For me, it was a painful choice. Because the two of them would be perfect as one. In real life, however, it’s often a tough choice between Avery and Jaime. If I had to choose, I would choose Avery. Normally, I like a down-to-earth, driven person like Jaime, and I would love to be one of those people, but as a business owner, I would choose Avery over Jaime without hesitation. Because I hire people, I pay them because I expect them to be profitable, because I expect them to produce. His laziness is something I can adjust through the establishment of the company’s system, but talent is immutable.
In creative fields that encourage creativity and out-of-the-box thinking, hiring someone like Avery with great potential but low consistency may be beneficial. Even if they don’t always do well, such a position requires people who can do great work. In advertising, a high-performing copywriter or art director may develop innovative and engaging campaigns that grab customers’ attention and generate buzz. In this sector, originality, imagination, and invention are crucial, thus Avery, who can do great work when motivated, might be helpful to the team. Avery’s rare greatness might also encourage the squad to do better.
Data entry and quality control jobs are good candidates for Jaime’s low potential but great consistency. A work like this requires trustworthy and precise outcomes. Jaime’s dependability can help finish the task accurately and swiftly without supervision or correction. Jaime’s consistency can also help in customer service and client-facing professions. Jaime’s constant performance can boost the company’s reputation. In occupations that require consistency and reliability, hiring someone like Jaime, who may not thrive under pressure but can give solid outcomes, might be useful.
Leave a Reply