PMP · Question #170
A project manager is leading an automation project. The project team is colocated and includes people from both the technical and business units. The project manager discovers that personal difference
The correct answer is D. Meet with the team and agree on expectations from team members.. The project manager should address negative team dynamics caused by personal differences and work styles by meeting directly with the team to collaboratively establish clear expectations and ground rules for interaction and collaboration.
Question
A project manager is leading an automation project. The project team is colocated and includes people from both the technical and business units. The project manager discovers that personal differences and work styles are affecting the project negatively. How should the project manager address this?
Options
- ADevelop a schedule that ensures people with personal differences work separately.
- BInvite the functional managers of the different units to address their personal differences.
- CUse an approach to the project that does not involve colocation.
- DMeet with the team and agree on expectations from team members.
How the community answered
(30 responses)- A3% (1)
- B7% (2)
- C13% (4)
- D77% (23)
Why each option
The project manager should address negative team dynamics caused by personal differences and work styles by meeting directly with the team to collaboratively establish clear expectations and ground rules for interaction and collaboration.
Developing a schedule to separate individuals avoids addressing the root cause of the conflict and can hinder team integration and cross-functional collaboration.
Inviting functional managers to address personal differences passes responsibility and may escalate the issue without directly involving the team in finding a solution.
Changing the project approach to not involve colocation is a drastic measure that avoids addressing the team dynamics issue and may introduce other project challenges, especially if colocation was chosen for a reason.
Addressing team conflicts and dysfunctional dynamics requires direct intervention by the project manager to facilitate a team discussion, establish clear expectations, and agree on common working principles to improve collaboration and productivity.
Concept tested: Team conflict resolution and expectation setting
Topics
Community Discussion
7
Wei W.Jul 5, 2026D is the right call here. When work styles and personal differences start hurting the team, the Agile move is to get everyone together and co-create a working agreement or team charter, not to separate people or escalate to functional managers. Colocation is a strength, so scrapping it would be counterproductive and would just avoid the real issue. The team owns how they work together, so facilitate that conversation and let them agree on expectations themselves.
Yuki V.Jun 27, 2026D is correct because meeting with the team to agree on expectations is classic team charter ground rules stuff. I am curious though, does anyone know if the exam expects you to actually call it a team charter in the answer or if agreeing on expectations is close enough?
Zlatan X.Jun 29, 2026D is right but the exam cares less about the label team charter and more about recognizing that agreed expectations feed directly into program governance as behavioral norms that keep component teams aligned, so calling it a team charter helps but the mechanism is what they are testing.
Imani T.Jul 2, 2026D is the right pick but the wording is weak, "agree on expectations" is basically just saying make a team charter which PMI should just say directly. B is the trap because dragging functional managers into personality conflicts sounds like escalation, but colocation means you handle it internally first.
Viktor S.Jul 5, 2026D is the right call, and yes it sounds like generic fluff. A is the tempting trap because separating people feels like a quick fix, but that just avoids the problem instead of addressing it.
Zlatan X.Jul 8, 2026D is correct because the program manager resolves stakeholder conflict at the governance level through engagement strategy, not by physically isolating components which just fractures benefits realization.
Zlatan X.Jun 13, 2026I first leaned toward B because bringing in functional managers to sort out the friction sounds like a governance move, but at the program level you never escalate interpersonal issues that the team itself can resolve. The real mechanism here is team chartering: when you have colocated cross-functional components, you need agreed-upon ground rules and working agreements to realize the benefits of that colocation rather than letting personal differences erode collaboration. D is the only option that treats root cause by establishing shared expectations, which is what sustains integration across technical and business units. Separating people or abandoning colocation just masks the problem