If I was in. the shoes of this business owner, I would choose to hire Avery. This is due to the fact that you cannot teach talent. Although Avery can be a slacker, I believe it would be easier to motivate them to reach that high-performance ceiling more often through motivation and support from within the company. In Jaime’s case, I think it would be much more difficult to increase their level of performance, as the case states that even when “pushed to her limit”, her level of performance is much lower than Avery’s. This means that the firm can try to push them harder, but there may not be any more to get out of her.
A type of job where it would be ideal to hire Avery over Jaime would be one that requires frequently changing levels of work and needed output. Avery would be suitable for this job, as due to the fact they are somewhat “lazy” at times, they would not necessarily need to work at their full potential constantly. However, they are still a valuable employee since they have the potential to truly be the best at what they do when they need to be. Jaime, on the other hand, would be a better fit for a less technical job where they can still be successful, even with lower potential.
Ideally, a job candidate would have high potential and high consistency, but as we have learned, generating a flow of these “A players” is much easier said than done. Sometimes compromises need to be made, and the “right fit” for the position may depend on the position itself.