My first instinct was to frame it as a conflict to resolve, which felt wrong pretty fast.
Frame the devil's advocate behavior as a valuable stress-test for ideas rather than a personal conflict, and show how you proactively leverage their skepticism to strengthen decisions. Emphasize building trust through transparency, data, and shared goals, while knowing when to align and when to escalate. Conclude with a concrete example of how this dynamic led to a better product outcome.
Pro tip: At Google, where data-driven debate is part of the culture, acknowledge that a tech lead's pushback often comes from a place of deep technical concern—so invite them to co-own the risk assessment and turn their skepticism into a shared success metric.
Describe the tech lead's devil's advocacy as a constructive force that surfaces blind spots, not as obstruction. This shows emotional intelligence and a growth mindset.
Explain how you proactively ask about their concerns, underlying technical constraints, and what evidence would change their mind. This builds empathy and uncovers root causes.
Reiterate the team's north star—user impact and business outcomes—and show how you connect their technical perspective to those goals. This shifts the conversation from opposition to collaboration.
Propose small, low-cost tests or data analyses to resolve disagreements objectively. This respects their skepticism and moves the team forward without forcing a winner.
If alignment stalls, describe how you'd involve a manager or cross-functional partner to mediate, framing it as a last resort to protect team velocity and morale.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.