The answer is to facilitate a meeting where both factions present their arguments with data and evidence, as this directly embodies collaborative conflict resolution techniques for project managers. This approach transforms a personality-driven dispute into a fact-based discussion, aligning with the collaborative/confronting mode in the PMP conflict resolution framework, which seeks win-win outcomes by integrating diverse perspectives. On the Project Management Professional PMP exam, this scenario tests your ability to apply the "collaborate" technique from the five conflict resolution methods (withdraw, smooth, compromise, force, collaborate), and a common trap is choosing "compromise" because it seems faster, but compromise only partially satisfies both sides. The key is remembering that collaboration requires open dialogue and data, not just a middle ground. Memory tip: think "Data Dialogue, Not Personal Strife" to recall that collaborative conflict resolution prioritizes evidence over ego.
PMP People — Leading Projects Practice Question
This PMP practice question tests your understanding of people — leading projects. Read the scenario carefully and evaluate each option against the stated constraints before committing to an answer. After answering, compare your reasoning against the explanation and wrong-answer breakdown below. Once you have made your selection, read the full explanation to reinforce the concept and understand why each distractor is designed to mislead on exam day.
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?
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
Option A is correct because 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.
Key principle: Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
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
An impartial expert can provide an objective assessment and help break the deadlock.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
✗
Make the final decision based on your own expertise to save time
Why it's wrong here
Imposing a decision may increase resentment and does not build consensus.
✓
Ask the team to focus on project objectives rather than personal preferences
Why this is correct
Refocusing on shared goals can reduce personal bias.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
✗
Implement both solutions in parallel to satisfy both sides
Why it's wrong here
This is wasteful and may not be feasible; it avoids resolving the conflict.
✓
Facilitate a meeting where both factions present their arguments with data and evidence
Why this is correct
Open discussion with evidence helps the team evaluate options objectively.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
The trap here is that candidates may 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.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
In collaborative conflict resolution, the goal is to integrate diverse perspectives to achieve a consensus that aligns with project objectives. By facilitating a meeting where both factions present data and evidence (Option C), the project manager encourages evidence-based decision-making, which is a core tenet of the PMP's 'Manage Team' process. This approach mirrors techniques like 'Integrating' in the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, where the focus is on finding a win-win solution that satisfies the project's technical requirements and stakeholder needs.
KKey Concepts to Remember
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
Find the constraint that changes the correct option.
Eliminate answers that are true in general but not in this case.
TExam Day Tips
→Watch for words such as best, first, most likely and least administrative effort.
→Review why wrong options are wrong, not only why the correct option is correct.
Key takeaway
Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Real-world example
How this comes up in practice
A practitioner preparing for the PMP exam encounters this exact type of scenario on the job. The correct answer here is not the most general option — it is the best answer for the specific constraint described. Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option. Real exam questions reward reading the full scenario before eliminating options, because the constraint defines which answer fits.
Related glossary terms
Concepts from this question explained
These glossary pages explain the core terms tested in this PMP question in full detail.
People — Leading Projects — This question tests People — Leading Projects — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: Bring in a neutral external expert to evaluate both options — Option A is correct because 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.
What should I do if I get this PMP question wrong?
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
What is the key concept behind this question?
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
About these practice questions
Courseiva creates original exam-style practice questions with explanations and wrong-answer analysis. It does not publish real exam questions, exam dumps, or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
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.
Question Discussion
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
Sign in to join the discussion.