| Course | GM594 Project Closing, Ethics, and Professional Responsibilities |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Professional responsibility paper |
| Length | About 1,130 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM594 Unit 10
Before Thursday's Meeting: A Unit 10 Professional Responsibility Paper on a Board Member's Conflict
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM594: Project Closing, Ethics, and Professional Responsibilities
Unit 10 Professional Responsibility Paper
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The emergency communications district, its board, its contractors and every figure are composite and illustrative; the code and sources cited are real.
The Decision
The projects manager will not place the claim on Thursday's consent agenda. She will tell the executive director in writing on Monday that the treasurer has a family relationship with the claimant and has asked for approval. She will ask that the claim go to the finance committee as a separate item, with her recommendation to reject it and the evidence attached. She will ask that the treasurer be told the relationship has been disclosed and that the district's conflict of interest policy applies. And she will not discuss the claim with the treasurer again except in writing.
The Case
The Ridgeline Emergency Communications District's backup power project failed its first transfer test because the electrical subcontractor set the transfer switch's start delay wrong. The subcontractor corrected the setting, and the repeated tests passed. It then claimed $38,600 for the cost of repeating them. The contract closeout memo recommended rejecting the claim, because under the contract's general conditions a contractor bears the cost of correcting its own nonconforming work (American Institute of Architects, 2017).
On Friday afternoon the board treasurer, who chairs the finance committee and has served on the board for eleven years, emailed the projects manager. He wrote that the subcontractor was "a good local outfit that went above and beyond," that the claim was fair, and that he would like it on Thursday's consent agenda "so we can wrap this project up cleanly." The subcontractor is owned by his wife's brother. He did not mention the relationship, which the projects manager learned from the contractor's project manager months ago.
The Anchor: Fairness
Under its fairness value, PMI's ethics code sets mandatory rules on conflicts of interest (Project Management Institute, 2006). Practitioners must disclose real or potential conflicts proactively and fully to the appropriate stakeholders. When they have a real or potential conflict, they must stay out of the decision and avoid trying to influence it, unless they have made full disclosure, have an approved plan to manage the conflict and have the consent of the stakeholders to proceed.
The conflict here is the treasurer's, not the projects manager's. He has a family interest in the outcome and is trying to influence it. The code's conflict standards bind the projects manager directly only for her own conflicts, so the question is why the duty to act falls on her.
The Anchor: Responsibility
The answer is in the code's responsibility standards. Practitioners must uphold the policies and rules that govern their work, and must report unethical or illegal conduct to appropriate management (Project Management Institute, 2006). The district's own conflict of interest policy, which the board adopted, requires any board member with a family interest in a contract to disclose it and abstain. The treasurer has done neither. Placing his request on a consent agenda, where items pass without discussion, would help him avoid both. The projects manager knows the relationship and the request. If she processes the request as asked, she becomes part of the failure to disclose.
The conflict belongs to the treasurer, but the duty to bring it into the open falls on the person who knows about it and is being asked to help it pass unnoticed.
Why Not Speak to the Treasurer First
A gentler path would be to call the treasurer, mention the relationship and invite him to disclose it himself. That has appeal, and in some organizations it would be the right first step. Here it has two problems. The treasurer chose not to mention the relationship in a written request about the claim, so a private conversation would ask him to correct a choice he has already made, with no record if he declines. And a private call would leave the projects manager holding knowledge that the executive director and the committee do not have, which is the position the responsibility standard asks her not to stay in. Copying the executive director on a written reply gives the treasurer the same chance to disclose, while keeping the process open.
Three Objections
The subcontractor is a small local business, and $38,600 matters to it. True. But the contract allocates the cost of correcting defective work to the contractor, and every contractor bid on those terms. Paying the claim would be a gift of public funds to one subcontractor, which other bidders could fairly object to. If the board wants to support local businesses, it can do so through its procurement policy, openly, not through one disputed claim.
The treasurer is the board's longest-serving member and chairs finance; crossing him could cost the projects manager her job or her influence. This is the most serious objection, and it is a real risk. But the decision does not accuse the treasurer of anything beyond what is documented, and it routes the matter through the executive director and the committee, not around them. Max Bazerman and Ann Tenbrunsel observe that people often allow unethical outcomes not by choosing them but by treating a request from a powerful person as routine (Bazerman & Tenbrunsel, 2011). Treating the email as a routine agenda request would be exactly that.
Delaying the claim damages goodwill and keeps the project from closing. The contract can close on schedule without the claim; disputed claims are routinely resolved separately. A rejected claim recorded with its reasons closes the project more cleanly than an approved one that a future audit might question.
What This Costs and What It Protects
The decision may strain the projects manager's relationship with the treasurer, and the board may still approve the claim if a majority wishes, after disclosure. That outcome would be legitimate, because the decision would have been made openly. What the decision protects is the district's procurement process, the board's own conflict policy and the projects manager's integrity as the person who signs project records.
Monday's Actions
By noon, a memo to the executive director disclosing the relationship and the request, attaching the closeout memo and the treasurer's email. By end of day, a request to the finance committee's vice chair, since the chair is the treasurer, that the claim be heard as a separate item with the conflict noted. A reply to the treasurer, copied to the executive director, saying the claim will go to the finance committee with the closeout memo, and that the relationship has been disclosed under the district's policy. And a note in the project file recording each step and its date.
References
American Institute of Architects. (2017). AIA document A201-2017: General conditions of the contract for construction.
Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Blind spots: Why we fail to do what's right and what to do about it. Princeton University Press.
Project Management Institute. (2006). PMI code of ethics and professional conduct.
Reading the GM 594 Unit 10 instructions
The final GM594 unit asks you to decide a professional responsibility case and defend the decision. State the decision first, in a few sentences a supervisor could act on. Then give the case briefly, with the facts that create the dilemma. Anchor the decision in specific standards of a professional code, explaining which apply to whom; if the conflict belongs to someone else, explain why the duty to act still reaches you. Consider gentler alternatives and why you did not choose them. Answer the strongest objections to your decision honestly, including the risk to yourself. Say what the decision costs and what it protects. Close with dated actions for the next working day. Expect about ten pages in three movements, decision, anchor and defense, citing the code, the governing contract and research on ethical behavior in APA 7.
Inside the GM594 Unit 10 example
The decision keeps the claim off the consent agenda, discloses the relationship to the executive director, sends the claim to the finance committee with a rejection recommendation, tells the treasurer in writing and ends verbal contact on the claim. The case recounts the 6-second start delay, the contract's correction of work clause and the treasurer's Friday email. PMI's fairness standards on disclosure and abstention are applied, then its responsibility standards on upholding policy and reporting, which the highlighted sentence explains reach the projects manager. A section explains why a private call to the treasurer was set aside. Three objections, a small local business, a powerful board member and lost goodwill, are answered, citing Bazerman and Tenbrunsel on treating powerful requests as routine. Costs and protections follow, and Monday's actions run from a noon memo to a note in the project file.
Reading the GM594 Unit 10 grading rubric
On the GM594 rubric, this paper earns its marks through a decision stated plainly, an anchor in the code's actual wording and a defense that meets the hardest objections. Instructors look for the decision stated first in actionable terms. The case should be brief but complete. Applying specific standards, and explaining who each binds, carries significant weight, especially when the conflict belongs to someone else. Considering a gentler path and explaining why it was set aside shows judgment. Objections should be the strongest available, answered honestly, including personal risk. Weighing costs against what the decision protects shows maturity. Dated next-day actions make the decision real. References in APA 7 are PMI's 2006 ethics code, the AIA A201 general conditions and Bazerman and Tenbrunsel on ethical blind spots.
Common GM594 Unit 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GM594 Unit 10 papers retell the case at length and reach a decision only in the last paragraph. Others cite the code's values without identifying the specific standards that apply or whom they bind. A frequent gap is the objections: answering weak ones while ignoring the real risk to the writer reads as unconvincing. Some writers stop at the principle without listing what they will do. State the decision first, give the case briefly, apply specific standards and explain who they bind, consider gentler alternatives, answer the strongest objections, weigh costs and protections and list dated actions for the next day.
Get a GM594 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
What decision does the Unit 10 prompt pose, and which code does the course rely on? Send both with the rubric, or request a composite case instead. Page one of the paper states the decision; the code is then applied standard by standard and three objections are met at full strength. The first sample is free, in 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GM594 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM594 Unit 1: Project That Never Closed Post
- GM594 Unit 2: Acceptance Criteria Review
- GM594 Unit 3: Final Project Report
- GM594 Unit 4: Lessons Learned Record
- GM594 Unit 5: Handover and Transition Plan
- GM594 Unit 6: Project Endings Seminar Reflection
- GM594 Unit 7: Contract Closeout Memo
- GM594 Unit 8: Benefits Realization Review
- GM594 Unit 9: Ethics Case Analysis
- GM593 Unit 10: Project Control Package
- GM500 Unit 10: Bakery Contingency Integrative Paper
- GM592 Unit 10: Integrated Project Plan
- GM501 Unit 10: Internal Talent Marketplace Paper
GM594 Unit 10 questions, answered
How is this different from the Unit 9 ethics case?
Unit 9 usually weighs options; Unit 10 commits to one and defends it. The sample's case analysis compared three routes for a grant report, while this paper states its decision in five sentences and spends most of its length on objections. Some sections merge the two tasks, so the prompt's wording decides how much option analysis to include.
Can the paper use a code other than PMI's?
If the prompt allows, yes, and some writers use a professional code from their own field. The sample relies on PMI's code because project management courses commonly name it. Whichever code is chosen, describe it accurately, cite the specific standards applied and avoid resting the argument on general themes like integrity.
Where can I find a free GM594 Unit 10 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM594 Unit 10 professional responsibility paper on a board treasurer's undisclosed family interest in a claim, anchored in PMI's code, with objections answered and APA 7 references.
Why does the duty fall on the projects manager if the conflict is the treasurer's?
The code's responsibility standards require practitioners to uphold the policies that govern their work and report unethical conduct. The projects manager knows the relationship and is being asked to help the claim pass unnoticed, so processing it as asked would make her part of the failure to disclose.
Why not call the treasurer privately first?
He chose not to mention the relationship in a written request, so a private call would leave no record if he declined to disclose, and would keep the executive director and committee uninformed. A written reply copied to the executive director gives him the same chance openly.