PMP Practice: Promote the Shared Vision

When stakeholders present conflicting visions, the project manager's role is to facilitate alignment rather than impose solutions unilaterally or defer decisions upward prematurely. A collaborative session with both executives allows Mika to surface the underlying business drivers behind each perspective, identify areas of common ground, and guide the stakeholders toward a shared understanding of success. By translating their abstract preferences into measurable criteria—such as specific uptime requirements, performance benchmarks, and scalability milestones—Mika can create a unified vision that addresses both operational and technical concerns. Documenting these agreed-upon priorities in the project charter ensures the vision becomes the authoritative reference point for future decisions and eliminates team confusion. This approach respects both stakeholders' expertise, builds ownership of the vision, and establishes clear direction without bypassing the stakeholders' authority or creating artificial compromise.

**Why not B:** Escalating to the sponsor before attempting to facilitate alignment between the stakeholders abdicates the project manager's responsibility to build consensus and may damage relationships with both executives. The sponsor expects the PM to work through stakeholder conflicts when possible, and premature escalation signals an inability to manage stakeholder dynamics. Additionally, a top-down directive may leave one executive feeling overruled, creating resistance that undermines the vision's effectiveness.

**Why not C:** Creating two competing approaches and asking the steering committee to choose one forces an unnecessary binary decision and perpetuates the conflict rather than resolving it. This approach wastes time developing alternative plans, delays establishing a unified vision, and risks alienating whichever executive's approach is not selected. The steering committee expects the PM to bring stakeholders into alignment, not to present unresolved conflicts for adjudication. The scenario indicates both perspectives have merit—the goal is integration, not selection.

**Why not D:** Developing a vision unilaterally—even after consulting both executives separately—excludes the stakeholders from the alignment process and reduces their ownership of the outcome. This approach risks creating a compromise that satisfies neither party fully and may be perceived as the PM overstepping authority by making strategic trade-offs independently. Without the executives working through their differences together, underlying tensions remain unresolved, and Mika's proposed vision lacks the legitimacy that comes from collaborative agreement. The separate meetings are valuable for understanding concerns, but must lead to a joint session, not a PM-imposed solution.