The most comprehensive bank Interview Answer Review tooling available online.

Have a curious mind and approach with understanding. Talk to the person 1x1, see what's up and go from there.

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.

I would like to talk about situation. When I was an engineering  manager at digital commerce platform org at Amazon, I was handling close to 11 services, and 

as part of the Rolling Stone initiative where Amazon was trying to move all its services away from Oracle, I had four services that I was trying to migrate from Oracle to the databases hosted on Azure. All my fellow colleagues who were owning services of DCP were doing similar exercise. One of the colleague who was owning digital redemption service had to go on maternity leave, and then couple of engineers earmarked to do this migration for digital redemption service wwere transition out of the organization. That is when I offered to help with the migration of the service. 

So I now had 5 services with competing  priorities where I 

had to manage very tight schedule of service migrations. Planning a very ruthless prioritization, figuring out an optimal execution path of a completely unknown service, interacting with the service upstream clients whom i had not worked with prior, working with an amalgam of My team members and the service owner team members were few of the ambiguous paths I navigated to help do on time migration completion of the   service owned by my collegues.

Situation: During the first calibration of Non-Maturity Deposit (NMD) models, I was working with a senior colleague and a consultancy firm to implement these models. At that time, market rates were rising, and the consultancy firm suggested calibrating a key parameter, the "beta," to be highly sensitive to market rates. My manager agreed, but I disagreed, as I believed this high sensitivity could lead to inaccurate estimations in future calibrations.

Action: I engaged in discussions with my manager and the consultancy firm to fully understand their reasoning. They argued that a more sensitive beta could improve management of metrics like Delta EVE and Delta NII, which was valid. However, I pointed out that we lacked sufficient evidence to support such a high beta and that it might cause issues in future estimations. To address the disagreement, I conducted a sensitivity analysis, testing the model under various market rate scenarios.

Result: The sensitivity analysis helped us reach a compromise. We agreed to lower the beta, ensuring more stability in the model's performance. This adjustment allowed for a smoother transition of the parameter, ultimately improving the model's reliability while maintaining good risk management practices.

In Q1 2023, as the SDM for Datapath Responder Runtime team, I was told by my leadership to drop all the project work and focus on Efficiency work to reduce the cost of service as it was a directive from the VP. This was conflicting with my team’s goal to get certified to handle critical data as a platform. One of the projects for critical data certification was to support HTTPS instead of HTTP. The approach we took was to move the web container from the current custom solution to Amazon standard Coral Web server. There were 3 engineers working on this project and we had completed about 60% of the work. Stopping this work to pick up another project which had high chances of failure would mean demoralizing the team and delaying the certification timelines. SDE’s promotion to Sr was tied to this project as well.

I had to use my influence with my leadership to keep funding this project. I presented my case that moving to Coral Web server would make the platform more efficient due to variety of performance knobs such as better thread scheduling, more efficient metric emission, etc. I also leveraged the TPM and Security Certifiers to provide a strong business case to not delay the certification process. Finally, I also committed to finishing the web server migration and the efficiency experiments with performance knobs by mid Q2 to realize efficiency gains from this work before the Q3 and Q4 peaks.