If I were in the shoes of the business owner, and wanted to fill an essential position at the company I would pick high consistency over high potential. In the long run, having someone that can be trusted to get their daily reponsibilities done is more valuable because it ensures that the company will at least remain constaint throughout there employment.
Whereas someone with high potential and low consistency like Avery could affect the company by either doing really well or really bad. The only time I would consider hiring someone like Avery is when there is short term project to set apart one company from its competitors. Someone with high potential could be hired for short-term special projects to utilize the max amount of potential that an individual would be able to give. Hense, Avery would be more valuable to have for a job that is more advanced and technical but would need to be short-term to make sure he doesn’t get bored.
In addition, a job where it would be better to hire someone like Jaime (i.e., low potential, high consistency) than Avery is something that doesn’t change and is the same routine every day. For example, Jamie would be great at doing account payable, because you do the same process every month, just for different clients.
Hi Cassidy!
I found that I also agreed with you regarding the first question. I think that your reasoning was spot on and what you explained is also how a lot of other of our classmates felt. Knowing that your employee is going to show up and get the work done everyday is something that is very valued. Especially as an employer paying your employees I think it would be hard to be satisfied knowing your employee consistently is slacking off. I also thought it was interesting that you mentioned that work that Avery would do might be perceived as something that is more advanced. I think that is an interesting observation and I also agree and think that might be a common theme.