In the previous article, we discussed, on an introductory basis, the concept of ethics and how it can apply to professional EU project managers. As a quick summary, we can state that ethics is about making the best possible decisions, and fair and healthy choices concerning people, resources, and the environment. This is due also to when working on editing new proposals to be funded under EU programs or when implementing projects financed by the EU Commission.
Here we’d like to go beyond ethical and professional codes of conduct, which the EU project management profession has not yet classified, and be more specific on what is practically appropriate and what is not, in our professional practice. Rather than ethics, we might define here some elements of etiquette in project management. It is a question here of unspoken and unwritten gentlemen’s agreements which all project managers believe it is important to stick with, thus shaping their behaviours with correctness, appropriateness, respect, and kindness. Following the famous adage “Do not do to others what you don’t want to be done to you”.
Where shall this basic ethical principle apply in the professional behaviour of a project manager? We have selected two moments of its working life: when drafting a project proposal and when implementing an approved project.
When working on the finalisation of a concept note, on the creation of a partnership, or in finalising texts and the budget of an application form some challenges to the etiquette might appear. This is the case when the relationship with partners is at stake: e.g., engaging a partner organisation that was introduced to us by another partner. Do we communicate to our facilitator this intention? Do we invite the facilitator to join the partnership as well? And what if we do not consider the facilitating partner relevant to our project idea but indeed only the one which was presented to us? The matter might also refer to when we, ourselves, introduce a partner to some colleagues: we would like to be taken into consideration in upcoming bids and for sure not to be ignored when our contact will be engaged in project proposals.
Another case might be connected to the resubmission of non-funded proposals. You would like to “reshuffle” somehow the bid, but how do you behave with the partners who participated in the first submission (predictably giving their contribution to the project submission)? What if you would like to improve the consortium by inserting new partners but making sure the total number of participants does not increase? Do you cut someone out? Do you share the information on resubmission just with the ones you would like, or do you talk openly with all the initial partners?
And what about project ideas or concept notes shared with partner organisations for project submission? Can this idea be used later in the year for other programs and not engaging the ones who created it? Can this be done just by communicating the intention of using the concept note of the previous submission?
When the time for budget fixing comes, do you as the project manager act independently or do you engage all partners in sharing their expectations and needs concerning finances? On one hand, doing the budget by yourself might save time and get quickly to the final figures of the budget request, but this will predictably leave partners unsatisfied. On the other hand, by filling in financial figures by engaging partners and trying to fulfil all their demands the PM might spend days negotiating, to balance and explain to everyone the criteria with the foreseeable outcome that someone might not be fully rewarded.
These are just a few examples that we are running into in our experience, we are sure that further cases (and perhaps more relevant or applicable) can be listed.
Another set of etiquette challenges is faced by project managers while delivering a project, thus during the working period with partners, implementing the deliverables.
Unethical leadership might be one of them. When the project coordinator favours one partner, not even that covertly, over another participating organisation (e.g., accepting unjustified absences in meetings, unfairly tolerating delays in deliveries, not recognising the efforts of strongly working partners).
In our view, a practice that someone might have experienced is to fix unrealistic and conflicting goals in project management. Short-time deadlines can lead to pressure on staff workers, increasing anxiety, and forcing the fast implementation of deeds at the expense of the quality of the final products. Setting up goals that logically cannot be achieved because they rely on third parties (parties that could even be project partners inside the consortium) will end up being a source of frustration, a reason for anger, and an occasion for fights.
Privacy and confidentiality issues, as we all know, are now regulated by European law. However, the respect of shared information along with the secrecy, or at least discretion, towards people’s relevant data which have been shared for professional purposes should be behaviours to be addressed well before any regulation. As leaders of consortia, or partners of organisations, throughout different running projects the confidentiality of information should be highly valued and not just for the consequences that any disclosure might carry.
Communication is one of the areas in which good conduct should be cared for: whoever plays a leadership role in the consortium (either the project coordinator or the leaders of specific working packages) is responsible for communicating ethically. In a valuable communication plan partners should agree on some statements which could be, for example, the following:
• We will communicate honestly, transparently, and in good faith.
• We will make sure our communications are clear, concise, and timely.
• We will communicate openly and with the right interlocutors.
• We commit to active listening as we believe communication is a two-way process.
• We work for achieving consensus in matters as a result of confrontation and discussion
Finally, minor practical deeds have ethical relevance without having to bother with official codes of conduct. For example, attendance signatures (in meetings, in training events, in onsite seminars) are put on paper but not always honoured by the factual presence of people, or by actively participating referents. might address such an issue.
We guess each Project Manager has experienced cases in which a not appropriate conduct/behaviour might not only have jeopardised the good implementation of the project but may have affected the respect and good faith of people, resources, and the general environment. The topic of ethics remains large and somehow not fully explored, we aimed at offering food for thought so for each of us PMs to raise concerned awareness over the matter and sensitise our behaviour according to best principles.