Typical vs. Maximal Performance assignment

If I had to choose between Avery and Jaime, I would hire Jaime. While Avery may have a higher performance ceiling, reliability and day-to-day consistency are essential in most business settings. A consistently average performer like Jaime is likely to meet deadlines, maintain team morale, and deliver stable output. In contrast, someone with inconsistent performance, even if brilliant occasionally, can cause unpredictability and frustration—especially in team-based environments.

A role where Avery would be the better hire is a creative or project-based position such as a product designer or advertising copywriter. These roles benefit from moments of brilliance that can redefine a campaign or product launch. The value of breakthrough ideas in these jobs often outweighs the cost of inconsistency, especially when performance is judged by the best work produced, not daily output.

On the other hand, Jaime would be a better fit for roles like customer support or assembly line production—jobs that demand reliability, accuracy, and steady performance. These roles can’t afford unpredictability; delivering solid work every day is more valuable than occasional excellence.

Overall, while maximal performance may sound attractive on paper, typical performance is what sustains a business day-to-day. Unless the role specifically calls for breakthrough thinking, I believe consistency trumps occasional brilliance.