Project Management World Today Viewpoints
Feburary 2006

Editorial | Viewpoints | Papers | Case Studies |Student Papers | Community |Scene | Publications

Viewpoints are submitted and invited editorials intended to promote discussion on issues of importance to project management. The views expressed in articles published in Viewpoints are those of the authors alone. They do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of pmforum.org or its staff.

Professional Codes of Ethics - We Compare - You Decide

by Paul Giammalvo

Editor’s note: This viewpoint article is extracted from a much longer article with the same title. The full text is available as a PDF.

As noted in the January issue of PM World Today, PMI has set off a storm of concern over the proposed Code of Ethics changes.

Being “professional” project managers, we all know the “devil lives in the details” and this Viewpoints article will be looking at the proposed changes in great detail.

To baseline the comparison, the author has chosen the American Society of Civil Engineers Code of Ethics. Why? First because the ASCE was established in 1852, so at 154 years old, should lend it some credibility. Secondly, it is truly a Global organization, with over 100,000 members and sections in most major countries in the world. Lastly, the Professional Engineer (PE) license is recognized throughout the world as a reliable credential attesting to competency based excellence in engineering, construction management and the environment.

For the purposes of comparison, there are two documents from ASCE which will be referenced:

  1. ASCE Code of Ethics- http://www.asce.org/professional/ethics/
  2. ASCE Code of Professional Conduct- https://www.asce.org/pdf/ethics_manual.pdf

The first question we want to explore is “What is the purpose of a Code of Ethics?”

PMI, in their proposed changes, Paragraph 1.1 states “The Primary purpose of the Code is to promote a fair business environment for project management.” ASCE is not specific on the purpose, but the first of the Fundamental Canons states “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties. A web search indicates a general consensus best explained by Anderson et al. (1993) "the ACM code was established together with a review board as instruments to deter members from unethical behavior. The aim was to introduce means to regulate membership and thereby convince the public that the profession deserved to be self regulating". Compare this against the “original” Code of Ethics, the Hippocratic Oath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

As can be seen, the primary purpose of truly professional codes of ethics maintains a focus on protecting the interests of the consuming public, in exchange for the right of an occupation to become self regulated, and not on promoting a “fair business environment”.

In Paragraph 2.2.2, PMI proposes:

“As practitioners, we treat other individuals with respect and avoid conduct that is discourteous or abusive and that may jeopardize the success of the project.”

While the words sound good, the terms discourteous and abusive are inconsistent with the image of a professional in the first place. And does this mean being “discourteous or abusive” is OK, as long as it does NOT jeopardize the success of the project? Given the difficulties in defining success of a project, how can this paragraph possibly contribute to the professionalization of Project Management?

Paragraph 2.2.2 also fails to address the role of the “Whistleblower”. Couldn’t the actions of a whistleblower be viewed as “discourteous and abusive” by those on his/her team? And certainly, by blowing the whistle, doesn’t this jeopardize the “success” of the project, at least as perceived by those for whom the whistle is being blown?

This Paragraph has no corollary from ASCE, other than Canon 6. However the issue of the role of Whistleblower is spelled out in detail:

“’Whistle blowing’ is when an employee reports an employer who is breaking the law. Employees who blow the whistle on their employers are protected by law. If they are fired or otherwise retaliated against for whistle blowing, they can take legal recourse. To actually whistle blow, the employee must report the illegal act outside the company to a government or law-enforcement agency. If the employee just complains to someone inside the company, that is not whistle blowing, and the employee is not protected by the whistle blower laws. It is not necessary that the employer actually break the law. The employee could blow the whistle on something that isn’t illegal in the first place. The employee is still protected from retaliation or termination. However, the employee must believe that he or she is reporting a violation of the law, and the employee’s belief must be reasonable. If the employee has reported the allegedly illegal activity to a government or law enforcement agency, he or she is protected. The employer cannot retaliate against the employee. The employer cannot fire the employee for the whistle blowing. The employer cannot mistreat the employee for whistle blowing. This does not mean that after whistle blowing, the employee cannot be fired for any reason. The employer can continue to treat the employee like any other employee. But the employer cannot treat the employee differently because of the whistle blowing.”

Whistle blowing has two contexts. One is described above in the classical employee/employer relationship. The other is within the ranks of the professional organization to which one belongs. But in either case, shouldn’t the basic rules or concepts be the same?

Having gone over what is IN the document, let’s explore some major issues which were NOT addressed in the proposed changes but SHOULD have.

A core element of almost all the recognized professions is some sort of restrictions on Advertising. ASCE dedicates a rather lengthy and detailed paragraph regarding advertising. Canon 5.f states, in part: “Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.”

One of the most disturbing aspects of PMI over the past 5 or 6 years has been the blatant commercialization of the PMP. Full page advertisements abound in PMI publications touting “Pass your PMP Exam in 5 days or your money back”. Or perhaps worst of all is Peter Nathan and Gerald Jones’ “PMP Certification for Dummies”. Has anyone ever seen “Brain Surgery for Dummies”? or “Pass your PE Exam in 5 days or your money back”?

Do we believe that “Passing your PMP Exam in 5 Days or your money back” or “PMP Exam for Dummies” fulfills the letter or intent of ASCE’s Canon 6: “Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession”?

In looking at the ASCE magazine, there is not ONE advertisement for help in passing the Engineer In Training (EIT) Exam. Why? Because ASCE is a true professional organization. It is not in the business of providing testing or training.

To summarize:

1. The proposed Code of Ethics changes do not come close to a “best in class” Code of Ethics and should be immediately withdrawn from consideration pending a re-write modeled after ASCE or similar benchmarks.

2. In any resulting Code of Ethics, references to “Project Management as a profession” should be modified to reflect the fact that we are NOT a profession, but an aspiring or evolving or emerging profession. This is a gross misrepresentation or exaggeration of the facts.

3. The proposed Code of Ethics should NOT require the signing of any onerous copyright assignment.

4. The revised Code of Ethics should address the marketing of the PMP Exam Training as well as anything which detracts from the image of PMI or the PMP as a professional organization or credential. This should include ANY references advocating the concept of “teaching to the exam”.

5. In order to be accepted as a truly global professional Code of Ethics, revisions should be focused not on peer to peer or peer to organization relationships, but on our obligations to the “the safety, health and welfare of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties”. As PMI holds itself out to be a global organization, the Code of Ethics should include references to the Millennium Development Goals.

Paul Giammalvo photo Paul D. Giammalvo, CDT, PMP, CCE, MScPM, is Director of the ASEAN Project Manager’s Center of Excellence, Inc. (APMX) For over 12 years, he has been provided Project Management training and consulting throughout SE Asia. He is active in the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International, (AACE); Construction Specifications Institute (CSI); Construction Management Association of America, (CMAA) and serves on the Global Project Management Forum Steering Committee. Email Paul G. Giammalvo or visit Paul's Website

Top of Page

Express your views on any PM World Today Viewpoints article!

Visit the PMFORUM Discussion Center

Editorial Policy: The PMFORUM® has no connection to any national or international project management organization nor does it reflect the policy of any project management professional or commercial organization. The PMFORUM® maintains an objective and impartial view of project management affairs. In the interests of advancing professional project management the PMFORUM® will publish contending and objective views on issues that reflect collegial differences and perspectives