Virtues and Vices in Project Management Ethics

Abstract

Project management is omnipresent, yet the research on project management ethics is still lacking. Recent research stresses the importance of developing virtue ethics for project managers. This study contributes to this research by offering an empirical exploration as to whether virtue ethics is used by project managers and project management students, and whether the use of it is fundamentally maximalistic or minimalistic. The study shows that virtue ethics is used by respondents—particularly virtues of courage, fortitude, truthfulness, and moderation, and the avoidance of vices, such as weakness of will and cowardice. It also shows that virtue ethics is invoked both maximalistically and minimalistically.

Keywords

ethics project management vignettes virtue ethics

Project management is omnipresent, and an increasing number of people identify themselves as project managers. In theories of project management, however, ethics is still a relatively neglected issue, yet we believe it to be crucial to include ethics in the research and practice of project management (Bredillet, 2014; Bredillet, Tywoniak, & Dwivedula, 2014; Crevani & Lennerfors, 2009; Helgadóttir, 2007; Loo, 2001; Müller et al., 2013; Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2014). As we will argue in the section on theory, project management is potentially even more demanding than business ethics, given the salient characteristics of temporariness, uniqueness, heterogeneity/diversity, informal coordination, and ambiguous hierarchies.

We understand project management ethics as the project manager’s ethics in relationship to various stakeholders, both internal to the organization in which he or she is active, as well as external. The discussion is in line with previous research on project management ethics (Bredillet et al., 2014), where it is argued that project managers should be viewed as part of a profession and should not always adapt to profit-maximizing norms of the host organization, but rather uphold their own standards.

The relevance of project managers’ ethics stems from both concerns of avoiding infringements of codes of conduct or other rules in order to not damage the reputation of the company or organization in which the project manager is working, or indeed to exceed expectations and more affirmatively strive for exemplary conduct when leading projects (Müller et al., 2013). We understand this by using the Swedish business ethicist Philipson’s (2004) distinction between maximalistic ethics and minimalistic ethics. Minimalistic ethics would mean to not infringe on the moral baseline, sometimes prescribed by organizational policies, codes of conduct, and even laws. Maximalistic ethics is when a person who goes beyond what is required by laws, codes, and policies to strive for exemplary behavior.

With this understanding of project management ethics as a background, we intend to build and develop the burgeoning work, drawing on virtue ethics to understand project management ethics (Bredillet, 2014; Bredillet et al., 2014; Crevani & Lennerfors, 2009; Caldwell, Hasan, & Smith, 2015) by means of an empirical investigation. Virtue ethics stresses the importance of developing a good character (Hursthouse, 1999), since good actions stem from a good character. Conversely, good actions build good character. Virtues are expressed through voluntary actions; a person acquires virtues by repetitively practicing them until they are developed into a habit. Education and self-learning play an important role (Hackett & Wang, 2012). By practicing virtues, Aristotle held that we would reach a state called eudaimonia, which means “human flourishing” (Hursthouse, 1999). On the other hand, to live a life practicing vices leads one further away from human flourishing.

In business ethics, virtue ethics has been introduced by, for example, Solomon (1992, 2004), but has only recently been included in the discussions about project management ethics (Crevani & Lennerfors, 2009; Bredillet, 2014; Caldwell et al., 2015). The current state-of-the-art research on virtue ethics in project management argues that virtue ethics should serve as a foundation for codes of conduct for the project management profession (Bredillet, 2014). There is a lack of empirical studies, however, not only regarding virtue ethics in project management, but also project management ethics in general.

An early example of a broad, empirical study within project management ethics, which has inspired this work, is that of Loo (2001). Loo developed three vignettes, which would come to represent ethical dilemmas in the practice of project management and asked students—future project managers—to share their thoughts on how to handle the situations described in these vignettes. The study was quantitative and, in order to understand the students’ reasoning, the answers to the vignettes were analyzed using five different ethical theories: justice, relativism, egoism, utilitarianism, and deontology. Loo (2001) concluded that the questionnaire could be refined to tap other theories of ethics, for example, to address “Confucian ethics for those involved in projects in Asia” (Loo, 2001, p. 494). One particular omission in Loo’s (2001) study was the theory of virtue ethics.

We asked project management practitioners and project management students to qualitatively assess Loo’s (2001) three ethical dilemmas of project management. By analyzing their responses, we explore empirically if virtue ethics is used and how it is used when respondents assess the three ethical dilemmas. The study therefore contributes to project management ethics research by establishing whether virtue ethics is empirically prevalent compared with earlier more theoretical studies or studies with more limited empirical scope (Bredillet, 2014; Caldwell et al., 2015; Crevani & Lennerfors, 2009). Thus, the purpose of this article is to contribute to the project of promoting virtue ethics in project management by exploring empirically if and how virtue ethics is used. If virtue ethics is already prevalent among project managers, such project managers would be a fertile ground for promoting virtue ethics; if it is not prevalent, implementing virtue ethics would be more challenging.

Theoretical Framework

In this section we will discuss virtue ethics, the ethics of project management, and how virtue ethics has been incorporated into project management ethics.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics, as studied in the West, has its origins in Ancient Greece. The main proponent was Aristotle (1925), but virtue ethics has been revived into modern ethics since the 1950s as an alternative to the dominant approaches of consequentialism and deontology (Anscombe, 1958).

Although we question that virtue ethics should be viewed as an alternative, normative ethical theory, it is still useful to compare and contrast the three. Consequentialism looks at the consequences of an action and holds that the action with the best consequences (determined by, for example, the amount of pleasure, the utility, or the number of satisfied preferences) is good (Tännsjö, 2013). Deontology looks at the nature of the action itself and often prohibits classes of actions, for example, lying and stealing (Rachels & Rachels, 2015). Deontology therefore differs from a consequentialist perspective in which lying and stealing, for example, are not bad in themselves, but must be judged regarding the goodness of the consequences. The consequentialist would argue that sometimes a white lie could have positive consequences and therefore be ethically permitted.

In contrast to utilitarianism and deontology, virtue ethics stresses the agent rather than the actions and emphasizes the importance of developing a good character (Hursthouse, 1999). Good actions stem from good character but such actions also contribute to creating good character. Virtues are sometimes seen as the opposite of vices and sometimes as the middle ground between two vices, for example, generosity is a virtue between the two extremes of wastefulness and stinginess (Aristotle, 1925). Virtue ethics takes into account the moral development of the agent, whereas deontology and utilitarianism are silent on the dynamic nature of the moral agent (Hursthouse, 1999). Repeated habits and the practicing of virtues guided by reason strengthen a person’s character. By practicing virtues, Aristotle held that we would reach a state called eudaimonia, in other words, human flourishing (Hursthouse, 1999). In virtue ethics, tradition moral education is important (Hackett & Wang, 2012), which is where we learn how to thrive within a community (MacIntyre, 2007). Virtue ethics aims to provide an accurate view of moral experiences, as they are experienced by human actors and considers ethics as a part of a person’s life and is less abstract than consequentialism and deontology.

Although we have contrasted virtue ethics with deontology and consequentialism, we do not see virtue ethics as a competing normative theory. The theory is not aimed at giving advice on how to act in a particular situation (as deontology and consequentialism), but rather gives us a view of how ethics could be understood as a processual, dynamic interaction between character and actions (Rachels & Rachels, 2015).

There are critics of virtue ethics. Some argue that virtue ethics is contradicted by findings in experimental psychology, maintaining that situational aspects are more important predictors than character, and that the stability of character over time is weak (e.g., Doris, 1998, 2002; Harman, 1999). In other words, these critics argue that good actions do not flow from a good character as virtue ethics posits, but rather are significantly, or even fully, influenced by the nature of a particular situation. These critiques were highly influential when they were published, but counterarguments have since been developed not only by philosophers but also from within experimental psychology (Jayawickreme, Meindl, Helzer, Furr, & Fleeson, 2014; Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2017). The debate between virtue ethics and the situationalist critique is far from over; in our view, however, rather than seeing these as two mutually exclusive competing alternatives for the base of moral action, we see them both as complementary. From this perspective, the new foundation for virtue ethics is the moderate argument by Adams (2006) who maintains that virtues may be frail and fragmentary but nonetheless are character traits. This is similar to Solomon’s (2004) claim that the character exists but that it is not a rock-solid character that withstands everything. In short, although the characteristics of the situation influence a person’s behavior, so does his or her character.

Project Management and Ethics

As shown by de George (2005), ethics in business has been discussed since historical times. It might therefore seem remarkable to suggest there is a need to study ethics in project management, since projects are nowadays a natural part of the business landscape. We argue that there are three reasons why ethics is still rather understudied in projects. First, project management research is a newer field than business studies. It is often explained that for approximately 60 years, organizations have been using projects to fulfill their strategic objectives, but that the research field is still young (Bredillet et al., 2014; Crevani & Lennerfors, 2009). This novelty of the field has potentially led to the lag in studies about ethics in project management. With the maturation of the field, discussions about ethics might increase. Second, although business studies have been a practitioner-oriented subject, it has gradually become a more research-oriented, scholarly discipline to the extent that some claim it has lost its relevance for practitioners (Lorsch, 2009). Project management, on the other hand, is still practitioner oriented and instrumental (Bredillet, 2014; Loo, 2001; Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2014), bringing with it a focus on efficiency and productivity, which might be a third reason why ethics has been understudied.

We maintain that the main reason for the need to study project management ethics is that projects differ from regular day-to-day operations in ethically significant ways. We do not see projects and the day-to-day operations as opposites, but rather argue that the distinguishing aspects we describe in this section are more salient in projects than in day-to-day operations. For example, a project has a strong focus on achieving a goal and is time bound, often clearly defined, and with a specific budget. In this sense, the project is detached from the ordinary business, although it of course remains affected by the surrounding organization, according to the saying that “no project is an island” (Engwall, 2003). To a larger extent than in everyday operations, project members come from different departments and/or organizations (with different organizational structures) and may join and also leave during the course of the project.

In recent project management research, projects are understood as temporary organizations with unique features that set them apart from permanent organizational forms (Müller et al., 2013; Palm & Lindahl, 2015). Although we agree with Palm and Lindahl’s (2015) claims, we would once again like to stress that we see this not as an opposition between projects and permanent organizational forms, but rather that projects, to a larger extent, exhibit these characteristics. Palm and Lindahl (2015, p. 829) describe five main dichotomies that differentiate the temporary form from the permanent form: “temporariness vs. permanence, uniqueness vs. repetition, heterogeneity/diversity vs. homogeneity, informal vs. formal coordination, and ambiguous hierarchies vs. clear lines of command.” These five dichotomies highlight the potential reasons why project management ethics is important to study in addition to business ethics. We argue that these five concepts (Palm & Lindahl, 2015) can affect ethics in the following ways:

Temporariness indicates that a project is limited in time, which in turn can have an effect on ethics, introducing even more time pressure than in the permanent organization.

Uniqueness indicates that, to a greater extent, new situations might arise for which there are no clear rules or standards that can be followed.

Heterogeneity/diversity points to the number of different stakeholders involved in the project, which can also result in value differences or even value conflicts between stakeholders, which in turn could aggravate ethical issues.

Informal coordination within the project and ambiguous hierarchies indicate that the relationships between the different stakeholders of a project are not always clearly defined, which also puts more emphasis on the relevance of soft skills, for example, ethics judgment.

Since 1998, there has been an ethical code to help the project manager deal with ethical issues: the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. The code describes what is expected of project managers and their fellow practitioners in the global project management community (Project Management Institute, 2018; Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2014). In the introduction to the Code, it is stated that

“The purpose of this Code is to instill confidence in the project management profession and to help an individual become a better practitioner. We do this by establishing a profession-wide understanding of appropriate behavior” (Project Management Institute, 2018, p. 1).

Additionally, the International Project Management Association (IPMA) and the Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards (GAPPS) have developed codes of ethics (Bredillet, 2014; Bredillet et al., 2014). The development of codes of conduct is a central component of how ethics has been dealt with in the project management profession. This is not surprising. Typically, a fundamental part of building a profession is to uphold a code of honor, some values that distinguish this profession from other professions (Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2014). The ethics work done by professional organizations, most often represented by a code of ethics, should therefore be seen as a part of building a project management profession, similar to doctors, nurses, lawyers, engineers, managers, and leaders (Caldwell et al., 2015; Hackett & Wang, 2012).

Some limitations might exist in the existing codes of conduct. For example, it has been suggested that the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct provides a U.S. cultural view of what is ethical (Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2014). Furthermore, Bredillet (2014) argues that the codes are built upon the ethical theories of consequentialism and deontology, and thereby overlook inspiration from virtue ethics. Furthermore, the focus on the code of ethics might imply that ethics is a matter of following the code, in other words, following the rules of the profession. This is the reason we hold that virtue ethics could be an important complement to project management ethics.

What has been argued in this section is that project work differs from regular work in business, which also makes it necessary to explicitly discuss project management ethics. Also, recently the project manager is increasingly seen as a professional, which puts increased attention on ethics. However, as Bredillet (2014) argues, some codes are mostly built upon deontology and utilitarianism. So, how could virtue ethics be relevant for project managers?

Virtue Ethics in Project Management

The most advanced research in project management and virtue ethics is the work by Bredillet et al. (2014) and Bredillet (2014), who were inspired by virtue ethics in their discussion about what it means to be a competent project manager. Their definition of a competent project manager is the one who “possesses some attributes to fulfill her/his role; and will demonstrate a certain level of performance” (Bredillet et al., 2014, p. 255). The attributes and performance standards are based on those defined by IPMA, GAPPS, and IPM. Bredillet (2014) argues, however, that the codes do not take virtue ethics into account; rather, they are grounded in the theories of deontology and consequentialism and therefore overlook the personal dimension of project managers (Bredillet et al., 2014; Wang, Cheney, & Roper, 2015). Bredillet et al. (2014) continue to argue that there seems to be a shortcoming in the deontological question (what is the right action?) and the consequentialist one (what is the good outcome?)—in other words, the means and the ends of project management. The Aristotelian virtue ethics framework is seen to go beyond the division into duties and consequences, and it is argued to be particularly well-suited to work as a foundation for the project management code of ethics (Bredillet et al., 2014; Caldwell et al., 2015; Hackett & Wang, 2012; Wang et al., 2015).

A good project manager, drawing on Aristotle, is described by Bredillet et al. (2014) as follows:

“Thus calling a PM “good” is to make a factual statement about what an acknowledged “good” PM does (“means”), and not referring to a list of attributes he/she should meet. A concept such as “good” is not an abstract entity or category in a classification system, but is embedded in the activity, particular context and situation” (Bredillet et al., 2014, p. 262).

At this point, we can reflect on what we wrote earlier in our presentation on virtue ethics and state that virtue ethics does not give any clear recommendation about how to act in a specific situation; rather, it provides us with a framework in which to evaluate the goodness of the project manager. Bredillet et al.’s statement (2014) should be interpreted in this light.

Bredillet (2014) and others argue that virtue ethics is the missing link between knowing what is right and good and doing what is right and good (Bredillet, 2014; Caldwell et al., 2015; Hackett & Wang, 2012; Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2014). Virtuous managers are also believed to possess character traits that are not only effective in the workplace but also worth emulating on an individual level (Caldwell et al., 2015). Other researchers (Kvalnes, 2014; Müller et al., 2013) also point to the importance of virtues—especially trust and honesty—to minimize the ethical vulnerability in projects.

Bredillet (2014), Bredillet et al. (2014), and Caldwell et al. (2015) also highlight that the fundamental aim of virtue ethics is striving for human flourishing, referred to as eudaimonia. Striving for eudaimonia goes beyond the codes of conduct, if they are seen as mere rules to be followed. We see this as the tension between maximalistic and minimalistic ethics. As stated in the introduction, to define maximalistic and minimalistic ethics, we follow Philipson (2004), the Swedish business ethicist. Philipson explains minimalistic ethics as follows: “Ethics can be a description of a way to avoid doing wrong, in other words how not to act incorrectly” (Philipson, 2004, p. 88). It is about doing (or not doing) acts because you have to, but the actions are not necessarily voluntary. In an organization, one often tries to create and spread a minimalistic ethic, a set of particular obligations (Solomon, 1992, 2004) to create a moral baseline. This could, for example, be represented in a code of ethics. If all organizational members follow these ethics, the organization could avoid problems and/or scandals (Philipson, 2004). On the receiving side, organizational members think that if they just follow the code, they are not doing anything wrong. This has been argued to be the dominant way in which ethics is constructed in a business setting (Lennerfors, 2013).

The other form is maximalistic ethics (Philipson, 2004), which is more an affirmative ethic in which the actors become role models rather than just performing their roles. These acts cannot be enforced by the organization, like the minimalistic ones, but could be promoted. Maximalistic ethics is based on a person’s will to voluntarily do good and stretch him or herself above and beyond what is prescribed by the organization. The distinction between maximalistic ethics and minimalistic ethics could be stated as the difference between actively desiring to do good rather than reactively avoiding to do bad.

In the discussion above, virtue ethics is about striving for eudaimonia, not about adhering to a set of rules. It seems clear that it is within the maximalistic ethics that we can understand the role of virtue ethics. That virtue ethics is a maximalistic ethic might sound odd, since Aristotle’s view was that virtues were the middle ground between two extremes, for example, courage is the middle ground between cowardice and rashness (Aristotle, 1925). However, maximalistic ethics should not be seen as a maximizing, extreme, exaggerated ethics, but rather as an ethical practice that strives for exemplary conduct above and beyond what is dictated by laws and rules.

Maximalistic and minimalistic forms of ethics coexist. For example, MacIntyre (2007) argued that there is a need for a coexistence of rules and virtues, where rules are used to avoid evil and potentially correct individuals who break the minimal ethical standards, whereas virtues are aimed at flourishing.

We have invoked the distinction between maximalistic and minimalistic ethics, rather than more well-known distinctions such as those between proscriptive and prescriptive morality (Janoff-Bulman, Sheikh, & Hepp, 2009). Proscriptive morality involves inhibiting bad behaviors to avoid negative outcomes, whereas prescriptive morality involves activating good behaviors to approach positive outcomes. Noval and Stahl (2015) state that most business ethics research has focused on the decision-making processes that lead to or prevent proscriptive morality. Recently, however, there has been a wider call to include prescriptive behavior in business ethics research. Although we very much agree with the mentioned distinction, we maintain that the distinction between minimalistic and maximalistic is more productive in this setting. The minimalistic dimension is similar to the proscriptive dimension; however, the maximalistic dimension goes beyond prescriptive morality. Rather than the focus on activating good behaviors in prescriptive morality, the maximalistic dimension concerns striving for exemplary conduct. Our view is that this goes further; sets the ideals higher; and invites individuals to exemplary conduct, which is beyond what is encompassed by prescriptive morality. Thus, in our view, it resonates better with the overall aim for the good life, flourishing, and eudaimonia in virtue ethics.

In this section, we have argued that virtue ethics is invoked in project management as a way to understand ethics in project management in a way that differs from the ethical theories of deontology and utilitarianism. Also, given that virtue ethics seems to be a maximalistic ethic in the earlier research on project management ethics, our empirical study will explore whether concepts from virtue ethics are used in a maximalistic way by respondents.

Methodology

Although several researchers have investigated the role of ethics in project management (Bredillet, 2014; Bredillet et al., 2014; Crevani & Lennerfors, 2009; Helgadóttir, 2007; Loo, 2001; Müller et al., 2013; Walker & Lloyd-Walker, 2014), we maintain that Loo’s (2001) contribution remains a seminal work in this field because of its empirical scope and his development of productive and interesting vignettes. For our purpose, we decided to emulate the methods employed by Loo using a general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative data. Responses to three dilemmas, the same as in Loo’s (2001) vignettes, were collected in 2011 and 2015, which include 88 responses from project management students (collected at a Swedish university in 2011) and 31 responses from project management practitioners (collected from project managers based in Sweden in 2015). The students’ responses were collected in class and all the students wanted to participate. The answers from the project managers were provided via email; the sample of the latter included eight project managers conveniently selected from the authors’ network. An additional 23 were found by asking managers of project management offices ([PMOs] and other organizations working with projects) if their organizations wanted to participate. All the responses will serve as the basis for the analysis in this article.

The respondents were asked two sets of questions for each vignette:

What do you think about the action of the project manager? Did the project manager do the right or wrong thing? Why? (Describe with as many details and explanations as possible.)

How would you act if you were in the same situation as the project manager? Why? (Describe with as many details and explanations as possible.)

Although we as researchers are well aware that there are no obvious right or wrong ways to act in each situation, we deemed it important to compel the students to take a stand and then explain why, rather than only abstractly discussing the pros and cons of the project manager’s choice. It is also important to state that we did not choose respondents who, from the outset, said that they use virtue ethics; rather, we asked them about ethics to see if they would naturally respond using concepts related to virtues.

With this research design, we are able to document the respondents’ answers about how they perceive the action of the project manager and how they would act in the same situation. We cannot, however, be sure that their moral reasoning is identical in how they formulate their answers. Similar to other research methodologies, biases of various kinds (for example, social desirability bias; Randall & Fernandes, 1991) can appear when respondents formulate answers. However, we did not encourage the students to write about virtues, nor had they studied virtue ethics before answering the questionnaire. If respondents explicitly write about virtues without being in any way encouraged to do so, we hold that this is an indication that they do draw on virtues, perhaps not exclusively, but as one important source with which to take a moral stand in a dilemma. Similarly, if they write about virtues functioning in a minimalistic or maximalistic way, we can plausibly draw the conclusion that this is indeed how they use the virtues, at least the specific virtue(s) mobilized for dealing with a specific dilemma. Thus, although the research design makes us unable to conclude with certainty exactly how the moral reasoning of the respondent unfolds (which is shared with other empirical approaches), we maintain that there is no reasonable bias that would cause a respondent to hide decision-making processes based on, for example, deontology or consequentialism beneath a language of virtues. Indeed, turning the issue around, if there is a social desirability bias to explain behavior by means of concepts related to virtues, this is also a strong indication that virtues are relevant in project management practice. Even if virtues are prevalent in the answers, however, one could argue that there is still no guarantee that the respondents see virtues as part of a system of virtue ethics, as represented in the academic discipline of virtue ethics. Virtues are often present in folklore, fables, and fiction, in which the theoretical connection between virtues and processually constructed eudaimonia is absent. Although we cannot prove this theoretical connection between virtues and the good life through our empirical study, we still maintain that we can indicate the prevalence of virtues—personal characteristics—rather than an evaluation of outcomes (consequentialism) and the nature of the action (deontology) as part of an ethical decision-making process. This is undoubtedly an aspect that is fundamental in both everyday morality referring to the virtues and the academic discipline of virtue ethics.

The Vignettes

Vignette A

“During the planning phase for a multi-year project, a project manager identified a highly qualified senior systems analyst and prepared to make an attractive job offer for this senior position. However, the Human Resources Department intervened stating that the candidate was not a member of one of the company’s targeted groups under their employment equity program. The project manager was instructed to hire a systems analyst who fell into one of the targeted groups. The project manager again reviewed all the job applications and identified only two applicants who were members of the company’s targeted groups for employment. One applicant had just graduated from university and had no work experience for this senior position, whereas the other applicant had almost 10 years of relevant experience but mediocre performance ratings and references. The project manager approached the HR Department stating that neither of these applicants was qualified for the job and that the original candidate should be offered the position. To the manager’s dismay, the HR Department insisted that one of the two applicants from the targeted groups be offered the position and receive the same attractive offer that was proposed for the original candidate. The project manager reluctantly complied and made the attractive offer to one of the other applicants who gladly accepted.”

Vignette B

“About half way through a major project, a project manager becomes anxious about the schedule because the project has been falling behind schedule for some time and a formal project review with the client is set for four weeks from today. The project manager discusses the situation with several senior members of the project team and there is much heated discussion. At the end of the meeting, the manager decides not to mention the schedule problem to the client or to senior management in the hope that the project might get back on schedule by the time the project review is held in four weeks.”

Vignette C

“The manager of a large international project has just completed the final presentation to the client and signed-off the contract for the final payment. Both groups, the project team, and the group from the client’s company head to the dining room for a formal luncheon celebrating the successful project completion. After an enjoyable lunch, the client takes the project manager aside for a few private words. The project manager is disturbed to hear the client allude to an expectation for a ‘cash gift’ for having ‘facilitated’ this project and to some future contract possibility if they continue with such a good relationship. The project manager tactfully avoids responding by saying that another appointment is pressing and that they could get together again in a couple of days. The next day, the project manager calls the vice president at the head office to discuss this situation because it sounds like a demand for a kickback. Surprisingly, the VP doesn’t want to get involved and cuts the conversation short by telling the project manager that this is an important client and to ‘handle it.’ The project manager then calls the client to arrange to meet for lunch the next day in order to hand over several thousands of dollars in cash from the balance in the project account.”

We will now summarize the responses as we attempt to convert Loo’s (2001) approach into a qualitative study. These answers are coded and aggregated into categories. Although our purpose is qualitative, we have included some simple quantitative measures to get a fuller understanding of the respondents.

Findings and Analysis

In our empirical investigation, we point out the prevalence of our respondents’ discussion of the three dilemmas using concepts relating to virtue ethics—for example, reference to virtues such as honesty or discussions about the personal characteristics of the project manager. We also discuss whether virtues are invoked in maximalistic or minimalistic ways. Given that we have two different groups of respondents—students and practitioners—we also discuss the differences and similarities between the two groups.

Vignette A

In the first dilemma, the respondents were presented with a situation in which a project manager tried to hire a competent person but was asked by the Human Resources (HR) department to look for a candidate within the company’s targeted groups under the company’s equity program. The project manager did this and came up with two candidates, but thought that neither of them was as qualified as the person who was first identified. However, the HR department insisted that either of the candidates targeted by the company’s equity program should be offered what was proposed for the original candidate. The project manager reluctantly complied.

There are several ways of looking at this vignette. The project manager identified a person who was competent and whom she trusted. However, to ensure that people are employed in a fair and equitable way, the HR department intervened. The HR department has a broader view of employment issues, and argued that another person, perhaps of a different gender, age, or race, should be employed. Such policies can sometimes be viewed as restrictive from the point of view of the project manager, but are also a safeguard against homosociality and other forms of exclusion of underrepresented groups. The project manager, simply put, would probably want a person who is competent and with whom it is easy to work. Also, the project manager, compared with the HR department, is part of an operative structure of the organization rather than a supportive, staff structure, which means that the ethics of the project manager are likely to be more instrumental and results oriented.

If we first turn to the students, we see that the majority (75% of the population) disagreed with the project manager’s action. All of these respondents took the project manager’s perspective and argued that the right course of action would have been to employ the most skilled person for the job. Since it is obvious from the vignette that the project manager complied, but reluctantly, we know that the project manager did not do what she believed was right. This, rather than anything else, was a central critique from this part of the student population. For example, this answer is representative of this critique: “The project manager should have asserted herself more and hired the one she wanted for the job.” Another representative answer points out the fact that the project manager is responsible for the execution of the project and implicitly also for its end result. This autonomy and personal responsibility also implied that the project manager should assert herself more: “It is the project manager who is leading the project and should probably hire the personnel she thought was the most adequate.” Reading these responses from the perspective of virtue ethics shows first of all that concepts related to virtue ethics; in other words, direct references to virtues such as courage, integrity on the one hand and vices like weakness of will on the other, are used by the students to form a view of how the project manager should have acted in the particular situation. The most relevant vice that is brought up is weakness of will, which is a vice that has been discussed in philosophy at least since Plato’s Protagoras (Plato, 1956). The simplest definition of it is to not do what one knows is right. This is the fundamental standpoint for the students’ critique, and this also implies that the standard that the students use for judgment is the virtue that one should act in accordance with one’s beliefs.

A smaller part of the student population (15%) was less critical and wrote that they would have done the same thing as the project manager under the circumstances. Rather than emphasizing the autonomy and personal responsibility of the project manager, they understood the complexity of the situation and realized that sometimes it is difficult for various stakeholders to agree upon a course of action. However, these students appreciated the way that the project manager acted, which expressed a strong character. Rather than directly complying, the students appreciated the fact that the project manager fought for her cause.

“I think the project manager made the right choice by trying to employ the person she thought was the right one for the job.”

In this group of the student population, where we argue that the students are more perceptive of the complexity of the situation, what is discussed is not only the choice made by the project manager—namely to accept the decision of the HR department—but also the way in which this choice is made. The fact that the project manager opposes the HR department, which tries to push her will even though it is against corporate policy, is appreciated by the respondents in this group. This shows that the project manager is strong and does not just accept the HR department’s decision. On the other hand, although the project manager resists, she knows her limits and does not escalate the fight so as to potentially risk losing her reputation, or even her job, in the organization. The project manager’s course of action could therefore be argued to both represent a strong character but also the virtue of moderation, not pushing it too far. Thus, such judgments made by the students most likely stem from the basis of appreciating the virtues of strength, fortitude, and moderation.

Most of the practitioners (68%) saw both positive and negative aspects in the project manager’s behavior. Similar to the students, the practitioners argued that the project manager should “have fought more” and thus showed a weakness of will. The practitioners have, of course, more experience in running a project than students, and some stressed the negative consequences for the project as a reason for their assessment:

“If the project manager has the full responsibilities to handle the project, her behavior is absolutely wrong since she must carry the responsibility for a non-competent project member, which often amounts to more work and higher costs.”

“Initially the project manager did the right thing….unfortunately she later on said yes to hire a person that she did not believe in……both in a quality perspective and a time perspective it was a bad choice….”

One of the practitioners above argued that one should have stopped the whole recruitment process:

“She should not have hired any of them…[one should have] started the process from the beginning…”

Whether starting the recruitment from the beginning is a plausible option depends on the situation, but it is at least obvious that practicing project managers have greater insights into the ways in which one could get ones will through. Similar to the students, there were also those who based their decision on moderation, stating that you should pick your fights.

“I have been in the same situation, and it is often so that the project manager seldom can choose the members….you must pick your fights, not take them all….made the right decision”

The summarizing assessment is therefore that the practitioners’ responses were encompassing the complexities of the situation to a larger extent than the students, avoiding assessing the project manager’s action as either right or wrong. Also, practicing project managers were more willing to accept the HR department’s policy about affirmative action, whereas the students were more interested in achieving the project goals. This might indicate that the students who have not yet been exposed to the realities of project management are more focused on the goal and view other ethical concerns as obstacles to the implementation of the project. However, both groups were agreeing upon the bases of their assessment. To summarize what has already been explained earlier, we see the mobilization of virtues such as courage and fortitude, against the vice of weakness of will. While almost all agree that weakness of will should be fought, some take a more active and some a more moderate path. The virtue of moderation is therefore intervening in the reasoning of the respondents. What could be tentatively learned is that the responses regarding standing up for yourself and demonstrating integrity, fortitude, courage, and moderation seem to be applicable regardless of whether instrumentalism or affirmative action is promoted. The development of character can therefore be seen as something that supports ethical action, regardless of the course of action.

In contrast to this virtue-based ethics, 25% of the students and 10% of the practitioners also appealed to rule-following and duties derived from ones organizational role, stating that “rules/policies/orders/directives that I have to follow—it is my duty” and “…as an employee you should obey an order from a boss.” These responses described a pure rule-following mentality, which does not indicate deontology or consequentialism, but rather stresses the project manager’s role in the chain of command. In these answers, there is a minimalistic ethic—there is no wrongdoing when I follow an organizational rule.

Vignette B

The second vignette is about a project manager who feels that her project is falling behind schedule and a formal project review is coming up in four weeks. There is much heated discussion within the project team but the project manager decides not to mention any problems to either senior management within the company or the clients. Rather, the project manager hopes that the project might be back on schedule by the time of the review.

Similar to the first vignette, the problem is multifaceted. On the one hand, one could argue that the project manager should be truthful and tell all relevant stakeholders about the delay. On the other hand, in project management, as well as in other aspects of life, self-presentation is also important. Too much expressed anxiety could lead to people losing faith in a particular person, particularly in a project management setting. There are several unknowns in this vignette, for example, what the problems are and if they could be solved within the time frame of four weeks. To know more about the situation would help us to assess whether the project manager’s hope is reasonable or not.

Let us start by analyzing the students’ responses. Not surprisingly, given the description of the vignette, the virtue of truthfulness was a central concern for the students. Eighty-seven percent of the students were critical of the way the project manager handled the situation. The following quote is representative:

“I think the project manager did the wrong thing not to tell. It is always the best thing to be honest.….I would have been honest and told the truth and then tried to solve the situation afterward.”

There were a large number of statements in the students’ accounts, which used words such as “frankness,” “honesty,” and “openness.” Some students even spoke about “cowardliness,” in that the project manager did not dare to speak about the problems in the project.

On the other hand, there were few students who argued that the project manager was right in not telling about the problems in order to let sleeping dogs lie, as the saying goes. Two quotes are representative:

“I think the project manager did the right thing; it seems like the team could solve the problem without telling the customer”

“…if you can see that there was a chance to fix the problems, then there is no need to frighten the customer unnecessarily”

In the second quote, the respondent discusses the possibility of fixing the problems. If it is impossible, then one should definitely tell the customers and senior management, whereas if one could reasonably fix them within four weeks, she should not scare the customer. Although the ethical reasoning is not explicit in the quotes, we argue that one could appear as a more professional project manager if one does not run into trouble. Talking about problems could therefore indicate that the project manager is not fully competent. It is therefore not a question about lying or not, but rather to uphold the competence and skills of the project manager. Furthermore, the use of “frighten” can indicate that if the perception of the project manager’s professional competence is compromised, this might lead to other problems during the project.

The responses of the practitioners are remarkably similar to those of the students. Similar to the students, most (87%) did not agree with the actions of the project manager, stressing the importance of honesty, openness, and clarity. They draw on personal experience to state that problems do not solve themselves—one needs to flag them.

“It is important to act and to be clear when problems arise and not believe that they solve themselves.”

Although most answers were similar, some practitioners emphasized the importance of the deadline.

“if the deadline is very important you may blow the whistle…….but sometimes there is space to not worry the customer unnecessarily….maintain a front that everything’s okay and reach the goal as planned. A difficult dilemma.”

In summary, in this dilemma, the students’ and practitioners’ responses were very similar; they both stressed the virtue of being a truthful person, and some even stated that it is cowardly to not tell the truth. It might be discussed whether honesty, openness, and truthfulness should be described as virtues. One might equally state that honesty is concerning a duty of telling the truth, which would be more related to deontology, or that honesty is good because the consequences are good, which would be a consequentialist argument. The very fact that the respondents framed the discussion about truth-telling as one of the personal characteristics of honesty is an indication that they refer more to the personal characteristic than a universal duty to tell the truth or that truth-telling is good because it leads to the best consequences.

However, this truthfulness stood in opposition to a perceived view of integrity and competence, which could possibly be jeopardized by admitting that one has run into trouble. We can see a value conflict between honesty and the ethical ideal of the project manager as a person who should be able to be strong, steadfast, and achieve results. There seems to be a contradiction, but can it be resolved? In another study (Crevani & Lennerfors, 2009), the importance of the virtues of independence, impartiality, and integrity for project managers was stressed. They represent quite individualistic, even masculine, virtues. However, if one would consider the notion of a competent project manager to not be independent, impartial, and express integrity, but rather to see the competent project manager as one who also can ask for help, know his or her limits, be moderate, something often more described as feminine character traits (Crevani & Lennerfors, 2009), then the clash between the virtues would potentially not appear.

Vignette C

This vignette is about a project manager who receives a request for a kickback from a client in exchange for facilitation of the past project and also for the possibility of getting jobs in the future. The project manager avoids the situation by saying that he has another meeting, and alerts the senior manager at the head office of the potential kickback. The senior manager tells the project manager to handle it, saying that the client is important. The project manager then calls the client and hands over one thousand dollars in cash from the project account.

Although in this vignette we are seemingly dealing with a corrupt and illegal act, similar practices do occasionally happen in the business world under the guises of consultancy fees, facilitation, or potentially even donations to non-legitimate trusts. For the project manager, the situation is complicated. On the one hand, it is obvious that he wants to avoid paying the money, due to the perceived illegality and lack of ethics. On the other hand, he seems pushed by the senior manager to go about paying the kickback, to promote further business between the companies. Failing to pay the kickback could lead the project manager to not being trusted by senior management and might be punished in various overt or covert ways. The project manager could of course not only not pay the bribe, but also blow the whistle either internally or externally. If he pays the bribe, he would probably be embroiled in an investigation should there be any investigation against the company.

Most of the students (75%) criticized the project manager’s course of action. Most of them mention “illegality,” “amorality,” and “unethical behavior” as the basis for their critique; even though they also saw the value of customer relations, they argued that these should be done within the limits of law and ethical practice.

“I think the project manager did the wrong thing. To take or give bribes is immoral. I would have said no to bribes, but obviously try to keep the customer and relations as good as possible using legal and ethical rules.”

Some state that they would not be able to work in a place that condoned bribes: “I could not stand to work in a place where bribes were thought of” and “I would leave the project and quit the job.”

Although this critique is expected in light of the vignette, much of the students’ critique of the project manager stems from his apparent weakness of will, similar to the responses to vignette A. Fifty-eight percent of the students mentioned that the project manager should have been “strong” and “fought for his opinion.” All of the students, who described the actions as correct actions, justified their reasoning: “It is an order,” “I have to obey.” Another similar quote is:

“If the boss orders us to maintain a good relationship with the customer, then it is the project manager’s role to obey. He did the right thing.”

Turning now to the practitioners, of the 31 respondents, none agreed with what the project manager did. Again, similar to the responses to vignette A, the practitioners brought up a more nuanced way of seeing the dilemma, for example, pointing out the cultural dimension of gift-giving. In addition, they seem to be more aware of whistle-blowing, and some stated that an alternative course of action might have been to go to the very top of the organization, thus bypassing the vice president. Some believed, however, that blowing the whistle would not be acceptable in a Swedish context where consensus is the preferred way of settling disputes. Apart from these ways of reframing the issue, the answers are similar to those of the students. For example, a large group (33%) said that they would not continue working in the organization:

“It is not only about the unethical behavior demonstrated by the project manager, it is also that the company lacks distinct and clear business conduct guidelines. I would not work in that kind of organization.”

Also, many critiqued the project manager’s weakness of will, mentioning the importance of “fighting for your opinion,” “standing for my own values,” and “being courageous.”

Comparing the two groups of respondents, 75% of the students and 100% of the practitioners thought the project manager behaved inappropriately. In vignette C, compared with the other two vignettes, there are more references to rules, codes, and illegality than in the other vignettes. However, these references to rules and codes coexist with references to personal character and virtues. Virtues are thus invoked by the students and the project managers as a way to comply with rules, indicating that they are indeed a relevant part of minimalistic ethical decision making.

In summary, even though there are differences between practitioners and students as described earlier, the respondents explicitly mention virtues when describing how they assess the actions of others and also when they describe what they would have done in the same situation. The prevalence of virtue-related words is a strong indication, as argued in the methodology section, that virtue ethics plays a role for both students and practitioners, and given this wide prevalence, one might expect that it is also a relevant aspect of project management ethics in lived practice.

Relating the responses to the distinction between minimalistic and maximalistic ethics, there is no clear trend in our data; however, although virtue ethics in theory seems to be about striving for eudaimonia, many of the respondents did not go that far. Rather, they perceived the virtues to be a guard against wrongdoing—in other words, to support minimalistic ethics, especially in vignette C. This puts the minimalistic ethics of codes and rules into another light. MacIntyre (2007) explains how rules are part of what we call minimalistic ethics. The rules are what you really have to follow to live in a community. Virtues, on the other hand, indicate how maximalistic ethics is nurtured. In contrast to this, the findings of this study portray the minimalistic aspect of virtue ethics—in other words, that virtues can safeguard us from, for example, paying a bribe in a situation where rules are negotiable and pressure from senior management might induce unethical behavior. We propose, therefore, that virtues can support both minimalistic and maximalistic ethics.

Conclusion

In the theoretical review of this article, we showed that virtue ethics has recently been put forward as an important aspect of project management ethics. Our study takes this statement into practice and shows that students and practitioners, without being explicitly induced to write anything about virtues, naturally describe their assessment of ethical dilemmas and motivation for ethical action as stemming from their character, the promotion of virtues, and the avoidance of vices. In that sense, this article supports the research of Bredillet (2014), Bredillet et al. (2014), Caldwell et al. (2015), Kvalnes (2014), Müller et al. (2013), and Walker and Lloyd-Walker (2014), which demonstrates that virtue ethics is indeed prevalent when project management students and practitioners assess various ethical dilemmas. Such empirical prevalence, we argue, facilitates an implementation of virtue ethics. Project managers and students already use virtues, whether consciously or not, which makes them a fertile ground for both reflections upon the current use of virtues and the promotion of even more virtuous conduct.

We also empirically revisited an underlying assumption of virtue ethics: that it is a maximalistic rather than a minimalistic ethic. In our study, we agree that this can indeed be the case; however, in the empirical material, we have shown that virtue ethics can work as a way for project managers to not break rules, which also seems to be a requisite for minimalistic ethics. It appears that the relationship between rules and virtues is not as clear-cut as it might seem. To show that virtues are a way for project managers to not only cultivate maximalistic ethics but also remain within the rules of the game provides us with some new perspectives on how virtue ethics is enacted in the setting of project management. In future research, one might turn back to distinctions such as minimalistic and maximalistic ethics, as well as MacIntyre’s (2007) discussion about rules and virtues, to get a fuller understanding.

There are limitations to the study. This study is only a preliminary indication of the relevance of virtue ethics in the practice of project managers. It can be argued that the vignettes are abstracted from the practice and context of the respondent. Although this is correct, we believe that the vignettes are resolved by the respondents in their current practice and context. The repeated references to courage are most probably due to the fact that respondents are engaged in a practice of strengthening courage; still, we acknowledge this methodological limitation. Although the study falls short of showing what role virtue ethics plays in the lived experience of practitioners, we have still gained a clear indication that in the responses about project management ethics, virtue ethics play a role. We have also established on quite a broad scale (over 100 respondents) that this is the case. Future studies explicitly focusing on virtue ethics could complement this broad approach by studying in-depth how a project manager deals with situations with an ethical component by means of virtues, and how he or she develops character. We very much would welcome such studies.

A possible objection to virtue ethics in general is that all project managers have different upbringings and friends, and have grown up in different cultural contexts, which might have implications on using virtue ethics in project management. For example, in this study, we focused on students and project managers in Sweden. The findings in this study are thus not directly generalizable to all project managers. It is likely that in different cultures, concepts related to virtue ethics will be used in different ways. However, virtue ethics as such has been viewed as an ethical theory relevant in a global context, and many Asian ethical frameworks, including Buddhism and Confucianism, have been compared with Aristotelian virtue ethics (Hackett & Wang, 2012). Although it is the case that the use of virtue ethics is highly dependent on a person’s background, we believe that every project manager entering an organization should not be viewed as having an unchanging character, but rather be conceived as being ready to embark on a journey toward practicing the virtues. In other words, it is an obvious fact that we are all different, but we can all strive to achieve virtues and good character traits in the context of project management practice.

Given the fact that virtue ethics seems to be prevalent among project managers and project management students, it is reasonable to assume that virtue ethics could be promoted further than currently done. Still, there is a strong focus on codes of conduct when discussing project management ethics (Bredillet et al., 2014), but the virtue ethics tradition can do much more than promote a new code of ethics. The very role that virtue ethics can play is beyond the scope of this article, but some preliminary indications will be sketched as inspiration for further research.

First of all, by introducing a discussion about virtue ethics, project managers can remember that ethics concern the totality of one’s life and that the way toward being a virtuous project manager is to do good actions, create good habits, and thereby processually construct a virtuous character. Given our distinction between minimalistic ethics and maximalistic ethics, rules and to some extent virtues can help project managers comply with the minimum requirements of ethics. By focusing on striving for exemplary ethical behavior, the project manager can be reminded that virtue ethics is also about building an exemplary character, and becoming a role model. It is obvious that this is a different attitude from the ethics of rule-following.

The processual construction of a virtuous project manager cannot be accomplished through a code of conduct; rather, ethics needs to be practiced in real situations because good habits contribute to creating a good character and, likewise, the avoidance of bad habits. As a complement, ethics training is important. This training should not be aimed only at understanding the code of ethics, but should include virtues as a part of their project management practice. This is, as has been stated, a gradual process. To support such a process, there could be a virtue ethics network both in the workplace and across workplaces. For example, in a professional organization, where each project manager can meet other project managers and discuss how they are practicing ethics, and also discuss whether ethics is perceived minimalistically or maximalistically. Potentially, role models—virtuous project managers—could be invited to these discussions to share their ideas. This practice of action and discussion will in turn further an understanding of virtue ethics, which brings us back to the first step of how to inculcate virtues. Engaging in practice may improve understanding, which might lead to improvements in practice.

In other words, we believe that it is crucial, similar to Bredillet (2014), to complement the rule-following, almost legalistic ethics in project management, with a discussion about the virtues. In this article, we have shown that traces of virtue ethics are already in place in the responses of project managers and project management students, and therefore we argue that the ground is fertile for promoting virtue ethics for project managers. Apart from this change in mindset from rules to virtues, in the final part of this article, we provided some preliminary indications as to how virtue ethics can be used in ethics training. We hope that practicing project managers will find the ideas relevant to reforming ethics training for project managers. We also hope that an engagement with virtue ethics might strengthen the ethical conduct of project managers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adams

R. M.

(2006). A theory of virtue. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Anscombe

G. E. M.

(1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33(124), 1–19. doi:10.1017/S0031819100037943

Aristotle. (1925). Nicomachean ethics ( Ross

W. D.

, Trans.). Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

Bredillet

(2014). Ethics in project management: Some Aristotelian insights. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7(4), 548–565. doi:10.1108/IJMPB-08-2013-0041

Bredillet

Tywoniak

Dwivedula

(2014). What is a good project manager? An Aristotelian perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 254–266. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.001

Caldwell

Hasan

Smith

(2015). Virtuous leadership—insights for the 21st century. Journal of Management Development, 34(9), 1181–1200. doi:10.1108/JMD-11-2014-0148

Crevani

Lennerfors

T. S.

(2009). Pull yourselves together, guys! A gendered critique of project managers’ ethics in a public sector context. Ephemera, 9(2), 113–130.

de George

(2005). A history of business ethics. Retrieved from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/a-history-of-business-ethics/

Doris

J. M.

(1998). Persons, situations and virtue ethics. Noûs, 32(4), 504–530.

10.

Doris

J. M.

(2002). Lack of character: Personality and moral behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Engwall

(2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy, 32(5), 789–808. doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00088-4

12.

Fleeson

Jayawickreme

(2017). Challenging Doris’ attack on aggregation: Why we are not left “completely in the dark” about global virtues. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20(3), 519–536.

13.

Hackett

R. D.

Wang

(2012). Virtues and leadership: An integrating conceptual framework founded in Aristotelian and Confucian perspectives on virtues. Management Decision, 50(5), 868–899. doi:10.1108/00251741211227564

14.

Harman

(1999). Moral philosophy meets social psychology: Virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution error. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series), 119, 316–331.

15.

Helgadóttir

(2007). The ethical dimension of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 26(7), 743–748. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.11.002

16.

Hursthouse

(1999). On virtue ethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

17.

Janoff-Bulman

Sheikh

Hepp

(2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 521–537. doi.org/10.1037/a0013779

18.

Jayawickreme

Meindl

Helzer

E. G.

Furr

Fleeson

(2014). Virtuous states and virtuous traits: How the empirical evidence regarding the existence of broad traits saves virtue ethics from the situationist critique. Theory and Research in Education, 12(3), 283–308.

19.

Kvalnes

Ø.

(2014). Honesty in projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7(4), 590–600. doi:10.1108/IJMPB-07-2013-0027

20.

Lennerfors

T. T.

(2013). Beneath good and evil? Business Ethics: A European Review, 22(4), 380–392. doi:10.1111/beer.12030

21.

Loo

(2001). Tackling ethical dilemmas in project management using vignettes. International Journal of Project Management, 20(7), 489–495. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00056-4

22.

Lorsch

J. W.

(2009). Regaining lost relevance. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(2), 108–117. doi:10.1177/1056492607313088

23.

MacIntyre

(2007). After virtue: A study in moral theory (3rd ed.). London, England: Bloomsbury.

24.

Müller

Andersen

E. S.

Kvalnes

Ø.

Shao

Sankran

Turner

… Gudergan

(2013). The interrelationship of governance, trust, and ethics in temporary organizations. Project Management Journal, 44(4), 26–44. doi:10.1002/pmj.21350

25.

Noval

Stahl

(2015). Accounting for proscriptive and prescriptive morality in the workplace: The double-edged sword effect of mood on managerial ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 589–602. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2767-1

26.

Palm

Lindahl

(2015). A project as a workplace: Observations from project managers in four R & D and project-intensive companies. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 828–838. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.10.002

27.

Philipson

(2004). Etik och företagskultur [Ethics and corporate culture]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

28.

Plato. (1956). Protagoras. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

29.

Project Management Institute (PMI). (2018). Project Management Institute code of ethics and professional conduct. Retrieved from https://www.pmi.org/about/ethics/code

30.

Rachels

(2015). The elements of moral philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

31.

Randall

Fernandez

(1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(11), 805–817.

32.

Solomon

(2004). Aristotle, ethics and business organizations. Organization Studies, 25(6), 1021–1043. doi:10.1177/0170840604042409

33.

Solomon

(1992). Corporate roles, personal virtues: An Aristotelian approach to business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(3), 317–339. doi:10.2307/3857536

34.

Tännsjö

(2013). Understanding ethics. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

35.

Walker

Lloyd-Walker

(2014). Client-side project management capabilities: Dealing with ethical dilemmas. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7(4), 566–589. doi:10.1108/IJMPB-08-2013-0036

36.

Wang

Cheney

Roper

(2015). Virtue ethics and the practice—institution schema: An ethical case of excellent business practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(1), 67–77. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2579-3