The most comprehensive bank Interview Answer Review tooling available online.

I was having a team member, who was technically strong, but when it came to gelling with the team members, he was having problems. His comments/feedback for the technical artefacts, or for ones understanding of a problem, was showing people in a bad light. Team members were apprehensive, working with him. People started to unplug themselves while that person was around. I could sense that, the team’s engagement had started to wane. If that had continued, we were at risk of losing that person from the team.

I initially un-plugged him from the team discussions and meetings and started to have a daily sync-ups with him. Sensitised him about working as a team and how successful teams thrive in the organisation. Made him enrol for some trainings like - Seven habits of highly effective people. Recommended that training mainly because of the focus it lays on - personal change, collaborations with the team etc.

Then he started to show empathy towards the team members, started to mingle with team, started to give constructive feedbacks for the technical contributions and started to show respect to the fellow team members. The bridge that was created, started to disappear. And we finally made him part of all the discussions and meetings and today, he is one of the go-to person in the team.

WE made a bad build vs buy decision, we built an entire tool to store our metric definitions and build a change management system around it , a UI around it to allow users to change metric definition, other features were built around security but the problem this is not our core competency and management of this service became head ache, we did not have dedicated back end engineers and the project is in KTLO mode for a long time , things slowly started breaking and  no engineer was there to maintain it...finally we decommissioned it and bough a plug in tool called DRM. Lesson learned , identity your core competency of the team and if this project fits in your vision, this is not a DE project and should never have been built by us 

Situation:
While working on the CloudGate (CASB) program at Oracle, I had to collaborate closely with a lead engineer who was highly technical but often resistant to input from non-engineering stakeholders, including program managers like myself.

Task:
Our shared goal was to integrate CloudGate’s policy engine with a third-party SaaS provider under tight deadlines for a compliance milestone. Coordination was critical, but communication friction risked delaying delivery.

Action:
I focused on building mutual respect by first acknowledging his technical expertise and then shifting our interactions to be data- and goal-driven. Instead of pushing process, I came to discussions with clear risk/impact scenarios and timelines tied directly to customer and audit deadlines. I also adapted my style—fewer meetings, more async updates with technical clarity—which matched his preference. Gradually, we established a working rhythm built on outcomes, not personalities.

Result:
We delivered the integration on time, passed the compliance audit, and by the end of the project, had built enough trust that he started proactively surfacing risks to me before I had to ask. The experience reinforced for me that adapting communication style and focusing on shared goals is often more effective than trying to change personalities.

For prioritizing the product backlog, I evaluate each product across the dimensions of 1) impact on metrics/organization level goal the needle which it is trying to move, 2) reach of product as to how many personas or stakeholders experience will it improve 3) technical feasibility or complexity of the product being delivered which also includes dimensions of clarity in requirements and 4) if its of strategic importance to future growth