I went with a pretty standard answer about data and alignment sessions but halfway through I realized I wasn't actually answering the hard part of the question.
Show that you treat strong opposition as a signal to dig deeper, not to push harder. Describe a structured process of listening to understand their underlying concerns, reframing your proposal around shared goals, and co-creating a path forward with data and small experiments. Emphasize that your goal is alignment, not winning the argument.
Pro tip: Name the stakeholder's concern out loud before defending your idea—people resist less when they feel heard, and it often reveals a legitimate risk you can address. Also, look for a low-cost pilot or prototype that lets the data, not your opinion, make the case.
Meet 1:1 with each opposing stakeholder to understand whether their resistance is about data, risk, incentives, or past experience. Ask open questions and summarize their concern back to them to confirm you understand it.
Identify the outcome both of you care about (e.g., user retention, revenue, quality) and reposition your proposal as a means to that shared end. Acknowledge the valid parts of their concern rather than dismissing them.
Support your case with user research, data, competitive analysis, or a small experiment, and explicitly address the risks they raised with mitigations. Be transparent about what you don't know yet.
Invite them to shape the solution—offer a pilot, phased rollout, or success metrics they help define. Giving them ownership converts opposition into partnership.
If alignment still fails, escalate with a clear, neutral summary of trade-offs and a recommendation, framing it as a decision for leadership rather than a personal conflict.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.