PMI PMP Conflict Resolution and Team Agreements Practice Test

 

Topic 02 covers conflict resolution and team agreements for the PMI Project Management Professional (PMP) certification. These original scenarios apply the July 2026 exam objectives across predictive, agile and hybrid projects. Use the stated constraints to select one answer unless the question specifies otherwise. For broader preparation, visit the PMP Exam Dumps page. Each option has an explanation of its role in the decision.

Question 1

During a warehouse redesign, two specialists repeatedly reject each other’s proposals. Neither has explained the requirements behind the objections, and no immediate safety or delivery deadline is involved. What should the project manager do first?

1. Ask each specialist to stop raising objections until a common proposal is ready.
2. Hold a team vote to select whichever proposal has more supporters.
3. Clarify the disputed facts and desired results with both specialists.
4. Ask the sponsor to choose the proposal with the lower initial cost.
5. Separate the specialists permanently so their work no longer overlaps.

Correct Answer: C

 

Correct Answer

Answer C is correct because the cause has not been established. A focused discussion creates an evidence base for choosing a resolution method before attributing motives or selecting a design.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because pausing objections without examining their requirements can hide useful constraints. The specialists need a structured discussion of the disputed facts before they can develop a proposal that resolves the substantive disagreement.

Answer B is incorrect because a vote measures preference but does not reveal whether either design meets the disputed requirements. The missing information should be established first.

Answer D is incorrect because cost has not been established as the deciding concern. Escalating an unexplored disagreement would transfer a decision without the information needed to make it.

Answer E is incorrect because the designs still have to function together. Changing assignments before understanding the conflict can preserve the underlying incompatibility and add coordination gaps.

 

Question 2

Sales insists that a customer demonstration occur on Friday; engineering insists on the following Tuesday. In discussion, sales explains that the customer’s decision maker is available only Friday, while engineering needs until that following Tuesday to finish a new feature. What is the most useful next step?

1. Select Sunday as an equal compromise between the requested dates.
2. Move the full demonstration to the following Tuesday and send the customer a Friday progress summary.
3. Let sales determine the date because it owns the customer relationship.
4. Explore a Friday demonstration of stable functions and a later session for the new feature.
5. Require engineering to commit to all features by Friday.

Correct Answer: D

 

Correct Answer

Answer D is correct because the proposed arrangement addresses the availability and readiness interests separately. Its feasibility should be checked with both groups instead of treating the two dates as indivisible positions.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because splitting the calendar difference addresses neither the customer’s Friday availability nor the feature’s Tuesday readiness. Numerical symmetry does not establish a workable agreement.

Answer B is incorrect because a summary may help communication, but this proposal does not accommodate the decision maker’s stated Friday availability. Exploring separate demonstrations can address both access and feature-readiness interests.

Answer C is incorrect because customer access matters, but ownership of the relationship does not resolve what can credibly be demonstrated. Both availability and capability affect the agreement.

Answer E is incorrect because that instruction assumes the readiness constraint can be removed by commitment. It does not use the newly identified interests to develop feasible alternatives.

 

Question 3

An employee reports that a team lead threatened to damage her performance rating if she raised another concern. Organizational policy requires managers to refer reported threats to the designated employee-relations channel and protect the reporter from retaliation. Which TWO actions should the project manager take? Choose TWO.

1. Refer the reported threat through the designated channel using the available facts.
2. Require the employee to negotiate privately with the team lead before making a referral.
3. Resolve the case by moving the employee off the project without consulting the process owner.
4. Interview the wider team to test the allegation before referring it to employee relations.
5. Promise that nobody else will be told about the report.
6. Arrange appropriate protection and follow-up through the authorized process.

Correct Answers: A, F

 

Correct Answers

Answer A is correct because the scenario establishes a specific reporting obligation. The project manager should activate that process without claiming to have already determined the allegation’s outcome.

Answer F is correct because the stated policy requires protection from retaliation. Coordinating safeguards and checking for further adverse treatment addresses that obligation while the report is handled.

Incorrect Answers

Answer B is incorrect because the reporting obligation is already triggered. Making a referral conditional on direct confrontation could expose the employee to the reported threat again.

Answer C is incorrect because unilateral reassignment may disadvantage the reporter and bypass the stated protection process. A protective response should be coordinated through the authorized channel.

Answer D is incorrect because the reported threat already triggers the designated referral process. An informal investigation first would delay that obligation and could spread sensitive information beyond the people who need it.

Answer E is incorrect because that promise conflicts with the required referral. The project manager should explain how information will be handled rather than offer secrecy that cannot be maintained.

 

Question 4

At a test facility, two supervisors argue about whether an interlock must remain enabled. Testing is about to start, and the approved procedure requires the interlock. The project manager is authorized to suspend testing for a procedure breach. What is the best immediate response?

1. Obtain written risk acceptance from both supervisors and start the test while the procedure is reviewed.
2. Facilitate a consensus workshop while the test proceeds at reduced speed.
3. Let the more experienced supervisor determine whether the interlock is necessary.
4. Ask the sponsor to decide at the next steering meeting.
5. Suspend testing until the approved safe configuration is confirmed.

Correct Answer: E

 

Correct Answer

Answer E is correct because the imminent test would violate an explicit operating condition. Using the stated authority contains the immediate exposure; the disagreement can then be addressed without continuing the breach.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because neither supervisor is given authority to waive the interlock requirement. Their agreement does not replace the approved configuration, while the project manager already has authority to suspend the test.

Answer B is incorrect because reduced speed is not stated to satisfy the required interlock condition. Consensus building does not justify continuing an activity that violates the approved procedure.

Answer C is incorrect because experience does not override the explicit procedure or establish authority to waive it. The project manager already has a defined action available for this breach.

Answer D is incorrect because the test is about to begin, so delayed escalation would leave the immediate problem uncontrolled. The manager’s suspension authority is sufficient for the present decision.

 

Question 5

A development team and a support team agreed to cooperate, but their handoff disputes continue. Development is rewarded for closing tickets quickly; support is rewarded for minimizing reopened tickets. Most disputes concern incomplete handoff evidence. Which TWO actions address the recurring source of conflict? Choose TWO.

1. Assign every disputed ticket to support to shorten development’s queue.
2. Ask both teams to sign another general statement promising cooperation.
3. Assign a permanent handoff coordinator while leaving the evidence requirements and performance measures unchanged.
4. Agree on observable handoff evidence and a shared definition of acceptance.
5. Bring the conflicting incentives to the managers who can revise the performance measures.
6. Average the two teams’ existing performance scores and use that number as acceptance evidence.

Correct Answers: D, E

 

Correct Answers

Answer D is correct because the recurring disputes concern whether work is ready to transfer. Common acceptance evidence makes the boundary explicit and reduces disagreement over completion.

Answer E is correct because each team is being encouraged to optimize a different result. The project manager should surface that structural conflict to the people with authority to change it.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because this reinforces one local measure at the other team’s expense. It does not establish whether transferred work contains the required evidence.

Answer B is incorrect because they have already agreed to cooperate. Repeating that promise leaves both the ambiguous handoff boundary and the competing incentives in place.

Answer C is incorrect because a coordinator may route disputes, but the ambiguous acceptance boundary and conflicting incentives would remain. The selected actions address those identified causes rather than only adding an intermediary.

Answer F is incorrect because a combined score cannot show whether an individual handoff is complete. It would conceal the different incentives without defining usable acceptance criteria.

 

Question 6

Two analysts disagree about whether defects have doubled. One counted every failed test execution, including repeated failures of the same defect; the other counted unique confirmed defects. Their calculations are accurate under their own definitions. What should resolve the immediate disagreement?

1. Agree on the relevant defect measure and apply it consistently.
2. Average the figures because both analysts calculated correctly.
3. Use the larger figure because a conservative report is always more reliable.
4. Select the unique-defect count for every future report regardless of purpose.
5. Have each analyst check arithmetic again before discussing definitions.

Correct Answer: A

 

Correct Answer

Answer A is correct because the disagreement comes from incompatible units of observation. Choosing the relevant measure and applying it consistently resolves what the figures can legitimately show.

Incorrect Answers

Answer B is incorrect because the two values represent different things. Averaging them produces a number with no agreed interpretation and leaves the definitional disagreement unresolved.

Answer C is incorrect because a larger number is not necessarily a more accurate answer to the reporting question. Conservatism cannot make unlike measures directly comparable.

Answer D is incorrect because unique defects may suit this report, but repeated failed executions can be useful for another purpose. The reporting question must determine the appropriate measure.

Answer E is incorrect because the stem confirms that the calculations are accurate. Rechecking arithmetic would not address the different definitions that explain the apparent contradiction.

 

Question 7

Architects support two integration designs. Both satisfy current mandatory requirements, but they disagree about performance under a realistic peak load. There is time and budget for a two-day prototype before the decision is due. What should the project manager facilitate?

1. A full production deployment of both designs before selecting one.
2. A vote weighted by each architect’s years of experience.
3. A bounded comparison using the same workload and agreed performance criteria.
4. A decision based only on current licensing cost.
5. A compromise design that combines half of each proposed architecture.

Correct Answer: C

 

Correct Answer

Answer C is correct because the unresolved issue is empirical and can be investigated within the decision window. Comparable evidence is more useful than continuing to argue from untested assumptions.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because a two-day prototype can address the disputed condition at lower commitment. Full deployments exceed the limited experiment justified by the available decision window.

Answer B is incorrect because experience can inform hypotheses, but the specific performance uncertainty is testable. Weighting preferences would leave that uncertainty unresolved.

Answer D is incorrect because cost may matter to the final comparison, but the unresolved disagreement concerns peak-load performance. Ignoring that condition would bypass the issue the decision must resolve.

Answer E is incorrect because combining designs introduces another untested alternative. It does not establish that the result preserves either design’s performance or satisfies integration constraints.

 

Question 8

Two projects need the same specialist for the same week. Attempts to sequence the work have failed, and both project managers lack authority to change portfolio priorities. The allocation decision is needed tomorrow. What should this project manager do next?

1. Continue bilateral negotiations until the managers reach agreement, even after tomorrow.
2. Escalate the competing needs, impacts and options to the resource-priority authority.
3. Reserve the specialist first and ask the other project to adjust afterward.
4. Ask the specialist to split the week equally before checking the two projects’ milestone impacts.
5. Send the allocation authority only this project’s preferred booking dates.

Correct Answer: B

 

Correct Answer

Answer B is correct because the unresolved decision crosses the managers’ authority boundary. A timely, evidence-based escalation enables the authorized person to make the required tradeoff.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because collaboration has already failed to produce a feasible sequence. Continuing past the decision deadline would delay an authority-level tradeoff rather than resolve it.

Answer C is incorrect because booking first does not create priority-setting authority. It would impose an unapproved tradeoff and could intensify the conflict between projects.

Answer D is incorrect because equal allocation is a possible tradeoff, not proof of a feasible or authorized one. Sequencing attempts have failed and the portfolio authority needs the impacts before deciding how capacity should be assigned.

Answer E is incorrect because a one-sided booking request omits the competing need and consequences the authority must weigh. Escalation should frame the actual priority decision with alternatives and delivery impacts.

 

Question 9

A rollout committee has evaluated two compliant deployment windows using agreed criteria, but remains evenly divided. The charter makes the project manager the decision owner after consultation. A decision is required today to retain either window. What should the manager do?

1. Delay the decision until every committee member supports the same window.
2. Refer the choice to the sponsor and suspend booking until a response arrives.
3. Decide using the agreed criteria; record the rationale and concerns.
4. Ask the committee to vote repeatedly until one side gains a majority.
5. Choose the window preferred by the most senior attendee without applying the criteria.

Correct Answer: C

 

Correct Answer

Answer C is correct because consultation has occurred and the decision authority is explicit. Making a reasoned decision preserves the available options without pretending that unanimous agreement exists.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because unanimity is not the decision rule in the charter. Waiting would lose both available windows despite the manager having authority to decide.

Answer B is incorrect because no missing authority or new strategic issue is identified. Escalating a decision already delegated to the manager introduces unnecessary delay at the booking deadline.

Answer D is incorrect because the agreed decision process assigns ownership to the manager after consultation. Repeated voting substitutes an improvised rule and may still miss the deadline.

Answer E is incorrect because seniority is not the stated evaluation method. The manager should use the agreed criteria and accept responsibility for the resulting decision.

 

Question 10

A team urgently needs a shared test room for one afternoon. Two groups agree to split the available time equally, although each would prefer the whole afternoon. Both accept the reduced scope, and the arrangement expires that evening. Which TWO statements best describe this agreement? Choose TWO.

1. It eliminates the need to confirm which tests can fit within each allocation.
2. It permanently establishes equal allocation as the rule for all future requests.
3. It should not be treated as proof that the longer-term capacity problem has been solved.
4. It establishes that future capacity shortages can also be solved by reducing both groups’ test scope.
5. It demonstrates a collaborative solution that fully satisfies both original requests.
6. It is a temporary compromise in which both groups give up part of their preferred outcome.

Correct Answers: C, F

 

Correct Answers

Answer C is correct because the agreement allocates one afternoon only. Recurring demand could still exceed capacity even if the temporary division works well.

Answer F is correct because each group accepts less than its original request to obtain a workable short-term arrangement. The agreed expiry limits the commitment to the immediate need.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because accepting reduced scope still requires a feasible plan for the available time. The split does not make the original full-afternoon workload fit automatically.

Answer B is incorrect because the agreement explicitly expires that evening. Extending it to future demand would create a rule that the participants have not agreed to.

Answer D is incorrect because the groups accepted reduced scope for this one afternoon. Future tests may have different mandatory coverage, so this temporary compromise does not establish that the same reduction is always feasible.

Answer E is incorrect because neither group receives the full afternoon it requested. Mutual acceptance makes the compromise workable but does not mean both original preferences were fully achieved.

 

Question 11

A design discussion has become heated, and participants are repeating accusations rather than listening. The decision is not due until tomorrow. Which response best uses a pause without abandoning the conflict?

1. Choose a provisional design to end the argument without setting a time to revisit the disputed facts.
2. Send the sponsor a request to remove both participants immediately.
3. Extend the current meeting by thirty minutes while keeping the same discussion format.
4. Pause briefly, set a reconvening time today and ask participants to return with the disputed facts.
5. Remove the issue from the agenda until participants stop mentioning it.

Correct Answer: D

 

Correct Answer

Answer D is correct because a timeboxed pause can reduce escalation while preserving a concrete route back to resolution. The return time and preparation task prevent cooling off from becoming indefinite avoidance.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because a provisional choice does not create a route back to understanding the conflict. With time before tomorrow’s decision, a brief structured pause can improve the evidence without allowing the issue to disappear.

Answer B is incorrect because the scenario describes a heated discussion with time to reset the process. Removal before attempting a structured return is disproportionate to the information provided.

Answer C is incorrect because more time may help a productive discussion, but participants are currently repeating accusations and not listening. A defined pause and factual preparation change the conditions that made the session unproductive.

Answer E is incorrect because silence would not establish that the design disagreement is resolved. Without a return point, the pause becomes avoidance and risks the approaching decision deadline.

 

Question 12

Developers and testers keep disagreeing about review turnaround. Their team agreement says only that reviews should be prompt. Which THREE changes would make the agreement operational? Choose THREE.

1. Require the same individual to handle every review regardless of availability.
2. Define the event that starts the review clock and the expected response interval.
3. Allow each reviewer to define prompt separately for each request.
4. Specify how a reviewer signals unavailable capacity and who helps resolve the blockage.
5. Treat a missed response interval as automatic technical approval.
6. Set a review date to evaluate whether the agreement works and adjust it together.

Correct Answers: B, D, F

 

Correct Answers

Answer B is correct because a shared start point and interval make timeliness observable. They replace the ambiguous word prompt with a condition the team can apply consistently.

Answer D is correct because an exception route makes the agreement usable when normal turnaround cannot be met. It prevents silence from being interpreted as either acceptance or refusal.

Answer F is correct because the first rule may not fit actual demand. A planned review allows the team to improve the agreement using observed results rather than quietly abandoning it.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because concentrating all reviews on one person can create the very capacity problem the agreement must handle. Ownership should support the response commitment and exception route.

Answer C is incorrect because individual interpretations recreate the original ambiguity. The team needs a shared operating rule, with explicit exceptions when circumstances require them.

Answer E is incorrect because response timeliness and technical acceptance are different decisions. Silence does not establish that the work meets its review criteria.

 

Question 13

A remote team member reads a short message—“This is not ready”—as a personal insult. The sender says it referred only to missing test evidence. No pattern of abusive behavior has been reported. What should the project manager do first?

1. Accept the sender’s explanation and ask the recipient to proceed without a joint conversation.
2. Ask the sender’s line manager to review communication performance before clarifying the missing evidence.
3. Require the sender to withdraw the technical concern to restore the relationship.
4. Clarify the message and missing evidence in a brief conversation.
5. Require every review comment to use a new template before discussing this exchange.

Correct Answer: D

 

Correct Answer

Answer D is correct because the available facts indicate an ambiguity in a low-context message. Direct clarification can separate the work concern from the perceived personal criticism before assigning blame.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because the explanation is relevant but does not establish that both people now understand the technical concern and each other’s meaning. Brief clarification addresses the misunderstanding without discarding the work issue.

Answer B is incorrect because formal performance intervention is premature for the stated isolated ambiguity. The people involved can first clarify the work issue and the intended meaning directly.

Answer C is incorrect because the interpretation problem does not establish that the missing test evidence is unimportant. Repairing communication should preserve valid work concerns.

Answer E is incorrect because a template may improve future clarity, but it does not resolve what the two people understood in this incident. A brief conversation can clarify the specific message and preserve the missing-evidence concern.

 

Question 14

During reviews, a senior specialist repeatedly interrupts a junior analyst before she can explain contrary evidence. The team’s meeting agreement gives each presenter uninterrupted time for the initial explanation. Which TWO responses are appropriate? Choose TWO.

1. Discuss the repeated interruptions privately with the specialist using specific examples and expectations.
2. Declare the analyst’s technical position correct to compensate for the interruptions.
3. Enforce the agreed speaking rule during the current discussion.
4. Require the analyst to submit all future concerns anonymously instead of presenting them.
5. Give the specialist the remaining discussion time and request the analyst’s evidence afterward.
6. Defer the issue to the next retrospective while allowing the current review to continue unchanged.

Correct Answers: A, C

 

Correct Answers

Answer A is correct because the pattern warrants direct feedback beyond managing one meeting. Concrete observations and a clear expectation make the behavior change actionable.

Answer C is correct because the rule already applies to every participant. Restoring the analyst’s opportunity to present evidence addresses the immediate behavior without prejudging whose technical conclusion is correct.

Incorrect Answers

Answer B is incorrect because fair participation and technical validity are separate issues. The evidence should receive a fair hearing rather than a compensatory decision.

Answer D is incorrect because this shifts the burden to the person being interrupted and does not correct the breach. Anonymous input may sometimes help, but it should not replace enforcing this agreement.

Answer E is incorrect because later written evidence may be useful, but it leaves the agreed uninterrupted speaking opportunity unenforced now. The leader should restore fair participation while considering both people’s technical evidence.

Answer F is incorrect because a later retrospective can support improvement, but the established speaking rule is being breached now. The analyst needs the agreed opportunity to present evidence during the decision that is currently underway.

 

Question 15

The project manager designed a process that two teams now dispute. Both teams accept her technical contribution but question whether she can neutrally facilitate discussion about flaws in her own design. There is no decision deadline today. What is the best arrangement?

1. Withdraw the process design immediately without reviewing the objections.
2. Exclude the project manager from all future process decisions.
3. Ask the team that supports the design to facilitate the discussion.
4. Insist on facilitating because formal project authority guarantees impartiality.
5. Use a neutral facilitator; participate as the design’s author.

Correct Answer: E

 

Correct Answer

Answer E is correct because separating facilitation from advocacy reduces the process concern without losing the manager’s knowledge. The discussion can examine the design on its merits.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because a concern about facilitation does not establish that the design is wrong. The team still needs a fair examination of the evidence and alternatives.

Answer B is incorrect because the issue concerns neutrality in this discussion, not a demonstrated inability to contribute. A proportionate role separation preserves both fairness and relevant expertise.

Answer C is incorrect because that choice replaces one perceived advocacy problem with another. The facilitator should be able to manage the discussion without promoting a preferred result.

Answer D is incorrect because authority does not remove the appearance of defending one’s own work. A neutral facilitator can address the specific concern with little loss of useful expertise.

 

Question 16

After mediation, two team leads agree to use a single handoff queue. Three weeks later, arguments have stopped, but requests still bypass the queue and wait times remain unchanged. Which TWO actions best test and strengthen the resolution? Choose TWO.

1. Keep the agreement fixed for the rest of the quarter before reviewing how it operates.
2. Assign blame to whichever lead submits more requests.
3. Close the conflict record because the leads no longer argue in meetings.
4. Train both leads on the queue software before examining why requests bypass it.
5. Identify why bypasses occur and revise the agreement or supporting process accordingly.
6. Examine actual queue use and waiting-time evidence with both leads.

Correct Answers: E, F

 

Correct Answers

Answer E is correct because continued bypassing suggests that the agreement is unclear, impractical or unsupported in some conditions. Understanding those conditions is necessary before selecting a corrective change.

Answer F is correct because reduced argument alone does not establish that the agreed process is operating. Reviewing behavior and results tests whether the resolution changed the underlying work.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because stability can help adoption, but the observed bypasses and unchanged wait times already warrant follow-up. A calendar-based delay would postpone learning whether the arrangement is impractical or needs support.

Answer B is incorrect because request volume alone does not explain bypass behavior or establish responsibility for the delay. The actual process conditions must be examined.

Answer C is incorrect because the operational evidence shows that the agreed change has not taken effect. Absence of visible argument is insufficient evidence of a durable resolution.

Answer D is incorrect because training is useful if lack of tool knowledge causes the bypasses, but that cause has not been established. The team should first examine actual use and constraints so the response addresses the reason the agreement is not working.

 

Question 17

A Scrum Product Owner and Developers disagree about an implementation technique. The technique meets the Definition of Done and does not change the agreed product outcome. The Product Owner argues that ordering the Product Backlog includes assigning the implementation method. What is the best clarification?

1. The Scrum Master should choose the technique and assign individual tasks.
2. The sponsor must approve every implementation technique before Developers proceed.
3. Require the Product Owner to approve every compliant implementation technique as part of Sprint Planning.
4. The Product Owner determines both product ordering and each Developer’s implementation method.
5. The Product Owner orders the Product Backlog, while Developers decide how to create the Increment.

Correct Answer: E

 

Correct Answer

Answer E is correct because Scrum distinguishes product ordering from the Developers’ implementation decisions. The stated outcome and quality constraints remain applicable without transferring the technical method to the Product Owner.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because the Scrum Master helps the team use Scrum effectively. That accountability does not make the Scrum Master the default technical task manager.

Answer B is incorrect because the scenario establishes no sponsor approval requirement for this choice. Adding one would unnecessarily move a team-level technical decision outside the Scrum Team.

Answer C is incorrect because the Product Owner can clarify the desired outcome, but approving each method transfers the Developers’ implementation decision. The scenario states that the technique meets the quality and outcome constraints already.

Answer D is incorrect because accountability for product value and backlog ordering does not give the Product Owner control of how Developers create the Increment. This would conflate distinct Scrum accountabilities.

 

Question 18

A supplier and an internal team dispute responsibility for rework. Their signed agreement requires a neutral mediator to help seek a voluntary settlement; any binding determination follows a separate process. After one meeting, the mediator recommends a split. What can the project manager conclude?

1. A settlement requires both parties’ acceptance through the agreed process.
2. Submit the recommended split as the agreed settlement before obtaining both parties’ acceptance.
3. The internal team can impose the recommendation because it sponsors the project.
4. The supplier’s silence at the end of the meeting proves acceptance.
5. The recommendation is automatically binding because both parties attended mediation.

Correct Answer: A

 

Correct Answer

Answer A is correct because the mediator’s stated role is to help reach a voluntary agreement. A recommendation does not acquire binding force merely because a neutral person proposed it.

Incorrect Answers

Answer B is incorrect because a mediator’s recommendation is a proposal under this voluntary process. It cannot be represented as an agreed settlement until the required acceptance has occurred.

Answer C is incorrect because project sponsorship does not change the agreed dispute process. A unilateral instruction cannot substitute for the acceptance needed for this voluntary settlement.

Answer D is incorrect because the scenario provides no rule treating silence as consent. The manager should obtain an explicit agreement through the established process.

Answer E is incorrect because attendance demonstrates participation, not acceptance of a settlement. The scenario explicitly separates voluntary mediation from a binding determination.

 

Question 19

A retrospective repeatedly ends with members saying that another department does not care. The external dependency is real, but nobody has described the specific requests, responses or impacts. Which TWO facilitation moves would make the discussion more useful? Choose TWO.

1. Ask for observable examples and separate those facts from assumptions about motives.
2. Promise that the other department will prioritize every future request from this team.
3. Ask the team to stop recording external dependencies because it cannot control them.
4. Frame an actionable dependency concern to discuss with the other department.
5. Escalate a request to replace the other department’s contact before collecting examples of the dependency failures.
6. Record lack of care as the confirmed root cause in the lessons log.

Correct Answers: A, D

 

Correct Answers

Answer A is correct because the team can investigate response patterns and impacts. Claims about another group’s intentions are not established by the current evidence and can obstruct a productive discussion.

Answer D is correct because turning the evidence into a specific request creates a route to improvement. It also gives the other department an opportunity to explain constraints the team may not know.

Incorrect Answers

Answer B is incorrect because the facilitator has no stated authority to make that commitment. A credible agreement must account for the other department’s actual obligations and capacity.

Answer C is incorrect because lack of direct control does not remove a dependency’s effect on delivery. The team can still make the issue visible and seek coordinated action.

Answer E is incorrect because a personnel remedy assumes the source of the problem. Observable requests, responses and impacts are needed before deciding whether the difficulty concerns one contact, capacity or the coordination process.

Answer F is incorrect because the repeated statement is an interpretation, not a demonstrated cause. Treating it as confirmed would harden an unsupported conclusion.

 

Question 20

A team uses “no response means agreement” for routine document reviews. A new member has never been told this rule and misses the first review deadline. Others accuse him of breaking the agreement. What should the project manager do first?

1. Waive all review deadlines for the new member until the next team-agreement workshop.
2. Explain the review rule and confirm shared understanding before treating this incident as a deliberate breach.
3. Apply a formal penalty because existing members already knew the rule.
4. Ask the new member to infer the rule from past meeting minutes.
5. Treat the new member’s access to the document repository as evidence that the convention was understood.

Correct Answer: B

 

Correct Answer

Answer B is correct because a person cannot reliably follow an undisclosed team convention. Clarifying the expectation addresses the immediate onboarding gap without assuming intentional noncompliance.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because the gap concerns an undisclosed convention, not a demonstrated need to suspend every deadline. Explaining the rule and checking understanding is a proportionate first response.

Answer C is incorrect because other members’ knowledge does not establish that the new member was informed. A penalty would bypass the missing communication that explains the incident.

Answer D is incorrect because accessible records may support onboarding, but inference is not a substitute for confirming an important operating expectation after a misunderstanding has occurred.

Answer E is incorrect because access makes information available but does not establish comprehension of an important local rule. The stem explicitly says the member had not been told, so understanding should be confirmed before inferring a deliberate breach.

 

Question 21

Two remote offices disagree about meeting attendance. One office has attended at 06:00 for six consecutive weeks; the other assumed that time was convenient because nobody objected. Which change best addresses the conflict?

1. Agree on a rotation and use asynchronous input when live participation is unnecessary.
2. Move all future meetings to 06:00 in the other office’s time zone.
3. Keep the time because six weeks of attendance establishes permanent consent.
4. Require the office raising the concern to send only written updates for every topic.
5. Let each office hold a separate decision meeting and implement its own conclusion.

Correct Answer: A

 

Correct Answer

Answer A is correct because the current burden is uneven and the assumption of convenience was untested. A shared arrangement can distribute unavoidable inconvenience and reduce meetings that do not require simultaneous attendance.

Incorrect Answers

Answer B is incorrect because permanently reversing the burden reproduces the imbalance. A fair arrangement should consider the ongoing needs of both offices.

Answer C is incorrect because participation does not necessarily mean the arrangement is convenient or sustainable. The newly raised concern requires an explicit agreement rather than an inference from silence.

Answer D is incorrect because excluding one office from all live decisions shifts the cost of the problem to that group. Asynchronous input should be chosen according to the work, not as a penalty.

Answer E is incorrect because separate discussions can gather input, but independent conclusions may conflict on shared work. The team still needs a coherent decision process.

 

Question 22

A business representative offers to accept two unresolved low-priority defects if the team removes a required independent security check. The approved release policy permits acceptance of those defects but requires the security check for every release. Which TWO responses are appropriate? Choose TWO.

1. Use the business representative’s defect acceptance as approval to defer the independent check until after release.
2. Accept the exchange because each party is giving up something of value.
3. Stop all negotiation because one proposed tradeoff is impermissible.
4. Explore schedule or scope alternatives that preserve the required check.
5. Let the team vote on whether the security check is worth the delay.
6. Explain that the required security check cannot be exchanged for acceptance of the defects.

Correct Answers: D, F

 

Correct Answers

Answer D is correct because the underlying delivery concern may still be addressed within the policy. Feasible alternatives allow constructive negotiation without treating a mandatory condition as a bargaining item.

Answer F is correct because the release policy makes the check mandatory. A permissible concession on defects does not create authority to waive a separate non-negotiable condition.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because the policy permits acceptance of those defects but separately requires the check for every release. Approval in one decision area does not authorize changing the timing of that mandatory control.

Answer B is incorrect because reciprocal concessions do not make every trade legitimate. The business representative’s defect acceptance cannot waive a control that the stated policy requires.

Answer C is incorrect because rejecting this specific exchange does not rule out other compliant arrangements. The manager can continue exploring options while keeping the mandatory boundary clear.

Answer E is incorrect because a majority preference does not amend the release policy. The team must preserve the check or use an authorized policy-change process if one exists.

 

Question 23

After a difficult negotiation, one lead says, “I accept the decision, but my concern remains.” The agreed decision owner has selected a compliant approach and recorded the concern as a risk to monitor. What should the project manager do?

1. Require the lead to withdraw the concern in writing before assigning implementation responsibilities.
2. Release the lead from all implementation work because dissent prevents accountability.
3. Confirm the lead’s implementation responsibilities and retain the recorded concern for monitoring.
4. Reopen the entire decision because acceptance is invalid unless the concern disappears.
5. Remove the concern from the record to demonstrate unified support.

Correct Answer: C

 

Correct Answer

Answer C is correct because supporting implementation does not require pretending that every concern disappeared. Clear responsibilities and visible monitoring allow commitment while preserving useful dissent.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because the lead has accepted the decision and the concern already has a monitoring route. Withdrawing useful risk information is not a prerequisite for accountable implementation.

Answer B is incorrect because the lead has accepted the decision. Continued concern does not automatically prevent the person from carrying out agreed responsibilities.

Answer D is incorrect because the agreed process has produced a decision and the concern has a monitoring route. Residual disagreement alone does not invalidate that decision.

Answer E is incorrect because concealing the concern would discard information already judged worth monitoring. A team can act together while transparently tracking an unresolved risk.

 

Question 24

A team agreement requires defects to be discussed without naming individuals in the weekly learning meeting. A production incident now requires a restricted investigation with named factual records under a separate incident procedure. A member claims the team agreement prohibits those records. What is the best response?

1. Publish the named incident records in the weekly learning meeting.
2. Suspend the incident investigation until the team votes to amend its agreement.
3. Delete names from every incident record to apply the team agreement consistently.
4. Amend the learning-meeting agreement first, then resume the restricted incident investigation.
5. Explain that the learning-meeting rule does not override the separate incident-record requirement.

Correct Answer: E

 

Correct Answer

Answer E is correct because the two rules govern different contexts. The team can maintain a constructive learning discussion while authorized investigators keep the factual records required by the incident procedure.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because the investigation is restricted, and the learning meeting has its own participation rule. Meeting the record requirement does not justify broad disclosure.

Answer B is incorrect because the investigation follows a separate procedure that already requires the records. The team convention does not create a veto over that process.

Answer C is incorrect because that would extend a meeting convention beyond its stated scope and conflict with the separate procedure. Consistency requires applying each rule to the context it governs.

Answer D is incorrect because the meeting rule and incident procedure govern different contexts and can coexist. Amending the former is not a prerequisite for following the latter’s named-record requirement.

 

Question 25

A customer representative and a technical lead agree to resolve a dispute over a reporting feature. Their note says, “The report will be improved soon.” Which revision most directly reduces the chance of the same conflict returning?

1. Add a statement that both parties now have a positive working relationship.
2. Obtain both parties’ signatures while leaving improved and soon undefined.
3. Record the agreed report behavior, acceptance evidence, responsible owner and review date.
4. Attach every email exchanged during the dispute without summarizing the agreement.
5. Set a delivery date but let each party retain its own interpretation of the report improvement.

Correct Answer: C

 

Correct Answer

Answer C is correct because these details turn a broad promise into a verifiable commitment. Each party can determine what will change, who will act and when the result will be evaluated.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because a relationship statement does not define the disputed deliverable or the action needed. The vague promise would remain difficult to implement and verify.

Answer B is incorrect because signatures show assent to the text but do not specify what behavior will change or when. The ambiguity that caused the implementation risk would remain.

Answer D is incorrect because background correspondence may explain the history, but it can contain conflicting proposals. A clear final agreement should identify the actual commitment.

Answer E is incorrect because a date resolves the timing ambiguity only. Different expectations about the report behavior can still produce the same dispute, so acceptance evidence and the actual change also need agreement.

 

Question 26

An operations lead rejects a new handoff procedure because weekend coverage is unavailable. The project team had assumed seven-day coverage. The lead is willing to support the procedure if this constraint is addressed. Which TWO actions best move the disagreement forward? Choose TWO.

1. Describe the lead’s objection as a confirmed lack of commitment in the status report.
2. Replace the operations representative with someone more willing to agree.
3. Keep seven-day coverage in the plan because it was the project’s original assumption.
4. Make the coverage assumption and its delivery impact visible to the relevant decision makers.
5. Validate the coverage constraint and compare handoff arrangements that fit actual availability.
6. Promise weekend staffing without consulting the organization responsible for it.

Correct Answers: D, E

 

Correct Answers

Answer D is correct because an important planning assumption has been challenged. Those who can authorize staffing or schedule tradeoffs need to understand its effect on the proposed handoff.

Answer E is correct because the objection identifies a concrete feasibility condition. Testing that condition and adapting the arrangement addresses the work rather than labeling the person as resistant.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because the lead has expressed conditional support and identified a specific constraint. The evidence does not establish unwillingness to cooperate.

Answer B is incorrect because a different representative would not create weekend coverage. Removing the messenger could hide the operational constraint instead of resolving it.

Answer C is incorrect because an assumption should be reconsidered when credible contradictory information appears. Retaining it without validation would preserve an unsupported delivery condition.

Answer F is incorrect because the project team has no stated authority or resources to make that commitment. A feasible resolution requires the responsible decision makers.

 

Question 27

Two teams cannot agree on a shared interface. Their escalation agreement says to involve the integration owner if a joint design session fails or if the decision has less than one working day remaining. The session failed yesterday, and three days remain. What should happen now?

1. Choose either interface privately and inform the other team after implementation.
2. Schedule one more joint session before applying the escalation rule.
3. Ask the integration owner to approve both incompatible interfaces as a compromise.
4. Wait until less than one day remains because both conditions must be true.
5. Escalate to the integration owner with the alternatives and unresolved tradeoff.

Correct Answer: E

 

Correct Answer

Answer E is correct because the agreement uses either condition as a trigger. The failed joint session already meets the rule even though the time threshold has not yet been reached.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because the interface affects both teams and has an established decision route. Unilateral implementation would bypass that route and increase integration risk.

Answer B is incorrect because another discussion might eventually help, but the agreed trigger was already met when the prior session failed. The integration owner should receive the tradeoff now while time remains for a decision.

Answer C is incorrect because approving incompatible interfaces would not resolve the shared dependency. The escalation should present the tradeoff for a coherent decision.

Answer D is incorrect because the stated rule uses an either condition, not a requirement to satisfy both. Waiting would misapply the agreement and reduce the time available to the integration owner.

 

Question 28

A new team member believes public debate shows engagement. Another interprets rapid challenges in front of colleagues as disrespectful. Neither has breached an organizational conduct rule. What should the project manager facilitate?

1. Apply a standard communication profile to each person instead of discussing their individual preferences.
2. A rule that the new member must adopt every existing member’s personal preference.
3. A discussion of communication preferences and a shared way to challenge ideas respectfully.
4. A rule that challenges must wait until the presenter has left the meeting.
5. Route all technical disagreement through the manager so the two members avoid direct exchanges.

Correct Answer: C

 

Correct Answer

Answer C is correct because the conflict arises from different interpretations of discussion behavior. Exploring those preferences allows the team to agree on workable practices without stereotyping either person.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because profiles can suggest questions but cannot establish what either person means by engagement or disrespect. Direct discussion is needed to form an agreement that addresses these individuals’ actual expectations.

Answer B is incorrect because unilateral adaptation would not create a shared agreement and may leave incompatible expectations among existing members. The team needs practices that everyone understands.

Answer D is incorrect because delaying challenges may reduce visible discomfort, but it prevents timely clarification with the person whose idea is being examined. A shared, respectful way to challenge ideas addresses the different preferences while preserving useful discussion.

Answer E is incorrect because manager mediation can help specific disputes, but permanent routing does not build a shared way to challenge ideas. It adds a dependency while leaving the communication mismatch unresolved.

 

Question 29

In a conflict workshop, participants score two options from 1 to 5 on agreed criteria. Reliability has weight 3 and ease of transition has weight 1. Option Red scores 5 and 2; Option Blue scores 4 and 5. Both meet every mandatory condition. Which TWO conclusions follow? Choose TWO.

17. Both options have the same weighted total of 17.
18. Red wins under the agreed model because its reliability score is higher.
19. Increase the reliability weight and rerun the model before asking the participants to accept the revision.
20. The team needs an agreed tie-breaking method or further discriminating evidence.
21. Blue wins under the agreed model because its unweighted total is higher.
22. Equal totals prove that the two options have identical operational consequences.

Correct Answers: A, D

 

Correct Answers

Answer A is correct because Red scores 5 × 3 + 2 × 1 = 17, while Blue scores 4 × 3 + 5 × 1 = 17. The agreed scoring model therefore does not distinguish them.

Answer D is correct because equal totals leave the choice unresolved under the current model. A transparent next step is needed rather than presenting the model as having selected a winner.

Incorrect Answers

Answer B is incorrect because reliability has greater weight, but transition ease still contributes. Once both weighted criteria are included, Red’s advantage is exactly offset.

Answer C is incorrect because weights determine the decision method. Changing them after seeing a tie and before agreement risks selecting a preferred outcome through the model rather than using an agreed tie-break or new evidence.

Answer E is incorrect because the agreed model is weighted. Replacing it with an unweighted sum changes the decision method after seeing the results.

Answer F is incorrect because the scores show different strengths even though their totals match. A tie in the model does not make the underlying tradeoffs disappear.

 

Question 30

A project manager has separately heard two credible but conflicting accounts of a missed approval. The audit trail can establish when the request was submitted and who had access. One participant demands an immediate public finding of misconduct. What is the best next action?

1. Announce misconduct because the two accounts cannot both be fully correct.
2. Discard both accounts because conflicting testimony cannot support any investigation.
3. Accept the account of the participant who complained first.
4. Obtain character assessments from colleagues before examining the approval audit trail.
5. Examine the audit trail before deciding between the conflicting accounts.

Correct Answer: E

 

Correct Answer

Answer E is correct because the available evidence can resolve material parts of the disagreement. A fact-based review protects fairness without dismissing either account or prematurely labeling the conduct.

Incorrect Answers

Answer A is incorrect because conflicting accounts may reflect misunderstanding, incomplete information or error. Inconsistency alone does not establish intentional wrongdoing.

Answer B is incorrect because the accounts identify a concrete issue and the records can test key facts. Uncertainty is a reason to investigate appropriately, not to ignore the matter.

Answer C is incorrect because reporting order does not establish accuracy. The audit trail offers relevant evidence that should be examined before assigning responsibility.

Answer D is incorrect because general reputation is less direct evidence than the available records of this event. The audit trail can test the material facts before credibility or conduct conclusions are considered.