Comments on: “A” Players Unwelcome

By: Do You Have the Proper Perspective in Recruiting?

Do You Have the Proper Perspective in Recruiting? — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:02:33 +0000

[...] And let’s not too hastily forget that companies are quite literally built on and by “B” players. “Research by Harvard professor Tom DeLong has shown that while A players can make enormous contributi…” [...]

By: Recruiting is a Matter of Perspective

Recruiting is a Matter of Perspective — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:02:06 +0000

By: Andy Roane

Andy Roane — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 06:45:00 +0000

Mr. Singh is on target with 99% of his article—as are most of the people that have responded. However, defining employees or candidates as ?A players? or ?B players,? is too broad of a stroke and dangerous. To use the USA Today example, if we hire a unicorn for a horse?s job, is the unicorn hired really an A player? The answer is, no.
A players should be defined by fit (current and future) within an organization—and not by the success standards set by others at a candidate?s previous employer (or educational institution).
In the original article about A players, Dave Lefkow referred to the book, ?Moneyball? where the Oakland A?s GM Billy Bean turned baseball scouting on it?s head by signing players that did not necessarily fit the perfect mold of a stud baseball player. The consensus among baseball scouts was that the 6?4?, 210 lb. top performing high school and college players would be the best major league professionals ? their version of an A player. Bean proved these scouts wrong by eliminating the broad interpretation of an A player and focusing on players that were a perfect fit for his team.
Let?s define our A players as a perfect fit ? sometimes a unicorn and many times a horse.

By: Malchus Watlington

Malchus Watlington — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:06:00 +0000

While in agreement with 99% of your posting, I take exception to your differentiation of ‘A’ players as the ones who ask ‘what’s in it for me.’ In fact, WIIFM is more often seen as a generational phenomenon, the product of some classical conditioning while observing the treatment of their parents’ generation in the workplace. Check out Cam Marston’s new book ‘Motivating the ‘What’s In It For Me?’ Workforce’.

By: Jim Cargill

Jim Cargill — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:31:00 +0000

Mr. Singh has written an excellent article extolling the many virtues of ‘B’ players. One thing, however, grates at me like fingernails on a chalk board. That is the apparent widespread thinking that ‘B’ players comprise around 70% of retained staff in a business. This gives incredibly short shrift to the real ‘B’ players, who are mostly just a step behind their betters.

To clearly understand this, consider that all employees are rated on a line ranging from 1 to 100. Near the 100 mark are the A players. Near the 1 mark are the D players (if you ask, where are my F players, you shouldn’t be in management). Almost any company that is honest with itself will rate no more than 5% of it’s performers as clearly outstanding, excellent, or superior. The next tier, often rated as very good, or highly effective, will most often include 10%-15% of the total number of retained employees. For several decades, the acceptable benchmark for the bottom tier has been 10%, which generally represents those performers who need to be replaced, and who are often rated as ‘D’ performers. That leaves 70%-75% of retained employees who are performing at an acceptable level, and commonly referred to as ‘C’ performers.

A recruiter who strives to attract ‘B’ performers, according to the above clarification, is moving in the right direction. Two arguments against hiring ‘A’ players, which were not presented in Singh’s article are: 1. With rare exceptions, A players were B players at some point. Likewise, nearly all future A players will come from the B player ranks. Hire a B player now, and do your best to develop them into A players. 2. Increasingly, A players lean toward having a primadonna complex. They are too often as concerned about their salary, status, and percs as company performance. A players too often land on the ‘what’s in it for me’ side of the ledger.

As an owner of an executive search firm, we are often told, ‘We need you to find an A player!’ After careful questioning and consideration of the many ‘why’s’ for such a comment, it becomes obvious to the Hiring Manager in most cases that an A player is the last thing they need, or want. Hiring a solid B player with A potential garners a new employee who is more likely to ‘stick’, and presents a challenge most managers can handle.