Skip to content
PMPMedium

PMP Practice: Identify and Analyze Conflict Sources

Question 3 of 10 in Manage Conflicts

Faisal Al-Dosari is the Scrum Master for Tahini Supernova Studios, a team developing a mobile meditation app. During the last three sprints, the UX designer and the lead developer have been in persistent conflict over feature implementations. The designer insists on elaborate animations and interactions that the developer says are technically unfeasible within sprint timeboxes. Both escalated the issue to Lila separately, each blaming the other for slowing down progress. The team's velocity has dropped 35% over this period, and two planned releases have been delayed. Lila facilitated a team retrospective where both parties agreed to collaborate more closely, but after two weeks the conflict has resurfaced with the same arguments. The designer just sent Faisal an email saying she's 'done trying to work with someone who doesn't value user experience,' and the developer responded in the team Slack channel that 'design keeps ignoring technical reality.' What should Faisal do to recover the team's effectiveness?
Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: Meet individually with each team member to understand their underlying interests and concerns, then facilitate a structured problem-solving session focused on identifying mutually beneficial solutions and establishing clear working agreements with accountability measures

Explanation

When a previously agreed-on resolution strategy fails to resolve conflict and the situation has escalated with public expressions of frustration, the Scrum Master should move to a deeper level of conflict resolution. Meeting individually first allows each person to share concerns without the other present, helping uncover underlying interests beyond their stated positions (the designer may fear the product will be mediocre; the developer may feel constantly overcommitted). This understanding enables a structured collaborative problem-solving session that addresses root causes rather than symptoms. The scenario shows the initial retrospective agreement was surface-level since the same conflict pattern returned. Establishing clear working agreements with accountability measures provides the structure that was missing from the first attempt. The 35% velocity drop and public expressions of giving up ('done trying') indicate the conflict has reached a critical point requiring skilled facilitation focused on mutual interests, not just procedural changes.

**Why not A:** Escalating the conflict to the product owner and recommending reassignment treats the symptom rather than the root cause. Removing a team member without first attempting deeper conflict resolution wastes the investment in the relationship and sets a precedent that disagreements lead to removal rather than resolution.

**Why not B:** Implementing a process requiring feasibility assessments before sprint planning addresses the procedural aspect but does not resolve the underlying interpersonal conflict. The designer and developer need to understand each other's underlying interests, not just comply with a new review gate that could feel punitive.

**Why not D:** Holding another retrospective with a team vote creates a win-lose dynamic that would likely entrench positions rather than resolve them. The previous retrospective agreement already failed, indicating that surface-level group discussion is insufficient for this escalated conflict between two individuals.

Key Concept

This question covers Identify and Analyze Conflict Sources under Manage Conflicts (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