Values and ethics

in project management

Proceedings
International Expert Seminar in Zurich on February 2008
-1-
IPMA Expert Seminar 2008

Values and ethics

in project management

Proceedings
of the International Expert Seminar
in Zurich, Switzerland
on 14th – 16th February 2008

Organized by
the Swiss Project Management Association (spm)

in cooperation with
the International Project Management Association (IPMA)

Edited by
Hans Knoepfel, Daniel Scheifele, Markus Staeuble, Urs Witschi

-3-
IPMA Expert Seminar 2008

Content
Page

General
Preface
Hans Knoepfel and Veikko Välilä ............................................................................................... 8
The ethical treatment and well-being of human resources in the project oriented company
Rodney Turner, Martina Huemann and Anne Keagan................................................................. 9
Ethics and project management – conflicts, contradictions, perspectives
Larissa Krainer ........................................................................................................................... 22
Values and ethics in projects: Taking responsibility for beliefs, manners and customs
Regula Grünenfelder .................................................................................................................. 29
An Italian view of values and ethics
Maurizio Alessandro .................................................................................................................. 39

Values of projects, persons, teams and organisations

Bring the values to the public
Yan Xue and Hans Knoepfel...................................................................................................... 44
Ethics and projects
Alistair Goodbold....................................................................................................................... 61
Making values transparent und energising project teams
Agnès Roux-Kiener.................................................................................................................... 72
Workshop report
Group 1....................................................................................................................................... 81

Project objectives and deliverables in an ethical context

Projects, programmes and portfolios in an ethical context
Ralf Muller ................................................................................................................................. 90
Behavioural competence elements and influencing
Jérôme Racine .......................................................................................................................... 101
Workshop report
Group 2..................................................................................................................................... 108

-5-
IPMA Expert Seminar 2008

Risks and opportunities in projects

The ethical risk manager
Miles Shepherd......................................................................................................................... 112
Architecture for effective strategy implementation
Martin Sedlmayer..................................................................................................................... 121
Relevance of ethical theory for ethical risk assessment in projects
Haukur Ingi Jonasson ............................................................................................................... 136
Workshop report
Group 3..................................................................................................................................... 144

Code of professional conduct

Code of professional conduct in project, programme and portfolio management
Tom Taylor............................................................................................................................... 148
Systemic approach to define and integrate ethics in projects
Alexis Sgard ............................................................................................................................. 158
Workshop report
Group 4..................................................................................................................................... 181

-6-
IPMA Expert Seminar 2008

Behavioural competence elements and influencing

Jérôme Racine

1. Introduction
Project managers are in the influencing business. They do not themselves create, develop,
produce, buy or sell products and services. They orchestrate – or in others words: they
influence what others do in order to get projects completed.
Influencing others basically either means directing them (i.e. giving them instructions and
orders), persuading them, or negotiating with them. We will therefore briefly review the
major characteristics of those three levers of influence.
Competence in directing, persuading and negotiating is mostly of behavioural nature. Taking
the third above-mentioned form of influencing as an example, we will review the competence
elements enabling project managers to negotiate successfully and compare them with those
listed in the IPMA Competence Baseline Version 3.0 (ICB Version 3.0).
Finally, we will argue that organizing competence elements mainly along the lines of
directing, persuading and negotiating could help streamline and structure in a more logical
way the ICB Version 3.0 list of behavioural competences.

2. Strategies of influence
To make sure that others (project team members, sponsors, subcontractors, etc.) really do
what needs to be done in an effective way, project managers have three levers at their
disposal:
ƒ Within usually rather narrow limits, they can give orders or instructions which must
then be carried out. The authority to direct is normally based on pre-established rules
(e.g.: job description, organizational charts, etc.). Within this organizational
framework, orders and instructions will in general be followed without any need for
further convincing or negotiation. What matters when giving orders, is only that such
orders are accurately and completely executed. Orders issued must therefore be clear,
non-equivocal and complete.
ƒ They can try to persuade others, thereby ensuring that those others come to do what
they are being asked to do out of their own conviction. Persuasion is called for when a
project manager cannot rely on the power of authority, but must still find a way to
convince others to do something whereby: (a) what needs to be done is non-negotiable
or (b) negotiating about it would have severe disadvantages such as unacceptable

- 101 -
IPMA Expert Seminar 2008

delays. Persuading is to a large extent a monologue and can be considered as the art of
sending messages.
ƒ They can negotiate with others. Negotiation is called for when a process of joint
problem solving is more promising than taking unilateral decisions and implementing
them through coercion or persuasion. As opposed to persuading, negotiating is in
essence a dialogue. When negotiating, receiving messages (asking questions, listening,
understanding) is as important as sending messages – and maybe even more important.
In this sense, negotiating means at the same time influencing the other party and being
influenced by the other party.

3. Competence Elements in Negotiation

When negotiating, a key consideration is that success or failure is not only determined by the
complexity and contentiousness of the issues to be resolved (content), but also to a large
extent by the way the parties negotiate together (process). Research conducted in the
framework of the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard University has shown that
negotiation processes can be divided in six sub-processes:
1. Working relationship between the parties (key question: are the parties able to have a
meaningful dialogue and to design an efficient decision-making process?)
2. Perceptions and points of view (key question: how do the parties explore their
respective points of view and how do they deal with different perceptions?)
3. Motivations (key question: how do the parties explore their respective motivations –
positional bargaining vs. interest-based negotiating – and how far does each party take
the needs of the other party into consideration?)
4. Creating value (key question: are the parties able to creatively develop mutual gains?)
5. Claiming value (key question: how do the parties resolve their conflicting interests?)
6. Alternatives (key question: which role is being played by the respective alternatives to
a negotiated agreement?)
If the goal of negotiating pursued by project managers is to end up with agreements which (a)
create as much added value as possible for the sake of the project, and (b) can be viewed as
well-founded and fair by all stakeholders, then the list of abilities and competence elements
required could look as follows:

- 102 -
IPMA Expert Seminar 2008

ƒ Ability to develop and maintain a well functioning working relationship with the other
party:
• Ability to disentangle issues of substance and people-related problems / Ability to
consciously manage the process separately from dealing with the substance
• Ability to foster good communication: clarity of expression, active listening skills
(incl. good questioning skills), openness
• Ability to build up mutual trust: reliability, trustworthiness
• Ability to express one's own emotions adequately
• Ability to react adequately to the emotions of the others: empathy
ƒ Ability to identify and respect different perceptions:
• Active listening skills, curiosity
• Openness, tolerance
• Empathy
ƒ Interest-based negotiating (vs. positional bargaining):
• Ability to express and defend one's own underlying interests clearly and with
determination
• Readiness to take the underlying interests of the other party into due consideration:
curiosity, openness, respect
ƒ Ability to develop mutual gains:
• Creativity, i.e. ability to contribute to the development of ideas leading to solutions
which satisfy the interests of both sides
• Ability to design productive brainstorming processes
ƒ Ability to resolve conflicting interests
• Concern for fairness (as opposed to arbitrariness)
• Ability to identify and propose convincing standards of legitimacy
ƒ Alternatives to negotiated agreements
• Prudence, i.e.: careful contingency planning
• Ability to realistically assess the advantages and disadvantages of available
alternatives on both sides
• Determination not to accept agreements which, in view of one's own interests, are
less attractive than the best available alternative
How does this compare with ICB Version 3.0?
Several parallels can be draw between this list of abilities and competence elements and the
adequate behaviours described in the section 2.11 of ICB Version 3.0:

- 103 -
IPMA Expert Seminar 2008

Abilities and competence Adequate behaviours as listed in ICB Version 3.0

elements

Working relationship Actively helps to avoid and correct inappropriate behavior

Acts to engender longer-term business or work relations
Can express himself effectively and clearly; avoids
unnecessary detail
Creates the right ambiance for negotiation
Negotiates hard at the content level but maintains a positive
personal relationship

Perceptions and points of Explores interests and perceptions to find constructive

view solutions
Tries to understand the other's position and perspective;
listens carefully

Motivations Is honest and fair about his own interests and objectives
Aims for win : win situations for both parties
Respects the other's claims and proposals (vs. tries to force
the other party to accept his position)
Explores interests and perceptions to find constructive
solutions

Creating value Aims for win : win situations for both parties
Explores interests and perceptions to find constructive
solutions

Claiming value Negotiates fairly and in a well-balanced way

Alternatives Defines negotiation objectives and scenarios

Table 1: Abilities, competence elements and adequate behaviours

In spite of those parallels, ICB Version 3.0 does not provide a clear and precise list of
negotiation-related behavioural competences which would enable to assess relatively easily
the negotiation abilities of a project manager. Furthermore: (a) the first adequate behavior
listed is a truism: "Has the ability to negotiate and the stamina to carry the process through to
a successful conclusion"; (b) there is an ample body of literature showing that the above-
mentioned sub-processes are a better basis for structuring effective and high-quality
negotiations than the process steps listed in section 2.11 of ICB Version 3.0.

- 104 -
IPMA Expert Seminar 2008

4. Streamlining and structuring

The overall list of behavioural competences in ICB3 neither does provide a clear guidance.
The reasoning behind the inclusion or exclusion of competence elements in the ICB Version
3.0 list is not identifiable:
ƒ The difference between "consultation" (section 2.10) and "negotiation" (section 2.11)
is not obvious. The same is true as far as "assertiveness" (section 2.04) and "result
orientation" (section 2.08) are concerned.
ƒ The competence element "conflict & crisis" (section 2.12) combines two situations
which do not require the same management skills. The management of crises certainly
involves less negotiating and more directing than the resolution of conflicts.
ƒ One could easily argue that discipline, energy, enthusiasm, perseverance, political
savvy, self-confidence and many other skills or traits (which are not listed) are at least
as important as "engagement & motivation" (section 2.02), "self-control" (section
2.03), "relaxation" (2.08), etc.
ƒ "Leadership" (section 2.01) is an overriding competence which most probably
encompasses all other behavioural competence elements.
If the major contribution of project managers lies in orchestrating what other people do, most
behavioural competences expected from them should relate to influencing processes. In
addition to highly developed skills in influencing others, one may also expect from project
managers good skills in influencing themselves – i.e.: good self-management skills. Having
addressed those two areas, the only remaining competence elements listed in ICB Version 3.0
would be "Efficiency" and "Ethics". It might indeed make sense to address them separately, as
efficiency is about what should be done and how, whereas ethics is about what ought to be
done and why.
A possible way to structure and streamline the list of behavioural competences could therefore
be as shown in the Table 2 on the next page.
As we have seen above, the basic competence elements of "good" negotiation skills can be
described quite precisely. Neuroscience research even shows that relatively fuzzy notions
such as empathy can be characterized: empathy is (a) the cognitive capacity to take the
perspective of another person, to transpose oneself imaginatively into his or her feeling and
thinking, to mentally simulate the other's perspective using one's own brain, and (b) the
capacity of being aware of one's own emotions and feelings, and to reflect on them – i.e.
(paradoxically): the ability to disentangle oneself from the other person, to maintain a sense of
whose feelings belong to whom.

- 105 -
IPMA Expert Seminar 2008

Leadership
(would incorporate / replace "Engagement & motivation")

Influencing skills Self-management skills Other skills

• Directing skills • Efficiency (section 2.09)

• Persuasion skills • Ethics (section 2.15)
• Negotiation skills

(would incorporate / replace (would incorporate / replace (would incorporate / replace

"assertiveness", "openness", the "self-control" and "Result orientation")
"creativity", "consultation", "relaxation")
"conflict & crisis",
"reliability" and "values
appreciation")

Table 2: Structuring and streamlining the behavioural competences

Most probably, the same could be done in order to list the basic competence elements of
"good" directing and "good" persuading.

5. Conclusions
ICB Version 3.0 reflects the need perceived in the project management world of a
comprehensive description of adequate standards of professional behavior.
As far as behavioural competences are concerned, ICB Version 3.0 goes way beyond listing
so-called soft skills and attempts to define rigorous standards and guidelines.
This attempt is very welcome, but could be pursued even further. We have shown that most
ICB Version 3.0 behavioural competence elements could be logically and usefully
consolidated under three strategies of influence: directing, persuading and negotiating. Taking
negotiation as an example, we have further shown that the relevant competence elements can
be described quite precisely and related to clear process steps.
A more structured list of behavioural elements would further increase the practical value of
the IPMA certification system.

6. Acknowledgment
The first part of this article (Strategies of influence) is based on an unpublished text written by
my colleague Dr. Claudio Weiss: "Directing, Persuading, Negotiating – How Are These
Three Disciplines Different and When Should They Be Employed?" (for more information on
the author, see: www.awareman.ch).

- 106 -
IPMA Expert Seminar 2008

7. References
Cialdini, Robert B. (1993): Influence – The Psychology of Persuasion, Quill / William
Morrow, revised edition
Decety, Jean / Jackson, Philip L. (2006): A Social-Neuroscience Perspective on Empathy,
Current Directions in Psychological Science, Volume 15, Number 2
Fisher, Roger (1983): Negotiation Power – Getting and Using Influence, American
Behavioural Scientist, Vol. 27 No. 2, Nov.-Dec. 1983, pp. 149-166
Fisher, Roger / Ury, William F. / Patton, Bruce (1991): Getting to Yes – Negotiating
Agreement Without Giving In, Penguin Books, second edition
Watkins, Michael D. (2000): The Power to Persuade, Harvard Business School, Working
Paper 9-800-323

- 107 -