The contents discuss my decision on hiring based off of the two proposed candidates.
After careful consideration, I feel that almost everyone will pick the second option (Jaime) compared to the first (Avery). The second person may not have a large ceiling for beyond expected performance, however, they are consistently getting their job done successfully, where the first option has a large performance ceiling, but day in day out is not as good of a worker. Ultimately it boils down to what the job is because I believe there absolutely are instances where hiring someone like Avery is a far better choice. Since the prompt is asking me to choose someone to hire, I would follow the trend of picking Jaime because we do not know what the job is, I need to be cautious and pick someone with consistent reliability.
A position where I think someone like Avery is important is in many sports positions. For this example, let’s say a forward on a hockey team. For my Goalie I want someone like Jaime, a person I can rely on to block shots every game. For a forward, I need a person like Avery, maybe they don’t touch the puck as frequently as others but when they do they capitalize when they are needed for clutch moments, a person like this is imperative.
Jaime would be a good candidate for a position like welding. There are obviously welds that are better than others, but the general average will suffice in most instances. I need someone like Jaime who may not have the greatest welds of all time, but their work is good and consistent because I cannot afford to have someone who may be great one day and bad the other because they lack consistency. Other examples we mentioned in class are something like tax accounting, where being consistently precise is essential.
