Week 5 – Typical vs. Maximal Performance

The gap between average and peak performance is significant in employee hiring decisions. I would hire Jaime if I owned the company in the scenario described. In isolated circumstances, there is the possibility that Avery will outperform Jaime, but predictable performance is a much more stable and desirable result in most work environments. Having Jaime perform proficiently daily offers enhanced planning, less disruption, and a more stable team environment.

Of course, there are certainly some jobs where it is more beneficial to hire someone like Avery. For example, breakthroughs matter over and above day-to-day performance in jobs requiring creativity and innovation, such as product designer, advertising creative director, and startup strategy. Jobs requiring creativity may require the human resource team to look beyond academic qualifications. In those roles, breakthrough thinking and high-impact outcomes can be the ticket to their rewards that don’t always come with great regularity. In those cultures, Avery’s occasional greatness can result in huge wins that far outstrip the cost of unimpressive day-to-day performance.

Jaime is best suited to routine and accuracy-based jobs, such as data entry clerks, assembly-line technicians, and payroll administrators. Such tasks require a steady hand and absolute accuracy. They also need accuracy and consistency coupled with good academic qualifications. Mistakes cost money, and having a good producer ensures smooth operations. In those jobs, Jaime’s consistency is not just preferred; it’s paramount.

Maximal vs. typical performance lets you put the right individual to the right job. While Jaime has promising talent, Avery’s consistency is the more favorable fit for most business uses. It’s not a matter of bringing in talent; it’s a matter of predictable performance in context. This makes the selection between the two candidates based on different factors across the board.