If I were in the business owners’ shoes, I would likely decide to hire Jamie, the more consistent employee. While I like the idea of hiring Avery who has a much higher ceiling, I was turned off by the fact that she/he is known as a slacker. I understand that Avery can perform her job immaculately when she/he has to, but I personally prefer consistency in an essential job position like the one they applied for.
A job that someone might consider hiring Avery over Jamie is any job within a well-established company with a solid training and mentoring program. Someone with high potential like Avery might just need a little training or guidance for them to reach that full potential and no longer be a slacker. If a company hired Avery and invested some time and effort into her development as an employee, she would be a much better employee than Jamie, although maybe still not as consistent. Avery is more valuable to an organization than Jamie because the organization knows what the potential is with Avery, and they likely believe they can unlock that potential through training and other aid.
On the other hand, a job where it might be better to hire Jamie over Avery would be a job that does not take much skill or critical thinking. Maybe a job like a librarian, where you just have to be consistent and are not expected to go above-and-beyond your call of duty. Someone like Jamie would be more valuable for this job because as a librarian, consistency is more important than potential.
5 replies on “Typical vs. Maximal Performance”
It is good to hear your view on this issue. It is true that Jamie is more effective in the overall but he lacks high potential which he cannot bring high performance to the company. He does not has the creativity to bring profits to the company so I will decide to hire who based on the job position.
Hi!
I agree that I would hire Jamie over Avery for the first job, i think that you can teach someone how to become a great employee if they have the work ethic, but it is harder to coach someone with a weak work ethic. I think that his performance can be greatly improved with coaching from other employees as long as he is a self driven employee
Hi Benjamin!
I like the point you made about what positions Avery would be most effective in. Since Avery does have the capability to do great things putting them in a position where they have significant supervision would likely push them to be better. However, I think this would only work if Avery really wanted to improve, and understood that motivation is an area they struggle with. Giving Avery those opportunities would be ideal, but they can’t force him/her to take advantage of them.
Benjamin,
I agree with everything you said. A consistent employee that does not require babysitting in order for them to perform is the better employee. I feel like there are a lot more jobs out there that require consistency rather than jobs that have leeway to slack off. It makes sense that Avery would be best placed in a very established company that has good training programs, but even with potential, it is hard to change a slacker into a consistent worker.
Hey Benjamin,
I agree with your perspective! I value consistency as an employer because I think it is really important to stabilize a team. I think you give good examples and reasons why to hire either potential applicant. I agree that it really depends on the position and what is expected of the employee. Consistency and potential are prioritized differently in different jobs.