Courseiva
People — Leading ProjectsmediumMultiple SelectObjective-mapped

PMP People — Leading Projects Practice Question

A project manager is leading a hybrid project. The team is co-located but the project manager observes that some team members are reluctant to share opposing views during discussions, leading to groupthink. Which TWO actions should the project manager take to foster a culture of constructive debate?

⚠ Common exam trap

PMI often tests the misconception that anonymous voting (Option A) is a valid way to encourage debate, when in fact it avoids the open dialogue needed to surface and resolve conflicting viewpoints.

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

Assign one team member to play the 'devil's advocate' in each meeting to challenge ideas

Assigning a 'devil's advocate' systematically introduces constructive challenge, directly countering groupthink by ensuring every idea is tested. Option C is correct because establishing ground rules that reward respectful disagreement creates a psychological safety net, encouraging team members to voice opposing views without fear of reprisal.

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

  • Implement anonymous voting for all decisions

    Why it's wrong here

    Implementing anonymous voting for *all* decisions, while seemingly promoting honesty, can actually hinder constructive debate and team cohesion. This approach often reduces accountability for opinions expressed and prevents the open discussion necessary to understand underlying reasoning or resolve disagreements collaboratively. For complex project decisions, transparency and direct engagement are typically more effective than anonymous input.

  • Assign one team member to play the 'devil's advocate' in each meeting to challenge ideas

    Why this is correct

    Assigning a 'devil's advocate' is a highly effective technique for formalizing critical evaluation within a team. This role systematically challenges assumptions, identifies potential risks, and explores alternative viewpoints, ensuring that decisions are thoroughly vetted before commitment. It promotes robust critical thinking and strengthens proposed solutions by proactively addressing weaknesses, without personalizing the disagreement.

  • Establish ground rules that encourage respectful disagreement and reward diverse perspectives

    Why this is correct

    Establishing clear ground rules that explicitly encourage respectful disagreement and reward diverse perspectives is fundamental for creating a psychologically safe project environment. Such rules empower all team members to voice concerns, offer alternative solutions, and challenge ideas without fear of retribution or marginalization. This fosters an inclusive culture where cognitive diversity is leveraged to achieve superior project outcomes.

  • Make decisions quickly to avoid prolonged debates

    Why it's wrong here

    Making decisions quickly to avoid prolonged debates is a detrimental approach that often suppresses valuable input and leads to suboptimal project outcomes. Rushing the decision-making process prevents thorough analysis of options, overlooks potential risks, and fails to incorporate diverse perspectives from the team. This can result in costly rework, missed opportunities, and decreased team buy-in, especially in complex hybrid projects.

  • Only ask for opinions from senior team members to streamline discussions

    Why it's wrong here

    Limiting opinion solicitation solely to senior team members to streamline discussions is counterproductive and undermines effective project management. This practice disenfranchises junior members, stifles innovation, and ignores valuable insights from individuals closer to the technical work or specific problem domains. It reinforces a hierarchical culture that actively suppresses diverse perspectives, leading to less comprehensive solutions and reduced team engagement.

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 →

How Courseiva writes practice questions · Editorial policy

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.