One thing I take issue with, as an entrepreneur, is that he explains a 'tell' for a mediocre management team is that he'll send a talented member to a team and they say to me, “we don’t really have a role for that person.”
Well, I'd often get people sent to me, that my VC claimed were amazing and that I should to hire (they usually held senior roles at big/successful companies before). But, without fail, every single one I talked to was a technical idiot. They could talk a good game, and had lots of thoughts about process and structure, but couldn't code their way out of a paper bag.
To be polite, I'd usually tell the VC that there wasn't a good fit, or we didn't have a role for someone so senior, or management focused, or X right now. Would you tell the VC who just wrote you an $N million dollar check that the candidate he thinks is Einstein is an idiot because he claims he's a programmer who 'loves to get his hands dirty' but doesn't understand the difference between a hash table and a linked list? In hindsight, maybe I should have. But I suspect a lot of people won't.
And this was when I was literally the only coder in the company. We didn't need an engineering manager, we needed an engineer. And non-technical VCs couldn't see the difference. (Of course, in an ideal world, you hire someone who is both).
Maybe you need a metaphor for him, based in finance
"At the moment, we're a credit union who only does banking in Japan. We'll expand to loans in English one day. You send us an English speaking loan dilligence expert. He's VERY talented, but at the moment we can't use his skills AND he'd have to learn a whole new language to be able to interact with the rest of our business, none of which he's familiar with."
I've never been able to reconcile "Only hire A players" with the Dunning-Kruger effect.
"The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority."
"B players tend to have slightly more self-confidence issues." suggests to me that the many so-called B players are actually A players, and the so-called A players are F players.
I think one key assumption that you're missing is that it's possible to have an inferiority complex and a superiority complex at the same time. In fact, Adler believed that inferiority and superiority were two sides of the same coin. That is, people feel inferior and adjust their attitude to the outer world to over-compensate.
Steven Berglas has written a pretty good amount on this issue: http://hbr.org/2006/09/how-to-keep-a-players-productive/ar/1 ...There used to be a free version of this, but I can't find it anymore. Still, the introductory text is informative, and it's worth the $7 if this is a subject that's important to you.
To summarize though, "A Players" are often driven by an inferiority complex that constantly manifests itself as an external egotism because they're constantly trying to seek approval from others. When you work with them, your first reaction will probably be that they need to be "brought down a notch", but this is a mistake that will only make things worse. The key is helping to build confidence and show that you trust their abilities.
Agreed about illusory superiority and the Dunning-Kruger effect ... I'm pretty good at seeing people's strengths and potential, and so often am surprised to discover have a higher opinion of somebody's abilities then they do of themselves.
Also agreed that a lot of co-called A players aren't. Cultural and gender issues make it even more complex. In general I try to stay away from the whole notion of "A players" because of the connotations of grading (bleah) and a single scale. That said, I also think it's a mistake to hire somebody who think can't do a good enough job on your current needs; that's seting yourself up for failure.
Dunning-Kruger is about how a person rates themselves. The A/B/C system is a quick way of explaining things from the omniscient narrator perspective. The A/B/C is not about the self-rating of the person, it is about their real skill. Dunning-Kruger is thus not at all in effect in that saying. If you think you've got a B who is "really" an A, they almost by definition you're coming from the wrong perspective for that saying.
As for the other errors people can make in judging the skills of others, well, that is what A/B/C is about.
You can only do this once you've got enough people with sufficient of both. Having a company full of people with "Can-Do" attitude who can't do will lead to one of two things:
A: They all get frustrated and leave
B: Your technical company becomes a strange monster of convoluted processes achieving the same goal in a much worse way.
For instance, if you do scheduling for classrooms, you'll end up with a group of people who take orders for bookings on line, then manually try to fit them into a diary for an organization, and occasionally make mistakes.
The definition I perceive from the investment world is - 'Person X is an A player because both myself and other investors I respect pattern match that Person X is an A player'. The attributes of that pattern match vary, but include things like work that is well known, educational and professional pedigree, strong references from long trusted sources in industry, peer reputation, etc.
I've read the book Topgrading, which gives a definition of 'an A-player is someone in the top 10 percent of talent available at all salary levels for a well defined organizational role'.
I've perceived that many modern engineering cultures will bias towards calling an engineering candidate an A player if that candidate has worked with other engineers that are considered to be A players by the same culture. Of course, nearly all organizations have their own methods for assessing technical ability and previous experience as well.
What is the most useful definition of an A-player in a tech startup?
The most verifiable and useful definitions have to do with quantifiable results.
- Can they get things done?
- Can they act on their own initiative?
- Can they think 2 steps or more ahead?
- Can they code? Can they code well?
- Can they think and think well? Can they think *independently*?
These aren't quantifiable like temperature or width, but they are tangible and to some extent measurable.
The last two are the trickiest. For one thing, it's going to be very difficult for someone who doesn't code to be able to tell reliably if they can code. One can, however, watch someone code and observe their results. Likewise, it's sometimes going to be hard for someone who doesn't yet know how to code well to judge good code.
One can also listen to another's thoughts. However, someone who doesn't yet know how to think independently won't necessarily know what good independent thinking is. They'll only know what someone else tells them is good independent thinking.
I think the two most important things for me is 'Attitude over Aptitude' and 'Dont oversell'. We ve had 'A-players' come and go just because they either dint have the right attitude or were not sold on the idea (we oversold it at times).
I agree to me the main gist of that post was: "So sell, by all means. But don’t over sell. Don’t promise unrealistic things. Don’t over promise.s this quote:"
Sales of everything including hiring talented people is all about the under promising and over delivering. You do that with your customers and with your potential team mates.
I have heard something slightly different with regard to classes of players: "A players hire A players, B players hire C players, and C players hire losers."
I think a lot of people get too fixated on "hire only A players" and forget about "attitude over aptitude" and "culture matters". If the only A player you find for a role is an asshole, keep looking -- or be more flexible in your definition of the role.
If the only A player you find for a role is an asshole, keep looking -- or be more flexible in your definition of the role.
Sometimes, the problem is the definition of "asshole." For some people, this is "anyone who tells me I'm wrong, even if they do it nicely." Such people are not A players.
You should hire aptitude every time. You can work with and around attitude for more the most part (there are exceptions) but if somebody can't perform on a small team, there's simply nobody to cover for them.
If the ability to "go places" is what's important, than doesn't that make the C player the A player? It's like we're measuring something, then saying we really want to measure this other thing instead.
From the beginning you should know what skills your team lack. Sometimes you need the A persons. However, if you don't have that amount of money, search for those who can do the job. For the first days that's more valuable.
[+] [-] smanek|15 years ago|reply
Well, I'd often get people sent to me, that my VC claimed were amazing and that I should to hire (they usually held senior roles at big/successful companies before). But, without fail, every single one I talked to was a technical idiot. They could talk a good game, and had lots of thoughts about process and structure, but couldn't code their way out of a paper bag.
To be polite, I'd usually tell the VC that there wasn't a good fit, or we didn't have a role for someone so senior, or management focused, or X right now. Would you tell the VC who just wrote you an $N million dollar check that the candidate he thinks is Einstein is an idiot because he claims he's a programmer who 'loves to get his hands dirty' but doesn't understand the difference between a hash table and a linked list? In hindsight, maybe I should have. But I suspect a lot of people won't.
And this was when I was literally the only coder in the company. We didn't need an engineering manager, we needed an engineer. And non-technical VCs couldn't see the difference. (Of course, in an ideal world, you hire someone who is both).
[+] [-] petervandijck|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dylanlacey|15 years ago|reply
"At the moment, we're a credit union who only does banking in Japan. We'll expand to loans in English one day. You send us an English speaking loan dilligence expert. He's VERY talented, but at the moment we can't use his skills AND he'd have to learn a whole new language to be able to interact with the rest of our business, none of which he's familiar with."
[+] [-] ojbyrne|15 years ago|reply
"The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
The bit in this article about:
"B players tend to have slightly more self-confidence issues." suggests to me that the many so-called B players are actually A players, and the so-called A players are F players.
[+] [-] j_baker|15 years ago|reply
Steven Berglas has written a pretty good amount on this issue: http://hbr.org/2006/09/how-to-keep-a-players-productive/ar/1 ...There used to be a free version of this, but I can't find it anymore. Still, the introductory text is informative, and it's worth the $7 if this is a subject that's important to you.
To summarize though, "A Players" are often driven by an inferiority complex that constantly manifests itself as an external egotism because they're constantly trying to seek approval from others. When you work with them, your first reaction will probably be that they need to be "brought down a notch", but this is a mistake that will only make things worse. The key is helping to build confidence and show that you trust their abilities.
[+] [-] stcredzero|15 years ago|reply
Note, the Dunning-Kruger effect isn't an absolute law like the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Also, if someone has certain attributes like an "A Player" but is debilitated by self confidence, are they really an "A Player?"
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
Also agreed that a lot of co-called A players aren't. Cultural and gender issues make it even more complex. In general I try to stay away from the whole notion of "A players" because of the connotations of grading (bleah) and a single scale. That said, I also think it's a mistake to hire somebody who think can't do a good enough job on your current needs; that's seting yourself up for failure.
[+] [-] jerf|15 years ago|reply
As for the other errors people can make in judging the skills of others, well, that is what A/B/C is about.
[+] [-] Dylanlacey|15 years ago|reply
A: They all get frustrated and leave B: Your technical company becomes a strange monster of convoluted processes achieving the same goal in a much worse way.
For instance, if you do scheduling for classrooms, you'll end up with a group of people who take orders for bookings on line, then manually try to fit them into a diary for an organization, and occasionally make mistakes.
Attitude is a luxury.
[+] [-] jonmc12|15 years ago|reply
The definition I perceive from the investment world is - 'Person X is an A player because both myself and other investors I respect pattern match that Person X is an A player'. The attributes of that pattern match vary, but include things like work that is well known, educational and professional pedigree, strong references from long trusted sources in industry, peer reputation, etc.
I've read the book Topgrading, which gives a definition of 'an A-player is someone in the top 10 percent of talent available at all salary levels for a well defined organizational role'.
I've perceived that many modern engineering cultures will bias towards calling an engineering candidate an A player if that candidate has worked with other engineers that are considered to be A players by the same culture. Of course, nearly all organizations have their own methods for assessing technical ability and previous experience as well.
What is the most useful definition of an A-player in a tech startup?
[+] [-] stcredzero|15 years ago|reply
The last two are the trickiest. For one thing, it's going to be very difficult for someone who doesn't code to be able to tell reliably if they can code. One can, however, watch someone code and observe their results. Likewise, it's sometimes going to be hard for someone who doesn't yet know how to code well to judge good code.
One can also listen to another's thoughts. However, someone who doesn't yet know how to think independently won't necessarily know what good independent thinking is. They'll only know what someone else tells them is good independent thinking.
[+] [-] ankimal|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swampplanet|15 years ago|reply
Sales of everything including hiring talented people is all about the under promising and over delivering. You do that with your customers and with your potential team mates.
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] p_h|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theoj|15 years ago|reply
Here is a discussion from long ago about the phrase's origins: http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.50837.1...
[+] [-] jdp23|15 years ago|reply
I think a lot of people get too fixated on "hire only A players" and forget about "attitude over aptitude" and "culture matters". If the only A player you find for a role is an asshole, keep looking -- or be more flexible in your definition of the role.
[+] [-] stcredzero|15 years ago|reply
Sometimes, the problem is the definition of "asshole." For some people, this is "anyone who tells me I'm wrong, even if they do it nicely." Such people are not A players.
[+] [-] seiji|15 years ago|reply
Though, I know many CXOs who are firm C-Players.
[+] [-] bane|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shimi|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Psyonic|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] audriusarj|15 years ago|reply