This question sounds simple but they kept digging.
Choose a disagreement that was substantive but not personal, and narrate it as a story with a clear arc: context, your position, how you listened, and the resolution. Emphasize data-driven persuasion, genuine curiosity about the other person's perspective, and a collaborative outcome that benefited the team or customer.
Pro tip: Show that you updated your own view at least once during the discussion—it signals low ego and high learnability, which Amazon values. Avoid framing the other person as wrong; frame the conflict as two valid perspectives competing on incomplete information.
In 2-3 sentences, describe the project, the stakeholder, and the decision at stake so the interviewer understands why it mattered. Keep it tight—the conflict and resolution are the point, not the backstory.
Explain your recommendation and their counter-position without villainizing either side. Show you understood their reasoning well enough to articulate it better than they did.
Describe the data, prototypes, customer anecdotes, or written narrative you used to persuade—not just opinion. Mention how you tailored the argument to the audience (e.g., business impact for a PM, technical tradeoffs for an engineer).
Explain the specific questions you asked, the assumptions you tested, and any point where you conceded or adjusted your view. This is where you prove you seek truth over being right.
State the final decision, who made it, and the measurable outcome. End with what you'd do differently or how the relationship strengthened afterward.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.