PMP People — Leading Projects Practice Question
A project manager is assigned to a troubled project. The team is divided into two factions: one supports a technical solution A, the other solution B. The conflict is causing delays. The project manager wants to resolve this using a collaborative approach. Which THREE actions should the project manager take?
⚠ Common exam trap
Many candidates confuse 'collaborative approach' with 'consensus at any cost' and incorrectly choose Option D (implementing both solutions) as a way to satisfy both sides, but this ignores the practical constraints of project resources and the need for a single, optimal technical solution.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Bring in a neutral external expert to evaluate both options
Bringing in a neutral external expert aligns with the collaborative approach the project manager wants to use. The expert can objectively evaluate both technical solutions A and B based on data and evidence, helping to de-escalate the conflict without taking sides. This fosters a collaborative environment by focusing on facts rather than personal biases, which is essential for resolving the delay-causing faction dispute.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Bring in a neutral external expert to evaluate both options
Why this is correct
Bringing in a neutral external expert provides an objective, unbiased assessment of the proposed solutions, which is crucial when internal team factions are deadlocked due to personal preferences or differing technical opinions. This leverages expert judgment, a key project management tool, to introduce an impartial perspective and specialized knowledge, thereby facilitating a data-driven decision that is more likely to be accepted by all parties and align with project success criteria.
- ✗
Make the final decision based on your own expertise to save time
Why it's wrong here
Making a unilateral decision based solely on the project manager's expertise, especially in a troubled project with existing team conflict, represents a 'forcing' conflict resolution technique. While it may save time in the short term, this autocratic approach often leads to increased resentment, decreased team morale, and a lack of commitment to the solution, ultimately undermining team cohesion and potentially causing further project issues rather than resolving them sustainably.
- ✓
Ask the team to focus on project objectives rather than personal preferences
Why this is correct
Asking the team to refocus on project objectives rather than personal preferences is a highly effective strategy for conflict resolution, aligning with the 'collaborating' or 'problem-solving' approach. By shifting the team's perspective from individual desires to the overarching goals of the project, the project manager encourages a shared vision and promotes decisions based on what is best for the project's success, scope, and deliverables, fostering a more objective and unified approach.
- ✗
Implement both solutions in parallel to satisfy both sides
Why it's wrong here
Implementing both solutions in parallel is an inefficient and often impractical approach that avoids true conflict resolution, akin to 'smoothing' or 'avoiding' the core issue. This strategy typically leads to resource duplication, increased costs, potential scope creep, and operational complexity without guaranteeing a superior outcome. It demonstrates poor resource management and a lack of decisive leadership, prolonging the project's troubled state rather than resolving the underlying disagreement effectively.
- ✓
Facilitate a meeting where both factions present their arguments with data and evidence
Why this is correct
Facilitating a meeting where both factions present their arguments with data and evidence promotes a collaborative and objective problem-solving environment. This approach encourages critical thinking and moves the discussion from emotional or positional stances to fact-based analysis, allowing the team to collectively evaluate the merits and risks of each option. It builds consensus and strengthens team decision-making capabilities by fostering transparency and accountability for proposed solutions.
Visual reference
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This PMP question is part of Courseiva's 800-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This PMP practice question is part of Courseiva's free PMI certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the PMP exam.