Hire a PM

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

Recommendation

Hire Joy Adeyemi, conditional on two checks I can finish before Friday (below). I would not hire Dev on the current evidence. If the checks on Joy go badly, I would hold the search open rather than default to Dev, because his file has gaps too.

Why the recorded scores mislead

The recorded scores are Dev 4/4/4/4 and Joy 3/3/3/3, which would make this an easy call for Dev. But I don't trust them, for three reasons:

• They were entered after the debrief discussion, and the Head of Design spoke first. That is a classic anchoring setup.
• The VP Engineering's own pre-debrief notebook said "Joy: 4, strongest leader we've seen." They entered a 3 after the discussion. Uniform 3s for Joy and uniform 4s for Dev look like a group narrative, not independent assessments.
• Dev's scores aren't supported by the interview notes (below).

Evidence, by scorecard area

Analytics (20%) - Dev was asked what metric he moved and answered "we grew the payments platform massively." When pressed, he said "the team shipped 40+ features." That is output, not outcome, and he never gave a number. The Data lead's "Strong" doesn't match their own notes. - Joy raised payment completion from 33% to 47% over 18 months and walked through an experiment that failed and what it taught her. That is directly relevant to our 41% online payment rate.

Product sense (25%) - Dev generated six feature ideas in five minutes, before asking who pays and why. The redesign was creative, but it started from solutions. - Joy spent 15 minutes on who pays and why they don't pay online. She then proposed one change, text-to-pay for the 58% of patients who pay by phone, and discussed its trade-offs. "Slower" is how it looked, but it is the better strategic instinct for a role whose first job is setting payments strategy.

People leadership (20%) - Dev told every story in the first person and said his last PM team "struggled to keep up with me." Two of his references are current direct reports, so they aren't independent. Your contact at his previous company said his team "turned over a lot." That is one informal source, but it is consistent with the interview. - Joy coached a struggling PM into a better-fit role, promoted another, and credited her engineers by name. The VP Engineering's original instinct was that she was the strongest leader we've seen. This role leads three PMs.

Execution and influence (35%, the heaviest weight) - Dev's strength is real here. His deck was "the best we've ever seen," and your contact says he is "great in front of execs." That is evidence of influence upward, though not of execution. - Joy's evidence is thinner. The only concerns are "not much presence" and "not sure she'd command the room with the CFO." Those are impressions, not observed behavior, and nobody has tested them. Her 14-point completion lift is execution evidence, but I want to confirm her role in it. - Neither file has much direct evidence on delivery, such as shipping through Finance and Compliance constraints. That is a gap for both.

My rescoring. These are my judgment, not data. I gave Dev a 3 or 4 on execution and influence, and Joy a 3.

Even generous to Dev on the heaviest-weighted category, Joy comes out ahead. The result is sensitive to the influence score, which is why the CFO check matters.

Risks

1. Executive presence with the CFO. This is Joy's real risk, because the role requires working closely with Finance. But the feedback is vague and unverified, and "presence" comments are also where style bias tends to enter. We should test it rather than assume it.
2. Attribution of the 33%→47% result. I haven't verified what she owned versus what the team or market drove.
3. Dev's strengths are not nothing. He may be a strong operator with weak interview discipline on metrics. But the absence of a single number, combined with the team-turnover signal and the "struggled to keep up with me" comment, is a pattern. For a role leading three PMs, that is the riskier error.
4. Process risk. If we hire on the recorded scores, we are acting on data we know was contaminated.

What I'd check before the offer

All of this fits before Friday:

1. A 30-minute working session with the CFO and a Compliance lead. Joy would take a real case, such as a payment-plan or fee trade-off. Interviewers would score against defined criteria: clarity, handling of pushback, and command of the numbers. This tests the specific concern directly.
2. Targeted reference calls on Joy. I would ask her former manager and peer how she handled disagreement with Finance or senior executives, with a specific example. I would also ask for one additional reference from a Finance or Compliance partner. Nobody has asked this yet.
3. Verify the 33%→47% result. I would ask Joy what she personally owned and how it was measured, and ask her references to confirm.
4. Ask the debrief group to put concrete observations behind "presence." I would also ask the VP Engineering what changed their score from 4 to 3. If the answer is "the discussion" and not new evidence, that tells us something.

If Dev stays in consideration, I would require two things first: a specific metric he moved and how, and two independent references (former peers or reports, not current ones). I am not proposing to hold the process open for him, but it is the bar I'd want met.

Compensation

Joy asks for $230k and Dev for $245k, in a $220–250k band. I would offer Joy at or near her ask. If the CFO session is strong, there is room to move up within the band if needed to close. Her ask leaves headroom for growth, and I don't want to lowball her because she asked for less.

Process note for next time

We should collect written scores independently before the debrief, and have the most senior person speak last. Otherwise the loudest early voice becomes the score.

Bottom line: Joy is the stronger fit on the evidence, with one open question (influence with the CFO) that I can resolve before Friday. I recommend we make the offer if the CFO session and reference checks come back clean.

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.

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.