In this situation, strong arguments can be made for both candidates. But if I am going to be hiring someone for an essential position, I would err on the side of caution and hire Jaime. No business, even at the upper management level works outside of a team and I feel that if I hired someone like Avery in a critical role it could eventually lead to problems. It could create an undue workload for other members of my organization. A build of up animosity over time could lead to a toxic work environment, resulting in unwanted turnover of other talented members of my company. I think overall consistency, where colleagues know what type of performance they will get out of one another creates a better working atmosphere. Even though both candidates have their high points, I value consistency. I feel like a creative position, such as in marketing or design, would better suit Avery because this would give more leeway to explore the role without having to worry about consistency as much as reaching their potential. Obviously, there would need to be some sort of structure in the position in the form of deadlines and content appropriateness, but I believe having the overall freedom to create would suit Avery’s style. I envision a more structured position for Jaime though, such as finance or supply chain/operations. These positions, while very important to any company, require a lot of consistency and attention to detail as opposed to relying on potential. This would suit Jaime because it does not require going outside of a specific comfort zone, but instead assuring regulations are adhered to and followed. Both candidates have distinguished qualities, but finding the right positions for each is what would really help them excel.
Leave a Reply