SkillsSkill 4 of 5
Disagree fairly, and keep the relationship
Worked example
Tell me about a time you disagreed with a colleague or stakeholder.
Tests: their view stated fairly, a shared test, a relationship intact.
LinkedIn’s Aneesh Raman, on people skills: “The 5C's are how we forge connections, how we build trust, how we partner across differences.” (Aneesh Raman, opens the source) Mar 4, 2025
The question
Maya is an operations analyst at a 120-store grocery chain: 40 high-volume stores and 80 low-volume. She and every number here are invented.
| Waste, % of produce | Stock-outs, % of order lines | |
|---|---|---|
| Before the 20% cut | 6.0% | 2% |
| With the 20% cut | 4.8% | 2% |
Invented figures. The ops lead wanted the cut at all 120 stores.
“Tell me about a time you disagreed with a colleague or stakeholder.”
Your turn
Say your answer out loud, or jot notes below. Both work. Or skip to the worked answer.
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
The shape of a strong answer
- The shared goal
- Their view, stated fairly
- Yours
- How you tested it together
- The decision
- The relationship after
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Name the shared goal and the disagreement
“Our ops lead wanted to cut produce orders 20% across all 120 stores to reduce waste. We both wanted less waste; I expected stock-outs at the 40 high-volume stores.”
Why it works: Starts from the shared goal.
Step 2: State their case fairly
“His case was strong: waste was up 9% quarter on quarter.”
Why it works: He’d agree with this summary.
Step 3: Test it together
“I proposed a two-week test of the 20% cut at 20 of the 80 low-volume stores. Waste there fell from 6.0% to 4.8% of produce, and stock-outs stayed at 2% of order lines.”
Why it works: Evidence decides, not rank.
Step 4: Decide, and keep the relationship
“We rolled it out to all 80 low-volume stores, not all 120, and presented the result together at the regional review.”
Why it works: A better call than either start, shared credit.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- A 20% cut at the 80 low-volume stores only.
- Because
- The two-week test at 20 of them cut waste from 6.0% to 4.8% of produce with stock-outs flat at 2%.
- What would change it
- If stock-outs had risen at the test stores, we’d have kept orders as they were and looked elsewhere for the waste.
Common traps
- “I convinced them I was right.”
- Caricaturing the other side.
- Deciding by seniority.
- No mention of the relationship.
Weak vs strong
“I disagreed with the ops lead, showed him the data, and in the end he agreed with me.”
A win story. It fails all four checks: no fair view of his side, no shared goal, no joint test, no relationship.
“He was right about waste and I was right about the big stores, so we tested it and cut where the test said.”
Check your answer
- Could the other person agree with my summary of their view?
- Did I name the shared goal?
- Did evidence decide, not rank?
- Did I say what happened to the relationship?
Practice collaboration out loud with follow-up questions → Socratify
Last reviewed Nov 9, 2026