In the real world, I would be looking for someone who is good at “crunch time” and can be counted on to be consistent. However, I would hire Avery since my greater need would be for someone with maximal performance. My business would need the person I hired to have a considerable capacity to learn new skills rapidly and complete complex tasks very quickly at the end of each development cycle. The job has self-motivating factors built into it, but as a team member, Avery would need to contribute continually and show skill in a sprint.
It would be better to hire Avery for a job that required high ability or potential and short, sustained burst of exemplary work would be a key determinant to success. Avery would fit with some development teams where there is a “Sprint” at the end of a cycle. The cycle requires intellect and ability, but there is lot of talking and thinking about tight code and programming problems to solve to build up to the “Sprint” for delivery. With a low performance ceiling, Jamie could not be able to perform complex algorithms no matter how much hard work and time was devoted to trying to the job. Avery would be more valuable because the ability needed to do well is innate.
Jamie would be well-suited for a job where “typical performance” or the best effort is put forth every day. A job that Jamie may excel in could be customer service. Hard work and a positive attitude can have as much pay back as potential in the right position. There are many jobs were the “The Tortoise” in Aesop’s fable “The Tortoise and the Hare” is going to be highly successful. Stick-with-it-ness, working hard, and never giving up would be traits I would want in my salespeople or any number of jobs where high potential is great, but getting the work done day in and day out wins the prize.
