Transcripts:

Overall Analysis:

Singapore group — summary & scores (24/100)

What happened: Chair opened on candidates, pushed a personal pick, dismissed concerns (“don’t care,” ~6:35), rushed to decide. Minimal criteria, little listening, clear anchoring.

Strengths (few):

  • A decision was forced (weak win).

Critical gaps (unchanged):

  • Tone/Agenda: Opened on positions, not purpose/criteria. No shared criteria.

  • Bridging/Empathy: Little paraphrasing; people-risk concerns brushed off.

  • Questioning: Leading/closed questions; no deep probes.

  • Groupthink: Early anchoring; “loudership” over leadership.

  • Exploration: Chair dominated; no “plusses before pivots.”

Concrete moments & bright spots to reuse (short):

  • Reality check on internal vs external: You surfaced lateral-hire implications early (3:47–4:10). Keep that reflex—flag constraints first.

  • Fast move to options: The room could list names quickly; channel that speed into criteria-first next time.

What to improve—with suggested phrasing:

  • When someone raises a people-risk, acknowledge before redirecting:

    • Try: “You’re saying she doesn’t credit others. If that’s accurate, impact is cross-functional trust. Before we go further, what evidence have we seen?”

  • Replace positional open with criteria open:

    • Try: “Let’s align in 60 seconds: top 4 criteria to succeed in this role are __. Any edits? Weight them 5→1.”

  • Close without dismissing:

    • Try: “Given the grid, Candidate A leads on stakeholder trust & delivery; B leads on domain depth. Do we need a reference check or are we ready to decide?”

Scores (1–5; weights):
Empathy & Bridging (×3): 1 · Questioning (×3): 1 · Listening/Synthesis (×2): 1 · Problem Framing (×2): 1 · Tone & Agenda (×2): 1 · Focus/Info (×2): 2 · Exploration (×2): 1 · Groupthink (×2): 1 · Influence/Commitment (×1): 3 · Flow (×1): 1 ⇒ 24/100.

Billy group — summary & scores (38/100)

What happened: Opened with preferences (“let’s show the preference,” 0:32; “I prefer…,” 0:35; “I also prefer Christian,” ~0:45). Mixed org-dynamics with competitive intel, but drifted. Some independent thinking (“Do we have to pick from the three?”), yet anchored back on the initial candidate; closure fuzzy.

Strengths:

  • Risk awareness: You named org conflict & the need for a unifying lead.

  • Moments of independence: Challenged the frame (expand options).

Critical gaps (unchanged):

  • Tone/Agenda: Preferences first; no criteria.

  • Bridging/Empathy: Acks without tight paraphrase/check-backs.

  • Groupthink: Early convergence; dissent not protected.

  • Exploration: Few “plusses before pivots”; info sharing uneven.

Concrete moments & bright spots to reuse:

  • Devil’s advocate move landed well—keep it, but tie to criteria:

    • “If we widened the slate, which criterion would that improve—stakeholder trust or delivery speed?”

  • Risk flagging was clear; next time quantify impact (e.g., “risk = 2/5 severity; mitigation = x”).

What to improve—with suggested phrasing:

  • Re-frame the open (30s):

    • “Goal today: agree on criteria & top pick. Draft criteria: influence across functions, delivery record, trust, culture impact. Quick edits? Weight them now.”

  • Plusses → pivot pattern:

    • “What I like about Christian is __ (plus). My concern is __ (pivot). If we choose Christian, we’d mitigate by __.”

  • Chair’s dissent invitation:

    • “Before we lean in, who can steel-man the case against our current front-runner for 30 seconds?”

Scores:
Empathy & Bridging 2 · Questioning 2 · Listening/Synthesis 2 · Problem Framing 2 · Tone & Agenda 1 · Focus/Info 2 · Exploration 2 · Groupthink 2 · Influence/Commitment 2 · Flow 2 ⇒ 38/100.

Rammy group — summary & scores (61/100)

What happened: After an early sales preference, the team reframed to process (internal vs external, optics, background checks). You proposed a strengths/risks pass per candidate & a conditional recommendation pending references (11:49–12:22). Better balance & synthesis overall.

Strengths:

  • Agenda correction: Shifted to criteria like internal vs external fit and optics.

  • Process moves: Strengths/weaknesses sweep; reference-check gate.

  • Bridging: “On paper… similar; differentiator is internal vs external” (~7:28) neatly linked facts to the decision hinge.

Critical gaps (unchanged):

  • Chairing mechanics: Timeboxes & equal airtime were loose.

  • Synthesis: No one-liner problem statement; criteria weren’t explicitly weighted.

  • Groupthink: Mild pull toward the external candidate persisted.

Concrete moments & bright spots to reuse:

  • Conditional close was strong: “Subject to references being okay, first priority would be Christine” (~12:09). That’s a clean gate.

  • Hinge articulation (“internal vs external”) gave clarity—make it visible (on board/doc).

What to improve—with suggested phrasing:

  • Pin a one-liner problem statement:

    • “We need a cross-functional lead who can win trust fast and deliver in Qx; the main trade-off is fresh external perspective vs internal relationships.”

  • Make the grid explicit (1–5):

    • “Influence, delivery, trust, culture impact. Score quickly, then sanity-check where we disagree by ≥2 points.”

  • Balance airtime:

    • “Quick round: Ops → Mkt → Sales → GC → HR, 20s each: one plus, one risk per candidate.”

Scores:
Empathy & Bridging 3 · Questioning 3 · Listening/Synthesis 3 · Problem Framing 3 · Tone & Agenda 3 · Focus/Info 3 · Exploration 3 · Groupthink 3 · Influence/Commitment 4 · Flow 3 ⇒ 61/100.

Indra group — summary & scores (63/100)

What happened: Set an agenda upfront (“set up the agenda…,” 0:00; “we’re trying to select a candidate,” 0:17). Explored internal vs external, surfaced cross-functional needs, flagged people-risk & asked HR for checks. Ended with a quick vote instead of a criteria-based close.

Strengths:

  • Tone/Agenda: Clear opening & purpose; best of the four.

  • Exploration: Looked both inside & outside; connected attributes to current friction.

  • Bridging: Tied options to org realities (trust-building if external).

Critical gaps (unchanged):

  • Criteria remained implicit; no weights.

  • Talk-time skew: Sales/marketing heavier early.

  • Closure: Vote instead of criteria-tied decision.

Concrete moments & bright spots to reuse:

  • Agenda first was crisp—keep it and add roles & timeboxes (e.g., “round-robin, 60s per function”).

  • HR check ask showed good risk hygiene—turn it into a gate with a date.

What to improve—with suggested phrasing:

  • Explicit criteria + weights:

    • “Let’s lock criteria: influence, delivery, trust, culture impact. Weight 5,4,3,2. Any changes?”

  • Equalize airtime:

    • “Round-robin: each function gives one plus & one risk per candidate; chair speaks last.”

  • Decide off the grid, not a vote:

    • “Against our weighted criteria, Candidate X totals 15 vs Y at 13. Unless a critical risk is unresolved, we proceed with X; HR to complete checks by Friday.”

Scores:
Empathy & Bridging 3 · Questioning 3 · Listening/Synthesis 3 · Problem Framing 3 · Tone & Agenda 4 · Focus/Info 3 · Exploration 3 · Groupthink 3 · Influence/Commitment 4 · Flow 3 ⇒ 63/100.

Cross-group patterns to coach immediately (unchanged)

  • Start on shared purpose & criteria, not preferences.

  • Paraphrase & check back to align and reduce anchoring.

  • Plusses before pivots to keep collaboration high while disagreeing.

  • Guard against loudership. Chairs invite dissent early, speak last, protect minority views.

  • Decide with a visible grid → criteria × options, quick scores, clean close (decision, owner, next step).