If I were in the shoes of the business owner and had to choose between Avery or Jaime, I would hire Jaime. The reason I would hire Jaime is because I value consistency, I would rather have someone who worked pretty good everyday and is consistent with their actions and ability rather than someone who slacked almost everyday, and was only good during certain scenarios. Jaime would be much more productive overall compared to Avery who would only be productive to the company on very select days; consistency adds up to more in the end based on my real world experience.
A type of job where it would be better to hire someone like Avery (high potential, poor consistency) than Jaime could potentially be a restaurant/bar where they are pretty slow during the weekdays, but have customer spikes on days such as weekends. I feel like a bar is a great example for this scenario, due to people mainly going to bars on weekends (Friday & Saturday), but not during the week. This would be perfect for a employee like Avery who slacks usually, but has days where potential is higher than anyone; this would work well for a bar who has a couple busy days of the week! Jaime would be less useful in an environment like this because she stays consistent at one level all the time, and a bar/restaurant is never consistent through days/hours.
A type of job where it would be better to hire someone like Jaime (low potential, high consistency) than Avery is something like data entry. Data entry needs low mistakes, is pretty monotonous, and similar day-in-day-out. This would benefit someone who is fairly consistent with low potential. Jaime would be more valuable for this type of job because it doesn’t require fluctuations in work levels/ability, and consistency is key.
2 responses to “MGMT 448 / Week 5 – Blog Post: Typical vs. Maximal Performance”
Stevie,
I like the idea of Avery working in a place that fluctuates how busy they are. That is not an idea I had considered but I think it would be perfect.
I noticed that you also chose to hire Jamie for the consistency, but gave her a job such as data entry. Why do you think people choose the consistent person, but the job they say they could thrive in a lower-level position. I think that is interesting.
Great post,
Seth
Hi Stevie, to begin with, thank you for sharing our perspective or point of view toward the scenario that we had. Where, the scenario said that there were two potential candidates that are worthy to be considered before we have final decision. From the post that you had above, I would go with Jamie as well. It is because their strength is the consistency. They have the consistency that not all employees or people have. To keep and maintain the consistency is difficult because it will make and create “talent” from someone’s personality. Where, from that talent itself, the employees can be different with others. Because skills and knowledge is transferable from one person to another. Where, we can gain the knowledge and information from training and courses, but to get the talent is not that simple.