Initially, it sounds best to have only talented (in their specific professional domains) people at hand. But then there's the fact that talented people want creative, non-routine work. Unless they have average employees as assistants for the mundane work, then, maybe, they would hardly get any work done... And talented people, if all in the same field, might get competitive in a bad way.
Is there an optimal ratio of talented vs average people in a team?
A high performing team has the typical team roles represented. It is not so much less talented people assume the more demeaning roles as it is that each role is assumed by competence that performs to expected levels most of the time. What you need to consider is, our performance, both collective and individual, is variable. So even your best superstars will perform lousy from time to time.
What is most important to me is NOT to find that superstar but rather that individual that will perform in a predictable, sustainable, repeatable way. While this is very unpopular from a humanistic perspective, I want to be able to replace said individual with another when the first one craps out...and they will crap out so says Murphy.
There is no ideal ratio or formula for your team that will guarantee your company success. However, it is important to build a team with a variety of personalities and strengths so that each person can contribute something unique. I wouldn't consider one personality type more talented than the other, however. While the free spirit with the limitless ideas may lie at the root of the company's plans, the Type-A character is vital to implementing and following through with these plans. Employees with little experience also should not be feared, as they can bring some fresh perspective while you guide them in any direction you need.
Don't be afraid to mix it up. You may be pleasantly surprised.
