Tell me about a time you had to work closely with someone who saw a problem very differently from you.
See this answer go from 50 to 90
Example answer
50/100
I was the operations lead at a 30-person software startup, and we were losing about 4% of our customers every month. Our head of sales, Daniel, was sure the problem was price. I thought the problem was onboarding. He was pretty stubborn about it and wouldn't really look at the data, which made it hard to get anything done. We had to agree, because the CEO wanted one plan from the two of us.
So I proposed a test instead of a debate.
In the end we went with my approach and churn got better.
What holds it back
Calling Daniel "stubborn" puts the blame on him, and "we went with my approach" makes it a contest you won. The question is about how you worked with him.
I was the operations lead at a 30-person software startup, and we were losing about 4% of our customers every month. Our head of sales, Daniel, was sure the problem was price. He heard it on every renewal call and wanted a 20% discount for anyone who threatened to leave. I thought the problem was onboarding. The customers who left had mostly never finished setting up the product. We had to agree, because the CEO wanted one plan from the two of us. Instead of arguing, I asked Daniel to help me understand what he was hearing. He let me sit in on six of his renewal calls. He was right that everyone mentioned price. But I came away thinking we were each seeing part of the same problem. So I proposed a test instead of a debate. We tried both approaches on different customers. The setup sessions kept more customers than the discount did.
I was the operations lead at a 30-person software startup, and we were losing about 4% of our customers every month. Our head of sales, Daniel, was sure the problem was price. He heard it on every renewal call and wanted a 20% discount for anyone who threatened to leave. I thought the problem was onboarding. The customers who left had mostly never finished setting up the product. We had to agree, because the CEO wanted one plan from the two of us. Instead of arguing, I asked Daniel to help me understand what he was hearing. He let me sit in on six of his renewal calls. He was right that everyone mentioned price. But when I asked those customers what they used the product for, four of the six were using one feature out of five. Price was the reason they gave, and low usage was why the price felt high. So I proposed a test instead of a debate. For 60 days, half of the at-risk accounts got Daniel's discount and half got a two-hour setup session that I ran with our support lead. I wrote down in advance what result would prove me wrong, and Daniel signed off on it. The setup sessions kept more customers than the discount did. Monthly churn went from 4% to about 2.5% over the next two quarters, and Daniel started booking the sessions himself as part of every sale. What I do differently now is go and hear the other person's evidence firsthand before I argue with it. Daniel wasn't wrong about what customers said. I just hadn't heard it.
What the interviewer listens for
- Do you describe the other person fairly?
- Did you try to understand their view before pushing yours?
- Did the relationship survive the disagreement?
- What did you learn from being partly wrong?
More behavioral and fit
Ready for an interviewer that talks back?
Start the 7-day free trial and run your first full case with the AI interviewer today.
Start 7-day free trial