Hire a PM

To: Rosa Lindqvist, VP Product Subject: Group PM recommendation — Joy Adeyemi

Recommendation: Hire Joy, subject to focused reference and influence checks before the offer. She has the stronger evidence against the role’s core needs: measurable payment outcomes, thoughtful product judgment, and the ability to lead through other people. The CEO needs a decision by Friday; I would not let the debrief scores alone drive it.

Evidence

• Execution and influence (35%): Joy gave a specific result from her last company—payment completion rose from 33% to 47% over 18 months—and explained a failed experiment and what she learned. Her leadership examples showed investment in others: coaching a struggling PM into a different role and promoting another. Dev’s evidence was less concrete: he described platform growth and 40+ shipped features but supplied no outcome metric when pressed. His stories were consistently framed around his own contribution, and he said his team struggled to keep up with him.
• Product sense (25%): Joy investigated who pays and why before proposing text-to-pay for the 58% who currently pay by phone, including trade-offs. That is relevant to our 41% online payment rate and reflects problem-first judgment. Dev’s creativity and presentation were strengths, but six ideas in the first five minutes—before clarifying who pays and why—are a concern for this role.
• Analytics (20%): Joy’s quantified result and discussion of a failed experiment are stronger evidence of analytical ownership. Dev did not provide a measurable result.
• People leadership (20%): Joy’s examples demonstrate coaching, development, and shared credit. Dev’s confidence and presentation are positives, but they do not offset the limited evidence of developing a team or his comment about the team struggling to keep up.

Risks and scorecard

Joy’s main risk is whether she can influence senior stakeholders, particularly the CFO and Finance. The “not much presence” and “command the room” comments are concerns to test, not proof that she cannot do it; we should assess her ability to make a clear, evidence-based case rather than equate influence with a particular presentation style.

Dev may be compelling with executives, but we need to understand the team-turnover signal and whether his leadership style scales. His two references are current direct reports, which may limit candor. His former-company reference’s report of high turnover is important but unverified.

I would treat the 4/4/4/4 versus 3/3/3/3 ratings as weak evidence. The VP Engineering’s pre-debrief note called Joy the strongest leader seen and rated her a 4, then the score became a 3 after discussion; the Head of Design also spoke first. This does not establish why the ratings changed, but it is reason to rely on the underlying evidence and check for independent calibration.

Before making the offer

1. Ask Joy’s former manager and peer specifically about her influence with Finance/CFO-level stakeholders, including a difficult disagreement and the outcome.
2. Ask for one additional Joy reference who can speak to cross-functional execution; ask Dev’s references about team turnover, feedback, and how he develops PMs. Seek candid, comparable evidence where possible.
3. In a short structured conversation, ask Joy to make the case for a payment-rate strategy to a skeptical CFO. Evaluate clarity, use of evidence, and handling of challenge—not polish alone.
4. Confirm Joy’s 33%→47% result, her role in it, and the scope of her people leadership.

If those checks reveal a material gap in Joy’s influence or ownership, I would choose neither rather than default to Dev on presentation strength. Otherwise, proceed with Joy at her requested $230k, within band.

To: Rosa Lindqvist, VP Product Subject: Group PM, Patient Payments — recommend Joy, subject to targeted checks by Friday

Rosa,

I recommend hiring Joy Adeyemi, contingent on validating her ability to set strategy and influence Finance and Compliance. The interview evidence is stronger for Joy on the work this role requires: improving payment outcomes, making customer-grounded product decisions, and developing PMs. Dev’s presentation strength is clear, but the evidence does not support his uniformly exceptional scores.

We should complete focused checks before Friday rather than let either the debrief’s consensus or the deadline substitute for evidence.

Why Joy

Our agreed scorecard—not presentation polish—should drive the decision.

Why I would not rely on the recorded scores

The 4s for Dev and 3s for Joy were entered after the discussion, so they are not independent assessments. The VP Engineering’s contemporaneous note—“Joy: 4, strongest leader we’ve seen”—conflicts with the submitted 3. Combined with the Head of Design speaking first and enthusiasm about Dev’s deck, this creates a credible risk of anchoring and presentation halo.

“Not much presence” and “command the room” are not sufficiently specific hiring criteria. We need evidence of gaining alignment, handling disagreement, and changing consequential decisions—not a proxy based on communication style. This does not prove bias or invalidate every judgment; it means the scores need reconciliation with observed behavior.

I would ask each interviewer to independently reassess their dimension against the original rubric, cite evidence, and explain any change from their pre-debrief assessment. I would not manufacture replacement scores from these notes.

Risks in hiring Joy

• Executive and cross-functional influence is unproven. Strong product judgment will not be enough if she cannot resolve disagreements with Finance and Compliance.
• Group-level strategy remains under-tested. One well-reasoned product proposal does not establish an ability to set a portfolio strategy or allocate work across three PMs.
• Her reported impact needs attribution. We need to understand what she owned, what other changes contributed, and whether the gains were durable.

Dev’s executive presentation skill is a genuine strength. However, selecting him now would require overlooking gaps in measurable outcomes and substantial unanswered leadership questions. His current direct-report references offer a limited perspective; the informal turnover report is also insufficiently substantiated.

Checks before an offer

1. Focused, structured working session with Finance and Compliance. Ask Joy to outline a patient-payments strategy from our 41% online payment baseline, identify missing data, prioritize opportunities, and explain how she would organize three PMs. Introduce a realistic conflict involving collections, patient experience, cost, and compliance constraints. Assess decision quality, listening, trade-off handling, and ability to reach a workable decision—not performance style. A CFO or senior Finance delegate and Compliance partner should score independently before discussing.

2. Targeted reference follow-ups, with Joy’s consent. Ask her former manager and peer for concrete examples of disagreement with a CFO or Finance leader, work with Compliance, strategy ownership, and developing PMs. Verify the 33%–47% result, her contribution, and measurement. Seek an additional relevant cross-functional reference if those references lack direct visibility.

3. Reconcile the interview record. Complete the independent score review and explicitly resolve the leadership-score discrepancy. Document remaining uncertainty rather than forcing consensus.

Friday decision: If these checks substantiate Joy’s strategy and influence capabilities, proceed with her offer. If they reveal a material gap—or cannot establish the essential evidence—I recommend neither, not defaulting to Dev.

Joy’s $230k request and Dev’s $245k request are both within the $220k–$250k band. Compensation should not decide this choice; set Joy’s offer based on scope and internal equity, not simply her lower ask.

To: Rosa Lindqvist, VP Product From: Director of Product Re: Group PM, Patient Payments: hiring recommendation

---

Recommendation

Hire Joy Adeyemi, subject to two reference checks I can finish before Friday. If those checks go badly, I'd reopen the search rather than default to Dev.

The debrief scores (Dev 4/4/4/4, Joy 3/3/3/3) point the other way, so I'll explain why I'm not following them.

The scores don't reflect the evidence

All scores were entered after the group discussion, and the Head of Design spoke first. The clearest sign of how much the discussion moved people: the VP Engineering's notebook, written before the debrief, says "Joy: 4, strongest leader we've seen." They entered a 3 afterwards. We are looking at a consensus, not five independent assessments.

So I went back to the interview notes and scored them against the scorecard we agreed before interviews began.

Evidence against the scorecard

Execution and influence (35%) - Joy: She raised payment completion at her last company from 33% to 47% over 18 months. That is the exact problem this role exists to solve, since our online rate is 41%. - Dev: Asked twice what metric he moved, he answered "we grew the payments platform massively," then "the team shipped 40+ features." Shipping volume is output, not outcome. - Gap: On influence specifically, we have no direct evidence for either candidate on working with a CFO or Compliance. I come back to this under risks.

Product sense (25%) - Dev: He produced six feature ideas in five minutes before asking who pays or why. That is creative, but it is solution-first. - Joy: She spent 15 minutes on who pays and why they don't pay online. She then proposed one change, text-to-pay for the 58% who pay by phone, and laid out its trade-offs. That is the more relevant skill for setting a payments strategy. - I'd call this at least even, and arguably Joy's. It does not support Dev 4, Joy 3.

Analytics (20%) - Joy: She gave a quantified result and walked through a failed experiment and what she learned from it. - Dev: He gave no number when pressed. - Our Data lead wrote "Strong" for Dev, but the notes underneath don't support it. This is Joy's dimension clearly.

People leadership (20%) - Joy: She coached a struggling PM into a better-fitting role, promoted another, and credited her engineers by name. - Dev: Every story was told in the first person. He said his last team "struggled to keep up with me." Rosa's contact at his previous company reports that "his team turned over a lot." - This role leads three PMs. This is the dimension where the gap is widest, and the VP Engineering's independent view agreed.

Summary: On the evidence, Joy is ahead on analytics and leadership, at least even on product sense, and ahead on demonstrated execution. Dev's advantages are presentation and room presence. Those are real, but they aren't what we weighted.

Risks

Hiring Joy - Executive presence. The debrief concern, "not sure she'd command the room with the CFO," is legitimate for a role that depends on Finance and Compliance. It is also an impression, not evidence. Nobody has asked her references about it, and nobody observed her with a finance stakeholder. - Pace. "Slower" could mean considered or could mean slow to decide. Her 18-month track record suggests sustained progress, but I want to confirm it. - Verification. The 33% to 47% figure is self-reported.

Hiring Dev (for completeness) - No evidence he moves outcomes. We have no number, only output. - Team retention. The turnover signal comes from one secondhand source, so it's not conclusive. It does match his own interview language, and three PMs would report to him. - Weak references. Both of his references currently report to him, which limits how candid they can be. - Cost. He is asking $245k, near the top of the $220k–$250k band, against Joy's $230k. This is minor next to the other points.

Hiring neither - The role stays open while the online payment rate sits at 41%. I'd only choose this if Joy's checks fail.

What I'd check before making the offer (by Thursday)

1. Call Joy's former manager and peer again with targeted questions. - How did she handle a CFO or finance leader who disagreed with her? - Can you give an example of her winning an argument with a senior executive? - Can you confirm the 33% to 47% completion figure, and how much of it was her doing? 2. Add a reference who saw her work with Finance or Compliance, ideally someone from a finance function at her last company. 3. Optional, if timing allows: a 30-minute conversation between Joy and our CFO or a senior Finance partner, framed as mutual fit. This tests the presence concern directly instead of debating it.

Decision rule: If the references describe someone who holds her ground with finance leadership and confirm the result, I'd offer at or near her $230k ask. If they confirm the presence concern, I'd recommend we reopen the search. Dev's leadership and outcome gaps are more serious for this role than a presence gap. If you want Dev kept live as a fallback, I'd first need a reference from a former peer or manager, not a current report, and a concrete metric he owned.

Process note for future loops

We should have interviewers submit scores before the debrief, and rotate who speaks first. The VP Engineering's notebook shows we lost an independent signal this time, and it was the one that mattered most.

Happy to walk through this before Friday.