People practice questions

A comprehensive log of all active project risks and their mitigation scores

Why wrong: Active risks are tracked in the Risk Register, not the Communication Management Approach.

Individual performance ratings and annual salary reviews for project staff

Why wrong: Staff remuneration and performance reviews are handled by corporate HR, not the project communication plan.

Detailed technical specifications of the project's final IT architecture

Why wrong: Technical specifications belong in Product Descriptions and the Quality Management Approach.

Withholding bad news from the Project Board until the crisis has fully resolved

Why wrong: Withholding bad news violates escalation thresholds and governance transparency.

Blaming specific team members publicly to deter future errors

Why wrong: Public blaming destroys trust, morale, and psychological safety.

Making all decisions in total isolation without consulting subject matter experts

Why wrong: Isolating decision-making ignores crucial expert knowledge and alienates the team.

Ensuring that stakeholders never ask questions or challenge project assumptions

Why wrong: Constructive challenge and questioning are encouraged to ensure quality and validity.

Transferring all project accountability entirely to external stakeholders

Why wrong: Accountability in PRINCE2 remains clearly defined (e.g., Executive, Project Manager) and cannot be transferred.

Eliminating the need for any project governance or reporting

Why wrong: Stakeholder engagement complements governance; it never eliminates the need for it.

Using highly colloquial idioms and local slang in all written project documentation

Why wrong: Idioms and slang cause confusion for non-native speakers and should be avoided in professional documents.

Mandating that all team members relocate to the primary headquarters permanently

Why wrong: Forcing relocation is usually impractical and defeats the purpose of a multi-site project.

Dismiss all team members who express frustration and replace them immediately

Why wrong: Mass dismissals are disruptive and fail to address the underlying team development cycle.

Impose strict autocratic control and forbid any further team discussions or debates

Why wrong: Suppression of discussion prevents the team from moving past storming into norming.

Publicly calling out their resistance in executive steering committee meetings to pressure them

Why wrong: Public shaming entrenches hostility and damages professional relationships.

Ignoring their feedback and proceeding with project plans to demonstrate managerial authority

Why wrong: Ignoring resistant stakeholders guarantees active opposition and project failure.

It replaces the Business Case and Quality themes with human resource policies.

Why wrong: The People aspect integrates with and supports all PRINCE2 practices; it does not replace core themes.

It focuses exclusively on the technical recruitment processes managed by corporate HR.

Why wrong: Recruitment is an HR function; the People aspect focuses on leadership, collaboration, and change within projects.

It states that project managers must rely solely on hierarchical authority to drive results.

Why wrong: PRINCE2 emphasizes influencing, leadership, and collaboration rather than relying solely on hierarchy.

Enforce rigid, repetitive routines without deviation to maximize short-term output

Why wrong: Rigid routines worsen stagnation and reduce creative problem-solving.

Prohibit any team communication outside of formal, highly restricted status meetings

Why wrong: Restricting communication stifles collaboration and creativity.

High levels of conflict and friction as members compete for roles and influence.

Why wrong: Conflict and friction are characteristic of the 'storming' stage, not 'norming'.

Disbandment of the team and emotional resistance to project closure.

Why wrong: Disbandment and emotional resistance characterize the 'adjourning' stage.

Complete autonomy where the team operates effectively without any management oversight.

Why wrong: Total autonomy without oversight describes an ideal state rarely achieved without ongoing facilitation.

Delegate all executive communication responsibilities entirely to the project support office without review.

Why wrong: The Project Manager remains accountable for effective communication with governance layers.

Send a comprehensive 50-page daily report containing all risk logs and issue logs.

Why wrong: Executives will not read overly detailed operational logs, leading to poor communication.

Eliminate all written reports and rely entirely on impromptu hallway conversations.

Why wrong: Relying solely on hallway conversations lacks audit trails and formal governance structure.

Make an arbitrary decision yourself without listening to either party's technical arguments.

Why wrong: Arbitrary decisions without technical input can introduce severe quality risks.

Ignore the argument and allow them to fight it out until one person dominates.

Why wrong: Ignoring conflict leads to unresolved tension and damaged team dynamics.

Immediately eject both individuals from the workshop to maintain hierarchical control.

Why wrong: Ejecting members damages relationships and suppresses valuable technical insights.

Escalate the resistance immediately to the Project Board for disciplinary review.

Why wrong: Escalation should be a last resort; understanding and resolving resistance locally is preferred.

Remove the operations department representatives from the stakeholder register to prevent project delays.

Why wrong: Removing key stakeholders creates a blind spot and guarantees future implementation failure.

Issue a formal directive reminding stakeholders of their contractual obligations to support the project.

Why wrong: Relying on contractual directives often entrenches resistance rather than building commitment.

Bypass the functional managers entirely and negotiate private overtime arrangements directly with individual team members.

Why wrong: Bypassing functional managers damages organizational relationships and violates governance protocols.

Reallocate all project tasks exclusively to external contractors to avoid relying on matrixed internal resources.

Why wrong: External contracting is often cost-prohibitive and fails to leverage necessary internal domain knowledge.

Escalate to the Executive to issue a corporate mandate making the project the absolute priority over all functional work.

Why wrong: Corporate mandates rarely solve underlying operational realities and can trigger hostile pushback.

Risk Breakdown Structure (RBS)

Why wrong: An RBS categorizes project risks to aid risk identification.

Quality Register

Why wrong: The Quality Register tracks the results of quality control activities.

Product Breakdown Structure (PBS)

Why wrong: A PBS is used to define and break down the physical products of the project, not stakeholder attitudes.

Focusing exclusively on delivering technical project outputs on time and under budget.

Why wrong: Focusing only on outputs ignores whether the business adopts them to realize outcomes.

Outsourcing all change communication to an external public relations firm to maintain corporate image.

Why wrong: External PR firms lack the internal context and credibility needed to drive behavioral change.

Enforcing compliance through strict HR disciplinary measures for any staff member who questions the new processes.

Why wrong: Coercion generates resentment and drives resistance underground rather than fostering true adoption.

Delegate all recovery planning entirely to the team without managerial oversight or support.

Why wrong: Total delegation without guidance can overwhelm an already demoralized team.

Focus heavily on transactional rewards while reducing team involvement in planning.

Why wrong: Transactional approaches do not address the underlying cultural and emotional drivers of team morale.

Adopt an autocratic style to strictly enforce remaining deadlines and eliminate distractions.

Why wrong: An autocratic style under low morale typically increases stress and resentment, worsening team performance.

To list all identified project risks and their associated mitigation budgets.

Why wrong: Risks and mitigation budgets belong in the Risk Register and Business Case.

To outline the technical specifications and quality criteria of the final product.

Why wrong: Technical specifications are defined in the Product Description and Quality Management Approach.

To dictate the exact bonuses and financial compensation for project team members.

Why wrong: Financial compensation is handled by HR and corporate remuneration policies, not project communication plans.

Publicly reprimand the team member during the next stand-up meeting to deter similar behavior.

Why wrong: Public reprimands destroy trust, worsen morale, and violate professional leadership standards.

Reassign all of the team member's responsibilities to junior staff without discussion.

Why wrong: Reassignment without communication undermines the individual and fails to address the root cause.

Issue a formal HR warning immediately without investigating underlying factors.

Why wrong: Jumping straight to formal warnings lacks emotional intelligence and managerial support.

Coercive power, enforcing compliance through direct disciplinary control.

Why wrong: Project Managers rarely have direct disciplinary control over staff from other functional lines.

Laissez-faire management, allowing experts to operate in total isolation without coordination.

Why wrong: Total isolation leads to fragmented outputs and failure to meet project integration needs.

Micro-management, dictating every detailed step of the experts' technical work.

Why wrong: Micro-management alienates subject matter experts and stifles their professional expertise.

Keep them fully informed with exhaustive daily operational reports.

Why wrong: Low-interest stakeholders will ignore detailed operational reports, leading to communication fatigue.

Delegate their management entirely to junior administrative staff.

Why wrong: Powerful stakeholders require appropriate engagement by senior project leadership.

Ignore them completely since they have low interest.

Why wrong: Ignoring powerful stakeholders is dangerous as they can suddenly intervene if dissatisfied.