The most comprehensive bank Interview Answer Review tooling available online.

I was working on the large scale entrprise wide program that included multiple teams and stakeholders .During the initial phase of the program on discussion with Business stakeholders , Product Management team , PO , Tech SME to determine the scope of program , prioritization & aligning on the business objectives  and tech objectives there was multiple discussion and it was tough to get the agreement due to multiple people having conflicting agenda and need .  I received the feedback that there was lot of time being wasted and people are not aligning on the subject . This led me to reflect back and breakdown the work and structure of how we were approaching  the topics to be discussed & limiting to the required audience and building a steering committee that will be a small set of devision makers representing from business stakeholders , Product management , Technology team additional I also prepped the teams offline on the discussion topics and things they need to come prepared so that our meeting agenda is clear an we can effectively discuss and prioritize on the scope due to the initial prep work done offline . This helped me in always being open for feedback and being adaptive to the ongoing situation and doing initial ground work so that there is clear and effective communication transparency

Having a long-term goal clearly set, breaking it down into near-term goals helps visualize our progress and what is expected on a day-to-day basis. By hitting the near-term goals I'll understand and grasp the depth, gain insights from the stakeholders, and would be able to achieve the long-term goal. setting near-term goals also help analyze trade-offs along the way

At my previous role, I was leading a fraud detection AI model deployment for a financial services client. The model aimed to reduce fraudulent transactions by 25% while maintaining a low false positive rate.

I was confident in the model’s performance in the test environment, but when we deployed it in production, we noticed an unexpected spike in false positives. Transactions flagged as fraudulent were legitimate, causing disruptions for customers and increasing manual review work. To resolve this, I:

1. Investigated the issue by comparing training and production data.

2. Identified data drift—the model was trained on historical data, but recent transaction patterns had changed.

3. Worked with data engineers to implement real-time data monitoring.

4. Retrained the model with up-to-date data and adjusted hyperparameters to improve generalization.

This fix reduced false positives by 25%, improved fraud detection accuracy, and ultimately saved $500M in operational savings across multiple initiatives. This experience taught me the importance of continuous model monitoring and proactively accounting for data drift. Now, I always incorporate data validation pipelines and feedback loops into AI deployments to prevent similar issues.

I try to understand their point of view and be open to new ideas. If I listen without being defensive I know  the other party will also listen. That way we can take the best idea from both and come up with great solution.

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.

In the Meraki integration project, the supply chain process required significant optimization of the entire flow. To achieve this, most of the shipping-related process needed to be modified. However, the team lacked sufficient time to complete the work because the planned use of an adapter did not work, requiring me to redesign the flow.

With limited time remaining before system integration testing (SIT), the cross-functional teams and other tracks were ready to test their code, and management was unwilling to postpone SIT and Cycle 1 testing. Since there was an additional round of SIT and Cycle 2 testing planned, I decided to proceed with the changes that the team had already completed. We migrated the completed code to the test instance and communicated that only Phase 1 of the changes would be released initially, while the remaining changes would be delivered during Cycle 2 testing.

I ensured the Phase 1 delivery was designed to avoid impacting the end-to-end flow, allowing the other teams to proceed with testing their portions of the code. This approach ensured that other teams' deadlines were not affected. I also informed the cross-functional teams that the OTM and GTM changes were completed, and the remaining shipping-related code optimization would be delivered before Cycle 2 testing, along with the next round of SIT.

By taking this approach, I ensured that complete testing was not impacted and that the project stayed on track.

I would start by having a private conversation with that person, asking them why openly, trying to understand the reason, as there is often a valid reason, and then I would help that person explore ways to remove that impediment. If there was no valid reason, I would remind them about the importance of being on time to not waste the rest of the team's time, and as a sign of respect to them.