The most comprehensive bank Interview Answer Review tooling available online.

I have been working on same project since last 3 years, I want to explore different projects and learn new skills and Technologies with current market trends

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.

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.

As my last semester as a system engineer student, I went above and beyond on time management of the time of the team and mine, this was on my thesis as student. while we where a team of 4 members, one of our members and I had one of our parents fighting cancer, so we needed to do time management to work in the project and have a correct time management of personal and work time. What I did was stated my focus, helped my companion doing the same noticing in what of the project we where helping the most and focus on that on my case the SQL queries & documentation of the project. Propose the solution to the other members, while also covering more and more in the written part of the project, this solution was applied by me, but i also had to cover sometimes my team member, doing what was also his tasks in this case the design of the project processes, most of the UML diagrams, because the situation of his family member worsen and some one needed to pick up the pace of the project and that person was me

When I joined my new team , I took lead on a new project which was complex in nature, had many unknowns and our team had to work on new framework, techstack, data models. The team was following agile methodology and will start with the work in first sprint. there was no concept of zero sprint or story grooming prior to the start of first sprint.

with the existing approach I envisioned some issues:

1. Because the number of unknown were high, the chances of doing wrong estimations for development were high.

2. There were high chances that the prioritisation is not right and we might have to revisit the features again and again.

3.  We might find out about unknowns while we are in the development process and that might cause delays.

To overcome these issues, I suggested some changes in our approach:

1. Increase the planning for one more release cycle and group the features as now, next and later.

2. For the features planned in the now group , prioritise them for the next release and complete the research and PRDs for them one sprint early. That means dev and QA will have 2 weeks extra to go through the stories, find out the dependencies and share the feedback. This helped in identifying if we need POCs for any feature or we can right away start developing them. Or if further modularisation is required.

3. I suggested to track the features related to new project in a different group, because to begin with the pace of the delivery will be slow.

When we begin, we took one complete release only in the RnD and understanding the new framework and doing small POCs to validate our understanding.

From second release, when we as a team were ready with good understanding on the expectations and other tech dependencies we started delivering and we could complete 2 full flows from end to end.

We had very less amount of spillover and could complete almost everything in the backlog, which was a big issue in earlier releases.

I stand out because I combine operational depth with a transformation-focused mindset. At Mercer, I didn’t just manage benefit renewals—I identified inefficiencies and built solutions, like a global provider template that boosted data accuracy from 50% to 95%.

I also simplified complex reporting processes, saving over 15 hours per client while improving quality. What differentiates me is that I don’t wait for problems to escalate—I proactively redesign processes, engage stakeholders, and deliver scalable outcomes.

That mindset of continuous improvement and strategic thinking is what helps me make a lasting impact.

During my tenure at Cisco, I participated in a project where I collaborated with a devops team and testing team to accomplish the resource allocation . At the end of the project, each intern received an evaluation from our direct supervisor. I was surprised to find that my performance rating was lower than I expected, given the contributions I felt I had made.

Task:I wanted to understand the basis for the rating and felt it was important to clarify any discrepancies between my self-assessment and the supervisor’s perception. My goal was to maintain a positive relationship while advocating for the work I had done.

Action:I requested a brief, one-on-one meeting with my supervisor. In that meeting, I calmly listened to their feedback to understand their perspective fully. Then, I shared specific examples of my contributions:

• How I had taken the lead on documenting the current resource allocation and new resource allocation based on my experience.

• My involvement in proper resource allocation resulted in 25% reduction of P1 issues due to resource allocation.

• The additional responsibilities I took on to get all resource approvals and helm script changes went unnoticed.

I also provided the documentation and metrics I’d been tracking to illustrate the impact of my work. By centering the conversation on factual evidence and outcomes, I was able to highlight aspects of my contribution that might have been overlooked initially.

Result:After reviewing these points, my supervisor acknowledged that some of my behind-the-scenes work wasn’t fully visible to them.  we agreed to have more frequent check-ins going forward. This experience taught me the value of proactive communication and documentation, ensuring that both my manager and I have a clear view of my responsibilities and achievements.

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.

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.