SaveMyCert
Log in
5 of 5 free questions left today·for 30 a day
PMP · Domain 1

People practice questions

People is worth 33% of the PMP exam — the 2nd-heaviest of the 3 domains. Leading and engaging people: a shared vision, conflict, team leadership, stakeholder engagement and expectations, knowledge transfer and communication. Official weighting 33%. 6 fully worked examples are further down this page, answers included.

Exam weight
33%
the 2nd-heaviest of the 3 domains
Questions
344
across 8 topics
Free, no account
5/day
a free account allows 30 a day
Explanations
Every option
right and wrong

Build a practice session

5 free questions left today.

Domains

How many?

Mode

Ready when you are

10 fresh questions drawn across 1 of 3 domains, in Learn mode.

Focused review

Every question you answer incorrectly, and every question you flag while practising, is saved here automatically. Finish a session and you can come back to re-drill just those.

6 sample People questions, fully explained

Questions from the PMP bank mapped to domain 1, with the answer key and the reasoning behind every option. None of them repeat the examples on the main PMP practice page.

Question 1People

An agile team wants a lightweight artifact that says, in a few sentences, who the product is for, which need it meets and how it differs from alternatives, so anyone on the team can repeat it. Which artifact fits best?

Choose one.

  • a
    Team definition of done

    The definition of done sets the quality criteria every increment must meet. It says nothing about who the product serves or why.

  • b
    Iteration goal statement

    An iteration goal states what one iteration aims to achieve. It is short-lived and narrower than a statement about the whole product.

  • c
    Release-level product roadmap

    A product roadmap shows how the product is expected to evolve across releases over time. It sequences delivery; it is not a few sentences naming customer, need and differentiator.

  • d
    Product vision statement Correct

    A product vision statement (often written as an elevator statement) names the target customer, the need and the differentiator in a few memorable sentences.

The concept

A product vision statement captures target customer, need and differentiation in a short form the whole team can remember and repeat.

Why that’s the answer

The stem asks for a few sentences covering customer, need and differentiation that anyone can repeat. That is the classic product vision (elevator) statement. The iteration goal is tempting because it is also short, but it covers one iteration, not the product.

How to reason it out
  1. List what the artifact must contain: customer, need, differentiator.
  2. Note it must be short and stable enough to repeat.
  3. Match it to the product vision statement.
  4. Rule out artifacts about quality, one iteration or the work list.

Exam tip: Customer, need and differentiator in a few sentences = product vision statement.

PMP Develop a Common Vision: Shared Vision, Ownership and Root Cause — the lesson that teaches this.

Question 2People

An agile project manager wants the team to keep the product vision in mind during everyday work without adding meetings. What should the project manager do?

Choose one.

  • a
    Store the vision in the project document library

    A document library makes the vision available but not visible. Team members rarely open it during daily work, so it does little to promote the vision.

  • b
    Add the vision to the team's working agreement

    A working agreement covers how the team works together, such as norms and behaviours. Placing the vision there mixes purposes and does not keep it in view.

  • c
    Post the vision on a visible information radiator Correct

    An information radiator keeps the vision in the team's line of sight every day at no meeting cost, which is exactly what promoting the vision requires.

  • d
    Ask the sponsor to restate it each quarter

    A quarterly restatement is too infrequent to influence everyday choices and depends on an extra session, which the stem wants to avoid.

The concept

Promoting the vision means keeping it visible and referenced in daily work; information radiators do this without extra ceremony.

Why that’s the answer

The constraints are 'everyday work' and 'no added meetings'. A big visible display satisfies both. A document library stores the vision but does not promote it; a quarterly sponsor restatement is too rare and adds a session.

How to reason it out
  1. Note the goal: the vision present in daily decisions.
  2. Note the constraint: no additional meetings.
  3. Pick the option that keeps the vision visible continuously.
  4. Reject options that only store it or that add infrequent sessions.

Exam tip: Promote the vision by making it visible where the work happens.

PMP Develop a Common Vision: Shared Vision, Ownership and Root Cause — the lesson that teaches this.

Question 3People

A project manager is starting an agile initiative to replace a customer portal. The sponsor wrote a vision draft alone, and neither the product owner nor the two key customer representatives have seen it. What should the project manager do next?

Choose one.

  • a
    Share the draft with the delivery team as the approved project vision

    Publishing a draft that key stakeholders have not seen produces awareness, not a shared vision, and risks building toward a view the customers do not hold.

  • b
    Ask the product owner to rewrite the draft independently

    Swapping one author for another still leaves the vision unshared. The customer representatives and sponsor would be left out instead.

  • c
    Send the draft to the change control board for review

    A change control board reviews changes to approved baselines. A first vision draft is not a baseline change, and the board is not the group whose shared understanding is needed.

  • d
    Facilitate a session to refine the draft with key stakeholders Correct

    Refining the draft with the product owner and customer representatives turns the sponsor's view into a shared vision that the people who shape the product actually hold.

The concept

A vision is shared only when key stakeholders help shape it. The project manager facilitates that co-creation before the vision is promoted.

Why that’s the answer

The gap is that the people who own and use the product have not contributed. Facilitating a refinement session closes that gap and builds commitment. Publishing the draft is the tempting fast path, but a vision the product owner and customers never saw is not shared.

How to reason it out
  1. Identify who has not seen the draft: product owner and customer representatives.
  2. Recall that a shared vision needs key stakeholder input.
  3. Choose the action that brings those people in before promotion.
  4. Reject options that publish, re-author alone or route to the wrong body.

Exam tip: Co-create the vision with key stakeholders before you promote it.

PMP Develop a Common Vision: Shared Vision, Ownership and Root Cause — the lesson that teaches this.

Question 4People

During kickoff for a predictive ERP rollout, the project manager hears the finance director and the operations director describe the project's purpose in clearly different terms. The charter is still in draft. What should the project manager do first?

Choose one.

  • a
    Bring both directors and the sponsor together to agree the purpose Correct

    With the charter still in draft, this is the cheapest moment to reconcile the two views. The sponsor owns the business case and can confirm which purpose the project serves.

  • b
    Ask the sponsor to sign the charter in its current draft form

    Signing now would authorize a purpose that two key stakeholders already read differently. The disagreement would surface later, when it is far more costly.

  • c
    Record both directors' views in the issue log for later action

    Logging the difference tracks it but does nothing to resolve it. The charter would still be finalized on an unshared purpose.

  • d
    Proceed with planning and revisit the purpose at the first phase gate

    Planning on a disputed purpose builds the plan on sand. Waiting for a gate defers a cheap fix until rework is expensive.

The concept

Differences in how key stakeholders understand the purpose must be reconciled, with the sponsor, before the charter is approved.

Why that’s the answer

Two key stakeholders hold different purposes and the charter is not yet signed. Bringing them together with the sponsor resolves the conflict while it is cheap. Logging it or deferring it to a gate are tempting process moves, but neither produces a shared purpose before authorization.

How to reason it out
  1. Spot the signal: two key stakeholders describe different purposes.
  2. Note the timing: the charter is still in draft.
  3. Recall that the sponsor owns the business case and arbitrates purpose.
  4. Choose the action that reconciles views before authorization.

Exam tip: Reconcile competing purposes with the sponsor before the charter is signed, not after.

PMP Develop a Common Vision: Shared Vision, Ownership and Root Cause — the lesson that teaches this.

Question 5People

At an iteration review, the product owner rejects two completed features as 'not what the vision meant', although both met their written acceptance criteria. The team is frustrated. What should the project manager do first?

Choose one.

  • a
    Ask the team to rework both features before the next iteration review

    Rework treats the symptom. Without understanding the misunderstanding, the reworked features may miss the vision again.

  • b
    Escalate the disagreement to the sponsor for a final decision

    Escalating before the team and product owner have examined the difference skips collaboration. The sponsor would be deciding without knowing the cause.

  • c
    Facilitate a discussion to find why the interpretations differed Correct

    Before deciding on rework or new rules, the project manager needs to know why the product owner and team read the vision differently. That root cause tells everyone what to change.

  • d
    Add more detailed acceptance criteria to future user stories

    Tighter criteria might help, but choosing a fix before analysis assumes the cause. The criteria were met, so the gap may lie in the vision itself.

The concept

When work meets its criteria but misses the vision, the first step is to analyse why the parties interpreted the vision differently, then act on that cause.

Why that’s the answer

The features passed their acceptance criteria yet missed the vision, so the gap is in shared understanding, not execution. Analysing the differing interpretations comes first. Stricter acceptance criteria is the tempting answer because it sounds preventive, but it presumes a cause no one has examined.

How to reason it out
  1. Note that the work met its written criteria.
  2. Conclude that the misunderstanding is about the vision, not the build quality.
  3. Apply the mindset: understand before acting or escalating.
  4. Pick the option that investigates the difference in interpretation.

Exam tip: Work that passes its criteria but misses the vision signals a shared-understanding gap: find the cause first.

PMP Develop a Common Vision: Shared Vision, Ownership and Root Cause — the lesson that teaches this.

Question 6People

Stakeholders in a hybrid program keep misreading the program vision. The project manager wants to work with the team to sort possible causes into categories such as people, process, tools and communication before choosing which one to address. Which technique should the project manager use?

Choose one.

  • a
    Five whys interview

    Five whys drills down one causal chain by asking 'why' repeatedly. It does not sort many possible causes into categories.

  • b
    Pareto chart of defects

    A Pareto chart ranks causes by frequency once data exists. The project manager is still identifying and grouping possible causes, not counting them.

  • c
    Cause-and-effect diagram Correct

    A cause-and-effect (Ishikawa or fishbone) diagram organizes possible causes of one problem into categories, which is exactly what the project manager wants.

  • d
    Stakeholder engagement matrix

    The engagement assessment matrix compares current and desired engagement levels. It shows who is disengaged, not why the vision is misread.

The concept

Root-cause techniques differ: a cause-and-effect diagram groups candidate causes by category; five whys follows one chain deeply; a Pareto chart ranks causes by frequency.

Why that’s the answer

The deciding detail is 'sort possible causes into categories'. That is the purpose of a cause-and-effect diagram. Five whys is the near-twin because it is also a root-cause tool, but it follows a single chain rather than organizing many causes.

How to reason it out
  1. Identify the goal: find the root cause of a vision misunderstanding.
  2. Identify the method required: grouping candidate causes into categories.
  3. Match categorized causes to the cause-and-effect diagram.
  4. Rule out the single-chain, frequency-ranking and engagement tools.

Exam tip: Categories of causes = fishbone; one chain of causes = five whys; ranking by frequency = Pareto.

PMP Develop a Common Vision: Shared Vision, Ownership and Root Cause — the lesson that teaches this.

What PMP domain 1 tests, topic by topic

The official exam guide breaks People into 8 topics. The question bank follows the same split, so a weak topic shows up as a cluster of misses you can go back and read.

Published PMP practice questions per topic in People
TopicWhat it coversQuestions
Develop a common visionOfficial PMP ECO (July 2026), Domain I Task 1. Enablers: Help ensure a shared vision with key stakeholders; Promote the shared vision; Keep the vision current; Break down situations to identify the root cause of a misunderstanding of the vision.43
Manage conflictsOfficial PMP ECO (July 2026), Domain I Task 2. Enablers: Identify conflict sources; Analyze the context for the conflict; Implement an agreed-on resolution strategy; Communicate conflict management principles with the team and external stakeholders; Establish an environment that fosters adherence to common ground rules; Manage and rectify ground rule violations.43
Lead the project teamOfficial PMP ECO (July 2026), Domain I Task 3. Enablers: Establish expectations at the team level; Empower the team; Solve problems; Represent the voice of the team; Support the team's varied experiences, skills, and perspectives; Determine an appropriate leadership style; Establish clear roles and responsibilities within the team.43
Engage stakeholdersOfficial PMP ECO (July 2026), Domain I Task 4. Enablers: Identify stakeholders; Analyze stakeholders; Analyze and tailor communication to stakeholder needs; Execute the stakeholder engagement plan; Optimize alignment among stakeholder needs, expectations, and project objectives; Build trust and influence stakeholders to accomplish project objectives.43
Align stakeholder expectationsOfficial PMP ECO (July 2026), Domain I Task 5. Enablers: Categorize stakeholders; Identify stakeholder expectations; Facilitate discussions to align expectations; Organize and act on mentoring opportunities.43
Manage stakeholder expectationsOfficial PMP ECO (July 2026), Domain I Task 6. Enablers: Identify internal and external customer expectations; Align and maintain outcomes to internal and external customer expectations; Monitor internal and external customer satisfaction/expectations and respond as needed.43
Help ensure knowledge transferOfficial PMP ECO (July 2026), Domain I Task 7. Enablers: Identify knowledge critical to the project; Gather knowledge; Foster an environment for knowledge transfer.43
Plan and manage communicationOfficial PMP ECO (July 2026), Domain I Task 8. Enablers: Define a communication strategy; Promote transparency and collaboration; Establish a feedback loop; Understand reporting requirements; Create reports aligned with sponsors and stakeholder expectations; Support reporting and governance processes.43
Total344

Revise People before you drill it

PMP Develop a Common Vision: Shared Vision, Ownership and Root CauseVision items are mostly situational: a short predictive, agile or hybrid scenario, then what the project manager should do, do first or do next, which artifact or technique fits, or which observations matter. Several options are usually workable, and a detail in the scenario, such as who holds authority or what stage the project is at, decides between them. Expect to distinguish vision from scope, the charter from other planning documents, product-level vision artifacts from iteration-level ones, and root-cause techniques from one another, and to tell co-creation and diagnosis apart from one-way communication and premature action.PMP Conflict Management: Techniques, Levels and Ground RulesConflict items are situational: a short scenario in a predictive, agile or hybrid project, then what the project manager should do, do first or do next, which technique or Leas level applies, or which two actions or facts matter. Several workable options usually appear, and a stated detail decides between them, such as how soon the decision is needed, whether safety or compliance is involved, who holds authority, whether the team or the parties have already tried to resolve it, or whether a resolution was already agreed. Expect to diagnose the source of a conflict from evidence like a resource calendar or responsibility matrix, to tell compromise from collaboration, and to choose the right moment and setting to intervene or escalate.Leading the Project Team for the PMP: Leadership Styles, Empowerment and Team RolesThis task is tested through short workplace situations in predictive, agile and hybrid settings, and most questions ask what the project manager should do, do first or do next. Reading where the project already stands is decisive: whether a private conversation has already happened, whether the team agreed a capacity or meeting limit, whether a governance or regulatory approval applies, and whether the setting is predictive or agile. Options are usually all reasonable-sounding actions, separated by whether they understand the cause before acting, involve the team rather than deciding for it, and work through the agreed process and the right person rather than bypassing or escalating early. Expect some recognition items too: naming a Tuckman stage from described behaviour, choosing a situational leadership style for a person's skill and commitment, identifying an emotional intelligence competency, or picking the chart that clarifies who approves. Some items ask you to select two actions.PMP Stakeholder Engagement: Identify, Analyze, Engage and Build TrustQuestions on this task are situational: a short project scenario, often explicitly predictive, agile or hybrid, followed by what the project manager should do next or first. They test whether you can tell which step of the engagement cycle the project is at (identify, analyze, plan, act, reassess), read a power/interest position or an engagement assessment matrix, match a communication method to a stated need, and pick the right decision owner (sponsor or product owner) for a trade-off. Distractors are plausible actions that skip analysis, escalate too early, bypass the product owner or change control, act on an outdated assessment, or protect short-term comfort at the expense of transparency. Some items ask you to select two actions, and a few involve a simple velocity or engagement-gap reading.PMP Align Stakeholder Expectations: Categorize, Facilitate and MentorQuestions on this task are situational: a short predictive, agile or hybrid scenario followed by what the project manager should do, do first or do next, which model or technique applies, or which two actions fit. They test whether you can place a stakeholder in the right category on the power/interest grid, salience model or directions of influence and adjust engagement when their power or interest changes; choose a technique that surfaces unstated or tacit expectations and makes vague ones measurable; recognize where the project is in the sequence of understanding needs, facilitating, deciding and escalating, including whether a baseline exists and whether the decision is within the project manager's authority; tell group decision techniques apart (fist of five, multicriteria decision analysis, majority, plurality, unanimity) and from look-alikes such as planning poker, Delphi, Kano and Pareto; respect the product owner's accountability for backlog order; align predictive-minded stakeholders with adaptive planning and reporting; and distinguish mentoring from training. Distractors are typically plausible actions that skip a step, escalate too early, act unilaterally, or recreate predictive controls on an agile project.PMP Manage Stakeholder Expectations: Customer Expectations, Alignment and SatisfactionQuestions on this task are situational: a short predictive, agile or hybrid scenario followed by what the project manager should do, do first or do next, which term, measure or document applies, or which two actions fit. They test whether you can tell internal from external customers; recognize when expectations have come only from a proxy and reach the real users through the agreed channel; classify expectations with the Kano model and allow for delighters decaying into basics; judge alignment by the business-case outcome rather than delivered scope; choose an MVP or incremental release when expectations are uncertain and tailor a hybrid plan by uncertainty; route customer changes through impact analysis and change control on baselined work or through the product owner on adaptive work; identify and handle gold plating; separate quality verification from formal acceptance and use the requirements traceability matrix; pick customer measures such as NPS over delivery metrics and report satisfaction per customer group; and respond to falling satisfaction or a slipping commitment by diagnosing first and resetting expectations early and honestly. Distractors are typically plausible actions that rely on a proxy, skip a step, act unilaterally, bypass the product owner or change control, escalate too early, or delay bad news.PMP Knowledge Transfer: Identify, Gather and Share Critical KnowledgeQuestions on this task are situational: a short predictive, agile or hybrid scenario followed by what the project manager should do, do first, arrange or encourage, or which two actions fit. They test whether you can recognise tacit versus explicit knowledge from clues in the scenario and match the transfer method to it; identify which knowledge is critical when time is limited and who really holds it; treat a single knowledge holder as a risk and respond within stated constraints such as a fixed allocation, a confirmed departure, a fixed release date or a product owner's capacity concerns; choose a gathering technique that reaches real practice; capture knowledge while it is created rather than at the end; use the contract, its acceptance criteria and its change process with vendors; involve operations hands-on before handover; build psychological safety and address hoarding through its cause; and apply pairing, swarming, communities of practice, distributed-team and onboarding practices. Distractors are typically plausible actions that rely on documents for tacit knowledge, act too late, escalate or mandate before understanding the cause, or bypass an agreed process.PMP Communication Management: Plan, Channels, Reports and GovernanceQuestions on this task are situational: a short predictive, agile or hybrid scenario followed by what the project manager should do, do first or do next, which method or document applies, or which two actions fit, plus occasional one-step calculations of communication channels. They test whether you analyze communication requirements before choosing tools or templates; choose push, pull or interactive methods (or a combination) for the audience, volume, urgency and need for a record; know what the communications management plan contains and when to update it; recognize noise and the difference between acknowledgement and understanding; use information radiators, open artifacts, iteration reviews and joint touchpoints for transparency and feedback in agile, distributed and hybrid teams; judge communication effectiveness by outcomes rather than activity; identify contractual, organizational and regulatory reporting requirements; tailor reports to sponsor decisions and business outcomes from one data source; and apply governance tolerances, escalation and audit needs with complete and honest reporting. Distractors are typically plausible actions that skip the analysis, treat sending as communicating, escalate too early or too late, bypass the agreed process, or soften bad news.

Other PMP domains

Domain 2: Process41% of the exam · 427 questionsDomain 3: Business Environment26% of the exam · 272 questionsAll PMP practice questionsMixed sessions across all 3 domains — the way the real exam interleaves them.

People: your questions

People is domain 1 of the PMP exam guide and carries 33% of the scored content — the 2nd-heaviest of the 3 domains. On a 180-question paper that works out to roughly 59 questions, though PMI does not publish an exact per-domain count and individual exam forms vary.

Source

The domain weight and topic list on this page come from the official PMP exam guide.