quantmleap

I totally resent the fact that although I have already collected 72 PDUs in the current ‘PDU Cycle’, none of the surplus PDUs I have collected can be transferred in lieu of the next cycle. The result is that bad planning on my behalf is going to ‘cost’ me 12 hours of effort that I mistakenly thought would go towards my future allocation.

The good news is that although the PDU market place is saturated with providers willing, ready and happy to sell their PDU earning services, some for a hefty fee, there are also organizations that provide this service absolutely free.

I have just finished listening to a series of PDU earning webcasts, generously provided for FREE by IAG Consulting. Their On Demand Webcasts page features 10 webcasts that can earn you 12 PDUs, as listed below:

• Managing Requirements Operational Excellence:  A Framework for Accelerating Organizational Development - 1 PDU
• Fast Tracking Project Concepts - 1 PDU
• Inside Effective Business Requirements Documentation – 1 PDU
• Harmonizing Agility & Discipline – 1PDU
• 5 Things You Must Know About Requirements Planning – 1 PDU
• Myth-Busting: The Path to Requirements Success - 1 PDU
• Optimizing Requirements Discovery – 1 PDU
• Outsourcing Requirements Discovery – 1 PDU
• 7 Secrets to Defining Requirements for Package Software Selection - 2 PDU
• 6 Steps to Prioritizing Your Business Requirements - 2 PDU

Thanks IAG Consulting for providing this service, it is much appreciated.

Dear L.J.

We have barely met and had only the brief and passing opportunity to exchange a mere few words before a daunting and sombre thought entered my mind. I realised that I have once been in your place, metaphorically speaking of-course. Just like you, I have once been enthusiastic, spirited, passionate and full of energy – ready to enter the world, rustle with it and ultimately leave my mark behind.

Having acquired a large body of knowledge in training institutions and having further opportunities to bask in the shadow of people of whom I had high regard as being successful project managers, I have assumed the mantra that the world is my oyster and, yes, I was ready and willing to go.

You may not have realised yet but eagerness to succeed is an illusionary cloak as most often than not it drives you towards achieving a goal you have not yet even had the opportunity to contemplate, let alone – define. So, before you jump on your horse, marshal the troops, and march forward, lets work out what the word SUCCESS means to YOU. What ever your definition of SUCCESS might be, it should be used as your personal compass and dictate your personal rights and wrongs.

There will no doubt be those who tell you that, in the context of project management, SUCCESS can mean but just one thing – a project success. Accordingly, so they would argue, YOUR SUCCESS is intrinsically linked to the project’s success. Consequently, should the project be deemed to have failed, you have failed as well.

I will make it clear and simple for you – such notions of success and failure are to be ignored at all cost as they are unproductive, vindictive and, quite frankly, irrational – as they assume cause-and-effect where one does not necessarily exist.

Determining what should constitute of success is a tricky one as most often this would be a culmination of personal experiences, moral and ethical values. And as the famous quote (by Herbert Bayard Swope) says, “I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure–which is: Try to please everybody” 

There are many facets to project management that are clearly important and are logically and naturally self explanatory. The most important aspect of which is the need to be able to manage the project – and nothing I will later say is meant to take away from your need to be able to simply manage the project. There are, however, a number of additional aspects, the mastery of which will ensure that not only will you be able to live with the outcomes of the project but you will also be able to live with your self:

• Know and internalize the contextual and conceptual differences between being accountable and being responsible;
• Accept the basic notion that when all is done and the dust is settled you might still need to greet some of your colleagues in the street – so treat them like human beings, not like a factory production line machinery;
• Treat other people’s money with respect and always ask your self: “would I be doing this if it was my money?”;
• Equally important though is the appreciation that just because someone pays for your time it does not mean they own your conscience. Don’t forget to take stock of your actions and decisions and confirm their compatibility with your own value system.

I can’t promise you or guarantee that all your projects will be formally successful. Like many other project managers that came before you, you too will most likely have your fair share of challenges with some degree of project failures – this is ok, and statistically expected. What I am comfortable advising you about though is the appreciation that if you follow the guidelines I outlined for you above you will keep your integrity and energy to try and try again, regardless of what project life will ever be able to throw at you – and remain who YOU are at the other end.

Respectfully yours,

Shim Marom

In today’s post I am going to pick a bone with one of my favourite bloggers, Glen Alleman from Herding Cats. The discussion will focus on Glen’s dismissiveness of the ‘touchy-feely’ side of project management and will attempt to refute his categorical refusal to accept the merits of ‘touchy-feely’ considerations in the context of managing projects.

The term ‘touchy-feely’ refers to a ”human interaction that emphasizes physical closeness and emotional openness. The phrase is often used disparagingly in contexts where hard and businesslike behaviour is the norm” (source).

Glen’s argument against ‘touchy-feely’ can be best summed-up by a quote from a post titled “Jack Welch’s Leadership Attributes, where he concludes with the following:

…Forget all that “touchy feely” stuff. It’s useful but it is subordinate to these 4 attributes. Energy, Energizing, Edge, and Execution are all about “getting thing done.” Getting things done involves people and people must be dealt with in ways that allow them to “get things done.”

But without a deep understanding that projects are about getting things done. The right things. On-Time, On-Budget, and meeting the buyers needs kind of “done.” All that touchy feely stuff being talked about at PMI symposiums is pretty much worthless without getting to “done.”

Other, worth noting quotes include:

…Seems these days we focus more on the avoid of conflict and the touchy feely aspects of managing projects than actually getting the deliverables out the door. (from How to Manage in the Presence of Uncertainty)

…Forget all the touchy feely crap first, that doesn’t say what DONE look like, produce a Plan, provide Resources, remove impediments, or measure progress. It is necessary but VERY FAR from sufficient for getting to DONE (from The Cult of DONE Manifesto)

 Eberhardt Rechtin died today. Rechtin was a Director DARPA, helped create the Goldstone Deep Space Network, was the Chief Engineer of HP, the CEO of Aerospace Corporation, and Assistant Director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. His book The Art of Systems Architecting is the basis an many a Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP). His Systems Architecting of Organizations: Why Eagles Can’t Swimis a Systems Engineer’s view of organizational development. No touchy-feely pseudo-science here but good basic engineering practices applied to business process improvement. (from Rechtin Dies)

1. that behaving humanly is contrary to the best interests of the project;
2. that should a project manager show touchy-feely behaviour he/she might lose sight of the grand picture and neglect to ‘get things done’;
3. and that ‘touchy-feely’ considerations are, by definition, secondary to all other project considerations.

Gone are the days when a company’s success could be measured by profits alone. Today, a successful company must balance human values with economic values. Managers who lead with an awareness of this convergence of people and profits seek significance in their own lives as well as financial success. They are true leaders.

uncover the human resources programs and employee related financial practices that separated top performers from all others…The finding regarding effective practices were surprising. Rather than identifying a series of human resources – based programs that led to top performance, the results showed that the most effective firms shared a common set of eight beliefs, traits and operating stratagems…The prime hallmark was an effort to consistently balance financial and human values.

Three out of five of the 300 middle managers surveyed from large national and international businesses in the UK and Ireland agreed an engaged workforce improves the company’s performance…

One of the least understood distinctions in the project management domain is the one between Accountability and Responsibility. The confusion surrounding these two terms can be clearly understood given that in many dictionaries, the respective definitions for each of these terms results in circular references that makes any unambiguous understanding of the differences between them difficult to attain. From my experience this lack of clarity directly results in communication misunderstandings, disagreements, arguments, conflicts, finger-pointing and accusations – all of which are not very conducive to good harmony and positive working relationships.

The key to understanding and internalizing the difference between the two terms it is important to understand the key questions that each of these terms is attempting to address:

1. Who is the person(s) who will actually complete the task?
2. Who is the person who will ultimately be answerable for the activity or decisions associate with it?

A good way to figure this up is to look at the way we raise children and the terminology we normally use on the way. A key challenge in children education (and from my own personal experience this goes well into their early adulthood) is to teach them to be responsible. If you are a parent you will recall the many occasions when you had to actively think about the best way to make your child internalize and accept the need to be responsible for certain activities. In my house, my children are responsible for keeping their respective rooms in a reasonable level of tidiness and clean-ness. My children are lucky enough to each have their own room, so they each have sole responsibility for tidying up and cleaning their rooms. Had they been sharing rooms, they would have each had shared responsibility as none of them would have been expected to (or indeed volunteer) to carry the full responsibility for this activity.

Should my children neglect to carry out their responsibility and their rooms deteriorate to a point where their health and safety become a matter of concern, it is quite likely that the authorities will send in the inspectors and ask me and my wife to explain how we let the situation deteriorate to this point. From a law enforcement perspective both me and my wife will be seen as being accountable the health hazard developed in the house. The fact that neither myself nor my wife were responsible for cleaning the rooms would not save us from prosecution as, unlike our young children, we are accountable for their actions and in that respect the ‘buck stops with us’.

With the above in mind we can now conclude this discussion:

The Accountable person is the person who is ultimately answerable for the activity or decision. This includes “yes” or “no” authority and veto power. Only one Accountable person can be assigned to an action.

The Responsible person is the person(s) who actually complete the task. The Responsible person is responsible for action/implementation. Responsibility can be shared. The degree of responsibility is determined by the  person with the “Accountability”.

Think about it!

In an earlier post about ethical consideration in project management I referred to a book written by Max H. Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel, titled “Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What’s Right and What to Do about It” (note: affiliate link).

“Blind Spots” is a refreshing and highly recommended book for anyone who has the slight inclination to better understand the social and environmental pressures affecting our ethical behavior. The key question the authors are attempting to deal with is the obvious one: Most people will rate their values, attitudes and behaviors as being ethical. If such is the case, how can this get reconciled with the fact that some of these claiming to have behaved in an ethical manner are judged by society as being unethical?

The authors introduce us to a number of key definitions:

Ethical Fading – “the tendency for otherwise ethical people to make unethical decisions because the ethical implications have faded from their decision“.

Bounded Ethicality – “the systematic way in which people engage in unethical behavior without their own awareness“. Bounded Ethicality refers to our “cognitive limitations that can make us unaware of the moral implications of our decisions”.

The authors explain the reason for which ethical and codes of conduct cannot deliver the results for which they were published. The key reason why these do not work is because such Codes are predicated on the false assumption that individuals recognize an ethical dilemma when they come across it or when it is presented to them. The reality, however, is quite different as the forces of ethical fading and bounded ethicality work against us and blind us from seeing the ethical dilemma, with the result being that our response can lack the ethical dimension is rightly deserves.

While it is the responsibility of individuals to make decisions and thus adhere to and follow ethical principles they are subject to and operate within a set of formal and informal ethical ‘vibes’ they flow through their respective organization.

While organizations, in the main, are committed to following and implementing ethical codes of behavior, these are not the main determinants of how employees are likely to behave. Examples are abound in the book, but to summarize; if the culture in the organization is not “pro ethical” and implicit messages are ambivalent or discouraging; the chances are that employees will take it as a sign of encouragement that ethical behavior is not important.

It is easy to see how this might transpire in a project environment. When management is breathing down the project manager’s neck and demanding him or her to do “what ever it takes” to get the project delivered “on time”, what are the chances that the PM will cascade that pressure on to the project team and thus put the team in an untenable situation where they are forced to work long hours, weekends, etc. such that their personal lives are sacrificed and compromised in the name of the project’s “greater good”?

It is exactly at the junction point where “business considerations” are pushed to the forefront and ethical considerations are ignored that such unethical decisions are likely to emerge.

The book suggests a number of “remedies” to deal with such likely behavior, and I will mention one these approaches here:

As mentioned in an earlier post, our decision making process is subjected to the influences of two systems: System 1 and System 2. System 1 is the one we invoke when we make automatic, seemingly thoughtless decisions. System 2 is the one we invoke when we make conscious and rational decisions. “Our intuitive System 1 responses are more likely to be immoral than our more reflective System 2 thoughts“.

One of the ways to prepare oneself for the decision time is to think and prepare in advance about the motivations that are likely to influence oneself at the time the decision will be made. This level of preparedness is likely to result in System 1 responding in a manner more in-line with the person’s value system, compared with one who has not gone through this initial mental exercise.

The book is full of gems and detailed studies and field cases relevant to the topic of understanding how we are likely to behave and the impact that society and our organization is having on our likely ethical behavior.

Highly recommended reading.

I follow quite a few blogs using my RSS reader. Although time does not permit me to thoroughly read each and every blog post, it does allow me to scan and look for those gems that warrant further reading.

The things I am looking for are simple:

• The subject line needs to be enticing
• The content needs to add value, it needs to make me think and it needs to appeal to my intellect.

With the above in mind I have come across an article / presentation titled “Factors for Successful Projects“. I knew, even before I started reviewing the presentation, that it will get me annoyed. I find it irritating when people claim to have all the answers, and having been in this industry more years than I care to remember, I have yet to meet that genius that, apart from preaching what others should be doing, can actually demonstrate impressive success rate that can be replicated and emulated in all domains.

The ensuing presentation outlines a number of factors shared by all successful projects:

• Clear and agreed objectives
• Committed and effective team
• Planning
• Management controls
• Repeated reappraisal
• Communication

I am not going to go into any further details regarding the above. If you are after the details check the above link.

All I want to say is – duh:

• Is the above not obvious?
• Does it require elaboration?
• Is it not obvious that to achieve 100% success everything needs to be 100% right?
• Can we actually learn anything tangible from that list, change anything in our behaviour or attitude, such that our chances of success increase over time?

Having recently read Kailash Awati and Paul Culmsee’s book “The Heretic’s Guide to Best Practices” I have even less sympathy for people or organizations claiming to represent or be the proud owners of best practices.

So if you are in the business of preaching methods, tools or techniques and you want to sell me the next best thing after the invention of the wheel don’t bogher telling me WHAT needs to be done to be successful but HOW it is practically done and WHERE you have done it before.

Think about it!

Having read “The Heretic’s Guide to Best Practices” (see my review HERE), I’ve decided to give IBIS (Issue Based Information System) a go, and what a better way than taking on one of my own arguments, regarding the impact of project managers ethical dilemmas on their ability to properly manage projects,  thus resulting in more-or-less stable ratio of failed projects.

 The argument goes as follows:

1. Various research and study papers suggest that many project end in failure. Moreover, there does not seem any decline in the failure rate over time. The question we are exploring, then, is “why is project failure rate not reducing over time?”.

2. One of the reasons we need to explore is the possibility that project failure rate is fairly stable because the quality of project management is not increasing. Perhaps project managers, generally, are incompetent?

3. Exploring this option we realize that there is a good reason to believe this is not the case as it is known that the number of ‘educated’ or ‘certified’ project managers is now greater than ever before.

4. Having realized that current failure rates are not due to consistently bad project management we need to look for another hypothesis.

 5. So, what other options are there. What other possible reasons could there be, explaining the apparent discrepancy between the fact that more project managers than ever before are well-trained and certified, and the fact that the ratio of failed projects is not getting any better?

 6. We now have an alternative explanation requiring analysis. Perhaps the reason behind the lack of improving success rate is in some ethical or moral deficiencies. On what basis, then, can we justify such claim. The conclusion is that people are likely to behave in a manner that contradicts their stated value system when it comes into conflict with their well-being (i.e. when they might have something to lose). In such cases they will make decisions that are not in the spirit of good project management, resulting with subsequent project failures.

 7. And this is how the complete ‘story’ might look:

And voila, that’s it. And this is but my first attempt and I alreay see ways to make it better, more elaborate, next time.

Think about it!

In three earlier posts (HERE, HERE, and HERE) I have made the observation that:

1. The increase in the number of certified project managers does not positively reflect on the ratio of successful projects, and
2. There must be a deeper reason for the prevailing trend of failed projects, and a strong candidate for explaining the above discrepancy could be looked at in the context of ethical and moral failures.
3. Existing PMI Ethical Code of Conduct is bound to fail as it is too generic and cannot adequately address diverse moral and ethical issues faced in a global and multi-cultural environment.

In today’s installment I would like to go one step further and suggest, with some trepidation, that should the above observations be correct (as I suspect they are) we are unlikely to see any demonstrable improvement in overall project success / failure rates, for the reasons I will outline below.

If my hypothesis is correct, and the ‘wild card’ in achieving success or failure, is associated with ethical and moral behaviors then the obvious conclusion would be  that any projected improvement should be the result of sustained improvements in ethical and moral attitudes. The question that needs addressing therefore is: Are  such ethical improvements likely and if so what prerequisites are required to make it happen?

In “Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What’s Right and What to Do about It“, Ann E. Tenbrunsel and Max H. Bazerman mention the term “ethical fading” – where individuals are more likely to behave ethically when a problem is framed in ethical terms, than when it is framed in business terms. The gap between these two situations is quite substantial, 94% to 44%.

I am inclined to assume that in the majority of projects and in the majority of cases within these projects, the frame of thinking will tend to be ‘business’ and not ‘ethical’. This is likely to result in the ‘ethical fading’ effect kicking in and the decision or action taken exhibiting low ethical flavor.

From the above we can conclude that a sure method to increase ‘ethical awareness’ in projects is to ensure that an ethical frame of thinking is in force. The likelihood of this happening, in my humble opinion, is close to zero.

Some studies (see for example “Does Moral Education Improve Moral Judgment” – sorry couldn’t find any free link to this study) suggest that there is a positive correlation between moral education and the application of moral judgment, but this is predicated on educational programs taking weeks, not hours. The likelihood of organizations taking on the challenge of implementing moral and ethical training is, again IMHO, not very high.

Which leads me to the conclusion, outlined earlier in this article, that current failure rates are destined to remain unchanged and that we are unlikely to see any material improvement in overall project success / failure rates in the foreseeable future.

Think about it!

Any book bringing together such diverse names and concepts as Daniel Kahneman, Jon Whitty, Richard Dawkins, Bent Flyvbjerg, Umpa Lumpas and the Borg, is sure to attract my attention. Kailash Awati and Paul Culmsee don’t need much introduction. Both are authors of two of my favorite blogs, eight2late and CleverWorkarounds respectively. So when these two intelligent minds decide to write a book one can expect to find an engaging and stimulating discussion.

Their new book “The Heretic’s Guide to Best Practices: The Reality of Managing Complex Problems in Organizations” (affiliate link) is a brave and refreshing attempt at ‘shaking the foundations’ and getting people to examine the way they communicate and how they use that communication to make decisions, while attending to complex problems.

The problem this book attempts to address is as follows:

1. Organizations are made up of people
2. Successful operation of the organization is heavily dependent on these people communicating effectively with each other
3. The purpose of communication is to elicit mutual commitment from all parties to that communication
4. People will only commit to something, they are convinced, is good not only to the organization but also to them
5. The obvious conclusion of the above is, therefore, that genuine commitment can only be achieved by successful communication
6. The question then is whether traditional modes of communication are suitable for achieving such commitment?
7. And the obvious answer is ‘NO’, as can be seen from own individual experience where self-interests and politics, exacerbated by known interpretive biases, result on conflicts and disagreements.

One of the key metaphors used by the authors to make their point is that of the wooden labyrinth board. The challenge presented in this game is to navigate a marble through a maze while avoiding the holes. This, the authors say, is similar to the way we, individually, react to our daily challenges. We each stand on our own individual board and, as events present themselves to us, we take corrective or mitigative actions to ensure our own board is kept at a relative equilibrium. The picture gets more complicated when taking into account the fact that our individual board is surrounded by many other boards, and as they tilt and sway, we – like all others around us – re-adjust our position in order to keep the over balance intact.

The beauty of this analogy is in the ability of the reader to mentally visualize the constant balancing act taken by each and every member of our respective organizations – a beautiful synchronized dance – orchestrated by our built-in desire to maintain stability and reduce on-going stress, resulting nevertheless in individual and organizational conflicts and disagreements.

The authors go to a great length to demonstrate impartiality in exploring, analyzing and then dismissing all main stream methods for aligning individual and organizational objectives. To their credit, they have taken the scientific approach for presenting and then challenging conventional wisdom. Given that the book takes the reader on a journey towards a recommended approach, it can be understood why the authors go through a painstakingly elaborate discussion, aimed at clearly and unequivocally highlighting the deficiencies in main stream modes of communication.

The core solution proposed by the book is the use of a method called Issue Mapping, based on a notation called Issue-Based Information System (IBIS). This method consists of three main elements:

• Issues (or questions)
• Position (or ideas)
• Arguments (pros and cons).

The beauty of IBIS is that, if used correctly, it is able to map a conversation, while using a limited number of notations and without relying on or requiring any level of abstraction.

The book makes a compelling case for the adoption of this method and brings extensive case studies to demonstrate how it results in constructive and unambiguous dialogues. To ease the pain of introducing this discipline, the book provides some tips of how this can be introduced. Nevertheless, from my own experimentation, becoming a fully fledged dialogue mapper requires practicing and confidence use will be a result of practice.

Even if reading this book results in taking no further action, it is an excellent consciousness raiser as it takes you on a journey through some well accepted idioms and demonstrates how what we take for granted as being correct requires a second serious look.

Think about it!

In two earlier posts (HERE and HERE) I have attempted to plant the idea (or ‘raise the consciousness’ – as Richard Dawkins might say) that:

1. The increase in the number of certified project managers does not positively reflect on the ratio of successful projects, and
2. There must be a deeper reason for the prevailing trend of failed projects, and a strong candidate for explaining the above discrepancy could be looked at in the context of ethical and moral failures.

WARNING: This is by far my longest post ever – with an average reading speed of 200/wpm it will take you a whole 8 minutes to completely read this article.

In today’s post I aim to conclude my ‘ethical and moral’ journey by critically analyzing the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. The question I would attempt to answer would NOT be whether the above mentioned Code is in itself ethical – as I believe, without the need to further elaborate the point, that the Code in itself is necessary and logically valid – but rather concentrate on its content and verify whether we can practically expect project managers to meet its expectation?

So, the question I would contend to look at is “is it rational to expect project managers to abide by the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct”. Note that the question is not whether abiding by the guide is morally and ethically correct – as the answer to this is obvious. The question is around the rationality behind the expectation that people will do the right thing, regardless of the circumstances and furthermore, what is ‘the right thing’ anyway?

Morals vs Ethics

To begin the discussion we need to have some definitions in place:

Dictionary.com provides the following definitions:

• Morals – principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.
• Ethics – the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.

The obvious distinction between Morals and Ethics is that morality deals with rights and wrongs while ethics deal with adherence to rules. Put slightly differently, morals represent personal values while ethics provide a group context within which these morals are applied.

A quick and simple example can illustrate the difference between the two:

Most people will agree that “thou shall not lie” is a valid moral rule. Implementing this rule in reality requires the execution of constant ‘cost-benefit analysis’ to ensure that the benefit of telling the truth does not result in a bigger negative offset resulting in a substantial damage to the group. Simple case: You are the PM and you are having a discussion with Stakeholder I. Stakeholder I is supportive of your proposal but is highly critical of Stakeholder II. You have a follow up with Stakeholder II, who is also supportive of your proposal but who also inquires about the views raised by Stakeholder I. Should you follow your your moral guide you will be contributing to a personal grief between two of your stakeholders. Should you lie and divulge nothing, you will be breaking your personal moral commitment.

The point to take from the discussion so far is that an ethical code is noting but a guideline outlining the expected values that the individuals within the group are expected to hold and exhibit. This, however, raises a number of issues:

1. There is a hidden assumption that the individuals within the group all share the same (or similar) set of values;
2. There is lack of detail regarding the circumstances in which deviating from the rule will be justified; and
3. There is insufficient attention to the need to manage conflicting interests between the interests of the groups vs the interests of its individual members.

Applied Ethics vs Normative Ethics

At this point I need to introduce two additional terms: Applied Ethics and Normative Ethics:

1. Applied Ethics is concerned with analyzing specific and controversial scenarios and ethical resolutions to these issues. For an issue to be considered an “applied ethical issue” it needs to satisfy two conditions:
1. there need to be significant groups of people both for and against the issue at hand, and
2. it must be a distinctly moral issue
2. Normative Ethics is concerned with moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. “The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion of moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles“.

In the simple example I brought earlier, analyzing the situation outlined in the example is within the realm of applied ethics because it is likely that opinions  will vary regarding whether it was correct to not tell the truth and the issue of telling the truth is distinctly a moral issue. Furthermore, the need to keep to the truth is within the confines of normative ethics as most professional codes  of conduct will list the need to keep the truth as a key ethical value.

The PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct

We now have the tools to examine the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. The Code identifies four foundational values: Responsibility, Respect, Fairness, and Honesty. For those not familiar with the Code, it contains Aspirational and Mandatory standards. Aspirational standards “describe the conduct that we strive to uphold as practitioners” while Mandatory standards “establish firm requirements, and in some cases, limit or prohibit practitioner behavior“.

The section on Responsibility includes the following aspirational standard:

“We make decisions and take actions based on the best interests of society, public safety, and the
environment“.

This  requirement suffers from an  obvious deficiency:

The determination of what does or does not reflect “the best interests of society” is problematic and virtually impossible to attain. Some years ago I rejected a job opportunity at a global cigarettes manufacturer as it did not match my personal value system. Had I taken on the job and had to “make decisions based on the best interests of society, public safety, and the environment“, I would have had to deliberately jeopardize the project’s success.

The section on Respect includes the following aspirational standard:

“We inform ourselves about the norms and customs of others and avoid engaging in behaviors they
might consider disrespectful.”

This requirement implies that morality is NOT universal and it is morally acceptable to request that a project manager forgo his or her own values and ignore immoral behaviors exhibited by others. One does not need to read Sam Harris’ “The Moral Landscape” to intuitively realize this this requirement is problematic.

The section on Fairness states that it is a Project Manager’s

“duty to make decisions and act impartially and objectively. Our conduct must be free from competing self interest, prejudice, and favoritism“.

This expectation does not take into account the vast body of knowledge (collated and summarized in Daniel Kahneman’s recent book “Thinking, Fast and Slow“) demonstrating our innate susceptibility to behavioral and judgmental biases, affecting our decision making faculties.

The section on Honesty states that it is the project manager’s “duty to make decisions and act impartially and objectively. Our conduct must be free from competing self interest, prejudice, and favoritism.” This requirement has a similar deficiency to that shown for Fairness as it ignores known biases affecting our decision making.

Time to wrap up

If you stayed with me to this point you deserve to get a summary, or better off, a conclusion.

The take from the above should be as follows:

1. A code of conduct, in itself is far from being a promoter, driver or enable of a suitable follow-up.  A Code is a useful tool in covering the normative aspects of the issue concerned (in our case – ethical issues). If does not, however, deal with the applied side, and as such it fails in providing specific and realistic guidelines that can be applied in real life situations.
2. A Code can require universal adherence only if its application (i.e. execution) is universally accepted. Should issues of culture, gender, race or religion stand in the way of its universality, those conflicting sections in the Code need to be removed as they are practically useless.
3. A Code needs to reflect the nature of the society in which it is published. Should the prevailing values within that society contradict (or negate) the spirit of the Code it is unlikely (as we see in reality) that the Code will have any real impact.

Your comments and thoughts will be appreciated.

Think about it!