What is a good project manager? An Aristotelian perspective

13 Pages·2014·0.32 MB·English

Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
InternationalJournalofProjectManagement33(2015)254–266
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
What is a good project manager? An Aristotelian perspective
⁎
Christophe Bredillet a, , Stephane Tywoniak b, Ravikiran Dwivedula c
aQUTProjectManagementAcademy,Brisbane,Australia
bQUTGraduateSchoolofBusiness,Brisbane,Australia
cEmiratesCollegeforManagement&InformationTechnology(ECMIT),Dubai,UnitedArabEmirates
Received29September2013;receivedinrevisedform21March2014;accepted1April2014
Availableonline24April2014
Abstract
Thepurposeofthispaperistotakeacriticallookatthequestion“whatisacompetentprojectmanager?”andbringsomefreshadded-value
insights.Thisleadsustoanalyzethedefinitions,andassessmentapproachesofprojectmanagercompetence.Threemajorstandardsasprescribed
by PMI, IPMA, and GAPPS are considered for review from an attribute-based and performance-based approach and from a deontological and
consequentialistethicsperspectives.Twofundamentaltensionsareidentified:anethicaltensionbetweenthestandardsandtherelatedcompetence
assessmentframeworksandatensionbetweenattributeandperformance-basedapproaches.Aristotelianethicalandpracticalphilosophyisbrought
intoreconcilethesedifferences.Consideringethicsofcharacterthatrisesbeyondthenormativedeontologicalandconsequentialistperspectivesis
suggested.Takingthemediatingroleofpraxisandphrónêsisbetweentheoryandpracticeintoconsiderationisadvocatedtoresolvethetension
betweenperformanceandattribute-basedapproachestocompetenceassessment.
©2014ElsevierLtd.APMandIPMA.Allrightsreserved.
Keywords:Projectmanager;Competence;Standards;Ethics;Aristotle;Praxis;Phronesis
1. Setting the scene: competent PM, and Institute (PMI), respectively created in 1965 and 1969, have
competence assessment established standards and related professional certification
systems (IPMA framework since 1987, and PMP®, since
1.1. An increasing need for competent PM 1984). This is evidenced in the exponential growth in the
number of certified project managers (PMs — IPMA
For sixty years, organizations have increasingly been using Certification Yearbook, 2012; PMI Today, September 2013).
projects and programs to achieve their strategic objectives. Standards and credentials supported by professional bodies
Nowadays about 25% of global economic activity takes place are developed based on identified ‘best practice’ within the
asprojects(WorldBank,2012)1.Tosupporttheresultingneed profession. However, delineating what is a good project
for the development of competent project managers (PMs), managerandthelevelofperformanceatwhichs/heisexpected
over time professional bodies such as the International Project toperformisstillaburningissue(e.g.Cicmil,2006;Hodgson,
ManagementAssociation(IPMA)andtheProjectManagement 2002; Lalonde et al., 2012). For the purposes of this paper we
refer to performance in relation to the PM's actions, not to the
overall performance of a project even though the two may be
⁎ Correspondingauthorat:QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,Level7-S related. We assume that assessing the competencies of PMs
Block-RoomS703,GardensPoint,2GeorgeStreet,GPOBox2434,Brisbane, enablestoinfertheirlevelofperformanceinhis/herpresentand
QLD4001,Australia.Tel.:[phone]. futurerole(Crawford,2005,p.9).Thisleadsustosuggesttwo
E-mailaddresses:[email protected](C.Bredillet), questionsforfurtherinvestigation:“whatisacompetentproject
[email protected](S.Tywoniak),[email protected](R.Dwivedula).
1 From World Bank Indicators web site url http://data.worldbank.org/ manager?” and “how do we assess the competence of project
indicator/NE.GDI.TOTL.ZS,accessedon31March2012. managers?”
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.001
0263-7863/00/©2014ElsevierLtd.APMandIPMA.Allrightsreserved.
C.Bredilletetal./InternationalJournalofProjectManagement33(2015)254–266 255
1.2. Definingcompetence not include specifically performance-based criteria (GAPPS,
2007, p. 2), their certification processes attempt to capture
We use Crawford's definition of PM competence, broken elements of performance. In other words, the transition from
down into two dimensions: attribute-based and competence- standard to certification implies a shift from “what is a
based. competent PM?” to “what does a competent PM do?” The
The attribute-based dimension of competence comprises performance-based approach is exemplified by the GAPPS
Input and Personal competencies: frameworks(2007,2011).Basedontheroledescriptions(what
does a competent PM), and considering possible differentia-
1. Input competencies are defined as “the knowledge and tions with regard to breadth of responsibility and management
understanding, skills and abilities that a person brings to a complexity, the GAPPS frameworks are defining 1) units of
job” (Crawford, 2005, pp. 8–9). Knowledge is captured in competency, i.e. specific areas of professional performance in
bodiesofknowledge(informationpertinenttospecificcontent theworkplace,2)elementsofcompetency,i.e.keycomponents
areas) and skills as abilities to perform certain physical or ofworkperformancewithinaunit,and3)performancecriteria,
mentaltasksthroughqualificationandexperience; i.e. type and level of performance required to demonstrate
2. Personal competencies are defined as “the core personality competence in each element based on observable results and
characteristicsunderlyingaperson'scapabilitytodoajob” actions (GAPPS, 2007, p. 2;2011, p. 2).
(Crawford, 2005, pp. 8–9). Personality traits, attitudes and
behaviorsrepresentthese core personality characteristics; 1.3. Competence and ethics
AcompetentPMisexpectedtoperformatoraboveacertain
The performance-based dimension of competence relies on
level of performance. One anticipates s/he will do the “right”
Output competencies:
things“right”,and“getthingsdone”–“Atitsmostfundamental,
3. Output competencies are defined as “the ability to perform project management is about people getting things done”
(Dr MartinBarnes, APM President2003–2012, APM web site,
the activities within an occupational area to the levels
of performance expected in employment” (Crawford, 2005, http://www.apm.org.uk/WhatIsPM, accessed 6 March 2014) –
pp. 8–9). Demonstrable performance and use of project and deliver “good” outcomes. Expectations about what a PM
oughttodoinhis/herduty(“right”withtheideaofcompliance)
management practices in the workplace characterize this
are supported by the general concept of deontology, while the
ability.
focus is on getting the “good” outcome, by the concept of
consequentialism (doing “right” meaning here getting things
Based on these definitions, a competent project manager is
done, i.e. the “good” outcome). Therefore, defining what is a
the one who: possesses some attributes to fulfill her/his role;
competent PM and how to assess his/her competence lead to
and will demonstrate a certain level of performance. The
ethical questions such as what are “right” actions and “good”
attributesandperformancestandardsaredefinedandpublished
outcomes. These questions are fundamental, as each normative
by professional bodies such as the Project Management
ethic (deontological and consequentialist) carries its own
Institute (PMBOK® Guide, PMI, 2013a), the International
limitations(Duska,1993,p.228).Ontheonehand,thequestion
ProjectManagementAssociation(IPMACompetenceBaseline
of arbitrage and conflict of duty (which is the “right” duty,
(ICB), IPMA, 2006), and the Global Alliance for Project
towards which stakeholder?), on the other hand, the relation
ManagementStandards(GAPPSProjectandProgramManager
between means and ends (“the ends justify the means”). As we
Standards; GAPPS, 2007). PMI's PMBOK® and IPMA's ICB
demonstratebelow,wearguethatmovingfromthesenormative
have been mainly developed along the attribute-based dimen-
ethics to an Aristotelian ethic of character provides a more
sion, whilst GAPPS' standards have been mainly developed
holistic ground to answering in a practical way our two initial
along theperformance-based dimension2.
questions. Thus, the paradigmatic and ethical underpinnings of
Forattribute-basedstandards(suchasPMI),thecertification
standards and assessments need to be studied. It is important to
examination is designed to reflect tasks and activities a PM is
addressthese questions asthey haveimplicationsforcommuni-
expected to perform on the job (based on PMBOK®).
ties of practitioners and scholars who collectively reflect to
Furthermore, the certification requires a defined length of
develop meaningful practices and routines. This in turn is
professionalexperience,dependingontheacademiccredentials
important to achieve the “end purpose” i.e. both doing “right”
oftheapplicant.TheIPMAcertificationprocessisstructuredin
things “right” and delivering “good” outcomes to benefit
four levels, with different educational and experience prereq-
stakeholders (GAPPS, 2007, p. 4; GAPPS, 2011, p. 5; IPMA,
uisites. The certification process involves a written examina-
2006,p.2–3;PMI,2006,p.1).
tion, and depending on the certification level, a report
In summary, addressing the question “what is a competent
(documenting demonstrable performance), a workshop, and
PM”leadsustodiscuss1)theethicalfoundationsofwhatbeing
aninterview.Therefore,whilstthePMIandIPMAstandardsdo
competent means, 2) the consequences for the assessment of
competence, and 3) the underlying perspectives supporting
2 We have selected these three sets as they have been published by long-
standards.WecriticallydiscussthesethreeaspectsforGAPPS,
established bodies and account for a large number of credentialed project
managers. IPMA and PMI in the next section of this article. Then, from
256 C.Bredilletetal./InternationalJournalofProjectManagement33(2015)254–266
Table1
Mappingcompetenceassessmentprocesses.
Competence Ethicalapproach
Deontological(duty,“right”actiondefined Consequentialism(the“right”actionproduces
independentlyofthe“good”outcome) “good”or“bestpossible”outcome)
Attribute-basedapproach Knowledge PMI(PMP®,PgMP®) IPMAICBKnowledge IPMAICBExperience
assessment assessment
Skills(qualifications& PMI(PMP®,PgMP®) IPMAICBKnowledge IPMAICBExperience
experience) assessment assessment
CorePersonalitycharacteristics IPMAICBKnowledge IPMAICBExperience
assessment assessment
Performancebased Demonstrableperformance PMI(PgMP®) GAPPSassessment
approach
the conclusions we draw and tensions we unveil between the Consequentialism “also sometimes termed teleology, is
standards, the related assessment perspectives and their ethical directed towards securing theright outcome”(Harrison, 2004,
basis, we suggest, in Section 3, an Aristotelian lens, as a p.2).Anactionis“right”ifandonlyifitproducesthe“good”
promising avenue for a more encompassing, holistic and or “best possible” outcome. The end justifies the means.
competent practice. GAPPS subscribes to this vision, and the GAPPS standard is
rooted on what a competent PM does (GAPPS, 2007, p. 2;
2011,p.2).Althoughthefocusisnotonknowledgeandskills,
2. Currentstandardsandassessment perspectives: the underpinning knowledge and supporting skills needed to
unveilinginherenttensions produce the results are measured by performance criteria
(GAPPS, 2007; p.40) embedded in each unit, thus reinforcing
2.1. Ethics and assessment the“outcome”perspective.
The IPMA assessment process refers to both normative
DefiningwhatacompetentPMis,orwhats(he)does,andits ethical perspectives. Its knowledge assessment (standards and
assessment is foremost an ethical matter in conjunction to guidelinestodefinetheworkofprojectmanagementpersonnel)
professionalism. This is acknowledged by various codes of is grounded in the deontological perspective. Competence is
ethics and professional conducts (c.f. IPMA, 2006, p.2; PMI, assessed using the STAR (Situation, Tasks, Actions, and
2006, p.1;GAPPS, 2007, p.2). Results) framework (IPMA, 2006, p.12), which refers to the
Theassessmentperspectiveisdirectlysubjecttounderlying consequentialist perspective. Similarly, the PMI Program
ethical questions such as should the focus be on the “right” Management Professional (PgMP®) certification assesses the
action, the duty, to be performed? Or, on the “good” or “best applicant'shistoryofdemonstratedtaskperformance,andthus
possible”outcometobeproduced?Harrison(2004)aptlynotes isgrounded inthe deontological perspective.
that two main approaches of normative ethics are usually The above discussionis summarizedin Table 1.
considered: deontology (“right action”, duty) and consequen-
tialism(“good”or “best possible” outcome).
Deontological ethics (from the Greek deon, “obligation, 2.2.Standards and underlying assumptions
duty”), while linked to antique codes of conducts such as the
Ten Commandments, takes its modern roots in the Kantian 2.2.1.Classical perspective
moraltheoryandthetwoprinciplesof“universalisability”(sic) The classical view of standardization is exemplified by the
and“reversibility”(sic).Universalisabilitymeans:“ifeveryone InternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO).BothPMI
can act on it” (Schick & Vaughn, 1999; p.334); and and IPMA are aligned with ISO, respectively through the
reversibilitymeans:“ifthepersonactingonitwouldbewilling development of PMBOK® Guide-Fifth Edition, ANSI/PMI
to have everyone act on it” (Schick & Vaughn, 1999, p. 344). 99-001-2013, ISO 21500, and ISO/TC2583;for PMI; and ISO/
Accordingtothisethicalstance,a“right”actionisindependent TC258Project,Program,andPortfolioManagement,andISO/
fromits“good”outcome,endscanneverjustifymeans,andthis TC176/SC 2 QualitySystems standards for IPMA4.
fits well with attribute-based competence assessment perspec- Theclassicalviewissupportedbyassumptionsofconsensus,
tive. This view is reflected in the PMI Code of Ethics and transparent&availableinformation,andcertainty&stability.
ProfessionalConductwhereeveryoneisdeemedtoacttheway
“PMIpractitioners”act(“universability”),andbewillingtoact
the way “PMI practitioners” act towards themselves (“revers-
ibility”). Thus, the focus of assessment is the “role” of 3 http://www.pmi.org/PMBOK-Guide-and-Standards.aspx,accessed10Sep-
tember2013.
individuals, their knowledge, tasks, and skills required, and 4 http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/organizations_in_liaison/organizations_in_
what they do on their jobs (PMI, 2011, 2013a,b). liaison_details.htm?id=9297&LiaisonList=True,accessed10September2013.
C.Bredilletetal./InternationalJournalofProjectManagement33(2015)254–266 257
2.2.1.1. Consensus. First, standards are established by However,incomplexpluralisticorconflictingsettings,these
consensus5 and focus on commonly agreed ‘best practice’ standards, aiming at universality, face limitations. Challenging
withafocusonstableentitiesandstructures,whereindividuals the classical perspective, Hodgson (2002) and Cicmil and
operate on the basis of an exchange relationship with the Hodgson(2006,p.11)discusshowstandards,bestpracticesand
environment. Under this view, mutual coordination between other bodies of knowledge governed by a tradition of natural
two parties, such as assessment of competence, occurs via a science cast project managers in mechanistic roles of “imple-
normativeorientation,i.e.commonnormsandvaluesthatexist menters”, disabling a potential wider role in complex project
prior to the interaction. (Hernes and Bakken, 2003, p. 1516). situations. Further, such adherence to universal techniques
This view can be associated with an equilibrium-based theory leads to the loss of reflexive and embodied rationality
(Hernes and Bakken, 2003; p.1516) that enables predictability (Townley, 2002) as ‘best practice’ directs PMs towards one
(Stacey, 2010; p. 20). Multiple perspectives such as the unique course of action, eliminating the need to reflect. Lastly
resource-based view6, the market-based view7, and an over- Cicmil and Hodgson (2006, p.12) emphasize the fact that
arching stakeholder-based view8 are integrated using the classification(e.g.the“PMP”class—Hacking,2002,p.7)and
socio-political lens, enabling the universal applicability of the language (e.g. agreed terminology and meaning — Hacking,
standard's best practice. 2002, p. 9) contribute to reinforce the general idea that
“managers face an objective reality which they can control by
2.2.1.2. Transparent and available information. Second, applying suitable methods for a rational assessment of the
standards aim at enabling actions based on full, relevant, and problematic situation in order to come up with the correct
transparentinformation.Inthisviewthefocusisontheprocess solution”. Critics of the classical perspective suggest that we
used to make decisions and take action. The focus here is on need to turn back to perspectives attuned to the empirical
subjects, who, using transparent information, make rational dynamics offacts suchas a“practice”perspective(Cicmiland
choices, set goals, and make normative decisions with respect Hodgson, 2006; Cicmil et al., 2009; Hodgson, 2002), a
to assessing future risks. Consistent with equilibrium assump- practice-turn (Blomquist et al., 2010; Hällgren and Lindahl,
tions, this view enables the PM as rational actor to optimize 2012), a phronetic approach (Flyvbjerg et al., 2012), or new
outcomes. institutional theories and convention theory (Bredillet, 2003,
2010). Arguably, the value of these perspectives is that they
2.2.1.3. Certainty and stability. Third, an assumption about enable to consider what a competent PM does in contexts
certaintyandorderisembeddedinstandards.Thedefinitionof involving plurality or conflicting views amongst stakeholder
standardization and standard (“… aimed at the achievement of and complex and uncertain situations.
the optimum degree of order…” Hatto, 2010, p. 5, p. 9) is
related to the assumption of market equilibrium. As Brunsson
et al. (2000; p.16) state, standards “are said to make the 2.2.2. Practice perspective
complex world simpler”. This is acknowledged by IPMA Focusing on the question“what doesa competent PM do?”
“Standardsareessentialinanincreasingcomplexworld.They leads naturally toturn topractices. GAPPS(2007) exemplifies
shouldenablecollaborationwithinandacrossorganisationsin this approach focusing on “what is done by individuals in the
ordertoimproveeffectivenessandefficiencyinprojectrelated workplace”(GAPPS,2007,p.2)andtotheevaluationof“past
activities”9. andpresentexperiencebasedonevidence”(IPMA,2006,p.3).
Overall, these assumptions mean being able to “rightly” act The practice view is supported by the three following
in order to produce the “best possible” outcome. They are assumptions which structurally mirror the assumptions of the
fundamentally rooted in a consequentialist perspective and the classical perspective: uncertainty, interpretation of information
attribute-based competence approach logic fits well here, and interdependency and cooperation.
enablingtolinkattributestoperformanceinapredictableway.
2.2.2.1. Uncertainty. Under conditions of fundamental un-
2.2.1.4. Critique of the classical perspective. The classical
certainty, as the future is unknown (Dequech, 2011; Knight,
perspectiveofstandardizationbringsvalueinparticularcontexts,
1921) self-interested agents cannot be guided by calculative
wherestakeholdersshareunitaryviewsandsituationsaresimple,
rationality only: the optimal course of action cannot be
and therefore the transfer of best practices among stakeholders,
determined ex-ante, as they lack stable information and means
complexity reduction, and rational decision-making is possible
of evaluation (Jarvis, 2010; Knight, 1921; LeRoy and Singell,
(Jackson,2003).
1987).Thenotionofknownunknowns(Davidson,1995;Dow,
5 PMI,“howstandardsaredeveloped?”http://www.pmi.org/PMBOK-Guide- 1995) is thus summarized by Keynes: “…there is no scientific
and-Standards/Standards-Overview.aspxaccessed10September,2013). basis on which to form any calculable probability whatever.
6 http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards.htm. We simply do not know” (Keynes, 1937, pp. 113–114). Such
7 http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards_development.htm,accessed10Sep- notions of uncertainty lead to assume incomplete or bounded
tember2013.
rationality(Simon,1957)wherecompetentdecisionmakersare
8 http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards_development.htm,accessed10Sep-
able to satisfy minimum performance thresholds but cannot
tember,2013.
9 http://ipma.ch/resources/standards/,accessed10September2013. optimize.
258 C.Bredilletetal./InternationalJournalofProjectManagement33(2015)254–266
2.2.2.2. Interpretation of information. The inherent uncer- They are fundamentally rooted on a deontological perspective
tainty, about information and lack of knowledge about future andtheperformance-basedcompetenceapproachlogicfitswell
events or states, challenges the assumption of information here, enabling to link what competent practitioners usually do
transparency. In this, when agents need to interpret the intheroleandwhatistheacceptablelevelofperformancetobe
information in order to make sense of it, agents' actions considered as competent (GAPPS, 2007, p. 22011, p. 2).
cannot be only the product of rational calculation, where the
information is fully accessible and transparent (Gomez, 2006,
2.2.2.4. Critique of the practice perspective. When the level
p. 220). This aspect is acknowledged by GAPPS where
of environmental uncertainty increases, complex situations
“competence is inferred based on demonstrated ability to
involve not only by consensus but also through pluralistic or
satisfy performance criteria” (GAPPS, 2007, p. 2) and where
conflictualrelations. Insuch contextsa shift from theclassical
the “GAPPS framework is intended to help an assessor infer
perspective to the practice perspective is beneficial as this
whetheranexperienced,practisingprojectmanagerislikelyto
broadensourunderstandingofmanagers'competence:therewe
be able to perform competently on future projects” (GAPPS,
do not see them as good professionals (meeting a list of
2007, p. 9),thus proving an interpretation framework.
universal attributes) but we consider their demonstrated
performance in what they do in a given context (GAPPS,
2.2.2.3. Interdependency and cooperation. Considering the 2007,p.2).Thisisassumedtobea“goodindicatorthatfuture
conditions of fundamental uncertainty, and the resulting projects will be managed successfully” (IPMA, 2006, p. 3). In
necessary information interpretation, leads to raise the ques- this context of uncertainty and complexity, the “known”
tions of consensus and the challenge to cooperation. Contrast-
(practice AND standards) is within the knower and emerges
ing the classical perspective, the assumption of pre-existing
from recursive relations and interactions between purposeful
norms binding the decisions and actions of the agents cannot actions using verstehen10, practice and standards. Kraaijenbrink
be held relevant in a context of perpetual movement and notes: “Management though is rarely like that [certainty
transformation. Hence, “consensus is but one possibility for
with managers as theory-applying rational decision-makers]
interaction” (Hernes and Bakken, 2003, p. 1518). Indeed, and managers only really matter when there is uncertainty”
pluralistic and conflicting perspectives, as acknowledged by
(Kraaijenbrink, 2010, p. 2). And Perminova et al. (2008) rightly
Jackson(2003,p.19)arealsopossiblemodesofinteraction in state: “the way uncertainty is perceived by project managers
complex contexts. Thus, “contingency lies in the interaction depends on personal skills, intuition and judgment.” …
ratherthanattheabstractedlevelofnormsand,assuch,itsets “Managers' attitudes and understanding of uncertainty do not
the stage for the emergence of the social system. Social order create or eliminate it”(Perminova etal., 2008, p. 77). In project
should not be explained transcendentally, but as a circular situations,Lalondeetal.(2012)recognizethat“therelationships
movement that has neither beginning nor end (Luhmann &
established between the actors' cognitive schemas and percep-
Schorr 1990).”(Hernes and Bakken, 2003, p. 1518).
tionsofthesituation,isanuncertainstateofaffairs.Theactorsdo
Thesethreekeyfeatureshavemajorimplicationsfortheway notdealwithclear-cutsituations”(Lalondeetal.,2012,p.425).
we should consider the development, roles, and relevance of
The demonstrable performance based approach of compe-
standards for practice. For example, uncertainty, interpretation
tencefullyrecognizesthisneedintwomainways.Firstthrough
of information, and interdependency lead to rethink how the the notion of “threshold” performance (GAPPS, 2007, p. 3) or
process of assessing PM competences is conducted through
competencelevel(IPMA,2006,p.11),whichprovidesroomfor
interviewsasinGAPPS(2007,p.9,42)orIPMA(2006,p.8). creativity, stemming from a balance between “the real and the
Contextualized in the inherent complexity of organizational preferable”(Lalondeetal.,2012,p.428).Second,standardsare
phenomenaanduncertaintyaboutthefuture,intheabsenceofa about “what is done”, and what one “ought to do” to be
structure for calculating the likely outcomes of the actions, recognizedascompetentbycompetentpeers,not“howthework
actors must still make choices using some mechanism or isdone”(GAPPS,2007,p.2),inotherwords“notacookbook”
heuristic (Gomez and Jones, 2000, p. 696). Our point is that a
(IPMA, 2006, p. 10). Thus, judging contextual uncertainty is a
standard as a “…social mechanism that associates a rational
reflexiveintuitiveprocessleadingthecompetentPMtoperform
void,i.e.,asetofnon-justifiednorms,withascreenofsymbols, the “right” action, following a deontological perspective. The
i.e., an interrelation between objects, discourses, and behav-
overallpurposemayprovideaKantiancategoricalimperativeto
iors”, closes the gap between “free will and social context
act or some threshold deontological norms (Moore, 1997) but
interact to produce both structure and action” (Gomez and
actionsarenotmerelydictatedbyanunpredictablefuture.
Jones, 2000, p. 706). Standards and PMs form a governing
Severaldifficultiesstillpersist.Ontheethicsside,thepractice
system,asystemofrulesandmeasuresthatordersocialactors.
perspective emphasizes a deontological approach and therefore
The on-going dynamic adjustment between PMs and the
therelationfrompracticetooutcomemaybenotfullyintegrated
rules enables regulation beyond any explicit “management”
or made explicit. Further, the problem of competing duties
policy, and the “conviction” about the “normal” rules (what a remainsunresolved:“conflictsbetweencompetingduties,suchas
competentPMdoes,hisduty)constitutestheacceptedcommon dutytosocietyversusdutytoclient”(Harrison,2004,p.1).The
view (Gomez, 2006, p. 224).
Overall,theseassumptionsmeanthatthefocusshouldbeon 10 AccordingtoSchütz,humanactionisaccomplishedbytheuseofverstehen
the “right” action rather than on an unforeseeable outcome. “theintuitivequicknessofenlightenedunderstanding”(Schütz,1964,p.4).
C.Bredilletetal./InternationalJournalofProjectManagement33(2015)254–266 259
turn topractice reveals two sets ofunresolved tensions(Brown, deontological approach and are mainly attribute-based. How-
2012): between rigor and relevance in knowledge creation and ever for the higher levels of project management, the PMI
use (theory v. standards) and between researchers and practi- assessment moves to a performance based approach still
tioners(knowersanddoers). anchored in a deontological approach, while the IPMA as-
The“practiceturn”focuseson“knowledgeandinquiry‘for’ sessment,remainsattributebased,butmovestoaconsequential-
and‘about’andeven‘in’practice”(Kondrat,1992,p.238)and ist approach. The GAPPS assessment approach is performance-
aims to balance scientific rigor and relevance (Carter et al., based and rooted in consequentialism (see Table 1 for a full
2008; Vaara and Whittington, 2012). However, the “phronetic summary). Therefore the PMI standards are based on a con-
turn” (Flyvbjerg, 2001, 2004; Flyvbjerg et al., 2012, 2004) sequentialperspective,dissonantwiththedeontologicalapproach
advocates for researchers to have an impact on society — toassessment.ForIPMAthedissonanceemergestheotherway
focusingonrelevance,andthat“ourknowingis‘in’ouraction” around, as a deontological standard is associated with conse-
(Schön, 1983, p. 49). Maturana and Varela (1998, p. 27–29) quentialist assessment. Similarly, the GAPPS standards, which
similarly define knowing as “effective action”, and write that focusonunitsofcompetencyapplicabletoPMsroles,arerooted
“all doing is knowing, and all knowing is doing.” By contrast, inadeontologicalapproach,inconsistentwithaconsequentialist
from the practitioners' perspective, standards are assumed to assessment. Our investigation of standards and assessment
contain what “knowledge” is used in “right project manage- revealsfundamentalethicaltensionsbetweenstandardsincluding
ment theory and practice”or “acceptable” (IPMA, 2006, p. 3) the way they are developed by the community of practitioners
and for “acceptable performance” (GAPPS, 2007, p. 2). withthesupportofscholars,andtheassessmentprocesses.
Knowledge from research and knowledge for practice may Weidentify two fundamental tensions emerging from this:
meet but remain distinct, and sometimes distant.
Therefore we need to question the “divisions of labour - An ethical tension between means (“rightaction”) andends
between the researchers and the researched” (p. Eikeland and (“good” or “best possible” outcome) at two levels. First,
Nicolini,2011,p.167),theroles,behaviorsandexpectationsof for each body, a tension between the ethical approaches
the communities of practitioners (PMs), as framed by the supporting their standards and assessment processes, i.e.
classicalclasses'dichotomybetweenscholarsandpractitioners duty vs. outcome, despite their usefulness, and while “both
(Van de Ven and Johnson, 2006, p. 806), involved in deontological approaches and consequentialist approaches
knowledge creation and transfer. Some authors have pleaded are regularly construed as opposite sides of the same coin;
forsomekindofjunctionorintegrationbetweenthe“scholars” duty versus outcomes” (Harrison, 2004, p. 2); Second, a
and the “practitioners” (e.g. reclaiming the practical (Kondrat, tension within each standard and assessment process: the
1992,p.241);socialsciencepractitioner(Warry,1992,p.160); competing duties dilemma with regard to the “right” action
engaged scholars (Van de Ven and Johnson, 2006, p. 803); for those rooted in the deontological approach (conflicts
practitioners in the context of project-as-practice (Blomquist between competing duties, such as duty to society versus
et al., 2010, p. 13); practitioner–researcher (Jarvis, 1999), duty to client) (Harrison, 2004, p. 1) and the conflict
researcher–practitioner(Lalondeetal.,2012,note8,p.42911), “means” vs. “end” for those rooted in the consequentialist
or being “native”(Eikeland,2006,p. 45; 2012,p. 11)). approach;
Thepracticeturninvitestorethinktherelationshipsbetween - A theory vs. practice, rigor vs. relevance, tensions between
practices and standards. But in doing so, it reveals the need to values (what one “ought to” be, or “ought to do”) in the
rethink how practitioners and researchers interact towards a attribute-based approach, and between facts (what one “is”,
more joined-up relationship where practice and theory are or“does”)in theperformance-based approach.
mutuallyconstructed.Inthefollowingsection,wediscusshow
these unresolved tensions play out in the standards and Building on Tables 1, 2 summarizesourarguments.
associated assessment schemes. Recognizing the diversity of approaches and the tensions
withinandbetweenthemleadtoacknowledgethefracturelines
thatemergebetweenthedefinitionsofwhatacompetentPMis
2.3. Fundamental tensions between the current standards and
or does, and how we assess competence and what standards
assessment perspectives
encompass and the ground on which they are developed. This
fragmentedpictureisnotsatisfactoryandnothelpfulinpractice
In the above discussion, we have shown that the PMI
as it harbors contradictory positions. Whatever the choice of
and IPMA assessment approaches are mainly rooted in a
approach, there are gaps in the definition and expectations of
whatacompetentPMisordoes.Acombinationofapproaches
11 FollowingtheAristoteliantradition,Lalondeetal.(2012)refertotheproject resting on different lenses does not lead to a consistent view,
actorasbecomingaphronimos:“Theinterestintheorizinginquirypracticesis and the internal contradictions arising may prove such a
that it frees professional action from poiesis and solely instrumental consider- combinationimpracticable.
ationsandinfusesitwithpraxis.Thatis,theprojectactorhasthepotentialto In order to overcome the above-described tensions, we
becomea‘phronimos’,oranindividualendowedwithpracticalwisdom,withthe
suggest that turning to Aristotelian ethical and practical
capacitytothink throughincreasinglycomplex project situationswherevalues
philosophy may provide a solution. Aristotle's doctrine of the
mustbeconsideredinlightofcriticalissuesfororganizations,communitiesand
thegeneralpublic.”(Lalondeetal.,2012,p.430). mean, where virtues reside between excess and deficiencies
260 C.Bredilletetal./InternationalJournalofProjectManagement33(2015)254–266
Table2
Mappingstandardsandcompetenceassessmentapproaches:modernandpostmodernperspectives.
Competence Ethicalapproach
Deontological(duty,“right”action Consequentialism(the“right”action
definedindependentlyofthe“good” produces“good”or“bestpossible”
outcome) outcome)
Ethicaltensions/dutiesvs.outcome,meansvs.ends
Ethicaltension/competingduties
Attribute-basedapproach Tensionbetweentheory Knowledge PMI IPMAICB PMI IPMAICB IPMAICB
(theory,rigor,whatone vs.practice,rigorvs. (PMP®,PgMP®) Knowledge standards Experience
oughttobeordo,values) relevance,valesvs.facts assessment assessment
Skills(qualifications PMI IPMAICB PMI IPMAICB IPMAICB
&experience) (PMP®,PgMP®) Knowledge standards Experience
assessment assessment
CorePersonality IPMAICB IPMAICB IPMAICB
characteristics Knowledge Experience
assessment assessment
Performancebasedapproach Demonstrable PMI(PgMP®) GAPPS GAPPS
(practice,relevance,what performance standards assessment
oneisordoes,facts)
(Kraut, 2012) appears to be appropriate to connect means and that the modern and post-modern appropriation of Aristotle's
ends, facts and values. The Aristotelian philosophy provides a philosophy are “insufficient for understanding both knowledge
relational and holistic way of thinking — where knower and and ethics” (Eikeland, 2007, p. 348). In particular, these
known, ethical and intellectual virtues, means and ends, facts incomplete appropriations lack the understanding of nuances
and values, ethics and politics are integrated. We argue that between concepts (virtues, ways of knowing and knowledge
suchanapproachcanhelpustounderstandandactaboutwhat forms) and they attempt to categorize concepts as independent
a competent PM“is”or “does”. therefore missing a fundamental point of Aristotelian thinking
abouttheoryandpracticalexperience(Eikeland,2008,p.46–47).
3. The “good” PM Drawing mostly on Eikeland (2007, 2008, 2012) and Kraut
(2012) we summarize below some key aspects of Aristotle
In the social sciences many authors seeking to overcome gnoseology.Asummaryofthedetaileddiscussionofferedbelow
modern and postmodern limitations build on “pre-modern” is provided in Table 3. An overview of the intellectual virtues,
philosophies such as Aristotle's (e.g. Blomquist et al., 2010; variouswaysofknowingandrelatedknowledgeformsisoffered
Flyvbjerg, 2001; Lalonde et al., 2012; MacIntyre, 1985; (Eikeland,2007,p.348;Eikeland,2008,p.526;Eikeland,2012,
Tsoukas and Cummings, 1997). Toulmin (in Tsoukas and p. 20). The various approaches (GAPPS, IPMA and PMI)
Cummings, 1997, p. 655), advises a possible path, summariz- discussed in this paper are mapped against the Aristotelian
ingthe arguments for this approach: intellectualvirtues.AndweillustratebrieflyofhowAristotelian
conceptsareembodiedinprojectmanagers'practices.
“It can cling to the discredited research program of the
purely theoretical (i.e. “modern”) philosophy, which will 3.1.Theinseparability between ethicaland intellectual virtues
endupbydrivingitoutofbusiness:itcanlookfornewand
lessexclusivelytheoreticalwaysofworking,anddevelopthe Inthisdiscussion,werefertothemainAristoteliantreatyon
methods needed for a more practical (“post-modern”) ethics i.e.the Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle, 1926)13.
agenda; or it can return to its pre-17th century traditions,
andtry torecover thelost (“pre-modern”)topicsthat were
3.1.1.Ethics and ethical virtues
side-tracked by Descartes, but can be usefully taken up for
For Aristotle, ethics (and ethical virtues such as courage,
thefuture”(Toulmin,1990, p. 11). temperance, friendship, justice, fairness, … and prudence
(phronêsis))isintimatelylinkedtotheultimate“end”ofhuman-
Eikeland (2007, 2008, 2012) and Eikeland and Nicolini kind, that is improving our lives and achieving happiness and
(2011) aptly discuss the Aristotelian “gnoseology”12. Eikeland well-being(eudaimonia)bothforindividualsandforthesociety.
suggeststhatit“allowsforreconsideringandreintegratingways Ethics is the condition for making righteous actions possible,
ofknowing:traditional,practical,tacit,emotional,experiential, whichinturnenablethedevelopmentofrighthabits,and,inturn,
intuitive, etc., marginalised and considered insufficient by enable the development of good character (aretê14) required to
modernistthinking”(Eikeland,2012,p.20–21).Heemphasizes
13 Wedonotconsidertwoothertreatises,theEudemianEthicsandtheMagna
12 For Eikeland (2007, p. 347) gnoseology, by contrast to epistemology, Moraliaasthecoverageisquitesimilarconsideringthepurposeofthisarticle.
involvesbroadernotionofknowledge.Epistêmêisjustoneformofgnôsis. 14 Disposition(hexis)involvingconsciouschoice.
C.Bredilletetal./InternationalJournalofProjectManagement33(2015)254–266 261
Table3
Mappingstandardsandcompetenceassessmentapproaches:Aristotelianperspective(afterEikeland,2007,p.348;Eikeland,2008,p.526;Eikeland,2012,p.20).
Basis Wayofknowing Exampleofproject Associatedrationality/ Theknown(whatthe Standardsandcompetence
managers'practice knowledgeforms knowledgeconcerns) assessmentsapproaches
inrelationtotheknower
Aísthêsis Theôrêsis=epistêmê Usinggeneralmodels Deduction, Theknownasexternal PMI IPMA
2
(perception) Spectatorspeculation toinvestigatesocialor demonstration, toknower:outerobject standards standards
environmentalimpact didactics quaphenomenon= IPMA
ofaproject appearance assessment
Páthos Managementofstress ?? Withintheknower (PMI
Beingaffected generatedbyexternal standards)
passivelyfrom (noncontrollable)
theoutside constraints,change
anduncertaintyinthe
projectcontext
Empeiría Khrêsis UsingaPMsoftware Tékhnê Externaltoknower: PMI IPMA GAPPS
(practically Usinginstruments (doingthingsright, (calculation) externalobjectqua standards assessment assessment
acquired gettingthingsdone) somethingusedas PMI
experience) instrument assessment
Poíêsis Estimating,scheduling Externaltoknower:
Making, calculations,technical externalobjectqua
manipulating riskmanagement somethingmanipulated,
materials (applicationofgeneral changes,created
techniquestoaspecific
project)(doingthings
rights,gettingthings
done)
Praxis Nontechnicalrisk Phrónêsis Withinthe (PMI (IPMA GAPPS
2
Doing:virtuous management,team (deliberation) knower;choice assessment assessment assessment
performance, management,conflict andperformance PgMP®) higherlevels GAPPS
practicalreasoning management,stakeholder A&B) standards
management…(contextual ofactionsina
useoftheories,and concretesituations
techniquesinvolving
adaptationandquestioning
assumptions)(doingthe
rightthings,gettingthings
done)
Enérgeia praxis Lessonslearnedacross Dialectics/dialog. Withintheknower: The(mostly)ignoredpartofcurrent
1
(perfecting Practice,competence projectsexperience, Thewayfrom internalobject/objective models
actualization) developmentand reflectivepractice novicetoexpert, aspraxisform/concept
insight(theôría) vis-à-visthecontext fromtacitto form
(Howdowedecide articulate
whatisright?)
theôría=epistêmê Consciousdevelopment Dialog,
1
Insight ofreflexiveexpertiseand deduction,
patternsofpractice deliberation
(involveexamininginto
howpractitionersare
thinkingaboutwhatthey
aredoing,notjusta
reflectiononwhatthey
aredoing),critically
translateandadaptlessons
learnedtospecificsituations
andcontext(Howdowe
decidewhatisright?)
achieve happiness. Ethicsis thuspractical knowledge rootedon description of different types of virtuous persons Aristotle
experienceand“goodaction”orientedratherthanjusttheoretical mentions that good leaders exhibit phronêsis (Aristotle, 1926,
knowledge.Practicalwisdom(phronêsis)isbothanethicalvirtue 1144b).Twoaspectsshouldbeemphasized:everyethicalvirtue
and an intellectual virtue (Eikeland, 2008, p. 53): it must be isabalancedconditionbetweenexcessanddeficiency(Aristotle,
acquired through practice, rather than learned as a set of given 1926,1106a26-b28);andethicaltheorydoesnotofferadecision
general principles to be applied to particular occasions. In his procedure as ethics cannot be reduced to a system of rules
262 C.Bredilletetal./InternationalJournalofProjectManagement33(2015)254–266
although some rules are uninfringeable. Ethical theory illumi- (quoting Balck, 1994, p. 2 in Cicmil and Hodgson, 2006,
nates the nature of virtue but what a virtuous agent must do in p. 13), Blomquist et al. (2010, p. 9) and Lalonde et al. (2012,
particularoccasiondependsonthecircumstances. p. 428) have acknowledged a similar view. As a matter of
consequence, Eikeland explains that “knowledge and compe-
tence is increasingly developed from within practical con-
3.1.2. Intellectualvirtues
texts…making organisational learning in work places and all
However,Aristotlemakesclearthatinordertofullyacquire
cooperative endeavours – i.e. collective efforts, experiential
practical wisdom or prudence as phronêsis, one must become
learningandimprovement–increasinglyimportantingeneral”
both ethically virtuous and practically wise through the
(Eikeland,2008,pp.21–22).Thisrelationbetweenknowledge
development of proper habits (ethical virtues, not part of the
and practice is also acknowledged by Weisinger and Salipante
reasoning soul but following reason) and of the aptitude to
(2000, p. 387): “The knowing is bound with the practicing of
reason (intellectualvirtues).Thisdevelopmentisnot sequential,
seemingly mundane actions … knowing as situated learning
and Aristotle states that ethical virtue is fully developed only
and practicing”. We fully grasp here the recursive logic
whenintegratedwithphronêsis(Aristotle,1926,1144b14-17).
between “theorizing practice and practicing theory” and the
“For Aristotle, praxis knowledge represents a relationship factthat“theorizingpracticeisitselfapractice”(Feldmanand
Orlikowski,2011, p. 1250).
between colleagues sharing common standards for how
to go about their professional activities” (Eikeland, 2007, HavingbrieflyexplainedhowintheAristotelianview,ethical
and intellectual virtues, knowledge and practical experience,
p. 351; Eikeland, 2012, p. 26). Phronêsis is a knowledge
form related to Praxis . Phrónêsis is “the way down from praxis and phrónêsis are holistically integrated, we now turn to
“theory” to “practice”2 … the practical enactment is often whatthisimpliesfordefininga“good”PM.
immediate and spontaneous … butin other fields where the
practiceisnotequallystandardisedand“automated”…the 3.2.The“good”PM:“reconnectingmeansandends,factsand
“application”ofgeneralcompetenceoroftheknowledgeof values” (Tsoukas and Cummings, 1997,p. 668)
principles … needs deliberation or phrónêsis… The point is
ForAristotle,humanagentsandnaturalthingsaredefinedfor
that the way from theory to practice within this kind of
knowledge is not deductive…” (Eikeland, 2007, p. 352; thesakeofsomefunctionsor“ends”(purposes,subordinatedto
the ultimate end: eudaimonia). Teleologically, classifying
Eikeland,2012,p.31).Conversely,Praxis ,throughdialog
and dialectics, is “the way of learning or r1esearch, moving someoneasaPMistothinkaboutthepurposes,theends,s(he)
“up” from how things appear to us phenomenologically to pursues with regard to the functions or roles s(he) fulfills or
an articulated insight in basic principles … searching the way s(he) is expected to behave, “not conceiving [him/her]
as ahistorical selves or abstract individuals” (Tsoukas and
patterns, similarities and differences in our accumulated
practical experience…” (Eikeland, 2007, p. 352; Eikeland, Cummings,1997,p.670).ThuscallingaPM“good”istomakea
factual statement about what an acknowledged “good” PM
2012, p.27).
does (“means”), and not referring to a list of attributes he/she
should meet. A conceptsuchas“good” isnot anabstract entity
3.1.3. The mediatingrole ofpraxisand phrónêsis or category in a classification system, but is embedded in
For Aristotle, praxis, phrónêsis and ethics are inseparable. the activity, particular context and situation (Feyerabend, 1987,
Phrónêsis(prudence,practicalwisdom)involves“knowingthe p.113).Callingaparticularaction“good”meanswhata“good”
right values and being able to put them into practice in PM would (is expected) do in the situation and is therefore
concrete situations” (Tsoukas and Cummings, 1997, p. 666). makingafactualstatement(MacIntyre,1985,p.59;Tsoukasand
As phrónêsis is both intellectual excellence and excellence of Cummings,1997,p.670)andclosing“theproneticgap”(Taylor,
character,“itisimpossibletobepracticallywisewithoutbeing 1993,p.57)throughthemediatingroleofpraxisandphrónêsis
good” (Aristotle, 1926, 1144a, 18). Praxis is action in relation to move beyond “a dualistic way of thinking” (Tsoukas and
to phrónêsis and ethics. It is action that embodies a com- Cummings,1997,p.668).Hence,fromafactualstatementsuch
mitmenttoeudaimoniaandthesearchfortruth,andrespectfor as“s(he)(e.g.PM)meetsrecurrentlyandsuccessfullytheproject
others.Praxisrequiresthataperson“makesawiseandprudent objectives” we can infer the evaluative judgment “s(he) is a
practical judgement about how to act in this situation” (Carr goodPM”.
and Kemmis, 1986, p. 190quoted inSmith, 1999,2011).
Warry(1992,p.156)offersanauthoritativesummaryofthe 3.3.Standards, ethics and politics
articulation between knowledge and practical experience and
the mediating role of praxis and phrónêsis: “Praxis, as a For Aristotle, “praxis is not only individual, however.
particular form of activity, can serve as a focal point through Collective praxis is possible when we follow common
which the discursive testing of theory is grounded through standards, and adjust to each other communicatively, i.e.
decision-making and experience…”. As Eikeland (2008, p. 87) through establishing mutual and common understandings of
putsit,“Onlyinpraxis,notinthestudyofexternalnature,the how things should be done in “concord” (homónoia in
student and the studied, the knower and the known, coincide.” EN1167a22-b16 […])” (Eikeland, 2008, p. 87). Developing
Project management authors such as Cicmil & Hodgson “goodpractice”isdonebyenteringthetraditionofacommunity
C.Bredilletetal./InternationalJournalofProjectManagement33(2015)254–266 263
ofpractitioners(MacIntyre,1985;Schön,1987)sharingcommon his/her own practice, and there is no separation between
goals (“ends”) will, wish, or want and opinion(Eikeland, 2008, practice and theory (Eikeland, 2008,p. 27).
p. 87, 121) and way of achieving them: “means” with the Therefore the Aristotelian ethic enables to dissolve the
underlying idea of doing (praxis) and doing well (eupraxia). tensionsbetweenrigorandrelevance,practiceandknowledge,
Being part of the community (polis) doesn't involve blind practitioners and researchers we identified inthe practice turn.
acceptance of standards, conventions, norms (nomos — laws)
but at the same time the acceptance of historically developed 4.Critical insights and concluding comments
laws and collective dialogs, debates, deliberations about them
leadingtopossiblychangingthem(Solomon,1992;Tsoukasand 4.1. Tensions and limitations brought about by normative
Cummings, 1997, p. 670). Commenting on the ancient Greek ethics
conceptionofpolitics,Castoriadis(1991)explains:
The question of competence (standards of practice and
“If the human world were fully ordered, either externally or assessment) leads to fundamental ethical questions: what is a
through its own “spontaneous operation”, if human laws “right” action, what is a “good” outcome? And, as conse-
weregivenbyGodorbynatureorbythe“natureofsociety” quence,howistheethicalperspectiveembodiedinassessment
orbythe“lawsofhistory”,thentherewouldbenoroomfor approachesandstandardsandintheassumptionsunderpinning
politicalthinkingandnosenseinaskingwhattheproperlaw them?
is or what justice is. […] If a full and certain knowledge Our discussion unveiled two categories of fundamental
(epistêmê)ofthehumandomainwerepossible,politicswould tensions within and between assessment approaches and
immediatelycometoanend[…]”(Castoriadis(1991,p.104)). standards. First, ethical tensions between means and ends, that
is between deontological and consequentialist approaches, i.e.
TsoukasandCummings(1997,p.671)rightlyenhances:“…in betweendutyandoutcome.Foreachbodyunderstudywehave
thesocialdomainingeneral,andinorganizationsinparticular, ashiftofethicalperspectivebetweenstandardsandassessment
uncertainty,ambiguityandpoliticsmustgotogether”. approach: PMI and IPMA standards are “consequentialists”
Buthowarethesecommonstandardsconceived,developed while their assessment approaches, emphasizing inputs and
and used in an Aristotelian perspective? The way of con- personal competencies (with some nuances, explained in the
ceptualizing “universals” or “general theory” has to be made main body of the article, for IPMA and PMI higher level
clear. According to Eikeland (2008, pp. 25), three kind of assessments), are “deontological”, and conversely for GAPPS,
traditions can be considered: 1) Covering laws (deductive the standards concentrating on duty, while the assessment
nomological or hypothetico-deductive model), 2) Statistical approach,focusingonoutputcompetencies,considersoutcome.
generalizationsand,3)Standards.Herestandardsaredefinedas As part of the ethical tensions, we have to mention the conflict
“fixedpointsor“ideals”forpractitionerswithincertainareas, “competing duties” (e.g. duty to society versus duty to client)
sayingsomethingaboutwhatitmeanstoperformacertainkind inherent to the deontological approach. Second, a tension
of activity competently or, according to a, saying something between facts and values, that is between performance-based
about what it means to perform a certain kind of activity approaches (GAPPS) rooted in practice, in what one “is” or
competentlyor,accordingtocertainquality.”(p.26).Standards “does” and emphasizing relevance, and attribute-based ap-
arenotunderstoodasmereaveragenorms,arbitraryorimposed proaches (IPMA, PMI) grounded on in theory and “universal”
by external bodies (e.g. Brunsson et al., 2000). Nor are best practices, in what one “ought to” be, or “ought to do” and
such standards qualitatively or quantitatively influenced by highlightingrigor.
counter facts. Standards are made by the success of virtuoso In order to overcome these tensions and the related
performers,andthey“changewhensomeonefindsabetterway fragmentations of standards and competence assessment
of doing, making or using something”. The key characteristics approaches we suggest the Aristotelian ethical and practical
of such standards are that “not everybody should or could philosophy offers a more holistic perspective. Hence, we turn
realizethemequallyorfully[…]theirnon-arbitrarycharacter, our attention to an ethics of character providing a balance
their immanence as patterns to practice, and “ways-of-doing- betweentheexcessanddeficienciesoutlinedabove,ofboththe
things”, and their practical inevitability in human life as normative deontological and consequentialist approaches.
either implicit or explicit, vague or more exact standards of
measurement, as standards of validity of excellence” (p. 26). 4.2. Towards aholistic perspective on standards and
Contrary to arbitrary standards, which can be conventional, competence assessment
unnecessary,orenforced,non-arbitrarystandardsarenecessary
astheyexpressanexistentialnecessitythatiswhatitmeansto The Aristotelian perspective, acknowledging two funda-
be or to do something. Such standards are to be observed mental relations through the mediating role of praxis and
practically from within the practice and they are impossible phrónêsis,betweenethicalandintellectualvirtues,andbetween
to be observed just from outside, by perception. The position theory and practice (the various ways of knowing and
of the “observer” is thus quite different between these knowledge forms) enables us to reconnect duty (means) and
three traditions. In the case of “standards”, the observer is outcome (ends) and facts and values. We can now briefly
the practitioner, the native, dealing with things and theorizing emphasizehowitoffersaholisticanswertotensionshighlighted