Please describe a time when your team had to arrive at a compromise. Describe in detail what you thought, felt, said and did.

Sample One

Three years ago, I, along with five co-workers in our TI TC San JoseAustin sales office started a committee called the Employee Council. Our mission is to boost morale and help employees feel more connected, increasing loyalty and employee retention, through activities including team building, community service and continued learning. Approximately one year after we started the Council, we reviewed our progress and concluded that we needed to improve in three areas. We agreed that first, some of our events had deviated from our mission; second, execution needed to improve after four events fell through the cracks, and third, event participation needed to increase. Although we all agreed on the areas of improvement, we disagreed on the solution.

I and two other members believed that to solve our issues we should assign officers to be responsible for each of the three problem areas so that each area would receive thorough attention. I told the team that I felt part of the reason these issues existed was because no one was focused or accountable. The other members vehemently disagreed. They pointed out that when the Council was created, the agreement was not to have officers because we wanted a flat organizational structure with everyone equal in rank so that our peers would feel comfortable discussing office issues with the Council. I agreed that they had correctly described our original intention, but I made it clear that I still felt that the current structure was contributing to the problem areas. After further debate, the other members started to agree with my other two colleagues and me, and this started us down the road to a compromise. One proposal was that instead of creating multiple officers, we create one: a president. The president would be charged with finding solutions for the three weaknesses we had identified and would be granted the power to approve or veto all activities. This compromise made everyone on the council feel like a winner. The solution addressed my concerns for accountability and satisfied the other members who wanted a peer to peer structure with minimum bureaucracy.

For the last two years, the new Council structure has been better aligned with our mission, and we have successfully instilled a sense of community and culture in our office. The experience has showed me how an entity must be designed to fulfill its mission and how compromise can hold a team together. I have also learned the importance of being open to ideas that are different than my own.

Sample Two

In order to meet the demands of our largest client, I weathered contentious interests to successfully broker an agreement between the Hammond International Development team and Professional Services team. As a member of Professional Services, I was charged with leading the client’s software upgrade in North America. We were scheduled to release our new version to the client in one month, and we needed to ensure a smooth upgrade. Losing this client would considerably impact our revenue targets. Unfortunately, a major setback presented itself when the client ran preliminary tests of our new release and noticed a 25% degradation in software performance. They demanded that we address the problem. I knew our Development team would refuse this request since it would require additional resources. I also knew my Professional Services team would insist on keeping the client happy. The critical obstacle would be to convince both teams to agree on a solution that would satisfy the client.

I set up an internal meeting to formulate a suitable response. I was keenly aware that Development felt Professional Services was prone to making unrealistic commitments to clients. At the same time, Professional Services felt Development operated with an unrealistic view that clients should simply workaround glitches in our product. These prejudices would result in a highly contentious meeting. I first asked Development when they could address the performance issues. They said it would take two months; performance issues were complicated. One participant from the Professional Services team asked why it would take this long. I could feel the tension building as an uncomfortable silence set in the room.

To reach a compromise, we needed to address all of the issues that both Development and Professional Services were facing. Given that I was the only participant in the meeting who had worked for both teams, I was able to empathize with both parties. We needed to provide enough time for Development to fix the application and satisfy Professional Services by ensuring an on time release for our client.

I asked Development what improvement they could make in a one month timeframe. They said that a 15% improvement was possible. At that moment, I formulated a compromise. We would propose delivering a release to the client in one month that would address 15% of the performance issues. In addition, we would produce another release in three months that would address the remaining 10% degradation. My proposal ensured enough time for the Development team. We would also show the client our commitment to both meeting our original delivery date and addressing their performance concerns. Both teams agreed to the idea but I knew it would be meaningless if the client didn’t accept our offer.

The client viewed our decision to provide them with multiple releases as a show of good faith. I conveyed to them that we were going out of our way to be flexible, yet emphasized that their satisfaction was our top priority. I was able to ensure a happy client and satisfy the key parties within our company. While it was a struggle to convince our internal groups to agree on a compromise, I realize that their separate interests functioned as an important system of checks and balances.