Skip to content
PMPHard

PMP Practice: Evaluate demonstration of task accountability

Question 3 of 4 in Empower Team Members and Stakeholders

Pick an answer below — you'll get the explanation instantly, no signup.

Aditya Ranganathan is leading a predictive infrastructure upgrade project for Nikolai Volkov-Sorokin Logistics, a regional freight company. During the execution phase, three senior technical team members—Amara, Diego, and Lila—repeatedly escalate routine technical decisions to Kenji for approval, despite having the expertise to make these decisions independently. The escalations have become so frequent that Kenji is spending six hours daily resolving issues the team should handle themselves. Project velocity has dropped 35% over the past three weeks. When Kenji asks why they keep escalating, Amara responds, 'We were never told what decisions we're allowed to make on our own. Last month on the warehouse automation project, the PM reversed three of my technical calls and sent an email to my functional manager criticizing my judgment. I'm not taking that risk again.' Diego and Lila nod in agreement. What should Kenji have done at the beginning of the project to prevent this situation?
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: Established clear decision-making authority levels with the team and documented which types of decisions team members could make independently versus those requiring PM approval

Explanation

The root cause of this situation is the absence of clearly defined decision-making authority. The team members are capable but unwilling to act autonomously because they experienced negative consequences on a previous project when their authority boundaries were unclear. To empower team members effectively, the project manager must explicitly define and communicate what decisions team members can make independently and what requires escalation. This includes establishing decision thresholds, delegation levels, and providing psychological safety that team members will be supported when they exercise their delegated authority. By establishing these boundaries early and documenting them as part of team agreements or the project management plan, Kenji would have given the team the confidence to act within their expertise without fear of being second-guessed. The scenario's closing fact—that Amara specifically mentions not knowing what decisions she was allowed to make and references being criticized for exercising judgment—makes clear that authority definition was the missing preventive measure.

**Why not A:** Conducting one-on-one meetings to build trust is a good general practice but does not directly address the root cause. The scenario reveals the team already knows why they are hesitant—they explicitly cite unclear decision-making authority and a negative past experience. Understanding their concerns is already evident; what was missing was proactive authority definition.

**Why not B:** Scheduling weekly governance meetings with functional managers adds oversight but does not define what decisions the team can make independently. More governance without clear delegation would likely reinforce the team's reluctance to act autonomously and further slow project velocity.

**Why not C:** Creating a RACI matrix identifies stakeholder roles and responsibilities at a high level but does not define the granular decision-making authority levels that the team needs. The engineers' complaint is specifically about not knowing which technical decisions they can make without PM approval, which requires explicit delegation thresholds, not a general accountability chart.

Key Concept

This question covers Evaluate demonstration of task accountability under Empower Team Members and Stakeholders (People).

Share:

This is 1 of 100 free PMP questions

Unlock 6,300+ PMP practice questions with detailed explanations, progress tracking, and exam readiness prediction.

Unlock All Questions