Hacker News Reader

Comment by thesmallestcat | Hacker News Reader

The post fails to define an A, B, or C player, so it felt like a harangue about nothing. Frankly I don't believe that measurement along one axis can capture an individual's impact. Also, discussion of an organization's effects on one's output and attitude is notably absent. Only the manager-direct report relationship is considered.

View on HN

It's hard to define decent, good, and bad health too. But you know it when you see it. Managers are the same with employees.

I guess so, but that's what I mean: The article's meaning depends on one's view. To me, C = inevitable disaster, A = inevitable success, and B is everybody else. With three grades/classes, that's as far as I can get. You have to keep the "A"s happy and prepare for their exit. You have to get rid of the "C"s as soon as you've identified one and given them their fair chances. But I think that your A-B-C scale only addresses those who I consider "B"s, as "A"s and "C"s are mostly immune to management technique.

C is average, as per American school grades. D and F are below average.

You should mention that in your article then, keeping in mind that the progression from F to A in most grading systems is linear and that some of us may not see the differences between calibers of engineers in the same way. That said I'm grasping for the grade analogy, as grades are highly dependent on the subject matter and other factors that I'd consider external, and represent a rigid point-in-time assessment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com