This one made me pause because the instinct is to say something diplomatic and safe, but I think they were actually probing for whether you have a spine.
Choose a specific, low-stakes technical disagreement where you had data or user impact on your side, and show how you respectfully presented your case while remaining open to being wrong. Emphasize that you sought to understand their perspective first, then used evidence and a private conversation to influence the decision without making it personal.
Pro tip: Frame the senior person as a reasonable, experienced leader who ultimately cared about the same outcome—this shows you can disagree without being disagreeable and that you don't villainize authority. Also, mention what you learned from their perspective, even if the final decision didn't go your way.
Describe the project, the senior person's role, and the specific technical decision you disagreed on. Keep it concise so the interviewer understands the stakes without getting lost in details.
Show that you didn't react emotionally or publicly challenge them. Instead, you sought to understand their reasoning first, perhaps by asking clarifying questions or researching their point of view.
Describe how you privately shared your concerns using data, prototypes, or user impact—not opinions. Highlight that you framed it as a shared problem, not a personal attack.
Explain how you listened to their counterpoints, acknowledged valid aspects of their view, and worked together to find a solution or compromise. If you were wrong, say so; if you convinced them, show how you did it respectfully.
Conclude with the result—whether the decision changed or not—and emphasize that the relationship remained strong. Mention what you learned about influencing without authority or handling disagreement.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.