PMP People: 181 practice questions

12 of the 181 People questions in the Certsqill PMP bank, shown in full below. Each one carries an explanation for every option, not just the correct one — the wrong answers are where the marks go.

Preparing for PMP? Take the free 5-min readiness check →

1. Collaborating: Which conflict resolution approach should the project manager use?

1. Collaborating (joint problem-solving) ✓

   Collaborating addresses the root cause by engaging both parties to find a mutually acceptable, win-win solution — the preferred approach when time permits and both perspectives have merit.
2. Compromising (splitting the difference)

   Compromising has each party give up something to meet in the middle — it is acceptable, but it yields a lose-lose result rather than the win-win outcome that collaborating achieves.
3. Smoothing (emphasizing agreement)

   Smoothing plays up areas of agreement and plays down the differences — it soothes tension only temporarily and leaves the underlying architectural disagreement unresolved.
4. Forcing (exerting positional power)

   Forcing imposes one party's view by authority — it settles the dispute quickly but breeds resentment and ignores root causes, making it a last resort rather than the best choice here.

Collaborating is the best conflict resolution approach — it addresses root causes and seeks a win-win solution satisfying all parties.

2. Forcing: Which approach is most appropriate in this situation?

1. Collaborating (joint problem-solving for a win-win)

   Collaborating needs time for all parties to explore options together and reach a win-win — with the deadline tomorrow, there is simply no time for this approach.
2. Forcing (deciding by one's positional authority) ✓

   When time is critical and a decision must be made now, forcing — using positional authority to decide — is appropriate; long-term relationship impact is secondary to meeting the deadline.
3. Withdrawing (postponing or avoiding the decision)

   Withdrawing avoids the conflict by deferring it — unacceptable here because a decision is required immediately to protect tomorrow's deadline.
4. Smoothing (emphasizing areas of common ground)

   Smoothing eases tension by stressing agreement without actually deciding the design — the disagreement would resurface and the deadline would remain at risk.

When time is critical, forcing (directing) is appropriate — the project manager makes the decision to unblock the team, even though it is not the ideal long-term approach.

3. Explain that in agile the team self-organizes: What is the most appropriate response reflecting the agile PM's

1. Create a detailed daily task schedule for each developer, since a clear plan issued by the PM keeps the sprint predictable and the delivery on track

   Command-and-control task assignment contradicts agile principles; self-organizing teams choose their own tasks during sprint planning and the daily scrum, so a PM-issued schedule is inappropriate.
2. Escalate the question to the product owner, since as backlog owner she is best positioned to assign each developer's daily tasks

   The product owner orders and prioritizes the backlog but does not assign daily tasks to developers — the team self-assigns, so escalating this way misplaces the responsibility.
3. Explain that in agile the team self-organizes, so the PM's role is to remove impediments and create the conditions for the team to succeed ✓

   Servant leadership in agile means the PM empowers and serves the team rather than directing task assignments. The team decides how to accomplish sprint goals.
4. Assign tasks to each developer based on their skill set in the resource management plan, matching the best person to each activity

   PM skill-based task assignment is a predictive/waterfall practice and is inconsistent with agile self-organization, where the team pulls and distributes its own work.

Agile PMs practice servant leadership — they empower and support self-organizing teams rather than directing task assignments.

4. Storming — members clash over roles and ideas: Which stage of team development is this team in?

1. Forming — members get acquainted politely

   Forming is the initial polite stage where members are getting acquainted and are generally positive and deferential — the open conflict described is more advanced than forming.
2. Norming — members settle into shared norms

   Norming begins once the team resolves its conflicts and settles into working agreements — this team is still in active conflict and has not yet reached that point.
3. Performing — members deliver as a cohesive unit

   Performing is when the team works efficiently as a cohesive unit focused on goals — the described team is still fighting through conflict, well before that stage.
4. Storming — members clash over roles and ideas ✓

   Storming is marked by conflict, power struggles, and disagreements as members assert their views and test boundaries — a normal and necessary stage, not a sign of failure.

Tuckman stages: Forming (polite) → Storming (conflict) → Norming (agreements) → Performing (high output) → Adjourning (closure). Open conflict = Storming.

5. Directing — provide specific instructions and closely: Which leadership approach is most appropriate for this

1. Directing — provide specific instructions and closely supervise the work ✓

   Situational leadership: for high enthusiasm + low competence (D1/enthusiastic beginner), the appropriate style is directing (S1) — give clear instructions, structure tasks, and monitor closely until competence develops.
2. Delegating — hand off the task and grant full autonomy over execution

   Delegating (S4) suits high-competence, high-commitment members who need little direction; handing full autonomy to a low-skill beginner would produce errors and frustration.
3. Supporting — provide emotional support and encourage decision-making

   Supporting (S3) fits competent but under-confident members who need encouragement, not instruction; this enthusiastic beginner needs skill-building first.
4. Coaching — explain decisions and solicit suggestions while providing guidance

   Coaching (S2) suits a developing member whose early enthusiasm has dipped; it comes slightly later than directing on the development path, so it is premature here.

Situational leadership matches style to development level. High enthusiasm + low competence = Directing (S1). Low enthusiasm + high competence = Supporting (S3). High competence + high commitment = Delegating (S4).

6. Remove the impediment by working with procurement: What is the Scrum Master's primary responsibility in this s

1. Add the impediment to the product backlog for the product owner to prioritize later

   The product backlog holds user stories and product features — impediments belong in an impediment log handled by the Scrum Master, not queued for the product owner to prioritize.
2. Remove the impediment by working with procurement to expedite the license approval ✓

   Removing impediments is the Scrum Master's primary duty — blockers outside the team's control must be escalated and resolved so the team can continue working.
3. Document the impediment in the risk register and schedule a risk response meeting

   A risk register is for future uncertain events — this is an active blocker already occurring, so the Scrum Master should act immediately rather than schedule a meeting.
4. Reassign the developer to unrelated backlog tasks until the license is finally approved

   Reassignment is only a stopgap; the Scrum Master's primary duty is to remove the impediment so the developer can return to her planned work, not merely route around it.

The Scrum Master's primary role is to remove impediments that prevent the team from doing their work.

7. Delegate decision-making authority to the team: What should she do?

1. Continue approving each task herself to maintain tight quality control over the output

   Requiring PM sign-off on every task creates a bottleneck and contradicts agile self-organization; quality belongs in the team's Definition of Done, not centralized with the PM.
2. Assign a team lead to review and approve tasks on behalf of the PM going forward

   This merely moves the bottleneck from the PM to a team lead without empowering the team, so it fails to create the genuine autonomy the PM is seeking.
3. Delegate decision-making authority to the team for decisions within the sprint scope ✓

   Delegating authority empowers self-organizing teams to decide independently — this builds confidence and removes the bottleneck of waiting for PM approval.
4. Escalate to the sponsor to formally authorize the team's decision-making authority

   Sponsor buy-in can help, but escalating for routine team autonomy is excessive; the PM can delegate this authority directly within the project.

Empowering agile teams means delegating decision-making authority — self-organizing teams should make their own decisions within sprint scope without requiring PM approval.

8. BATNA — Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement: What does this alternative represent?

1. Risk response — contingency plan if negotiations fail

   Though similar in spirit, the negotiation-specific term is BATNA; a contingency plan is a risk response, whereas BATNA specifically describes leverage in a negotiation.
2. Make-or-buy analysis — a build-versus-buy decision

   Make-or-buy analysis decides whether to build internally or purchase externally; comparing two external vendors is evaluating alternatives, not a make-or-buy decision.
3. Scope-of-work baseline for ranking rival vendors

   The scope-of-work baseline defines the required work; identifying a viable alternative vendor is a negotiation tactic, specifically the PM's BATNA.
4. BATNA — Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement ✓

   BATNA is the most favorable alternative available if negotiations fail. A strong BATNA (a viable alternative vendor) gives the PM leverage — they can walk away from unfavorable terms.

BATNA = Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement — your best option if negotiations fail. A strong BATNA increases negotiating leverage.

9. Team charter — the team's ground rules & norms: Which document should the PM create first to establish how the

1. Team charter — the team's ground rules & norms ✓

   The team charter establishes ground rules, working agreements, communication norms, and decision-making processes — setting expectations before conflicts arise, which is especially important for cross-functional teams.
2. Resource management plan — staffing logistics

   The resource management plan covers acquiring, managing, and releasing team resources; it does not establish behavioral norms or working agreements.
3. Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RACI chart)

   A RACI maps roles and responsibilities to tasks; it does not address how the team will communicate, resolve conflict, or make decisions together.
4. Communications management plan — status reporting

   The communications management plan defines what information goes to whom and when — narrower than a team charter, which spans the full range of team working norms.

The team charter establishes working agreements, ground rules, and behavioral norms for a new team — it is the first document to create when forming a team.

10. Unaware — little knowledge of the project or its impact: Which engagement level does this stakeholder demonstr

1. Resistant — aware of the project but actively opposed

   Resistant stakeholders know the project and actively oppose it, voicing concerns or blocking progress; the described stakeholder shows disengagement, not active opposition.
2. Unaware — little knowledge of the project or its impact ✓

   Unaware stakeholders lack knowledge of the project and its impacts. Ignoring communications and never reviewing artifacts suggests this person does not grasp the project's significance or their role, and needs proactive engagement to become aware.
3. Neutral — aware of the project, neither for nor against

   Neutral stakeholders are aware and neither support nor oppose the project, and are usually somewhat responsive; ignoring all communications signals deeper disengagement than neutrality.
4. Supportive — aware of the project and actively helping

   Supportive stakeholders understand the project and actively contribute — the opposite of the disengaged behavior described here.

Stakeholder engagement levels: Unaware → Resistant → Neutral → Supportive → Leading. Non-responsive stakeholders who don't review artifacts are likely Unaware of the project's importance.

11. Definition of Done: What should the Scrum Master facilitate creating?

1. Definition of Ready (DoR) — criteria to start a story

   The Definition of Ready sets the criteria for a story to be pulled into a sprint; it governs readiness to start, not what makes work complete.
2. Acceptance criteria — conditions specific to each story

   Acceptance criteria are story-specific conditions of satisfaction; the DoD applies universally to every story and adds the cross-cutting technical standards the team disagrees on.
3. Definition of Done (DoD) — shared completion checklist ✓

   The Definition of Done is a shared, agreed checklist of criteria that any story or increment must meet to be considered complete. It eliminates ambiguity about 'done' across the team.
4. Sprint review agenda — structure for the review meeting

   A sprint review agenda structures the meeting; it does not resolve the team's underlying disagreement about what 'complete' actually means.

Definition of Done = team-wide agreement on criteria that must be satisfied for any user story to be complete. It eliminates subjective debate about 'done.'

12. Understand her concerns: Which approach best demonstrates effective influence without authority?

1. Escalate to the project sponsor and ask him to formally order the functional manager to release the two developers

   Escalation can work but bypasses relationship-building and is adversarial; it is a last resort, not the first move when influence is still possible.
2. Document the requirement in the project management plan and file a formal resource request through the PMO

   Formal requests suit predictive projects with established resource processes; this does nothing to address the interpersonal challenge of influencing someone with no obligation to comply.
3. Offer to trade two of your own team members in exchange for the developers you need for the phase

   Trading resources may or may not be feasible and does not demonstrate the empathy and relationship-building that define effective influence without authority.
4. Understand her concerns, align the request with her team's development goals, and propose a win-win arrangement ✓

   Influence without authority relies on empathy for her perspective, relationship-building, and framing the request as mutual benefit — consistent with emotional intelligence and servant leadership principles.

Influence without authority = understand others' perspectives, build relationships, find mutual benefit. Emotional intelligence (empathy, social skills) is the foundation.

Other PMP domains

• Process — 263 questions →
• Business Environment — 55 questions →
• All 499 PMP questions →