In considering the scenario, I would personally choose to hire Jaime. This is an essential role in the company and I value consistency a lot. There might not be huge fluctuations and spikes in performance, but I know that on a day-to-day basis, Jaime can get the job done and be effective. It’s something I wouldn’t have to worry about, as compared to hiring Avery, who would need a lot more support and accountability to get things done. I think having the individual potential to go big is important, but not as much as the known reliability; it is the safer option to go with Jaime.
A type of job that would favor hiring Avery would be a recruiter or salesperson. This is because these positions are highly dependent on maximizing performance and landing a big fish every now and then. While it would be important to have someone who did a solid job all the time, these roles place more of an emphasis on rising to the occasion when necessary. Because Avery has a higher ceiling and performs better than anyone when he is at his best, he can get the best talent and land the large sales.
A type of job that would favor hiring Jaime would be a receptionist or paper pusher. This is more of a repetitive position where the daily tasks don’t vary greatly. This plays to Jaime’s strength of consistency. He’s a solider and will always get the job done, but won’t necessarily be pushed outside his limitations. He won’t need to come in clutch because he won’t be put into that situation to begin with. More mundane positions like these with routine tasks favor that consistency over high ceiling.
One reply on “Typical vs. Maximum Performance”
I agree with your comments about the type of jobs in which maximal and typical performers would be best fitted. Although it would be great to have a salesperson or recruiter who performs at their top ability consistently, these are jobs that require less output on a day to day basis but do require most intense bursts of performance and ability in which it is crucial that they are able to succeed at the task at hand. In opposition to these people, typical performers are better suited for jobs that involved lots of repetition rather than a rollercoaster of performance expectations.