Typical vs. Maximum Performance

Situation:

You are a business owner interested in hiring a new employee to fill an essential opening in your company. After an extensive search, you narrow your choice of candidates down to two people.

The first person, Avery, has a high-performance ceiling. By this, I mean that when they are at their best, few people are better than Avery at what they do. However, in most situations, Avery can be considered somewhat of a slacker. Day in and day out, the level of performance they give you could be described at best, a little below average.

The second person, Jaime, is known for consistency. Jamie is the type of person that will give you pretty good results every time they show up for work. However, in clutch situations, Jaime struggles to provide you with any more than what they already give you daily. That is, when pushed to their limit, we find that Jaime’s upper potential is nowhere near what Avery is capable of producing.

Response:

If you were in the shoes of the business owner and had to choose which person would you hire (Avery or Jaime) and why?

When faced with the decision to hire Avery, a high-potential yet inconsistent employee, and Jaime, a low-potential yet highly consistent employee, it is crucial to consider the long-term implications of the decision. While Avery may have more potential, inconsistency can lead to subpar work, missed deadlines, and low productivity. On the other hand, Jaime’s consistency guarantees reliable work, but their lack of potential may limit their growth in the company.

To make an informed decision, it is important to consider the company’s needs and goals. Avery’s potential may be more valuable if the company is in a rapidly evolving industry or is looking to expand quickly. Avery may bring fresh ideas, creativity, and innovation to the table, which can drive growth and success. However, it is important to note that high potential does not necessarily equate to high performance. Avery may require additional training, guidance, or support to develop the consistency required for success in the company.

On the other hand, if the company is looking for stability, reliability, and predictability, Jaime’s consistency may be more important. Jaime’s reliable work can ensure that deadlines are met, customers are satisfied, and the company’s reputation remains intact. However, it should also be considered that Jaime’s lack of potential may limit their ability to take on new challenges, innovate, and grow within the company.

Ultimately, the decision should be based on carefully considering the company’s needs, goals, and values. It is important to weigh the potential against the consistency of these individuals and to consider both the short-term and long-term implications of the decision. By doing so, the company can make an informed decision that aligns with its vision and objectives. With that said, it would depend on what my company’s goals and needs are that would inevitably decide who I hire.

Describe a type of job where it would be better to hire someone like Avery (i.e., high potential, poor consistency) than Jaime? What is it about that job that makes someone like Avery more valuable than Jaime?

Avery’s potential may be better suited for a company that is in a rapidly evolving industry or is looking to expand quickly. Avery may bring fresh ideas, creativity, and innovation to the table, which can drive growth and success. While consistency in performance is undoubtedly important, it is also worth noting that high-potential employees who may display lower consistency can bring a unique set of skills and perspectives to the table.

In such cases, selecting Avery, a high-potential employee who may exhibit lower consistency in their work, may be the ideal choice. Although Avery may not perform consistently in every task, their potential for growth and development is significant. Furthermore, Avery’s unique skill set and alternative perspectives can lead to innovation and creativity within the organization. It should be noted that selecting a candidate like Avery requires careful consideration and appropriate management. However, if handled correctly, it can lead to significant benefits for the company, as well as for Avery in terms of their professional development.

For example, a startup or fast-paced environment may be better suited for someone with high potential, as they may thrive in an atmosphere that requires quick thinking and adaptability. On the other hand, a more structured and traditional company may be better for someone who struggles with consistency, as they may benefit from the structure and routine provided by such an environment.

Describe a type of job where it would be better to hire someone like Jaime (i.e., low potential, high consistency) than Avery? What is it about that job that makes someone like Jaime more valuable?

In situations where the job requirements demand a consistent and dependable workforce that can deliver the required results with a high degree of accuracy, it would be more appropriate to hire a low potential, high consistency employee such as Jaime. This is because Jaime’s strengths lie in her/his ability to maintain a consistent level of productivity and efficiency while delivering quality work. Though Jaime may not have the potential to grow and develop within the company, her/his strengths make them a valuable addition to the workforce for roles that require a reliable and consistent performer.

For example, individuals like Jaime who may not have the highest potential but are consistent and reliable, there are certain jobs that may be a good match. These types of roles often involve routine tasks and responsibilities that require a high level of attention to detail and consistency. Examples of such jobs may include administrative assistants, data entry clerks, or quality control inspectors.