You are leading a pharmaceutical product development project following a waterfall approach. During the detailed design phase, your quality assurance lead raises concerns that the technical lead is making design decisions without consulting the regulatory compliance specialist, potentially creating future audit risks. When you investigate, you discover the technical lead believes the compliance specialist is being overly cautious and slowing down progress. The technical lead has 20 years of experience and has successfully delivered similar projects. The compliance specialist is newer to the company but has deep regulatory expertise. Your project has strict regulatory submission deadlines with significant financial penalties for delays. How should you address this situation?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct answer is A. This question tests collaborative conflict resolution and establishing effective team processes (ECO People Task 2.3: Support team member performance through assessment and feedback). Option A is correct because it addresses the root cause—unclear decision-making authority and collaboration protocols—while respecting both team members' expertise and maintaining project momentum. By creating documented protocols, you establish when compliance input is critical versus informational, balancing speed with regulatory risk. Option D is a common distractor because it seems decisive, but it's wrong because mandating compliance review for 'all' decisions without distinction is the opposite of the nuanced approach needed; it fails to leverage the technical lead's experience for routine decisions and will likely create the delays the technical lead fears, potentially damaging your relationship with a senior team member. The correct answer demonstrates advanced stakeholder management by creating structure rather than imposing authority, which is essential in predictive environments where process adherence is critical.

More People Questions