PMP · Question #812
A project manager is instructed by the project sponsor to draft the project charter. The project sponsor asks the project manager to involve a particular stakeholder in order to provide necessary reso
The correct answer is D. Meet with the stakeholder to discuss the impact of the deliverable.. To address a stakeholder's refusal to participate due to perceived lack of benefit, the project manager should directly engage them to clarify the deliverable's value and impact.
Question
A project manager is instructed by the project sponsor to draft the project charter. The project sponsor asks the project manager to involve a particular stakeholder in order to provide necessary resources. However, the stakeholder is refusing to get involved because the stakeholder thinks that there is no benefit in using the project deliverable. What should the project manager do to resolve this?
Options
- AConsider the stakeholder as a risk and evaluate possible solutions with the project team.
- BEscalate to the project sponsor due to the political nature of the issue.
- CImprove communication with the stakeholder to obtain their assistance in the future.
- DMeet with the stakeholder to discuss the impact of the deliverable.
How the community answered
(65 responses)- A12% (8)
- B5% (3)
- C5% (3)
- D78% (51)
Why each option
To address a stakeholder's refusal to participate due to perceived lack of benefit, the project manager should directly engage them to clarify the deliverable's value and impact.
While a disengaged stakeholder can be a risk, simply listing them as a risk without first attempting to resolve the root cause (their perception of no benefit) is not the best initial step.
Escalation should be a later step if direct engagement fails; the project manager should first attempt to resolve the issue at their level.
Improving communication for future assistance is too passive; the immediate goal is to get their current involvement for resource provision, which requires addressing their current objections.
The stakeholder's resistance stems from not seeing the benefit of the deliverable; therefore, meeting with them directly to discuss the project's impact and how it aligns with their interests or provides value is the most proactive and direct way to address their concerns and gain their support. This approach focuses on understanding and influencing the stakeholder.
Concept tested: Stakeholder engagement and management
Source: https://www.pmi.org/pmbok-guide-standards/foundational/pmbok
Topics
Community Discussion
8
Prof. SaraJan 16, 2026D is correct. The stakeholder is refusing because they do not see the benefit, so the fix is to meet with them and clarify the actual impact of the deliverable, which directly addresses the root cause. Use my mnemonic RIP for stakeholder resistance: Research their concern, Involve them in dialogue, and Pivot their perception. Options A and B skip the conversation entirely, and C is too passive for someone you need right now during charter drafting. This scenario falls under the People domain, specifically stakeholder engagement, so always prioritize direct engagement over escalation.
Ingrid P.Dec 20, 2025I first leaned toward B because the sponsor told you to involve this stakeholder and they are refusing, so escalation felt like the natural move. But the root cause is a perception gap: the stakeholder thinks there is no benefit, so D fixes that directly by meeting with them to discuss the actual impact of the deliverable. Make a card on this one, specifically the pattern where a stakeholder resists due to perceived lack of benefit, the correct move is always to meet and clarify impact rather than escalate or treat it as a risk.
Viktor S.Dec 22, 2025Good catch on D, but drop the word always from your card, because if you meet and clarify and they still refuse, escalation is back on the table.
Hiroshi T.Jan 10, 2026D per PMBOK. Wouldnt benefit discussion also surface risks for the register?
Yusuf A.Dec 17, 2025Going with B here. The sponsor specifically asked the PM to involve this stakeholder, and the stakeholder is flat-out refusing, which makes it a political issue that the PM does not have the authority to resolve on their own. A senior PM at my company told me that when you hit a wall with a stakeholder who has leverage and the sponsor is the one who wanted them involved, you loop the sponsor back in rather than trying to negotiate alone. D sounds productive but the stakeholder already decided there is no benefit, so a meeting without the sponsor's backing probably goes nowhere. Anyone disagree or
Prof. SaraDec 18, 2025D is correct because the PMs first move when a stakeholder refuses engagement is to directly negotiate and adjust the engagement approach, which maps to the Stakeholder Engagement domain. Yusuf is escalating too early - the PM owns stakeholder management and should attempt to address the resistance directly before pulling the sponsor back in.
Viktor S.Dec 29, 2025Going with B here. The sponsor specifically told the PM to involve this stakeholder, and the stakeholder is flat-out refusing. That is a political roadblock the PM cannot clear on their own because the power dynamic is above the PM's authority. The sponsor asked for this involvement, so the sponsor owns getting the stakeholder to the table. Anything else, like trying to meet with the stakeholder or improve communication, is just dancing around the real problem: the sponsor needs to lean on this person.
Ingrid P.Dec 31, 2025D is correct here. The PMs first move is to go directly to the stakeholder to understand the resistance and address it, before escalating to the sponsor. Viktor is skipping a step the exam expects you to take first.