PMP People — Leading Projects Practice Question
Your project is running 15% over budget at the midpoint. The project sponsor asks you to reduce costs by cutting the quality assurance phase. As a servant leader, what is the BEST response?
⚠ Common exam trap
Candidates often assume the sponsor's authority is absolute (Option B) or that logging the request in the risk register is sufficient (Option C), but the PMP exam emphasizes that a servant leader must proactively educate stakeholders and negotiate better outcomes, not passively comply.
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
✓
Explain the risks of skipping QA and propose other cost-saving options, such as reducing scope or using less expensive resources
As a servant leader, your primary responsibility is to protect the project's value and stakeholder interests. Cutting the quality assurance phase introduces significant technical debt and risk of defects, which could lead to rework, schedule delays, and higher costs later. By explaining these risks and proposing alternatives like scope reduction or resource optimization, you demonstrate ethical leadership and a focus on long-term project success.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Explain the risks of skipping QA and propose other cost-saving options, such as reducing scope or using less expensive resources
Why this is correct
This option demonstrates proactive project management by addressing the budget overrun while safeguarding project quality. A Project Manager (PM) has a fiduciary duty to inform the sponsor of potential risks associated with proposed changes, such as skipping Quality Assurance (QA), which could lead to increased defects, rework, and higher costs later. By presenting well-researched alternatives like scope reduction or resource optimization, the PM empowers the sponsor to make an informed decision that balances cost constraints with project objectives and quality standards. This approach aligns with PMP principles of risk management, stakeholder communication, and value delivery.
- ✗
Agree to the sponsor's request to reduce costs, as the sponsor has authority over the budget
Why it's wrong here
Blindly agreeing to cut QA simply because the sponsor has budget authority is a dereliction of the Project Manager's professional responsibility. The PM is accountable for the project's success, which includes delivering a quality product or service. Eliminating QA without a thorough impact analysis could introduce significant defects, increase rework costs, damage stakeholder satisfaction, and potentially lead to project failure in the long run. A responsible PM must assess the implications of such a drastic change and advise the sponsor accordingly, rather than merely complying without due diligence.
- ✗
Update the risk register to reflect the sponsor's request and proceed without QA
Why it's wrong here
While updating the risk register is a correct procedural step for any identified risk, proceeding without QA based solely on the sponsor's request, and without explicit agreement on the consequences or alternative risk responses, is inappropriate. The risk register should document the identified risk, its potential impact, and the agreed-upon risk response strategy, which requires sponsor approval, especially for significant changes like eliminating QA. A PM cannot unilaterally implement a high-impact decision without ensuring the sponsor fully understands and accepts the associated risks and has formally approved the chosen response.
- ✗
Refuse to cut QA and continue with the current project plan
Why it's wrong here
Outright refusal to consider the sponsor's request, even if it impacts quality, demonstrates a lack of flexibility and collaborative problem-solving. While protecting project quality is crucial, a Project Manager must also manage stakeholder expectations and work within project constraints. Simply refusing without offering any alternatives or engaging in a constructive dialogue can damage the PM-sponsor relationship and may lead to the sponsor making unilateral decisions without the PM's input. Effective project management involves finding mutually agreeable solutions, not rigid adherence to the initial plan when faced with significant challenges.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 800 original PMP practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. 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.