Tell me about a time when you disagreed with your boss

It was when we were preparing data for warranty negotiation, my boss asked me to prepare data past 3 years back but I didn’t agree because data should be data to be used since last negotiation on 2018.

I told my boss about history of this topic and told her that the more sample we had, the more   opportunity to win negotiation.

then I prepared 2018-2024 data and reviewed together, we found that by comparing data between 2020-2024 and 2018-2024, warranty responsibility is much lower. We both agreed to use 2018-2024 data for negotiation and the result as we expected, we got the ratio as we proposed.

i always  remain calm, however in my last project i have given the methodology that were not useful for customer needs. i accepted but it didn't work until i had deep down discussion with my line manager and suggest the best way to  dealt with the situation, i defended my case proffesional and with evidences, and got accepted.

I was working on a high stake project with very high visibility from my senior management.

Me and my manager were thinking of can we leverage the quality of the development using help from QA team. He wanted to keep the QA team separate. His point of view was that a separate team would keep clear focus for the team and they would focus on finding more customer facing bugs. I thought that we should have QA embedded in the scrum team as that would help in easier collaboration and quicker bug fixes plus this is a more efficient way. Though I understood his point of view I always believed that in QA embedded inside the scrum team. I went back had a thought to measure the merits and demerits of the proposals. I put down in a slide the merits and demerits of each. Merit from having a separate team, clear focus and better filtering of quality, demerits less collaboration with development team. I then proposed that the QA engineers attend the calls of dev teams but keep a separate QA board for their tasks. This will give clarity of what bugs they find, what test scenarios they create and finally the metrics to measure the bugs reported per development. My boss and I both agreed as it solved the problems of each proposals

On a high-stakes project aimed at providing a comprehensive data view of our consumers, I was leading the team towards a tight deadline when a significant conflict arose. The product manager requested an additional feature that would allow external clients to access our services, just as we were about to ship the software. This posed risks of delays and security vulnerabilities. Understanding the importance of the project timeline and the associated risks, I took the initiative to resolve the conflict. I arranged a meeting with the product manager and other key stakeholders to discuss the situation. During the meeting, I presented a document listing all potential risks and communicated my concerns, focusing on the delay and security implications of the new feature. I also listened attentively to the product manager's perspective, who insisted on the feature for its potential to increase revenue. To address the conflict, I proposed a two-phase approach: first, we would launch the software for internal clients as planned, and second, we would develop the additional feature for external clients, ensuring all security concerns were addressed. This plan was accepted by all stakeholders, allowing us to meet the original deadline and later implement the new feature without compromising the project's integrity. The experience underscored the value of open communication, collaboration, and strategic problem-solving in conflict resolution.

After releasing and announcing the software supply chain security compliance for Dart & Flutter my boss called me to a meeting to discuss re-purposing the security team resources to work on testing. I share that security was a very important area for the community and users and I also shared my concerns that stopping the security work would impact ongoing projects with the Flutter internal releases.

The meeting then moved to negotiating what parts of the security program would need to continue and how to reprioritize the resources to also work in testing. The outcome of the meeting was to keep the security operations and move half of the security resources to work on testing.

Even when I disagreed with the decision to eliminate the security team I managed to negotiate keeping the most important parts of the security program and at the same time comply with the decision and moving some of the resources to work on testing.

While working at a startup this summer, my boss and the CEO was very excited to rapidly deploy an new AI model that was capable of remixing songs to the website. However, me and the other main engineer believed that we would need some more time to continue working on the model, as we wanted to be very thorough with our testing of it before it was deployed to users. To discuss this discrepancy in timelines, I scheduled a meeting between the CEO and engineering team and discussed the various components and deliverables that needed to be done before the model could be deployed, and the timeline associated with each of these items. Specifically, I presented how the labeling and cleaning of data as well as time required to train the model served as major bottlenecks that required multiple iterations of work. I was definitely a little apprehensive about how he would take the news that the model deployment would have to be slightly delayed, but after speaking with the rest of the engineering team, we thought it would be the best course of action to ensure the product remained high quality. Breaking down each of the components specifically was very helpful for the CEO to understand what work was being done to create the model, and it helped to realign us as we pushed onwards.

At Auctane, while my team was in the middle of the rewrite - for refund module, The PMs wanted a new feature to the legacy system, I pushed back on the switch as it would cause a lot of churn for my team. PM got my Manager involved and convinced that this was a good idea to release new feature on monolith. My manager aggreed for this swap, I was disaggreed with this decision but commited to the change in direction.

I breifed my team with this change, and we could accomate the feature request after negotiating the scope of the microsystem re-write.

i haven’ encountered a situation like this.However if I found some idea wrong I will challenge it with respect and professionalis,If i were to face this situation in future my approach would be open communication and understanging each other perspectives and discussing potential solution to find common grounds through which we can move towards a unified direction