Wise words I once heard: "A players hire A players. B players hire C players."
I call these words "wise" because they flow from experience. I never understood the logic. When I inquired, I got an answer around B players wanting to look good. But that never resonated with me either. It implied that A players cared about the team and B players cared about themselves. That seems like a different issue. But, a recent experience helped me form the start to an answer that did resonate: A players can explain their thoughts and get to the root of other people's thoughts.
Here is something I saw recently (garnish of this example is changed, but the dish is there). A B player CEO that grew up within the company's marketing department strongly backed the incumbent C Player CFO. Frankly, it was a system she was used to. Then, when this company merged with another company, the other company had a B Player CFO. Everyone on the team could see the B player was better than the C player. The reports were tighter and more effective. The system was simpler and more efficient. The controls had a much tighter security. The team was happier. She was good at her job. But, this better CFO had a very tough time talking through her approach. It had nothing to do with polish. Just structure. A CEO with a marketing background couldn't grasp exactly how things worked, so she just couldn't get comfortable with the unknown. In other words, the B player CEO could not differentiate between the B player CFO and the C player CFO because the CEO did not know what "good" looked like in that function of the business and it wasn't made obvious for her.
So here is the start of my thinking. Add one A player on either side and things are cleared up. An A player CEO can get to the bottom of what the B or the C player does in their function. Not because this A player marketing-trained CEO happen to study finance on the side. Instead, the A player can break apart the objectives of a Finance function and objectively understand how a process needs to work to achieve those objectives. In other words, an A player is a systems thinker and communicator. So, you put an A player in as CEO and they can differentiate between the B vs. the C player CFOs. Alternatively, had the B player CFO been an A player, they could have plainly communicated why they run a finance department the way they do such that a B player CEO could understand it.
It is not lost on me that, in the previous explanation of this original quotation, an A player CEO also could have asked the Finance teams who was better. If the A player CEO spiked in this interpersonal dimension (reading and understanding others), she could have achieved similar objectives. But, now that you have read the other perspective, it might get pretty clear that there is no one answer. An A player CEO could be an A player CEO because they spike at one thing in that context and they are sufficient at the others. Notably, an A player marketing CEO must spike in something other than marketing to be successful. It could be systems
In other words, A players can navigate in and out of contexts much more fluidly. They can make themselves fit into new situations, whether that be by understanding their surroundings and adapting, or communicating clearly so that others may understand. B and C players must rely on serendipity of fit to succeed. But, they can still succeed!
A few insights
I call these words "wise" because they flow from experience. I never understood the logic. When I inquired, I got an answer around B players wanting to look good. But that never resonated with me either. It implied that A players cared about the team and B players cared about themselves. That seems like a different issue. But, a recent experience helped me form the start to an answer that did resonate: A players can explain their thoughts and get to the root of other people's thoughts.
Here is something I saw recently (garnish of this example is changed, but the dish is there). A B player CEO that grew up within the company's marketing department strongly backed the incumbent C Player CFO. Frankly, it was a system she was used to. Then, when this company merged with another company, the other company had a B Player CFO. Everyone on the team could see the B player was better than the C player. The reports were tighter and more effective. The system was simpler and more efficient. The controls had a much tighter security. The team was happier. She was good at her job. But, this better CFO had a very tough time talking through her approach. It had nothing to do with polish. Just structure. A CEO with a marketing background couldn't grasp exactly how things worked, so she just couldn't get comfortable with the unknown. In other words, the B player CEO could not differentiate between the B player CFO and the C player CFO because the CEO did not know what "good" looked like in that function of the business and it wasn't made obvious for her.
So here is the start of my thinking. Add one A player on either side and things are cleared up. An A player CEO can get to the bottom of what the B or the C player does in their function. Not because this A player marketing-trained CEO happen to study finance on the side. Instead, the A player can break apart the objectives of a Finance function and objectively understand how a process needs to work to achieve those objectives. In other words, an A player is a systems thinker and communicator. So, you put an A player in as CEO and they can differentiate between the B vs. the C player CFOs. Alternatively, had the B player CFO been an A player, they could have plainly communicated why they run a finance department the way they do such that a B player CEO could understand it.
It is not lost on me that, in the previous explanation of this original quotation, an A player CEO also could have asked the Finance teams who was better. If the A player CEO spiked in this interpersonal dimension (reading and understanding others), she could have achieved similar objectives. But, now that you have read the other perspective, it might get pretty clear that there is no one answer. An A player CEO could be an A player CEO because they spike at one thing in that context and they are sufficient at the others. Notably, an A player marketing CEO must spike in something other than marketing to be successful. It could be systems
In other words, A players can navigate in and out of contexts much more fluidly. They can make themselves fit into new situations, whether that be by understanding their surroundings and adapting, or communicating clearly so that others may understand. B and C players must rely on serendipity of fit to succeed. But, they can still succeed!
A few insights
- Success in multiple differentiated contexts is a good signal of performance
- If you cannot afford A players, dive deep on fit
- Go past comfort level to grade your teammates on fixed attributes & performance
No comments:
Post a Comment