PMP · Question #1408
A project manager has been assigned as the servant leader for an ongoing project that historically has presented unexpected problems. The main stakeholder is hesitant to continue with the rest of…
The correct answer is D. Implement short cycles for inspection and provide feedback. To address stakeholder hesitancy due to a history of unexpected problems in an ongoing agile project, the project manager should implement short cycles for inspection and feedback, fostering transparency and building trust through frequent demonstrations of progress and…
Question
A project manager has been assigned as the servant leader for an ongoing project that historically has presented unexpected problems. The main stakeholder is hesitant to continue with the rest of the sprints even though there are no open issues or indications of risks at this stage. What should the project manager do to address this problem?
Options
- ACreate a new risk entry to identify the stakeholder as a detractor
- BIncrease the management reserves to convert the known-unknowns
- CIncrease the contingency reserves to cover unknown-unknowns
- DImplement short cycles for inspection and provide feedback
How the community answered
(29 responses)- A7% (2)
- B3% (1)
- C10% (3)
- D79% (23)
Why each option
To address stakeholder hesitancy due to a history of unexpected problems in an ongoing agile project, the project manager should implement short cycles for inspection and feedback, fostering transparency and building trust through frequent demonstrations of progress and adaptation.
Labeling a stakeholder as a 'detractor' in a risk entry is an adversarial approach that damages stakeholder relationships and does not address the underlying concern about project predictability and trust.
Increasing management reserves (for known-unknowns or management-controlled contingencies) is a financial strategy for risk response, not a direct approach to address stakeholder hesitancy and build trust through transparency and feedback.
Increasing contingency reserves (for unknown-unknowns or project team-controlled contingencies) is a financial strategy for dealing with unforeseen events, but it doesn't directly address the stakeholder's hesitancy or build confidence in project execution.
In an agile context, especially with a hesitant stakeholder due to past 'unexpected problems,' the best approach is to increase transparency and reduce perceived risk. Implementing short cycles (sprints/iterations) with frequent inspection and adaptation (feedback) allows the stakeholder to see tangible progress regularly, provide input, and build confidence in the project's ability to deliver and adapt.
Concept tested: Agile stakeholder engagement and trust building
Source: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/agile-practice-guide
Topics
Community Discussion
11
Zlatan X.Mar 16, 2026D is the right call here. When a key stakeholder has lost confidence based on historical turbulence rather than current data, the fastest way to rebuild trust is tighter feedback loops, short cycles give them frequent inspection points that demonstrate control and reduce the psychological weight of uncertainty, which is exactly what servant leadership is designed to do in an agile context.
Grace U.Mar 18, 2026Solid point, though it is worth noting that tighter feedback loops only rebuild trust if the stakeholder actually shows up to those checkpoints, so the servant leader's first job is often just getting that commitment secured before the sprint cadence can do its work.
Luis F.May 6, 2026D is the right call here. Since this is an agile project with a nervous stakeholder, the PM needs to build trust through transparency and frequent inspection. Short cycles give the stakeholder regular visibility into progress and let the team adapt quickly if those historical unexpected problems pop up again. I almost picked C because unknown-unknowns sounded plausible, but you can't really throw reserves at a feeling - you have to address it with communication and feedback loops.
Viktor S.Mar 20, 2026I was ready to pick C because the history of unexpected problems screams unknown-unknowns, but then I remembered that throwing money at a nervous stakeholder does nothing for the actual relationship problem here. The stakeholder needs to see evidence that the team can catch and handle surprises, and short sprint cycles with consistent inspection and feedback is exactly how you build that confidence over time.
Wesley A.Mar 21, 2026Viktor nailed the core of it, though I'd add that the sprint cadence only rebuilds trust if the retrospective findings are actually visible to the stakeholder, not buried inside the team.
Dervla O.Mar 11, 2026B is wrong because management reserves cover unknown-unknowns, not known-unknowns, but D is your answer, short cycles build the trust the stakeholder needs.
Wesley A.Mar 8, 2026D is right, but why does short cycles help a nervous stakeholder specifically?
Grace U.Mar 28, 2026The stakeholder's hesitation makes complete sense here, and it is worth taking a moment to understand why. When a project has a track record of surprises, a clean dashboard does not erase that history from anyone's memory, so the absence of visible risk right now is not the same as the absence of worry. Option D works because short cycles give the stakeholder something concrete to evaluate at regular intervals, which rebuilds confidence through repeated evidence rather than a single reassurance. The inspect-and-adapt rhythm of agile is actually designed for exactly this situation, where trust needs to be earned incrementally rather than assumed. As for the other options, A is almost backwards, because labeling a nervous stakeholder as a detractor treats a relationship problem like a registry entry. B and C mix up reserve types, and neither addresses the real issue, which is a confidence gap, not a budget gap.
Wesley A.Mar 30, 2026Grace nailed the core of it, though I would add that the inspect-and-adapt rhythm only rebuilds trust if the demos actually show working functionality and not just progress slides, because a nervous stakeholder who has been burned before will see through a polished update that hides incomplete work.
Imani T.May 16, 2026Going with C. Unknown-unknowns are exactly what contingency reserves are for.
Luis F.May 18, 2026Actually Imani, D is correct here because management reserves are the ones set aside for unknown-unknowns, while contingency reserves cover identified risks that you can plan for. I made the same mistake in my prep until someone pointed out that distinction!