Project Management

Home / Discussions / Project Management Central /

Have you encountered situations where technical excellence masked unethical behaviour?

Agile Ethics Leadership

Stelian ROMAN Project Manager| MicroSafety Carlingford, New South Wales, Australia

In today’s complex and fast-moving business world, the demand for Agile transformation has never been higher. Organizations are investing heavily in Agile coaches—individuals who can accelerate change, foster collaboration, and unlock team potential. Often, the search for the “right” coach centres around technical credentials: certifications from respected bodies, years of experience, and proven mastery of frameworks. This focus on technical excellence is understandable. After all, technical skills are necessary to navigate the intricacies of Agile methods and deliver tangible results.

Yet, there is a critical oversight lurking beneath this obsession with skill: technical excellence is not the same as ethical value. A coach can be highly skilled, highly experienced, and highly certified—and still behave unethically. This is not just a theoretical concern. Across industries, there are countless stories of brilliant coaches who, despite their abilities, enabled toxic cultures, manipulated results, or prioritized delivery over people’s well-being.

Why does this happen? Because technical prowess and ethical integrity operate on fundamentally different axes. Mastery of Agile, Lean, or organizational change is about competence—doing things right. Ethics, on the other hand, is about doing the right thing. When organizations conflate these two, they risk empowering coaches who deliver impressive results at the cost of trust, transparency, and long-term health. This blog post explores why technical excellence should never be mistaken for ethical value, especially for Agile coaches. We will examine the crucial differences, reflect on the dangers of technical ability without ethical grounding, and offer practical guidance for coaches and organizations alike.

- Have you encountered situations where technical excellence masked unethical behaviour?

- What were the consequences?

- How do you personally distinguish between technical competence and ethical conduct in your work or team?

- What steps can you take to ensure your pursuit of technical excellence never compromises your ethical values?

Blogpost: Why Technical Excellence Is NOT an Ethical Value for Agile Coaches

ProjectManagement.com - The Agile Enterprise

Posted: Jun 19, 2026 1:27 AM

Sort By:

< 1 2 >

Robert Snyder Founder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLC Chicago, Il, United States

Let’s consider the scope of work of this person with technical excellence.
It’s possible that their complete scope of work is under the umbrella of Build.
Consider the huge scope of work that is upstream from Build:

·Voice of the Customer & Seller
·Roadmap
·Current State Process & Design
·Project Charter
·Future State Process & Design

A trustworthy “Build” employee is accountable to all that upstream work.
An untrustworthy “Build” employee (aka “God Syndrome”) is not accountable to all that upstream work.

Stelian, you gave an example of a developer “changing the scope due to technical limitations without communicating with anyone.” Status: Untrustworthy.

So yes, God Syndrome drives unethical behavior.
You are right. This is plain and simple.

Delivery frameworks have everything to do with ethical behavior.
Frameworks shape discipline. Discipline shapes behavior.
Therefore, frameworks shape behavior.

This company’s frameworks tolerated unethical behavior and rogue code.

PMI’s Code of Ethics … does it prevent God Syndrome?
If it did, you wouldn’t have posed the question for us.
PMI’s Code of Ethics does not prevent God Syndrome.

God Syndrome (developers and elsewhere) survives because …

·We have systemic tolerance for untrustworthiness
·Someday we will have systematic intolerance for untrustworthiness

But nothing will change until the status quo is more painful than the transition.
The status quo (of tolerating God Syndrome) evidently isn’t painful enough yet for a transition.

Posted: Jul 26, 2026 11:14 PM

Robert Snyder Founder & President| Innovation Elegance, LLC Chicago, Il, United States

Stelian, here is a framework to stop God Syndrome. I'll name this untouchable developer "Pat."

Pat has two trusted colleagues, Tracy and Austin. All of them report to a manager named "Jamie." Each step in this framework reserves a default of one day for their step.

Pat drafts code (Monday).

Tracy and Austin review & revise code (Tuesday).

Jamie approves code (Wednesday).

Jamie promotes code ("Distribute") to test environment (Thursday).

This plain and simple framework ("Five Verbs") shapes behavior.

To Syed's point, Jamie provides air cover for Pat's toxic behavior.

Agile does not solve untrustworthiness.

Because no one asked it to.

However, the world keeps finding things to shove under the banner of "agile," so stay tuned. 😊

Agile teams systemically tolerate untrustworthiness.

Most teams systemically tolerate untrustworthiness.

Most teams execute software methodologies as if what makes teamwork difficult is software.

My hypothesis is that what makes teamwork difficult is ethical behavior - trustworthiness.

Imagine if teams systematically did not tolerate untrustworthiness.

Imagine if technical excellence was subject to methodical trustworthiness.

Teams repeatedly detecting untrustworthiness.

Teams repeatedly reassigning work due to untrustworthiness.

Because they cannot sign up for some combination of Draft, Review, Revise, Approve, Distribute.

We can confront untrustworthiness.

Or we can be doormats to untrustworthiness.

Gaslit being asked to be resilient to untrustworthiness.

Repeatedly.

Posted: Jul 26, 2026 11:42 PM (Updated by author: Jul 27, 2026 12:55 AM)

Stelian ROMAN Project Manager| MicroSafety Carlingford, New South Wales, Australia

Jul 19, 2026 3:08 PM

Replying to Robert Snyder

...

We formulated, implemented, and continue to execute software methodologies.
I love the idea of formulating, implementing, and executing a trustworthiness methodology.

A new buzzword is "AI native."
I wonder if any company likes the idea of being "trustworthiness native."

Trustworthiness feels like CHI ... "Collective Human Intelligence."

Where would you prefer the hype be? AI or CHI?

Project delivery is not limited to AI. IMHO, managing humans is something that only a human PM can do. AI is a tool, nothing more and nothing less.

Posted: Sep 1, 2026 7:25 PM

Stelian ROMAN Project Manager| MicroSafety Carlingford, New South Wales, Australia

Jul 19, 2026 3:15 PM

Replying to Robert Snyder

...

Ethics. Trustworthiness.

Trustworthiness = Competence AND Honesty AND Dependability AND Benevolence.

Untrustworthiness = Incompetence OR Dishonesty OR Low Dependability OR Malevolence.

Many organizations have systemic tolerance for untrustworthiness.

I wish more of us had systematic intolerance for untrustworthiness.

Imagine language, templates, and habits to ...

Minimize the cost to detect untrustworthiness

Minimize the cost to reassign for untrustworthiness

Minimize the cost to change expectations

Minimize the cost to realign on new expectations

Methodical Trustworthiness.

High Discipline.

High Empathy.

I think it's possible, it's compelling, and it would be disappointing to not pursue it.

Ethics is related to human behaviour. It is not about technical competence, reducing costs or improving quality. That's what Lean Six Sigma does very well.

Posted: Sep 1, 2026 7:26 PM

< 1 2 >

Please login or join to reply

Have you encountered situations where technical excellence masked unethical behaviour?

Sponsors

Newsletters