People practice questions

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

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

Risk Breakdown Structure (RBS)

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

Quality Register

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

Product Breakdown Structure (PBS)

Why it fails: 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 it fails: Delivering outputs on time and under budget addresses product delivery, not the behavioural adoption the transformation demands. It is tempting because PRINCE2 emphasises continued business justification and stage boundaries. Managing change requires addressing people, culture and readiness, which this output-only focus omits.

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

Why it fails: External PR teams control messaging but cannot own the business-unit engagement, capability building and feedback that PRINCE2 7 places with the change team. It is tempting because PR firms excel at crisis communications and brand reputation, which would be the right choice for a public-facing announcement or media-handling campaign.

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

Why it fails: Disciplinary enforcement suppresses the open feedback and learning PRINCE2 7 change management depends on, so resistance goes underground rather than being addressed. It is tempting because formal authority can force surface compliance, which would suit a mandatory safety or regulatory rule where behaviour must change regardless of buy-in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue a formal HR warning immediately without investigating underlying factors.

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

The external auditors.

Why it fails: Auditors assess governance compliance; they do not manage project stakeholders.

Individual team members acting independently.

Why it fails: Individual members manage their tasks, but overall engagement strategy is a management responsibility.

The corporate or program management function exclusively.

Why it fails: Corporate management sets overarching standards, but project-specific engagement is managed by the project team.

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

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

Individual performance ratings and annual salary reviews for project staff

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

Blaming specific team members publicly to deter future errors

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

Making all decisions in total isolation without consulting subject matter experts

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

Ensuring that stakeholders never ask questions or challenge project assumptions

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

Transferring all project accountability entirely to external stakeholders

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

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

Why it fails: 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 it fails: 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 it fails: 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 it fails: 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 it fails: Public shaming entrenches hostility and damages professional relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why it fails: Restricting communication stifles collaboration and creativity.

Document the conflict in the Issue Register and assign it to the Senior User, as they are responsible for representing user needs and should resolve any disputes.

Why it fails: While issues should be captured in the Issue Register, assigning the conflict to the Senior User implies they are solely responsible for resolving it. In PRINCE2 7, the Project Manager is responsible for managing issues, including conflicts, and should not delegate this responsibility entirely to one party. The Issue Register is a tool for tracking, not for assigning blame or responsibility for resolution.

Escalate the conflict to the Executive immediately, as only the Executive has the authority to resolve disputes between project board members.

Why it fails: While the Executive is ultimately accountable for the project and may need to be involved in escalated disputes, immediate escalation is not the first step. PRINCE2 7 advocates that the Project Manager should first attempt to resolve conflicts at the lowest possible level. Escalating immediately can undermine the Project Manager's role and may be premature if the issue can be addressed through facilitated discussion.

Refer the matter to the Change Authority to formally raise a Request for Change, as the conflict indicates a change in requirements.

Why it fails: The Change Authority is responsible for approving or rejecting changes to the project's baselines, not for resolving interpersonal or role-based conflicts. Raising a Request for Change would only be appropriate if the conflict resulted in a proposed change to the project's scope, time, cost, or quality baselines. Using the change control process to address a disagreement about scope interpretation would be a misuse of that mechanism.

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

Why it fails: Conflict and role competition describe the storming stage, where members challenge each other and jostle for position. Norming follows storming, bringing agreed ways of working, cohesion and trust. The Project Manager would expect friction earlier, before ground rules and relationships settle.

Disbandment of the team and emotional resistance to project closure.

Why it fails: Disbandment and closure resistance characterise the adjourning stage, when the team disbands after delivering. Norming instead shows developing cohesion, agreed roles and constructive working relationships. The Project Manager would expect closure emotions only at the end of the project or team's life.

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

Why it fails: Norming still requires management oversight; the team agrees working methods but the Project Manager retains responsibility for progress and escalation. Full autonomy describes performing, where the team operates effectively with minimal direction. Treating norming as unsupervised would remove governance PRINCE2 requires throughout.

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

Why it fails: PRINCE2 7 assigns the Project Manager accountability for stakeholder engagement, so delegating executive communication without review removes the judgement the role requires. It is tempting when support staff handle routine reporting, which would be acceptable only for administrative distribution under the manager's oversight.

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

Why it fails: Daily 50-page reports bury the exception information executives need, defeating the purpose of management by exception. It is tempting because completeness feels safe, and would be appropriate only for a detailed audit pack, not routine progress communication.

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

Why it fails: PRINCE2 7 requires planned, recorded communication; impromptu conversations leave no auditable trail of decisions or tolerances for the board. It is tempting when executives prefer brevity, and would suit informal team coordination rather than formal governance reporting.

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

Why it fails: Making an arbitrary decision ignores both parties' technical arguments and leaves the underlying disagreement unresolved, so the workshop stalls again later. It is tempting as a quick way to restore progress, and would suit a trivial, time-critical decision where the Project Manager genuinely holds the technical authority — not a contested architecture debate between senior specialists.

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

Why it fails: Allowing dominance leaves the architecture decision to whoever argues loudest, risking an unresolved issue that later surfaces through the project's issue and risk management. PRINCE2 requires the Project Manager to actively address conflict, not delegate it to attrition.

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

Why it fails: Ejecting participants addresses neither the disagreement nor the workshop's objective, and PRINCE2 7 expects the Project Manager to manage conflict within the team rather than remove people from it. Escalation or removal suits persistent, unresolvable disputes that breach tolerances, not a technical argument needing facilitated resolution.

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

Why it fails: Private overtime deals bypass the functional managers who own those resources' line priorities, undermining the dual-reporting relationship PRINCE2 expects the Project Manager to manage openly. It is tempting because direct negotiation is quick, and would suit a self-organising team without matrix reporting lines.

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

Why it fails: Outsourcing every task to contractors abandons the PRINCE2 principle of defined roles and responsibilities, which requires clarifying dual reporting lines and negotiating resource commitments with functional managers. Contractors suit short-term specialist skills absent internally, not resolving ongoing matrix contention.

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

Why it fails: A corporate mandate overrides functional managers' authority, removing the collaboration and shared ownership the people principles require in a matrix. It is tempting because escalation resolves contention decisively, and would be right where governance permits the Executive to reprioritise portfolios centrally.

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

Why it fails: Risks and mitigation budgets belong in the Risk Management Approach and Business Case, not the Communication Management Approach, which defines stakeholders, information needs, timing, format and responsibilities. Listing risks here would leave the actual communication requirements — who receives what, when and how — undefined, so the approach could not support effective engagement.

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

Why it fails: Technical specifications and quality criteria belong in the product description and quality management approach, not the Communication Management Approach. It is tempting because both documents are produced during initiation, yet communications covers information flow between stakeholders.

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

Why it fails: Communication Management Approach defines stakeholders, information needs, formats, timing and responsibilities for project communications, not remuneration. It is tempting because team motivation features in projects, but pay and bonuses fall outside PRINCE2's communication theme entirely.