What To Do When VPs Want Opposite Things
Conflicting inputs are easy to describe.
The issue is when you have two credible people, two credible stories, and you're the one who has to ship.
This interview prompt is a test of whether you can create clarity without forcing fake certainty.
This system works when:
leaders want different outcomes
teams argue from different lived reality
customer stories clash with numbers
you’re stuck between speed and risk
The first move: classify the disagreement
Ask one clarifying question early: “Are we trying to confirm what’s going on, or are we choosing what to do next?”
Those are different jobs.
A. Reality dispute
People disagree about what’s happening or why.
B. Direction dispute
People see the same situation but want different tradeoffs.
If you separate these, you stop the endless loop.
The interview answer (60 to 90 seconds)
“When inputs clash, I first clarify whether this is a reality dispute or a direction dispute. I restate the disagreement plainly, then I align everyone on the decision we’re making and the outcome we’re optimizing for.
If reality is unclear, I run a quick confidence-raiser to reduce uncertainty. If it’s a direction call, I make the tradeoff explicit, choose based on the top objective, and write down what we decided, what we’ll measure, and what would make us revisit.”
It’s calm, structured, and practical.
The outcome you’re aiming for
Your job is not to “collect perspectives” but to produce a decision that:
can be repeated
can be executed
does not get re-argued next week
The output is a Decision Note with a revisit trigger.
That’s the whole game.
The checklist
Use this when smart people disagree:
Classify: reality vs direction
Say the disagreement in one sentence
Name the decision and the outcome you’re optimizing for
Pick either: confidence-raiser (reality) or tradeoff call (direction)
Example: instead of debating whether users find Feature X confusing, watch five support recordings together and write down what actually happens
Write a simple Decision Note and share it (paid members get the copy-paste template)
Revisit only if the trigger hits
What most PMs miss (and what changes the room)
You know the framework. You can explain “reality vs direction” in your sleep.
But here’s what happens when the VP of Engineering says “we need to delay for performance” and the VP of Product says “we ship now or lose the quarter”:
Most PMs try to mediate. Or pick a side. Or schedule another meeting.
The PMs who close this in 25 minutes use three specific phrases, and one meeting structure, that turn the argument into a decision without losing either stakeholder.
Below: the exact scripts, the 7-minute evidence check that surfaces what’s actually solid vs shaky, and the one question that stops someone from protecting a position.
Bonus for paid members: the Excel tool that turns this into a copy-paste Decision Note in minutes.
Also includes 44 verified remote PM roles (USA, last 7 days).