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 Subject: Group PM, Patient Payments — recommend Joy, subject to targeted checks

Rosa,

I recommend hiring Joy Adeyemi, contingent on validating Finance/Compliance influence and her reported results before Friday. She has the stronger evidence against our agreed scorecard, particularly for improving payment outcomes and leading three PMs. Dev’s presentation strength is real, but the record does not substantiate his uniformly high scores.

Evidence for the recommendation

Our scorecard weights execution and influence at 35%, product sense at 25%, analytics at 20%, and people leadership at 20%. We should judge the underlying evidence against those criteria—not the quality of the deck or who spoke first in the debrief.

Joy’s prior payment-completion metric is not necessarily equivalent to our 41% online payment rate. We should not assume her result transfers directly. Still, it is substantially better evidence of outcome orientation than feature volume.

Why I would not use the final scores as the deciding evidence

Dev’s straight 4s and Joy’s straight 3s conflict with the interview notes. Most clearly, VP Engineering recorded Joy as “4, strongest leader we’ve seen” before the debrief, then entered a 3 afterward. With scores entered after discussion and Design speaking first, there is a credible risk of anchoring and presentation halo—not proof of anyone’s intent.

I would ask interviewers to independently reconcile their ratings with specific scorecard evidence before another group discussion. “Presence” and “commanding the room” need to translate into observable behaviors: handling disagreement, making a defensible recommendation, and winning commitment. They should not become an unannounced fifth criterion.

Risks and checks before an offer

1. Finance and Compliance influence is unproven. Run a short, structured session with Finance and Compliance. Ask Joy to defend a patient-payments strategy when the CFO challenges its economics and Compliance challenges its outreach approach. Assess whether she understands the objections, makes trade-offs, and secures a workable decision—not how forcefully she speaks.

2. Her impact and leadership examples need verification. With her consent, follow up with her former manager and peer on: - Her personal contribution to the 33%–47% improvement, measurement definitions, and other factors affecting the result. - A specific disagreement with Finance or a CFO and how it was resolved. - Her coaching examples and ability to lead several PMs while delegating effectively.

3. One promising feature is not yet a portfolio strategy. Ask her to outline a first-90-day approach: diagnose the 41% baseline, validate the phone-payment segment, prioritize opportunities, and define outcome and guardrail metrics. Text-to-pay should be treated as a hypothesis, not our predetermined roadmap.

Dev’s references are both current direct reports, so they provide a limited perspective. If we reconsider him, we need former-manager or peer evidence on measurable outcomes and team turnover; executive polish alone should not resolve those concerns.

Decision and timing

Complete these checks before Friday and make the decision then. If they substantiate Joy’s impact and cross-functional leadership, proceed with an offer. If a material gap emerges, hire neither rather than defaulting to Dev.

Both candidates’ requests are within band. Joy’s $230k request makes an offer feasible, but the $15k difference should not drive selection. My recommendation rests on her stronger evidence of patient-payment outcomes, disciplined product judgment, and PM leadership.

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.