E · Collaboration, communication, and influence
Conflict navigation
The goals, facts, and decision rights behind a disagreement.
Classification boundary
Include: Include identifying conflicting goals, facts, and decision rights, then moving toward resolution.
Choose a neighboring leaf when: Use negotiation for exchanging commitments and stakeholder influence for building support without a direct conflict.
This capability may appear in standards across different stages. Explore stage expectations
31 questions
Choose a group based on the evidence you need. Groups follow existing question formats, not difficulty or mandatory prerequisites. Each batch has up to eight questions.
Judgment and options17
Compare goals, constraints, options, and trade-offs.
Questions 1–8
- Product considers the risk acceptable, while security wants a delay; each cites different impact scenarios. How would you clarify facts, decision rights, and executable options?
- How do you coordinate conflicts between departments? When their goals and performance measures differ, how do you find an approach all can accept, and how do you make it stay stable over time?
- A partner believes you intentionally delayed a project during review; you believe you were raising risks. Both of you communicate less as a result. How would you reconstruct facts and repair collaboration?
- Suppose online business metrics are cut in half and resources are halved, and product, operations, and engineering must get through the crisis together. How do you work with the other two functions in this situation to decide what to protect, what to cut, and how to share the burden, rather than pushing blame around?
- The business sponsor insists on the original release date, but a limited rollout shows refund rates and support tickets exceeding agreed bounds. Product thinks the sample is too small, while security wants to pause. How would you turn the dispute into a decision?
- Both teams say the other is not cooperating and the project is stuck. Would you first clarify shared goals, responsibility boundaries, and delivery commitments? What else would you verify?
- Product blames engineering for being slow, engineering blames product for changing requirements daily, and operations blames product for missing tools and engineering for instability. How do you turn this mutual blame into everyone speaking one shared business language and taking joint responsibility for results?
- You and your manager disagree, even clash. How do you express your judgment, and how do you keep things moving when they finally disagree with you?
No questions in this section match your target. ·
Questions 9–16
- After a growth metric falls, product blames traffic quality and operations blames conversion; neither wants ownership. How would you handle it?
- Two owners agree on the data but prioritize short-term revenue versus long-term retention. How would you clarify the disagreement?
- One person favors shipping on time and fixing later; another believes current defects harm customer trust. Each thinks the other is slowing the project. How would you handle it?
- You believe a project risk should be shared with a customer or executives, while your manager wants more evidence first. How would you handle it?
- After a reorg, two teams each believe the other owns a customer issue type, causing tickets to bounce. How would you clarify boundaries and transition?
- Frontline teams bypass a process you introduced, saying it adds work without improving outcomes. How would you understand resistance and decide whether to change it?
- Two teams consider their work critical to quarterly goals and depend on the same expert. How would you facilitate an evidence-based decision while preserving collaboration?
- Product believes recent complaints come from a few unusual customers, while support sees a general process flaw. How would you assess representativeness and handle the disagreement?
No questions in this section match your target. ·
Questions 17–17
No questions in this section match your target. ·
Experience and reflection14
Use past facts to examine contribution, results, and learning.
Questions 1–8
- After you escalated a delivery risk, a colleague felt bypassed and stopped sharing information promptly. How would you repair the relationship while preserving necessary risk transparency?
- In a cross-functional review, you notice the lead’s proposal omits a migration step that would change metric definitions. The meeting is ending and an external partner is present. How would you intervene and follow up?
- A disagreement was not resolved and the group decided to proceed with one option. What do you leave behind so it can be reviewed later?
- Tell me about a conflict you went through. What did each side want, and how did you handle it? Looking back, what would you do differently?
- In a review, a colleague says your proposal misses a constraint, using an accusatory tone. How would you respond and move the discussion forward?
- After a results presentation, two contributors both claim key contributions, and the team avoids each other. How would you establish facts and repair collaboration?
- A partner repeatedly misses deliverables and affects your work, citing different reasons each time. How would you address it while protecting the shared goal?
- A short message you sent was read as dismissing a colleague’s work, after which they stopped sharing updates. How would you clarify and restore collaboration?
No questions in this section match your target. ·
Questions 9–14
- In a review, a senior owner interrupts others and calls objections “not understanding the business.” You need to raise a risk without derailing the meeting. What do you do?
- An uncommunicated decision created extra work for a partner team, which felt disrespected; you also believe information was incomplete. How would you repair this?
- An incident spans an interface contract and caller handling, and both teams believe the other owns it. How would you lead a review and create a shared fix?
- An architecture board chooses a new technology, but implementers believe migration risk is underestimated. The decision is announced but work has not started. How would you handle dissent and execution?
- After several reviews, everyone verbally agrees, yet product, engineering, and operations interpret the boundaries differently during implementation. How would you resolve the conflict and prevent recurrence?
- A platform upgrade requires service teams to take migration risk; they want full guarantees from the platform team. Neither side will pilot first. How would you design a joint validation?
No questions in this section match your target. ·
No questions in this capability match your target. ·