It should go without saying that hiring someone who can be consistent and peek during necessary times would be an ideal candidate for any position. However, given the circumstances, both extremes of the scale can be useful for different reasons and for different positions. If I were in the shoes of the business owner, I would first have to do a job analysis of the position that needs to be filled as it would allow me to narrow down which tasks need to be done consistently or whether it requires a high level of critical thinking. Upon first glance at the situation, I would choose to hire someone like Avery actually, despite the lack of consistency. The main reason being is that it is rare to find people who can actually channel all of their work or creative effort into a single concentrated focus that produces sheer greatness and efficiency when needed or called upon. Many highly intelligent people can work the best oftentimes under pressure and it isn’t until they are pushed or put to the test that their potential seems to have no limits. Additionally, people like Avery do not need to be motivated to do great or exceptional work. Hence, it would take very little extrinsic motivation on the firm’s part to motivate Avery when the task or job truly needed their attention or performance. As for someone like Jaime, this type of worker is best for a business that needs a backbone of crucial job duty. For example, routine checks or monitors for a security network position can be very mundane and routine, yet is a consistent crucial effort in a firm’s overall cyber security. It would be jobs that require little to no “out of the box” thinking that people like Jaime would excel in; no teamwork activities, no brainstorming; just a working cog in a larger machine. Yet, without that cog, the machine might simply stop working. People like Jaime are for businesses looking for longevity, consistency, and core strength. Rather, people like Avery yield a company an opportunity for growth, change, and adaptability under pressure. Both people are good choices, but each requires a specific job duty or position to utilize each of their respective working types.