09/08/2026
βPREP-UP SERIES (098/100)β
Take me through how you pick your battles...
ββββββββββ
A PMβs workflow is littered with battles - some strategic, some seemingly trivial. Left unattended, even a minor disagreement can snowball into a full-fledged war.
And the real risk?
- **The rapport & credibility youβve painstakingly built with stakeholders can suddenly get reduced to a rubble with you staring down the barrel of collateral damage.**
This is where a PMβs **judgment, tact & diplomacy** are truly put to the test. Every stakeholder is fighting their own battles, with their own pressures, priorities & motivations. Empathy matters, but so does the ability to align everyone to the **outcome & the goal**.
> π‘ **PRO TIP 1:** Empathize with the battle stakeholders are fighting, but donβt inherit it. **Understand their perspective, then anchor the conversation back to the outcome.**
> π‘ **PRO TIP 2:** While βpicking your battlesβ may appear to be a behavioral interview question, it is actually a test of your **character, objectivity, judgment & prioritization**. The interviewer is trying to understand not just *what* you fight for, but *why* you choose to fight.
For me, picking battles ultimately comes down to 3 questions:
**1οΈβ£ What is the magnitude of impact on the customer & the business?**
**2οΈβ£ How closely does this battle align with our immediate & most important goal?**
**3οΈβ£ Is there a better / alternative route to the outcome?**
Because a PM doesnβt get rewarded for winning every battle. They get rewarded for knowing which battles are worth fighting.
With that, let's arrive at a sample answer...
+++++++++++++++++
SAMPLE ANSWER:
I pick my battles simply based on **RELEVANCE & IMPACT**. I donβt believe a PM should arbitrate every disagreement; I step in when stakeholder misalignment could blow up into an **ex*****on risk**.
During one high-stakes launch it was the usual where Sales was pushing to honour customer commitments when Engineering was flagging technical risk & CS seemed concerned about the readiness, not to mention the number pressure I was under from the leadership. That shaky ground raised one pertinent question - "Is the release really well-timed?"
Everyone's perspective was perfect in their own right, but for me it felt like the org. was pulling in different directions altogether. An instance where everything seems perfect from the outset but could blow up as leaks as unwanted surprises.
This is what I did:
- I started off by bringing in customer evidence, revenue implications, risks & dependencies to the table
- I reframed the debate around one question: **βWhat happens to the business if we launch as-is?β**
- And that led us to a narrower launch, deferral of high-risk components & safeguards for the most impacted customers
That experience reinforced a principle I carry with me even to date:
**I donβt spend political capital defending preferences; I spend it protecting outcomes.**
At a senior PM level, leadership isnβt about winning every argument, itβs about knowing **which disagreements can change the outcome & having the conviction to intervene when they do.**
ββββββββββ
ββββββββββ