Certified - Project Management Professional (PMP)

Fairness and honesty are the last two values in PMI’s Code of Ethics, and together they act as the balancing pair to responsibility and respect. Fairness means decisions are made through impartial processes, with transparent criteria, and with equal opportunity for those affected. It is not about pleasing everyone, but about ensuring that criteria are applied consistently and without hidden agendas. Honesty means communicating truthfully, accurately, and without deceptive omissions. It means you do not shade the truth to look better, omit inconvenient facts, or paint a picture you cannot back up with evidence. These two values reduce rework, prevent disputes, and shield your project from audit findings that can derail credibility long after delivery.
Honesty starts with status reporting. On a healthy project, it may be easy to tell good news, but the real test of honesty comes when things go wrong. PMI expects you to report variance promptly, showing both the impact and the options, not simply excuses. That means saying, “We are five days behind; here are two paths forward,” rather than, “We’ll try to make it up.” Honest reporting also requires you to separate facts, assumptions, and opinions. When you conflate them, stakeholders cannot tell what is certain and what is conjecture. Honesty protects them from making decisions on flawed information.
One of the most damaging lapses of honesty in project environments is what some call “green shifting.” This is the practice of presenting a dashboard or status report as “green” even though underlying issues are unresolved. Sometimes this is done out of optimism, sometimes out of fear of reprisal, but either way it undermines trust. Stakeholders who discover later that “green” projects were in trouble will stop believing status reports altogether. PMI expects you to resist this temptation, reporting honestly even when it creates uncomfortable conversations. Painting over problems delays solutions and compounds risk.
Fairness is about the processes you use to make decisions, not just the outcomes themselves. For example, if you are managing procurement, fairness means publishing evaluation criteria in advance and applying them consistently. It means avoiding “moving the goalposts” by changing standards midstream once results are known. Fairness also means documenting the deliberations and rationales for decisions, so that stakeholders and auditors can see that choices were made transparently. Involving the right stakeholders—and no more than the right stakeholders—is another dimension of fairness. Playing favorites or stacking a committee with allies violates both process and trust.
Imagine a vendor selection where you favor a firm because of past relationships, even though they scored lower on objective criteria. This is a fairness violation, even if you believe their experience makes them “better.” PMI is clear: published weighting and transparent rationale protect both you and the organization. Fairness does not mean you cannot consider experience or other soft factors, but it does mean you cannot change rules once bids are in. Consistency is the shield that protects projects from accusations of bias or corruption.
Conflicts of interest and gifts are common traps for fairness. PMI expects you to declare any gifts or benefits offered by vendors or stakeholders and to follow company policy strictly. This often means declining gifts beyond a nominal value or recording them in a formal log. It also means rejecting preferential treatment or inside information. If you cannot be impartial, the fair action is to recuse yourself. Declining involvement when you are conflicted is not weakness; it is fairness in action. It protects your reputation and the credibility of the process.
Consider an example where a vendor offers you tickets to a sporting event during a contract negotiation. Even if you believe you can remain objective, fairness demands disclosure and likely refusal. PMI does not test whether you “feel” biased, but whether you respect processes that protect objectivity. Recusal is not a mark of doubt—it is a mark of integrity. By stepping aside, you allow decisions to stand without suspicion. Fairness means caring as much about how decisions look to outsiders as how they feel to insiders.
Honesty also shows up in how you manage data integrity and evidence. PMI is explicit: no back-dating approvals, no “fixing” logs quietly, and no creating signatures after the fact to make things look cleaner. Approvals must be captured once, in the official system. Logs must be kept immutable, with corrections added as traceable amendments. Evidence must match reality. For example, if a test fails, honesty means recording the failure and showing the retest outcome, not discarding the failed record. Auditors, regulators, and stakeholders all expect traceability. When logs reflect reality, credibility grows.
Back-dating is tempting when paperwork lags behind reality, but it is a slippery slope. Once a log is altered, confidence in the entire record collapses. Honesty means you resist this temptation. Instead, you document the delay, capture the late approval with a note, and show the correction transparently. Stakeholders value accuracy more than the illusion of perfection. PMI wants you to understand that process integrity is built on the truth of records, not their cosmetic appearance. This discipline is what separates professional management from improvised firefighting.
Fairness and honesty reduce disputes by ensuring that everyone sees the same facts and follows the same rules. When stakeholders disagree, you can point to the published criteria, the signed approvals, and the transparent logs. When auditors review, they see clean chains of evidence rather than patched-over narratives. These values are not abstract—they save time, protect trust, and reduce risk. PMI’s exam stems often test whether you will take a shortcut under pressure or hold to fairness and honesty. The correct path is always to report truth, apply rules consistently, and ensure evidence matches reality.
By practicing these values daily, you strengthen your credibility as a leader. Teams come to believe that your dashboards are accurate, your processes impartial, and your records trustworthy. Sponsors learn they can act on your reports without second-guessing. Vendors see that they will be treated fairly, even if they do not win a bid. This credibility builds resilience, because when bad news inevitably comes, people believe it is genuine and not spun. Fairness and honesty make trust sustainable.
In the first half of this episode, we defined fairness and honesty, explored how they appear in reporting and procurement, and looked at conflicts, gifts, and evidence management. In each case, the PMI expectation was clear: do not hide, do not bend rules, and do not manipulate records. Transparency protects both people and outcomes. The second half of this episode will take these concepts further, working through scenario labs and tough calls that test your reflexes under pressure.
For more cyber related content and books, please check out cyber author dot me. Also, there are other prepcasts on Cybersecurity and more at Bare Metal Cyber dot com.
One of the most common tests of honesty comes when sponsors or executives apply pressure to soften bad news. Imagine a sponsor who asks you to downplay a risk in order to secure funding approval. The temptation is real: soften the language, present the project as less risky, and secure the money. But this is a violation of PMI’s expectation of honesty. Risks must be presented factually, with probabilities, ranges of impact, and potential mitigations clearly stated. The ethical action is to describe the risk accurately, show the mitigations you are pursuing, and document the decision. If the pressure persists, you escalate respectfully through policy channels.
The artifacts to update in such a situation include the risk register, which captures the risk factually with owners and triggers. You also update the decision log to record the conversation and the options presented. Finally, you ensure the communications plan reflects consistent, truthful messaging to stakeholders. Honesty here means telling the truth fast, even when it makes funding less certain. Protecting trust is more valuable than securing money on false pretenses. PMI wants you to recognize that long-term credibility always outweighs short-term expediency.
Fairness is tested most visibly in procurement scenarios. Consider a situation where your friend’s company bids for a contract. Their proposal has the strongest technical score but is higher in price than other vendors. What do you do? The fair action is to apply the published weighting and criteria consistently, document the rationale, and ensure that your personal connection is disclosed and managed. If the criteria give more weight to technical excellence, then your friend’s firm may win legitimately. If price carries greater weight, then fairness means awarding accordingly. Either way, the process must be followed consistently, and the conflict of interest must be declared.
Artifacts that matter in this fairness scenario include the evaluation matrix, which shows how scores were applied, the procurement file, which records the decision path, and the conflict disclosure form, which documents your personal connection. By keeping these artifacts complete, you protect yourself and the organization from allegations of favoritism. PMI expects you to remember that fairness is not about feelings—it is about traceable, consistent processes. Whether your friend wins or loses, the record shows it was because of criteria, not influence. That is fairness in practice.
Another dimension of honesty is the way you use metrics and forecasts. PMI warns against using agile story points as promises. Story points are measures of relative effort, not contractual commitments. Presenting them as guarantees misleads stakeholders. Similarly, forecasts must be provided with ranges and clear assumptions. Earned value management metrics, flow metrics, or velocity trends should be reported exactly as policy defines, not massaged to look more favorable. Correcting public dashboards promptly when errors are found is another expression of honesty. It shows that you value truth over appearances, even if corrections create momentary discomfort.
Consider an agile project where velocity drops due to staff turnover. The honest response is to report the drop, explain the cause, and adjust forecasts. The dishonest response is to maintain prior projections and “hope” performance recovers. PMI expects the first path, because it protects stakeholder decisions. By showing the real forecast, you allow sponsors to consider scope reduction, schedule adjustment, or staffing changes. Honesty in metrics prevents the compounding of disappointment later. The exam will test whether you present numbers accurately, even when they are not flattering.
On the exam, you may see pitfalls phrased as shortcuts. Stems may include phrases like “hide for now,” “we’ll fix documents later,” or “verbal approval is fine.” These are red flags. PMI expects you to recognize them as traps. The heuristic to apply is simple: facts first, options second, policy path third, and records last. This rhythm ensures you do not hide information, delay disclosure, or rely on undocumented approvals. Verbal approvals and “later fixes” may feel convenient, but they break audit trails. The correct answer is always the one that increases transparency and auditability.
For example, if a scenario describes a delayed approval and suggests you back-date it to keep the project on schedule, that is a trap. PMI expects you to log the approval when it actually occurs, document the delay, and communicate the impact. This protects honesty in evidence and fairness in decision-making. It may be uncomfortable to admit the delay, but it maintains integrity. Exam stems often exaggerate pressure precisely to test whether you will resist shortcuts. Remember: increased transparency is always the safer option, both ethically and for your exam answers.
Let’s consolidate these ideas into a quick playbook. First, tell the truth fast. Do not wait for the perfect moment to disclose variance, risk, or error. Second, show impacts clearly. Stakeholders need to understand not just that something has gone wrong, but what the implications are for scope, schedule, cost, and risk. Third, propose options so stakeholders have agency in responding. Honesty does not mean dumping bad news—it means pairing truth with choices. Fourth, use impartial criteria in decisions, especially procurement. Publish them early and apply them consistently. Fifth, record decisions once in official systems. No multiple versions, no later reconstructions.
This playbook also includes conflict management. Always disclose conflicts, even when you believe you can remain objective. And when you cannot be impartial, recuse yourself. That protects fairness in process and trust in outcomes. Lastly, update artifacts diligently whenever ethics affect delivery. If a risk is softened, it belongs in the risk register. If a procurement decision is influenced by personal ties, it belongs in the conflict disclosure file. If a forecast changes, it belongs on the dashboard. Honesty and fairness live not only in your behavior but in your records. That is where auditors, sponsors, and regulators look for proof.
The cultural impact of fairness and honesty is profound. When teams see that risks are reported truthfully, they are more likely to report their own concerns. When stakeholders see procurement handled transparently, they are more willing to trust outcomes they do not like. When dashboards are corrected promptly, people learn that information can be trusted. Fairness and honesty become cultural norms when modeled consistently. They create resilience, because trust survives even when projects face turbulence. PMI teaches that ethics are not decorations—they are the scaffolding of professional credibility.
Another way to internalize fairness and honesty is to rehearse simple spoken cues. Tell yourself: “If pressure asks me to hide, I disclose faster.” Or, “If criteria are set, I follow them consistently.” Or, “If metrics are wrong, I correct them promptly.” These sentences may sound simple, but they anchor your reflexes under pressure. On exam day, when a stem tempts you to shade truth or bend rules, recalling these cues will guide you. In practice, these same cues protect your reputation and your project’s trustworthiness.
Fairness and honesty will rarely make you the most popular person in the room in the short term. Telling a sponsor that risks are higher than they want to hear, or rejecting a vendor gift, or correcting a public dashboard—these actions may create discomfort. But in the long term, they make you the most trusted person in the room. That trust is what sustains careers and projects. PMI expects you to choose trust-building actions over comfort-preserving shortcuts. The exam rewards those choices, and so do real-world stakeholders who value integrity.
To close, remember that fairness and honesty are not about perfection. They are about transparency, consistency, and courage. Fairness means using impartial processes and treating all parties consistently. Honesty means telling the truth quickly, correcting errors, and ensuring records reflect reality. Together, they reduce disputes, protect against audit findings, and sustain trust. In the high-pressure environment of project delivery, shortcuts will always whisper their appeal. But fairness and honesty are the only sustainable path. They are what PMI expects of you as a professional, and they are what will carry you through both the exam and the ethical tests of your career.