> This seems like an instance of Job's "A players hire A players, B players hire C players."
Tangentially, I've always wondered, in that model, how B players ever get hired.
Tangentially, I've always wondered, in that model, how B players ever get hired.
Given the limits imposed by Job's comment, which parameters the construct, it may be that the set of "B Players" are (failed) A players, who've involuntarily been forced a step down the ladder, or, alternatively, they are C players who've convinced some unspecified hiring intermediary that they're on the rise...
However one becomes a B player, by definition, one is constrained...one can only hire C players...dimming the prospects for success...so, for B, there appears to be little chance of ascending, or re-ascending, to A player status...
Whimsical, but fun to think about...
So A players end up hiring B players when they don't want to, and sometimes A players sneak through the B player's filter.
And this is why, when people that are apparently very good leave your company, you have to wonder if you have to much B team, and you are letting them run amok.
Sometimes whole teams are formed with B and C players because company cannot pay A wages/benefits, and it just stays in B or C arena.
I always strive to have people better than me on my team, and support them and keep them happy.