In the hypothetical situation presented in the blog assignment, I would choose to hire the higher-ceiling candidate, Avery, rather than the consistent Jaime. My thought process here is that we are not often given the opportunity to work with truly high achievers. In fact, these people come around so infrequently that I believe we have begun to erode our standards of what a truly high-achieving candidate really is. In the hiring sense, when we have the opportunity to make a move on a candidate who can possibly be a differentiator for the firm, I believe we need to make that move.
Many times, what separates true high achievers, or “A Players” as the book “Who” would identify, is a lack of coaching or mentoring to make up the gap between good results with high potential to truly outstanding results. If you analyze the known variables in the equation, you understand very quickly that the one key unknown is how our organization, our people, and our culture might affect the potential candidate who maybe has not yet reached that full potential. Why settle on mere consistency when a high-achieving candidate is out there and available?
For someone like Avery, a position where the workload and responsibility can be highly variable could be best suited for him, such as when deliverables require a maximum amount of effort over short periods of time with high pressure. It is reasonable to assume that the high pressure environment would bring out the high achievement in Avery, and the organization could benefit from those short bursts of truly great work. However, this is a high-risk/high-reward proposition. Indeed, if the Avery candidate does not perform under these higher pressure situations, it can put the organization is a much bigger hole than they would otherwise be in with a more consistent person in the role.
A good role for Jaime would be one that remains fairly consistent in terms of workload, expectations, and pressure. In this way, you can budget Jaime’s production versus the known tasks and deliverables, and make sure that you are set up for success at the time of a deliverable. Jaime’s work quality is a known, and it is best to pair this known with a work environment where the needs, responsibilities, and tasks are also known. In this way, you have a low-risk/low-reward atmosphere, where you are successfully able to minimize risk with an employee like Jaime.
8 replies on “Week 5 – Blog Post: Typical vs. Maximal Performance”
Hi Matthew! Thanks for your sharing. In my post, I chose Jamie as an employee who work for me since Avery’s inconsistency cannot win my trust. Your post really give me new idea that people like Avery with high achievers are very valuable and not that often to meet. People like Avery needs flexible worktime, but the work or the achievement they can create is incredible. Great Post!
Both choices have their pros and cons. Honestly, I would prefer to not have to hire either one, but instead take advantage of the consistency of Jaime with the technical excellence of Avery. These candidates are tough to find, however.
Thanks!
-Matt
Hi Matt,
I enjoyed reading your post this week, as it offered me some insight on a differing view. I decided to choose Jaime rather than Avery, on account of their differences in work ethic and consistency. I like how in depth you went on analyzing the type of worker Avery is, and how we often don’t encounter these types of people in the workforce. I think this is a good point, and I am glad I chose to read your blog this week. Great post!
Work ethic is a big deal, and you are probably onto something there. You can teach consistency and coach certain players up to a level of consistency and production that is acceptable, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to tech work ethic. As I’ve mentioned in these other replies, I would prefer not to have to choose between either of these candidates, but have candidates available to me that combine the strengths of both Avery and Jaime.
Thanks!
-Matt
It was interesting to see your reasoning of choosing Avery over Jaime, as I chose Jaime over Avery. However, I think that you made some really valid points and it was interesting reading. I agree with your statement of how we really don’t get the opportunity to work with high achievers. This could be a great opportunity for a business that is struggling to bring in such a strong employee and help the overall morale. I think that the culture of the business could be really helpful in trying to push Avery to acquire better habits and practices to help eliminate her slacker like tendencies.
The flip side of choosing the Avery character is that you have to be very careful in how it would affect the rest of the team. You mentioned overall morale in you reply, and something that can really damage that is other team members seeing a character like Avery who excels and puts in the work “when they want to” instead of with a consistent approach. This can make other workers who are more consistent and have a higher work ethic lose morale. This is all part of the challenge (and risk) that you take on as a supervisor when dealing with the Avery type of candidate.
Thanks!
-Matt
Hi Matt,
I can definitely see how an “A” player would be the more logical choice but in my experience, managing performance and managing behavior are vastly different and at the end of the day I would much rather coach someone that is consistent than someone that may not be motivated and may be difficult to manage, also known as a “high maintenance employee”. I am glad to see a different point of view though, very well explained and laid out.
I completely agree with you in that managing the Avery character is going to be a more difficult task. I have seen that time and time again in my career. If you are not careful, this can easily burn you out. But the benefit to be gained if you are successful in your coaching and teaching, to keep Avery’s ceiling where it is, but raise his floor to an acceptable point, you can get quite a bit of success out of that. High risk, high reward, as I mentioned. Bottom line, I wouldn’t be particularly attracted to either of these characters, and instead would choose to take a chance on someone more in the middle.
Thanks!
-Matt