PMP · Question #826
A project is in the later stages of execution. The project engineer insists in every meeting that they were never consulted or informed of the project deliverables. However, the project manager…
The correct answer is D. Engage the project engineer in a discussion to understand the concern and agree on a way. Despite documented communications, if a project engineer claims they were uninformed, the project manager should first engage them in a private discussion to understand their perspective and resolve the perceived communication gap. This focuses on collaboration and understanding.
Question
A project is in the later stages of execution. The project engineer insists in every meeting that they were never consulted or informed of the project deliverables. However, the project manager communicated adequately and has the project engineer's approvals on record. What should the project manager do?
Options
- AWrite a formal letter to human resources (HR) detailing the project engineer's unprofessional
- BApproach the project engineer's supervisor about possibly replacing the project engineer.
- CIntroduce the item in the next meeting, reminding all stakeholders of the project objectives.
- DEngage the project engineer in a discussion to understand the concern and agree on a way
How the community answered
(54 responses)- A22% (12)
- B9% (5)
- C6% (3)
- D63% (34)
Why each option
Despite documented communications, if a project engineer claims they were uninformed, the project manager should first engage them in a private discussion to understand their perspective and resolve the perceived communication gap. This focuses on collaboration and understanding.
Writing a formal letter to HR is an escalatory and confrontational step that should be considered only after attempting direct communication and resolution with the individual has failed.
Approaching the project engineer's supervisor to replace them is an extreme measure, highly escalatory, and bypasses direct communication, potentially damaging team morale and trust.
Reminding all stakeholders in a meeting about project objectives does not address the specific individual's concern or perceived lack of consultation and might be seen as dismissive.
Engaging the project engineer in a discussion to understand the concern and agree on a way forward is the most appropriate first step, as it demonstrates emotional intelligence and a commitment to collaborative problem-solving. This approach allows the project manager to directly address the individual's concerns, clarify any misunderstandings, and potentially uncover underlying issues or different communication preferences, fostering a more productive working relationship.
Concept tested: Conflict resolution and stakeholder engagement
Topics
Community Discussion
5
Ola B.Mar 5, 2026D is the right call. You always go talk to the person first and figure out what is driving the disconnect, even when you have the signed approvals to back you up. Think of it like spinning up a quick lab to troubleshoot before you rip and replace, you want to see the actual failure point for yourself and get alignment on how to move forward together.
Fatima Z.Feb 23, 2026A is my pick. HR letter = C.Y.A. when approvals are already on record.
Ola B.Feb 24, 2026D is correct here, Fatima. The scenario is asking about risk acceptance documentation, not just keeping a paper trail. Spin up a quick lab in your portal and look at the actual risk register options, you will see D maps directly to the formal acceptance and sign off requirement.
Dervla O.Mar 12, 2026B is the call here. You have documented proof the engineer was consulted and approved, so this is a performance and conduct issue at this point, not a communication gap - escalating to their supervisor is the right move when someone is actively undermining the project despite having the receipts.
Ola B.Mar 14, 2026D is correct here because the scenario is asking about the best next step to resolve the issue, not punish the engineer. You already have documented approval, so the right move is to hold a direct conversation with the engineer to understand why they are contradicting the agreed approach before escalating to anyone's supervisor.