PMP · Question #300
During a project's third iteration, two of the existing team members were replaced. As the project entered the next iteration, the team velocity dropped and the performance started to slip. What shoul
The correct answer is A. Guide the team to revert back to the forming and storming stages.. When new members join an existing project team, the team dynamic shifts, often causing a drop in performance. The project manager should guide the team through a renewed period of forming and storming to re-establish cohesion and productivity.
Question
Options
- AGuide the team to revert back to the forming and storming stages.
- BDiscuss the decrease in productivity with human resources (HR).
- CConvene a team building event to address key performance indicators (KPIs).
- DEscalate the issue to the project sponsor.
How the community answered
(32 responses)- A72% (23)
- B3% (1)
- C9% (3)
- D16% (5)
Why each option
When new members join an existing project team, the team dynamic shifts, often causing a drop in performance. The project manager should guide the team through a renewed period of forming and storming to re-establish cohesion and productivity.
The replacement of team members means the team's dynamics are disrupted, essentially requiring them to revisit earlier stages of team development (forming and storming) as described by Tuckman's stages. The project manager should actively guide them through this reformation to rebuild cohesion, shared understanding, and effective collaboration to restore performance.
Discussing productivity with HR without first addressing the internal team dynamics and integration of new members is premature and may not resolve the root cause of the performance drop.
While team building can be part of the solution, simply convening an event to address KPIs doesn't directly acknowledge or facilitate the necessary re-establishment of team stages.
Escalating to the project sponsor is generally reserved for issues that cannot be resolved at the project level; addressing team dynamics is within the project manager's responsibility.
Concept tested: Team development stages and project manager's role
Source: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/stages-team-development-5339
Topics
Community Discussion
7
Samuel O.May 4, 2026A is correct here. When you swap out team members mid-project, you are essentially resetting the team dynamics, whether you like it or not. I have seen this happen on integration projects where we brought in new contractors and assumed they would just pick up where the old guys left off. The reality is the team has to go back through forming and storming to figure out how they work together again, so guiding them through that process is the only real fix. The velocity drop is a symptom of that reset, not an HR problem or something to escalate.
Mei-Ling H.May 5, 2026Agree on A but watch for a stem that says the team member change is not the issue, because then the answer flips to C and the forming-storming logic becomes a trap.
Ola B.Apr 15, 2026A is correct here. When new members join an agile team you go back through Tuckman stages, so guiding them through forming and storming again rebuilds the collaboration before you worry about KPIs or escalations.
Mei-Ling H.May 15, 2026A is correct but does replacing members always reset team to forming stage in Tuckman model?
Mateus R.May 15, 2026Not always a full reset, Mei-Ling: think of it like adding a new player to a baseball team mid-season, the group might drop back from performing to norming or storming depending on how big the roster change is and how much the new person shakes up established dynamics.
Mateus R.Apr 25, 2026Leaned toward C but swapped people means the team has to reform, so A.
Samuel O.Apr 28, 2026A is right but worth noting that in my experience the reforming doesnt fully reset to square one, the team carries forward enough shared trust and process memory that they re-converge faster than a brand new team would.