Handle Partner Pushback

A strong answer should use the STAR format and show that you are collaborative, data-driven, and outcome-oriented rather than defensive. **Situation:** "On a live game feature, I proposed a limited-time progression event to improve returning-player retention. Design worried it would damage game balance, engineering worried about timeline risk, and monetization worried it might cannibalize existing item sales." **Task:** "My job was to align the team around the player problem and business goal, while making sure we launched something safe and valuable." **Action:** "First, I tried to understand the root of the pushback instead of arguing the solution. I asked each partner what risk they were most concerned about: economy inflation, technical scope, player fairness, or revenue impact. Then I reframed the discussion around shared goals: improve returning-player retention without hurting the in-game economy or launch stability. I brought supporting data, such as churn after players hit a mid-game progression wall, and I proposed options rather than a single rigid plan: a smaller-scope version, a regional pilot, and guardrails such as reward caps. I documented tradeoffs, clarified decision owners, and made sure everyone felt heard." **Result:** "We aligned on a reduced-scope event with controlled rewards and monitoring dashboards. The feature launched on time, improved returning-player retention by 4%, and did not create measurable economy inflation. Just as importantly, the process improved trust with design and engineering because they saw that I treated pushback as useful input, not obstruction." Interviewers are looking for emotional maturity, active listening, clear prioritization, and the ability to turn disagreement into a better decision. Common pitfalls are sounding overly political, escalating too quickly, or treating partner pushback as a barrier instead of a signal to clarify risks and assumptions.