If I was a business owner that was facing the possibility of two candidates, both possessing two different types of traits: high potential-poor consistency or low potential-high consistency; I would really need to consider what the position is going to demand of these two types of candidates.
If my job opening was a position that measured individual high achievement, such as a sales position within a car dealership or real estate company, it would be crucial for me to hire the candidate with a higher ceiling of potential even if their day-to-day consistency was average. During the time when the customer sits down and is considering a purchase, I would need a candidate that can instantly drive that customer into saying the word “YES.” The employee’s overall achievement and compensation would rely on their ability to work wonders during certain short periods of time, followed by longer periods of down time waiting for the next customer that is considering a large purchase.
On the other hand, if I was looking for a front desk clerk where their days consisted mostly of providing consistent customer service, answering phones, and directing customers to the correct locations, I would want to pick a candidate with a high day-to-day consistency. This candidate would not enjoy the pressure of having to make split moment sales with high-stakes, but the consistency of daily tasks and treating every customer as a valuable member of our organization.
Both types of employees are needed for a variety of reasons, no matter what type of business you have, it is just up to me as the owner to navigate what the position requires of the candidates, and which candidate would be more successful. I would not want to make a hiring mistake putting the wrong candidate in a position that requires quick thinking and high potential, leading to their failure along with mine as a business owner.
2 replies on “Typical vs. Maximal Performance”
Hey Mindy, nice work on the blog post. I think that you did a really good job of describing the scenario at hand. Before making a definitive choice of which candidate is “better,” it is important to consider what sort of position they would be in. I like that you brought up the scenario of the car salesman and the customer service rep. For the salesman, Avery would be a better choice because of her high potential to make a large sale. For the customer service rep, it is better to have someone who performs consistently and gets the job done. Each type of candidate has areas where they shine, it just depends on what dituation they are in. Nice work!
Hi Mindy,
It is interesting how you frame your answer by considering the match between performance style and role rather than assuming the need to adopt a single style as better in every situation. Your examples, comparing the sales job with the front desk clerk role, illustrate how jobs call for different strengths. This applied approach to understanding shows a good knowledge of human resource management and that, most frequently, optimizing the performance of employees is less about pure talent and more about purpose.
Your comment that high-achievers tend to excel under high stress, such as closing a deal, is accurate. Where performance peaks are most important, an individual who can bring outstanding achievements during periods of need has the potential to make a real impact, without consistently delivering the same each day. Likewise, recognizing that highly consistent talent must keep things ticking along daily is also imperative. Companies cannot function optimally without those who turn up and consistently deliver.
I valued your self-awareness as a business owner in that hypothetical situation. Your job-person match affects not only the worker’s performance but also your judgment. That is a thoughtful leadership style. One possible follow-up is to investigate how training or role definition is likely to help support more flexible workforces. For example, are high-consistency employees incrementally coached to be better in high-stress situations, or do high-ceiling types require more formalized routines to maximize day-to-day reliability?
You do a good job of balancing logic and emotion in your entry. Good job on tying your hiring decision to the needs of the business. Have you ever seen or experienced hiring someone in the wrong job for what they are capable of, and how did that turn out?