Certified - CompTIA Project+

During execution, a project manager has to juggle both the human side of delivery and the formal controls that keep work aligned to plan. Conflict management and phase gate reviews may seem unrelated at first glance, but both influence how teams work together, how decisions get made, and how progress is validated. Conflict resolution keeps collaboration healthy and productive, while gate reviews provide structured checkpoints that confirm the project is still viable, aligned, and ready to move forward. Together, they affect quality, stakeholder trust, and the overall health of the project.
Conflicts in projects are inevitable, and they usually have predictable causes. Misaligned priorities between departments can pull resources in different directions. Roles and authority lines that aren’t clearly defined can leave people unsure of who makes which decisions. Under pressure, personality clashes or communication breakdowns can flare up quickly. Disagreements about scope, requirements, or deadlines are common when deliverables are complex and timeframes are tight.
To handle these situations, you need a range of resolution approaches. Collaboration works best when you want a win-win outcome and have time to explore solutions together. Compromising trades concessions for speed when a decision is needed quickly. Avoiding can be useful if the stakes are low or emotions are high and cooling-off time is needed. Forcing uses authority to make a call when there’s no time for prolonged debate. Each style has a place, but using the same one every time can damage long-term relationships.
Choosing the right style depends on context—urgency, the importance of the issue, the relationships involved, and the team’s culture. High-trust teams are more likely to succeed with collaboration, while time-critical situations may require a more directive approach. The project manager’s role is to read the situation and pick the method that will solve the problem without creating new ones. Over-reliance on any single approach risks eroding morale or making conflict resolution less effective over time.
Facilitating resolution is a core project management skill. That means creating an environment where team members can raise concerns without fear of backlash, making sure those concerns are heard, and guiding discussions toward solutions. Acting as a neutral mediator allows you to gather facts, help each party see the other’s perspective, and work toward a resolution. Escalating to higher management should be a last resort, used only when team-level resolution isn’t possible.
Documenting and tracking conflicts is important for transparency and accountability. If an issue is ongoing, it should be logged and assigned to someone to manage. Keeping a record of what was discussed, what actions were taken, and whether it was resolved helps in future retrospectives and, if needed, in discussions with sponsors or functional leads. This record shows that conflicts are being addressed and not ignored.
Good planning is the first step in preventing many conflicts. Defining scope, assigning tasks clearly, and agreeing on communication protocols at the start reduces uncertainty. Establishing expectations through tools like a RACI matrix and setting ground rules at kickoff gives everyone a shared understanding of how the team will work together. These steps help avoid firefighting later when tensions run high.
Communication is another preventative tool. Regular updates, open discussion, and transparent decision-making build trust and prevent misunderstandings from festering. Many conflicts arise simply because no one spoke up early enough. Active listening and keeping feedback loops open with stakeholders and team members encourage small issues to surface before they grow. Project managers should model the kind of clear, respectful, and assertive communication they want the team to follow.
Cross-functional projects bring extra challenges. In matrix environments, where authority is split between project managers and functional leads, conflicting priorities or unclear accountability can lead to friction. Early role clarification and agreements on how to resolve resource conflicts make a big difference. Negotiating openly with functional leaders helps keep priorities aligned and reduces surprises later.
It’s important to remember that not all conflict is bad. Healthy disagreement can spark innovation and better solutions. Teams that can debate ideas respectfully and resolve differences productively tend to perform better in the long run. Suppressing conflict entirely often leads to disengagement and quiet resistance. A project manager should encourage constructive challenge while making sure it stays focused on ideas, not personal attacks.
Phase gate reviews are a different kind of control—formal checkpoints between lifecycle phases where the project’s performance and deliverables are evaluated before moving forward. They’re a chance to validate that the project is meeting its goals, managing risks, and staying aligned with stakeholder expectations. Skipping these reviews or treating them lightly increases the risk of drifting off course without realizing it.
The people at a phase gate review usually include the project manager, sponsor, and business owner, with additional attendees like PMO staff, QA leads, finance, or IT depending on the phase. Their focus is on deliverables and results, not just whether activities were completed. Having the right participants ensures decisions are based on a complete and accurate view of the project’s status.
Passing a phase gate depends on meeting specific criteria. All deliverables for that phase should be complete and formally approved. Performance against budget, schedule, and scope baselines is reviewed, and any major risks or open issues must have documented action plans. The project’s strategic alignment and original business case must still make sense before approval is granted to continue.
For more cyber related content and books, please check out cyber author dot me. Also, there are other prepcasts on Cybersecurity and more at Bare Metal Cyber dot com.
Preparing for a phase gate review is not something to leave until the last minute. The project manager needs to gather all relevant deliverables, performance metrics, and supporting documentation in advance. A concise summary presentation should highlight what’s been accomplished, what risks remain, and any lessons learned so far. Before the review, the core team should go through the materials to confirm they’re complete and accurate, and the PM must make sure everyone who needs to be there is confirmed and ready to present their part.
Gate reviewers expect to see specific deliverables before approving the move to the next phase. These often include signed-off scope and schedule documents that match the current baseline, quality assurance results, and any test reports or defect logs. Financial summaries comparing planned costs to actual spending are also important, along with any approved change requests, current risk logs, and documentation of stakeholder feedback. Having these organized and ready speeds up the review and builds confidence in the team’s preparedness.
When conducting the gate review, the project manager or designated lead walks reviewers through the achievements, supporting metrics, and any variances from the plan. Reviewers use this time to ask questions, challenge assumptions, or request more detail where needed. At the end of the session, they decide whether to proceed, proceed with conditions, or stop the project until issues are addressed. Whatever the outcome, it should be documented immediately and shared with the project team.
Responding to gate review findings is as important as the review itself. If gaps are identified, the project manager needs to assign corrective actions with clear owners and deadlines. Conditional approvals may come with requirements for a follow-up check or mid-phase review. In some cases, recommendations could mean revisiting the plan, adjusting scope, or reallocating resources. Transparency in how these gaps are addressed reassures stakeholders that concerns are being taken seriously.
Maintaining consistent gate review discipline is part of strong governance. Skipping a review or rushing through one increases the risk of uncontrolled scope changes, budget overruns, or deliverables that fail to meet expectations. A structured, repeatable gate process reinforces organizational standards and helps raise overall project maturity. It also provides a formal moment for leadership to confirm continued investment in the project.
Gate reviews mark a clear transition between phases. A green light from the review is the formal signal to move forward, authorizing resource shifts and releasing any additional funding. Teams should not proceed until the review is complete and approval is documented. This structure supports better handoffs between phases and ensures that no phase starts before the previous one is truly ready to close.
Communicating the results of a gate review is critical. All stakeholders, especially those affected by the next phase, should receive a summary of the decision, any conditions attached, and what it means for the timeline. Clear communication prevents misunderstandings and ensures everyone is working from the same expectations as the project moves forward.
Archiving gate review materials is part of maintaining a strong project record. Presentations, signed approvals, reviewer notes, and any supporting documents should be stored in the project repository. This archive can be useful during audits, in lessons learned sessions, or if there’s ever a dispute about why a decision was made. Having a structured process for archiving reinforces transparency and accountability.
Gate reviews are also an opportunity to refocus the team. They can mark progress, recognize the work completed, and realign energy toward the next set of objectives. These sessions give the team a chance to reflect on what’s working well and where improvements can be made. This pause before the next phase can help renew commitment and strengthen collaboration.
Sometimes a project won’t pass a gate on the first attempt. When that happens, the team should review the feedback carefully, create a recovery plan, and address the issues before coming back for re-approval. Rework could involve fixing deliverables, securing additional resources, or validating scope against the business case. The project manager’s role is to lead with professionalism, keep morale steady, and focus on resolving the blockers.
Supporting decision-makers at the gate means giving them exactly what they need to make an informed call. Long, unfocused presentations risk creating confusion or delays. Anticipating questions, having backup data ready, and keeping materials relevant to the gate’s purpose builds confidence. Well-prepared documentation reassures reviewers that the project team is in control.
Integrating conflict resolution into gate preparation is often overlooked. If there are unresolved disputes among the team or stakeholders, they can undermine the review’s outcome. The project manager should address or at least have a plan for managing these issues before stepping into the review. A unified, aligned team presents a stronger case for moving forward.
When managed well, conflict resolution strengthens trust and keeps the team focused, while phase gate reviews provide the formal structure that ensures the project is delivering as promised. Together, they help maintain alignment, confirm readiness, and reinforce governance. By balancing interpersonal leadership with procedural discipline, a project manager can keep the work moving forward with confidence and credibility.