocation. But something did not sit right. I had collaborated closely with Titan’s team leads for months. They were on the verge of a breakthrough with a critical client deliverable. Moving people now, even with Eclipse falling behind, could cause a domino effect across our most valuable account. I called a huddle. “Why did the model deprioritize Titan?” I asked the AI SME. “It is based on risk scoring from delivery variance, budget utilization, and resource burn. Titan looked stable, so it pulled from there.” “But it does not know the client conversation we had last week. Titan’s ‘stability’ is built on momentum we cannot afford to interrupt.” That was it. The AI had the data but not the context. We chose not to follow the recommendation. Instead, we manually adjusted scope and brought in temporary support for Eclipse. It was a tough call, but three months later, Titan delivered on time and exceeded client expectations. Eclipse caught up too—without derailing the portfolio. That experience taught me something: AI is brilliant at pattern recognition, but it does not see what you know. It does not read nuance. And it does not carry responsibility. So, when should project managers trust AI—and when should we intervene? Trust AI when:
But intervene when:
AI is like a junior analyst with infinite memory and no emotional baggage. But it lacks judgment, and judgment is where leadership lives. As project managers, we are not just responsible for outcomes; we are stewards of values. According to the PMI Code of Ethics, we are bound to act with responsibility, respect, fairness, and honesty. Blindly following AI no matter how accurate without human oversight may compromise all four. Use AI like a compass not a map. Let it guide your thinking, but do not let it override your wisdom. Because when things go south, the algorithm will not be in the room explaining the outcome you will. So next time your AI flags a decision, pause. Ask: Does this align with what I know, what I have seen, and what matters most? If the answer is no, trust yourself and intervene. Reference: Webinar: Ethical Project Leadership in the digital age Webinar: When to Trust AI and When to Intervene
|
