[otto_sf]

Being an A or B player isn't something that happens at birth. Your performance at work depends on a lot of factors.

But there are B players out there, and A players are doing better work than them. This is irrefutable if you've ever worked on a team of significant size. It's not supposed to be some personality-damning attribute that implies a B player is forever doomed, or always brings less utility to the table than an A player. It is specific to their current role, work, etc.

[calinet6]

"But there are B players out there, and A players are doing better work than them."

Yes, but it turns out the correct question is why, not who.

When you ask why, you find out how to make everyone succeed. When you ask who, you get a slew of negative cultural consequences.

[otto_sf]

No. There is no correct question. There are a ton of factors involved in an individual's performance, some of which are personal, some are organizational, some are circumstantial.

Don't oversimplify it. Asking why does not allow you to find out how to make everyone succeed. It might help. It might not. But in general, I don't put much stock in notions of everybody succeeding. That's rhetoric, not real world.

[neilellis]

I agree.

I would say we all can be A or B players depending on a huge mixture of psychological factors including what people think of us, what we think of ourselves, what we think of the job we do ... and countless more.

If someone's company is full of 'B players' in reality they're saying their company is full of under motivated people. Why they are under motivated is a different matter and can be a complex affair usually combining internal and external factors.