Tell me about a time you handled a disagreement that arose from differences in assumptions

In my first year, a teammate and I disagreed about how much validation a small internal tool needed before release. I was assuming only our team would use it, while they were assuming people outside the team might start relying on it once it was visible. Instead of arguing implementation details, I asked them to walk me through the failure they were worried about, and I checked the request thread to see who the intended users actually were. That showed me they were right that the audience was broader than I thought, but the timeline was still tight. We agreed to add a few targeted checks for the risky inputs now and leave the more extensive cleanup for the next iteration, and I updated the task notes so we were aligned. The release went smoothly, and I learned to clarify usage assumptions earlier before debating code.

At my last job in a healthcare office, I was helping prepare a patient outreach email and a coworker and I got stuck because we each assumed a different approval process. I thought it only needed our manager’s sign-off since it was a routine reminder, while they assumed legal had to review every message because it mentioned appointments. Rather than keep debating, I asked what risk they were trying to avoid, and I found out they had recently seen a complaint about unclear scheduling language. I checked our past emails and confirmed that simple reminders had been sent without legal review, but anything that could affect care instructions needed extra approval. We agreed to split the difference: keep the message simple, send it to our manager that day, and add one line of plain-language clarification so it wouldn’t be misread. After that, I started asking one extra question up front about who else might need to see a task, which saved us a few more back-and-forths later.