It is now time to review a case study that focuses on ethical behavior.
Access the Open APM’s ethics case study resource provided below to read a scenario concerning ethics in projects.
Can you pinpoint a few instances of professional conduct highlighted in this scenario? Reflect on the skills employed to integrate ethical considerations into the decisions made by the individuals involved. Can you recognize them?
Share your responses in the discussion section below.
After posting your comment, proceed to the next step, where you will find some potential answers provided by APM for these questions.
© The Open University
Downloads
The key professional conduct issues are dishonesty in reporting the stakeholder engagement as complete, and neglecting the duty of care to the on-ground workers whose feedback was skipped. John and Karen used critical thinking to spot the flawed report and showed courage plus ethical decision-making to challenge it, protecting long-term integrity over short-term delivery.
John demonstrated professionalism by questioning an engagement process that did not follow the agreed plan.
Karen showed integrity by identifying concerns about a report that seemed too perfect.
Despite being on probation, she was willing to raise ethical concerns.
John listened to her concerns and encouraged honest discussion.
Together, they assessed the risks of different courses of action.
They prioritized the firm’s reputation and stakeholder interests.
They sought independent verification rather than making assumptions.
Key ethical skills included integrity, critical thinking, communication, accountability, and professional courage.
These actions helped ensure accurate project outcomes and ethical decision-making.
Your article helped me a lot, is there any more related content? Thanks!
In reviewing the file named “APM_ethics_case_study_1-3.pdf”, two distinct issues of professional conduct emerge that directly threaten the APM ethical pillars. First, William compromises transparency and honesty by bypassing interactive forums to deliver a suspiciously flawless “green light” report from an external firm simply to clear the way for the next stage of the project. Second, Karen faces a conflict of interest, where her personal vulnerability as a new employee on probation initially pressures her to remain silent about a major project flaw to avoid social discomfort or professional friction with John.
Turning this ethical crisis around required a deliberate deployment of interpersonal and leadership skills. John successfully creates psychological safety by actively listening to Karen’s coffee-machine joke and explicitly asking for her honest opinion, allowing her to speak truth to power. Together, they apply critical thinking and objectivity by mapping out the long-term risks of using faulty data versus challenging the client, effectively removing emotion from the dilemma. Furthermore, Karen uses strategic vision to look at the bigger picture, reminding John that the consultancy’s long-term reputation across all clients is worth protecting. Finally, rather than settling for a stalemate or pointing fingers, Karen employs creative problem-solving by researching a global partner firm to independently audit the local researchers, which ultimately exposes the material hurdles and guides the project to an authentic, successful delivery.
They put flexibility and collaboration (healthy communication) into work to achieve their goal. John didn’t hold on to his professionalism, Karen didn’t not hold her opinion as new staff they understand what integrity and accountability is all about
Professional Conduct Issues
William undermined the agreed engagement process by substituting genuine stakeholder forums with a convenient survey that produced unrealistically positive results, prioritising project progression over honest reporting. Karen initially considered staying silent about her concerns to protect her probationary position, placing personal interests above her professional duty.
Ethical Skills That Made the Difference
Karen’s critical thinking flagged that the results were implausibly clean, and her professional courage led her to raise this with John despite the personal risk. Together they used risk assessment to weigh the consequences of both challenging and accepting the report. Karen then reframed the issue around the firm’s wider reputation, driving her to find a practical solution by sourcing an independent global firm to review the work. Throughout, both acted collaboratively, sharing accountability rather than acting alone — demonstrating that resolving ethical dilemmas often requires courage and competence working together.
The xyz firm actually have followed the cultural belief of the firm the broke out firm, they carried everyone along and even communicated the newly employed staff in ordered teacher their culture, there i will say there is consistency with their organizational procedures
The key professional conduct issues are dishonesty in reporting the stakeholder engagement as complete, and neglecting the duty of care to the on-ground workers whose feedback was skipped. John and Karen used critical thinking to spot the flawed report and showed courage plus ethical decision-making to challenge it, protecting long-term integrity over short-term delivery.