The most comprehensive bank Interview Answer Review tooling available online.

As a QA leader I had to choose between run a full check of a new functionality that wasnt very popular or use or let the change pass over with the aprove of the PM for some time saving. I choose run the full check, take a few days more, but when the functionality goes to production it works well, without any bugs.

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.

With a major product launch on the horizon, expecting to triple the user load. The infrastructure was non-optimized for demand and incident response was non-harmonious across teams with no set process.

As the SRE Manager, I'd have to implement project changes to infrastructure to accommodate high availability and scalability. I discovered a long-standing issue surrounding incident response and observability that would make it all the more difficult to achieve reliability under pressure and peak traffic.

Therefore, instead of fulfilling the project requirements as presented, I became an advocate for change across the organization. I established an observability platform with 100% stack coverage, created custom SLOs/SLIs/error budgets to enhance performance and reliability visibility, drafted and socialized an incident management playbook across the company and held hands-on trainings for all respective teams. In addition, I advocated for Terraform for Infrastructure as Code to help with deployment time and held FinOps reviews to help eliminate redundant costs in cloud spend.

As a result, we did not only survive the 3X traffic upon product launch with zero critical incidents, but we also achieved 15% saves the following years in cloud costs and 40% faster deployments. Many of the processes I created were adopted as company-wide best practices.