The most comprehensive bank Interview Answer Review tooling available online.

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.

In my last role I had to make a UX decision about the product that will balance functionality for the user without compromising performance. After testing a few options and validating it with internal stakeholders I released the updated UX, but then the CEO (who was a heavy user of the product) was against that change. I saw down with him and explained my reasoning and the process that I took to validate the solution, and gave him the option to try it himself on an early version. Once he saw the big picture he agreed that my solution was the right approach, but asked that next time I will consult with him before releasing changes like this. 

The accomplishment that I am most proud of is when my manager asked me to move to Malaysia to set up a new Factory and the Operations department in Kuala Lumpur.

It was my job to get all licenses and permits required to allow our factory to run under the country's regulations. I had to define the different roles needed like Product, Process, Quality, and Planning engineers. In addition, it was also my responsibility to manage the transfer of 3 different product lines from China to Malaysia.

To make that happen, I kicked off the project with the stakeholders to define the goals, budget, and plan for the opening of the new factory. I defined all milestones, and I collaborated with HR team to define the total HC needed, the different roles, the timeline for each incorporation, and the budget. With the Legal department, I worked closely to get the licenses and permits required for our company to operate in Malaysia. Together with the Operations team, I worked on the factory layout, material readiness, staff training, and the assembly lines transfer plan from China to Malaysia.

After 9 months of deep collaboration with cross-functional teams, I completed the project on time and within budget. It was a great learning opportunity that challenged my program management and leadership skills. Finally, the transfer resulted in a cost down of 5% for our customer in the products transferred to Malaysia.

I had to facilitate a conflict between a Product Manager and other stakeholders in the project. I had a conversation about it separately with each party involved to try to understand the situation, causes of conflict and a potential solution. It was crucial to get the perspective of both parties, essentially the conflict was around the fact that the PM was extremely overwhelmed so didn’t have the bandwidth to handle all questions and requests that were coming from the ops teams that were trying to raise feature requests based on customer feedback. I have later on suggested a dedicated process to raise feature requests through JIRA, containing all the mandatory information and assessed priority.

When buildling the next generation instance, during the planning phase I budget the amount of servers we will launch the product with. Given each server cost was over 2 million dollar I biased to towards frugality and provided a bare minimum number of server we could launch with. But what I completely missed was during the developement some servers will end up in bad state and the engineering team will short of servers to test the software and firmware getting built which made meeting the project timeline riskly and heavily dependent on delivery schedules of servers and them staying healthy. This quickly became a bottleneck that I realized. I quickly put togther a plan to request adittional server and provide a detailed breakdown on where and how these would be used during and after developement. Synced with the hardware and ODM team and executives to get a approval and ordered the parts to get the servers and racks build at ODM. 

I look after our email platform and our existing solution wasn't flexible enough to handle targeted messages at scale. We were missing an opportunity with users to send personalised messages at the right time to help increase engagement. I embarked on a project to implement a new marketing automation software. This project required alignment across our product, data, retail, security and legal teams. I spent time researching the availble tools in the marketing and workshopping requirements with relevant stakeholders, we created an RFP and sent to a number of suppliers. Each round of the RFP I assigned a score to the company and gathered feedback from stakeholders. This ensured the decision making process was fair and we had strong evidence when sharing the business case to senior leadership.

Once we decided on the supplier, I was responsible for implementing the tool which required support across various teams within the business. Implementing something cross-functionally

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

I was managing organization wide restructuring program where goal was to map all resources with their delivery accounts to keep a track of account’s PnL and manage capability as cost centre. We also intended to design KRA and KPIs for each individual level to make our Performance Assessment data driven and transparent. This was a big change at employee level at professional and emotional level too. It meant changes in their reporting structures, extra reporting and performance management by all managers, clear KPIs alignment and selection.

Planning Level: We identified all the major business account heads, capability and other function head and organized a communication platform to make them aware and comfortable with the changes. We undertook their inputs on pros and cons and some caution to be exercised

Execution Level: We started executing these changes with L0 level employees and moved up to leadership team. Along the way we encountered some risks and outlier conditions to be managed.

Communication Strategy: We worked with all business and functional heads on our communication strategy to reach out to all the employees. Head multiple events and workshops to discuss the changes.

Data Platform changes: Evaluated all the data platform changes required and planned a phased out approach to bring those changes in the system as well.

However, when we were about to reach closure of this program, I realized that I have made a big mistake of readiness of our existing platforms to support all the changes required and existing data integrity. It really took a toll on everyone involved to clear up data accuracy before the changes could be introduced.

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.