Professionalism Under Pressure: Choosing Respect When Conflict Escalates
Categories:
Ethics as a competence,
Behavior,
courage honesty responsibility respect fairness,
code of ethics,
Ethical Leadership,
Decision-making,
Ethics Insight Team,
Ethics Bistro,
Business Ethics,
code of conduct,
Power Skills,
Decision-making,
Business Ethics,
Professionalization,
practitioner,
Ethical Dilemma,
respect,
Professional Responsibility,
Honesty,
Respect,
Responsibility,
Fairness,
Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct,
Human,
fairness,
communication,
honesty,
responsibility,
professonal conduct,
Conflict,
empathy,
EDMF,
Ethics in Communication,
Agile,
Decision Making,
Ethics,
Legal Project Management
Categories: Ethics as a competence, Behavior, courage honesty responsibility respect fairness, code of ethics, Ethical Leadership, Decision-making, Ethics Insight Team, Ethics Bistro, Business Ethics, code of conduct, Power Skills, Decision-making, Business Ethics, Professionalization, practitioner, Ethical Dilemma, respect, Professional Responsibility, Honesty, Respect, Responsibility, Fairness, Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, Human, fairness, communication, honesty, responsibility, professonal conduct, Conflict, empathy, EDMF, Ethics in Communication, Agile, Decision Making, Ethics, Legal Project Management
 The message arrived at 11:47 p.m. It wasn't long. Just a few lines. But every sentence carried anger. A disagreement over a contract had been going on for weeks. There were questions about payment, responsibilities, and what each side believed had been promised. The conversation had already become uncomfortable. Now, the latest message crossed a different line. There were accusations. Personal insults. A veiled threat about “making sure people know” what had happened. And then came a remark about the other person's background. For a moment, the easiest response seemed obvious: Fight back. After all, they started it. But this is where professionalism is really tested not when everyone is calm and reasonable, but when someone gives us every reason to lose our composure. Conflict is part of professional life. Employment decisions can disappoint people. Contracts can fall apart. Candidates can feel unfairly treated. Managers can become frustrated. Clients and suppliers can disagree about commitments. Sometimes we are genuinely wronged. And sometimes we may be the ones who got something wrong. Either way, disagreement does not give us permission to abandon respect. The PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct places Respect among its four core values. That sounds simple until we find ourselves staring at a message that feels deliberately insulting, threatening, or unfair. Respect is easy when it is reciprocated. It becomes meaningful when it isn't. The person receiving that late-night message eventually did something surprisingly difficult. They didn't respond. Not immediately. They saved the communication, stepped away from the computer, reviewed the facts, and went to bed. The next morning, they wrote back. The response acknowledged the disagreement. It clarified the contractual position. It proposed using the appropriate process to resolve the matter. There were no insults. No threats. No attempt to embarrass the other person. It wasn't weakness. It was professional self-control. Respect doesn't mean tolerating abuse. It doesn't mean remaining silent when discriminatory language is used. It doesn't mean accepting intimidation or allowing retaliation to go unchallenged. And it certainly doesn't mean avoiding difficult conversations. Sometimes respect means setting a boundary. Sometimes it means documenting what happened and involving Human Resources, legal counsel, procurement, recruitment leadership, or another appropriate authority. Sometimes it means saying: “I am willing to discuss the issue, but I will not continue the conversation in this manner.” That is respect too. Because respect isn't only about how we treat people when we agree with them. It is also about recognizing their dignity when we don't. And perhaps that's the uncomfortable part of professional ethics. We cannot control the tone of the message that arrives at 11:47 p.m. We cannot control whether someone tries to intimidate us, insults us, uses discriminatory language, or threatens retaliation. But we can control whether we respond in kind. We can choose to protect our boundaries without attacking someone else's dignity. We can choose accountability without humiliation. We can choose firmness without hostility. We can choose Respect. Not because the other person necessarily deserves our kindness in that moment, but because our professional values should not depend on someone else's behavior. The next time a difficult message lands in your inbox, ask yourself: When someone crosses the line with us, can we hold the line without crossing it ourselves? |
Do You Like to Pick and Choose Your Projects?
Do You Like to Pick and Choose Your Projects?What the PMI Code of Ethics Says May Surprise YouAs 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 |
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 |
Navigating AI in Project Management: A Comparison with Racing Co-Pilots and Driverless Cars
Categories:
Ethics as a competence,
Values,
values,
Ethical Leadership,
Decision-making,
Ethics Insight Team,
Ethics Bistro,
trust,
Ways of Working,
Decision-making,
Values,
AI,
Do the right thing,
Ethical Dilemma,
respect,
Professional Conduct,
Honesty,
Respect,
Responsibility,
Trust,
honesty,
responsibility,
professonal conduct,
empathy,
professional conduct,
Ethics in Communication,
Leadership,
Decision Making,
Ethics
Categories: Ethics as a competence, Values, values, Ethical Leadership, Decision-making, Ethics Insight Team, Ethics Bistro, trust, Ways of Working, Decision-making, Values, AI, Do the right thing, Ethical Dilemma, respect, Professional Conduct, Honesty, Respect, Responsibility, Trust, honesty, responsibility, professonal conduct, empathy, professional conduct, Ethics in Communication, Leadership, Decision Making, Ethics
 Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing industries, and project management is no exception. With advanced tools supporting decision-making, risk mitigation, and efficiency, the project management landscape is increasingly intertwined with AI technologies. However, this evolution raises questions about human responsibility, autonomy, and ethics—questions like those faced in the realms of racing co-pilots and driverless cars. This blog explores the pros and cons of using AI in project management and compares these dynamics with racing environments and autonomous vehicle scenarios, focusing on the balance between human involvement and ethical considerations.  The Role of AI in Project Management AI-driven tools, such as virtual assistants and machine learning algorithms, are increasingly used to streamline project management processes. From schedule optimization and predictive analytics to stakeholder communication and resource allocation, AI empowers project managers to make well-informed and efficient decisions. The Racing Co-Pilot Analogy: Shared Responsibility, Enhanced Performance In professional racing environments, a co-pilot performs critical tasks: navigating the course, analysing conditions, and advising the driver. This relationship mirrors the human-machine collaboration often seen in project management. Here, AI acts as a "co-pilot," assisting project managers while leaving primary control in human hands. Let us examine this analogy: Pros of AI as a Co-Pilot in Project Management:
The Driverless Car Comparison: Autonomous AI in Project Management Shifting perspective, consider driverless cars: vehicles fully controlled by AI, requiring minimal human intervention. Some envision project management systems that resemble a driverless car—autonomous AI overseeing the project's execution from start to finish. While promising, this model has risks and challenges to consider. Pros of Autonomous AI in Project Management:
Ethical Considerations: Responsibility and Integrity Both racing co-pilots and driverless cars illustrate contrasting extremes in human-machine collaboration. A key differentiator in these scenarios is ethical responsibility:
Conclusion: The Road Ahead for AI in Project Management The racing co-pilot and driverless car analogies shed light on the pivotal balance required in leveraging AI for project management. While AI offers immense benefits—such as efficiency, precision, and scalability—it also raises concerns about accountability, ethical responsibility, and judgment. As the PMI Code of Ethics underscores values like fairness, honesty, and responsibility, project managers must ensure AI tools serve as partners rather than replacements, fostering trust and inclusivity. By choosing the right path—whether enhanced collaboration or selective autonomy—project managers can steer their projects responsibly toward success while maintaining the ethical values essential to effective leadership. Related discussion topic: Can project management run on AI autopilot?https://tinyurl.com/mr497je7 |
Values and Ethics in Fintech: A 2026 Reflection on Integrity, Accountability, and Ethical Vigilance
 The call for principled conduct in the fast‑moving world of digital finance has only grown more urgent with notable financial failures on the newspaper headlines. For the past few years, the fintech landscape has expanded at an extraordinary pace, but so have the ethical vulnerabilities that accompany it. Recent high‑profile cases of data breaches, internal theft, and employee‑driven embezzlement make it clear that ethical failures are no longer hypothetical risks; they are real, costly, and profoundly damaging. Recent Ethical Failures in Fintech and Corporate Technology 1. The 2022 FTX Bankruptcy & Collapse in November 2022, it was revealed that customer funds, amounting to billions of dollars, had been improperly diverted to Alameda Research, a trading firm closely tied to FTX’s leadership. This diversion was part of a broader pattern of commingling assets, weak or nonexistent internal controls, and misleading representations about the company’s financial health to the detriments of the respective investors, clients, and users. (TokenTax, 2026). The employee’s actions breached PMI’s principles of Honesty, Fairness, and Respect, while also highlighting the organization’s insufficient internal controls. 2. The 2024 PayPal Credential‑Stuffing Incident in December 2024, PayPal experienced a credential stuffing attack that compromised 35,000 user accounts. Hackers accessed sensitive information such as names, birthdates, and social security numbers by exploiting reused passwords across multiple accounts. The incident highlights the critical need for businesses to adopt advanced security measures like password less authentication (Security Boulevard, 2025). This failure to act proactively reflects a lapse in Responsibility and Respect for stakeholders whose financial well‑being depends on robust security. Ethical Implications and the Need for Stronger Decision Frameworks Across these incidents, the common thread is not merely technical vulnerability—it is ethical vulnerability. Whether through negligence, insufficient oversight, or deliberate misconduct, these failures demonstrate the consequences of ignoring foundational ethical principles. The PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (v8) provide a clear compass for navigating such challenges. Its four core values—Responsibility, Respect, Fairness, and Honesty—are directly applicable to fintech environments where decisions can have immediate and far‑reaching impacts on customers, markets, and society. To operationalize these values, organizations should adopt the PMI Ethical Decision‑Making Framework (EDMF v8). The EDMF offers a structured approach to evaluating dilemmas, identifying stakeholders, assessing risks, and selecting actions that align with ethical principles rather than short‑term convenience or pressure. A Call to Action Fintech professionals, project managers, and corporate leaders must recommit to ethical vigilance. This includes:
What keeps you, a project practitioner, up at night? Let us deliberate on the finer points of project management. 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. Security Boulevard. (2025, April). Understanding Credential Stuffing: A Growing Cybersecurity Threat. Securityboulevard.com. https://securityboulevard.com/2025/04/understanding-credential-stuffing-a-growing-cybersecurity-threat/. TokenTax. (February 2026). The FTX Collapse: A Complete Guide. tokentax.co. https://tokentax.co/blog/ftx-collapse. |
