In this situation, I would hire Jaime. She stands out as a candidate I would look for due to her consistency in day-to-day operations. As described, her ability to deliver solid results every day means that my company can rely on her, which is essential for a solid foundation. Similarly, Jaime’s reliability would be more valuable to me than the occasional brilliance that Avery could bring to the team. Furthermore, with Jaime, there will be less risk of dips in productivity, which could disrupt the whole company’s deadlines. Ultimately, Jaime’s day-to-day performance would create a work environment that fosters trust, leading to enhanced collaboration.
Meanwhile, another reason to choose Jaime over Avery is the potential for Jaime to improve her performance during high-pressure situations. Despite Avery having a higher performance ceiling, Jaime’s consistent work ethic means that she is more likely to handle increased workloads. Especially with proper training and support, Jaime could learn to manage rush periods better, without compromising her day-to-day work.
On the other hand, Avery’s inconsistency would be more difficult to develop than improving performance under pressure. Jaime has shown that she is disciplined and has strong work habits. Avery’s tendency to slack off on the day-to-day reflects her lack of motivation for consistent performance. While Jaime would be ideal for roles that require these skills, such as operations management, Avery would be good in a product development role. This is due to her ability to produce occasional breakthroughs of exceptional performance. Therefore, Avery’s high performance ceiling would be more valuable here as the job demands moments of innovation.
Overall, Avery and Jaime both present strengths and weaknesses. However, as the business owner, Jaime’s consistency, potential to grow, and ability to foster a positive workplace environment make her an outstanding candidate.
3 replies on “Hiring Decision”
Hi Allison, although I do agree that Jamie would be the best candidate overall in most situations, I am not sure that her ability to improve would be so simple. Maximal performance is a ceiling of their overall ABILITY as a person, so she might be able to hand day-to-day activities with more ease and consistency, but the ability to create a higher maximal performance ceiling for a longer period of time might not be possible. This is just something to keep in mind when deciding. If you need a bright shining star during specified periods of time for deadlines, having someone with a higher ceiling like Avery might be a better option. It really just depends on what position you are hiring for, and the type of company.
I really liked how you explained the long term value Jaime could bring. I agree that someone you can count on every day is a huge win especially when running a business. Your point about it being easier to train someone like Jaime to handle pressure than it is to make someone like Avery consistent really stuck with me, it’s so true. I also liked how you acknowledged that Avery still has a place in more creative roles. It’s cool that you didn’t just write her off. Great job!
Hi Allison, You did a great job explaining why Jaime would be the better choice for the role. I agree that having someone consistent and reliable like Jaime can help the team stay on track, especially when meeting deadlines is important. You also made a smart point about how Jaime might get better under pressure with the right support and training. That shows she has room to grow, which is a big plus. I like how you still gave credit to Avery and recognized her talent for creative work and big ideas, even if she is not as consistent. Splitting the roles based on strengths Jaime in operations and Avery in product development was a smart idea. Overall, your reasoning was clear, and I think you balanced both sides well while making a strong case for hiring Jaime.