# A Disagreement That Changed Your Mind
Describe a substantive disagreement in which you initially advocated one course of action and another person persuaded you to change your position. The example should make clear what you believed, what evidence challenged it, how you evaluated that evidence, and what happened after you committed to the revised decision.
### Constraints & Assumptions
- Use one real, bounded situation rather than a general philosophy.
- The disagreement should involve a meaningful decision and not merely a factual correction.
- Preserve the other person's contribution without making them a prop in the story.
- Explain your actions after changing your mind.
### Clarifying Questions to Ask
- Is a technical decision acceptable if the emphasis is on persuasion and judgment?
- Should the example involve a peer, a manager, or a cross-functional partner?
- How much outcome data is expected?
```hint Identify the update trigger
Name the specific observation, experiment, or argument that changed your confidence rather than saying only that the other person was convincing.
```
### What a Strong Answer Covers
- The original position and its reasonable basis
- Active listening and a concrete evidence-based update
- A clean commitment to the new decision without lingering obstruction
- Outcome, measurement, and a lesson that changed later behavior
### Follow-up Questions
1. What evidence would have caused you to keep your original position?
2. How did you make it safe for the other person to challenge you?
3. Did the experience change how you frame future disagreements?
Overview: Prepare a behavioral answer about changing your mind after a substantive disagreement, with clear evidence, commitment, outcome, and learning.
Describe a substantive disagreement in which you initially advocated one course of action and another person persuaded you to change your position. The example should make clear what you believed, what evidence challenged it, how you evaluated that evidence, and what happened after you committed to the revised decision.
Constraints & Assumptions
Use one real, bounded situation rather than a general philosophy.
The disagreement should involve a meaningful decision and not merely a factual correction.
Preserve the other person's contribution without making them a prop in the story.
Explain your actions after changing your mind.
Clarifying Questions to Ask Guidance
Is a technical decision acceptable if the emphasis is on persuasion and judgment?
Should the example involve a peer, a manager, or a cross-functional partner?
How much outcome data is expected?
What a Strong Answer Covers Guidance
The original position and its reasonable basis
Active listening and a concrete evidence-based update
A clean commitment to the new decision without lingering obstruction
Outcome, measurement, and a lesson that changed later behavior
Follow-up Questions Guidance
What evidence would have caused you to keep your original position?
How did you make it safe for the other person to challenge you?
Did the experience change how you frame future disagreements?