Recently, I sat an exam – probably the hardest one I’ve ever taken – designed to test my situational judgement. It involved 78 real-life scenarios, each presenting four possible ‘what to do next’ options.
My task was to identify which response best aligned with professional and ethical standards, and which least aligned.
It wasn’t about what I would do personally, but about recognising what most closely reflected professional integrity under pressure.
Each scenario allowed only two minutes to read, reflect and decide.
Since taking the exam, several colleagues have said to me: “It’s not a fair test.” I disagree. I think it’s an essential one.
As professionals, we constantly face challenges that demand ethical decision-making, often under tight deadlines and competing pressures. Being tested on that feels right.
To give you a sense of what this means in practice – and to test your own ethical instincts – here are three sample scenarios. In each, consider what response best aligns and least aligns with the CIOB Rules and Regulations of Professional Competence and Conduct (2018), referred to below as ‘CIOB ethics’.
Scenario 1: “The job is yours if we get Andy overseeing it”
Jason has recently joined a national contractor as a project manager, with a promise of promotion to contracts manager within six months.
The region is currently short of work and facing possible redundancies unless several projects are won soon.
Jason has been leading the bid for a three-year project he would manage if successful.
During a call between the client and his regional director, Jason overhears the client say: “The project is yours if Andy oversees it as contracts manager.”
Andy, however, works in another region, is not available to travel, and his own director has no intention of releasing him.
Jason is shocked when his regional director nonetheless assures the client that Andy will oversee the project. The client responds: “Deal done – the project is yours.”
After the call, the regional director turns to Jason and says: “I had to do that. Otherwise, we’d be looking at redundancies. We really need that project.”
From the following four options, what is Jason’s best response (aligned with CIOB ethics) and worst response (in conflict with CIOB ethics)?
- Say nothing for now and see how events unfold before the project formally begins.
- Calmly challenge the regional director about the commitment made, stressing honesty and integrity, and recommend that the client be informed of the facts.
- Use the situation to press for immediate promotion to contracts manager, suggesting he’ll otherwise consider leaving.
- Discreetly contact the client to clarify that Andy will not oversee the project, citing unspecified personal reasons.
Scenario 2: The brickwork sample panel
Quality is one of the company’s stated values. The contract requires an approved brickwork sample panel before the work starts on site.
Mark, a talented future leader with strong experience managing brickwork subcontractors, has joined the project to oversee the extensive brick and blockwork element.
The project is the company’s largest and most high-profile to date, led by Frank, one of its most respected project managers.
Frank quietly advises Mark: “Make sure the sample panel isn’t too good, rough it up a bit– it needs to be something all bricklayers can easily reproduce. Don’t worry, the client’s rep will approve it. I know him and he won’t be a problem.”
From the following four options, what is Mark’s best response (aligned with CIOB ethics) and worst response (in conflict with CIOB ethics)?
- Ask the subcontractor’s supervisor to assign a less skilled bricklayer to build the panel so it reflects an easily “achievable” quality.
- Respectfully challenge Frank, referring to the company’s commitment to quality, and refuse to present a deliberately substandard sample panel.
- Instruct the subcontractor to build the sample panel to the highest achievable standard and present it to the client for approval without consulting Frank further.
- Raise the matter privately with the contracts manager (Frank’s line manager) to seek guidance on how best to uphold both quality and team relationships.
Scenario 3: Competence and the Building Safety Act
The company prides itself on the competence and professionalism of its people. It has been awarded a contract to reclad a 22-storey 1960s tower block with new windows, insulation and render.
The project has passed through Gateway 2 under the Building Safety Act 2022 and amended Building Regulations 2010 (as of October 2023) and is due to start on site in four weeks.
Tony, an ambitious and respected project manager, is available to work on the project. However, his experience is mainly in low-rise housing, with the tallest buildings he has managed being four-storey townhouses.
He once deputised, on holiday cover for a project manager on a high-rise refurbishment, six years ago. The client’s representative knows Tony from a low-rise housing project and insists he leads this one.
Tony has only attended a one-hour company webinar on the Building Safety Act.
His contracts manager formally appoints him and briefs him on what the company expects in terms of delivery.
From the following four options, what is Tony’s best response (aligned with CIOB ethics) and worst response (in conflict with CIOB ethics)?
- Accept the appointment, assuming his general experience will be sufficient to manage the challenges of this type of construction.
- Accept the appointment but request a significant pay rise to reflect the higher responsibility and complexity of the project.
- Decline the role, explaining that he cannot currently demonstrate the specific competence required for high-rise tower block projects, knowing this will frustrate the client’s wishes.
- Suggest another site manager with recent high-rise experience take the lead as project manager, while he acts as deputy to gain relevant experience for future projects.
How did you get on with the three scenarios? As professionals, we face these challenges every day. The next step may be easy to decide sat at a desk, but would you make the same choice if the project’s future – or your job – was at stake? Or your ego dented?
Why not use these scenarios as a team discussion exercise? Invite colleagues to debate the options and justify their reasoning against CIOB ethics and the Building Safety Act.
Shared ethical reflection promotes consistency, understanding and trust – helping to shape a culture where doing the right thing becomes the natural first response.
I look forward to seeing your feedback in the comments section below.
Thanks to Paul Young FCIOB for helping with Scenario 3. Young is a CIOB Trustee and runs consultancy Specialist Building Solutions.
Dave Stitt FCIOB is a chartered civil engineer, and master certified coach at DSA Building Performance.
