When it comes to this topic there’s more than one right answer and it is actually extremely situational depending on the job. From a face value though I would rather have the higher-performing employee Avery. The main reason is that her skills are simply unmatched and can offer the longest-term benefit to the company. I think that slacking off is something you have to deal with within the organization. A hiring manager’s goal should be to hire the highest qualified worker that will provide them with the greatest output from their input. If slacking off becomes an issue you can implement punishments or performance trackers who look over the shoulder all day. Moreover, people like Avary are quicker learners and you could provide more incentives for her to apply herself and get the best performance possible.
In Jamie’s case, he’s consistant which is what any great employee should have, some skills are simply not teachable and the company would be very disappointed when they found that Jamie’s maximum potential is nowhere near Avary’s. I think it’s important to take the higher qualified employee and work the kinks out later. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to hire Jamie, especially depending on what kind of work this specific organization is deal with.
Jobs that Jamie would fit best into are jobs that have a high level of attention to detail and consistency, for example, quality control and customer services are things that are expected to be done the exact same way on a daily basis. For this position, Jamie would be better because he’s a hard worker and consistent.
A job that would be more suitable for somebody like Avery is a job that is competitive with creative aspects that requires her skills in the clutch time. For example, a couple jobs she would thrive in are development and sales. She would fit best in a job that requires risk-taking because her skills are set so much higher than everyone else.
Leave a Reply