1. Enhanced Decision-Making: AI algorithms analyse massive datasets to predict outcomes and recommend actions, akin to a co-pilot guiding navigational decisions during a race. 
2. Efficiency Gains: AI automates repetitive tasks and improves processes, freeing project managers to focus on strategy—like how co-pilots manage tactical information during high-speed races. 
3. Risk Reduction: By identifying potential issues in advance, AI serves as an advisor, much like a racing co-pilot warning about challenging road conditions, enabling initiative-taking corrections. 

1. Over-Reliance on AI: Just as a driver must remain vigilant and not entirely dependent on the co-pilot, project managers risk deferring critical decisions to AI tools, potentially leading to a lack of accountability. 
2. Ethical Blind Spots: Racing ethics demand fair play and adherence to rules; similarly, ethical AI use in project management calls for attention to bias, transparency, and fairness. Overlooking these aspects can harm stakeholders or perpetuate inequitable practices. 

 

1. Unparalleled Precision: Autonomous AI can minimize human errors, akin to driverless cars maintaining perfect lane control or braking at precisely calculated intervals. 
2. Scalability: AI can manage complex, multi-layered projects beyond human capacity, like its role in optimizing traffic flows with autonomous vehicle networks. 

1. Loss of Human Judgment: Driverless cars highlight the drawback of removing human intuition, empathy, and situational awareness—a challenge mirrored in project management where human leadership and creativity are essential. 
2. Accountability Gaps: In a driverless car accident, responsibility is ambiguous. Similarly, with autonomous AI, project managers may struggle to allocate accountability for errors, raising ethical dilemmas. 
3. Ethical Concerns: Driverless cars must navigate moral conflicts (e.g., protecting passengers versus pedestrians). In project management, fully autonomous systems must grapple with potentially biased decisions affecting stakeholders, raising questions of fairness and inclusivity. 

 

• In shared responsibility (co-pilot), humans are ethically required to oversee and correct AI outputs, ensuring alignment with organizational values and stakeholder trust. Like racing, project managers retain control while benefiting from AI's support. 
• In autonomous systems (driverless cars), ethical concerns magnify as AI takes over critical decisions. Issues of fairness, inclusivity, and transparency emerge, demanding rigorous bias checks, accountability frameworks, and adherence to PMI’s Code of Ethics principles. 

 

Related discussion topic: Can project management run on AI autopilot?

In the bustling offices of YKF Technical Solutions, a mid-sized IT firm, Lai-mui, its project manager, was leading a high-stakes software deployment for a government client. With tight deadlines and mounting pressure, Lai-mui delegated expense reporting to her trusted team lead, Deejay. Weeks later, during a routine audit, discrepancies surfaced as receipts for meals, travel, and equipment were inflated or entirely fabricated. Deejay admitted to falsifying receipts to “compensate for overtime and stress.” Lai-mui was stunned. What seemed like a minor infraction was, in fact, a serious ethical breach.

This scenario is not uncommon, yet it strikes at the heart of the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, which is built on four core values: Responsibility, Respect, Fairness, and Honesty.

Violations of PMI’s Core Values

• Responsibility: Deejay failed to take ownership of his actions and misused organizational resources. Ethical responsibility demands accountability, especially in financial stewardship. Falsifying receipts undermines trust and exposes the organization to legal and reputational risks.
• Respect: By manipulating expense reports, Deejay disrespected the trust placed in him by Lai-mui, the client, and the company. Respect includes honoring the dignity of others and the resources entrusted to us—including budgets and public funds.
• Fairness: Inflated claims create an uneven playing field. Honest employees, unlike Deejay, who follow protocol are disadvantaged, and project funds are misallocated. Fairness requires transparency and equal treatment, not personal gain at the expense of others.
• Honesty: The act of falsifying receipts is a direct violation of truthfulness. PMI’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct emphasizes that honesty is the cornerstone of ethical project management. Deejay’s deception eroded stakeholder confidence and jeopardized the integrity of the project.

Applying the PMI Ethical Decision-Making Framework (EDMF)

Lai-mui, now faced with an ethical dilemma, turned to the PMI Ethical Decision-Making Framework. The EDMF guided her through:

1. Assessment: Identifying the facts and stakeholders affected.
2. Alternatives: Considering disciplinary action, restitution, and process improvements.
3. Analysis: Evaluating options against PMI’s values.
4. Application: Choosing a course of action aligned with ethical standards.
5. Action: Reporting the incident, initiating corrective measures, and reinforcing ethical training.

Call to Action

The project management community must treat ethics as a living practice, not a checkbox. We must:

• Educate teams on PMI’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
• Embed ethical discussions into retrospectives and planning.
• Encourage transparent reporting and protect whistleblowers.
• Use the EDMF to navigate gray zones with clarity.

Conclusion

Ethical leadership is not just about doing things right; it’s about doing the right things. Falsifying receipts may seem minor, but its ripple effects can compromise entire projects. Let’s recommit to the values that define our profession and lead with integrity, every step of the way.

Questions for Reflection

1. How can organizations prevent expense fraud without creating a culture of fear?
2. What systems should be in place to detect and deter falsified claims?
3. How do we empower team members to report unethical behavior safely?
4. What role should project managers play in modeling ethical financial practices?

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

====

By Dr. Valerie Denney,  EMAG member

In this blog, I encourage you to comment on this hypothetical, but realistic case, that describes a program that had an apparent miraculous recovery.

Trust and ethics…. Two powerful, yet common words.  Do we just use the words as slogans without stopping to think about what they really mean?

“Trust, but verify.”

“In God we trust.”

“Got ethics?”

Let’s begin with a simple definition for ethics:  the rules of conduct for a particular culture or group. Using a thesaurus yields words such as integrity, morality, honesty, and conscience. For trust, let’s use reliance on the ability, integrity, and surety of an individual or institution.

Covey, in his bestseller, The Speed of Trust, describes trust with all stakeholders as a key leadership competency. Project managers, as with other leaders, build trust by the manner in which they make ethical decisions- those which make the best possible choices while working within the constraints and expectations of the environment. Leadership is inextricability linked with ethical choices.

As project and program managers, we have an obligation to comply with the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. The code embraces four global project management community values including responsibility, respect, fairness, and honesty. In context to this topic, respect is our duty to show a high regard to ourselves, others, and the resources entrusted to us. Honesty is our duty to understand the truth and act in a truthful manner in all that we do.

Consider the following situation with respect to ethics and trust.

You are the program manager of a high technology contract that has significant risk. There were a number of bumps on the program in the first 9 months including key personal issues, supplier problems, design errors, and late contract deliverables.  Since then, everything seems to be going well… at least according to your chief engineer.  Apparently program recoveries can come true!

You haven’t heard of any significant problems since this new chief engineer came to the program 5 months ago.  In fact, the weekly test metrics are excellent and far better than they were 4 months ago.  According to last week’s report, we are meeting, and in some places exceeding, the test completion plan. 

Last week a government auditor was at our facility for the annual review of the program. She and the chief engineer are good friends and served in the military together.  They go back at least 15 years. As friends, the chief engineer and the auditor went for an evening on the town. The chief engineer bragged “I have found a foolproof way of keeping the program on track.  All I need to do is estimate the results of the simple tests. I am positive everything works so actually I am being efficient and saving time and money.” The auditor gave a puzzled look, but continued the reunion that evening.

The next day, the auditor continued the review and stumbled across some problems with the way the test data was recorded.  Some of the detailed evidence seems to be missing.  A few days later, the auditor meets with you, and reveals a number of deficiencies, including issues with the test reporting.

You are shocked. How is this possible? There must be some mistake.  The chief engineer assured you that everything was great and you believed it to be true.

You meet with the chief engineer for clarification. The chief admits that there have been shortcuts, “but only on the tests that don’t really matter.  We all know those simple tests work, so why waste our time and money on a formality?”

The meeting ends abruptly. You trusted the chief engineer to be a leader and a technical expert?  You ask yourself “how could this happen?”

What action(s)  would you take now?

What lesson(s) can we take from this scenario so we don’t encounter similar situations in the future?

In the end, performing ethically allows us to execute projects and programs successfully while acting in a manner which is consistent with our personal, company, and professional associations. Simply stated O’Brochta (2016) wrote that “ethics lead to trust, which leads to leadership, which in turn leads to project success.” This hypothetical case allows us to continue to explore this statement.

For more ethical resources please visit: https://www.pmi.org/about/ethics.

O'Brochta, M. (2016). Why project ethics matter: Leadership is built on trust. If the foundation is cracked, a project's future is in doubt. PM Network, 30(1), 29.