B Trumps A
The following story was told by an executive who had come to me for advice. The XYZ Company had a vacancy for a new sales director. In due course, facilitated by a headhunting firm, the number of candidates was narrowed down to two. Given the company’s ambitious expansion program, most people who had met the two final candidates were convinced that candidate A was the much better choice. In light of this candidate’s extensive sales experience (she had worked for one of XYZ’s major competitors), most of the executives who had interviewed her were convinced that she would be able to introduce the innovative sales management techniques needed to attain the projected growth targets. But to everybody’s surprise, the VP Sales & Marketing decided to select candidate B. Given candidate B’s more conventional sales background, all those in the know strongly believed that he was not the right person to serve the company’s future needs. They thought his skill set was too similar to that of the person he was replacing. The VP’s choice came as a surprise to everyone.
Personal or Company Agenda?
The opening quote at the start of this chapter says that A-grade people hire A-grade people, and B-grade people hire C-grade people. Of course, it goes without saying that individuals are much more complex than this suggests. They don’t slot neatly into A, B, or C grades. But these kinds of rankings can be basic differentiators, to simplify our assessment of people.
The Deadly Sin of Envy
It is certainly a common phenomenon in organizational life that some B-players—who may not be confident about their own level of competence—end up failing to hire the best people. Their feelings of personal insecurity, and the idea that someone might out-perform or even replace them, are too threatening. These people may be subject to the “deadly sin” of envy, a ubiquitous behavior pattern that colors all human relationships, and which I already wrote about in Chap. 15. Envy explains why so many people are capable of spiteful, vindictive actions. Because they covet something another person possesses or feel threatened by another person’s abilities, feelings of envy can become very destructive.1 It is a feature of the kind of social comparisons that accompany it, that threaten the envier’s self-image, leading to feelings of deficiency, inadequacy, and inferiority. In turn, these induce feelings of resentment toward others who are perceived to be more successful, whether in terms of money, power, status, beauty, luck, or simply happiness. When this happens, the envier not only succumbs to unhappiness, but also becomes spiteful, wanting to hurt the envied person in various ways. Enviers can become withholding, and generally unhelpful. Consciously or unconsciously, these B-players feel they have been treated unfairly—and that the perceived wrongs they have experienced justify their behavior.
A, B, or C?
It is not surprising that some B-players, tormented by envy, do not hire people as competent as them and end up hiring C-players. Interestingly, they often get away with it. After all, nobody wears an obvious sign labeling them A, B, or C. But although these decisions might fit their personal agenda, they are not going to be in the best interests of the organization.
The case I began with signifies that in every hiring decision, the people doing the hiring are faced with the question whether they should hire someone perceived to be above their level, in the organization’s interest, or hire a less competent person who would make them look better and make them feel more secure in their position, notwithstanding the cost to the organization. In most instances, the way the hiring process evolves will depend on the hirer’s level of emotional security—the fragility of their self-esteem. If a person has a secure sense of self-esteem, faulty hiring decisions are less likely.
From what I have seen, given the various psychodynamic processes at play, insecure B-players tend to be intimidated by A-players. They worry that high-flyers will make them look bad, and fear, consciously or unconsciously, that they are out to replace them. No wonder that so many insecure B-players prefer to surround themselves with people who, in comparison, make them look good. Some are even inclined (again, not necessarily a conscious decision) to use office politics to stifle the ambitions of other B-players and try to turn them into C-players by, for example, withholding important information or insisting on following pointless hierarchical procedures—all tactics aimed at holding others back. Unfortunately, this behavior either gives B-players a false sense of security or fails to give them the security they crave for. Both outcomes are unsatisfactory. Seeing organizational life as a zero-sum-game—a place with only winners or losers—stops an organization moving forward and sets the stage for organizational decline. When such attitudes prevail, nobody wins, and everyone loses. The most likely scenario, when there are too many mediocre people in an organization, is that the climate in the workplace deteriorates, productivity slips, the work environment becomes less professional, and the company goes into the red. As a result, the best people will feel marginalized and even leave, lending truth to the saying, “Good enough is the enemy of great.”
Another, less Machiavellian, explanation of why B-players are selected is that some B-players fail to recognize A-players. They tend not to be very good at talent assessment. Another factor that can influence selection procedures is that some A-players may come across as arrogant. By behaving like know-it-alls, they rub B-players up the wrong way, exacerbating emerging feelings of envy, and ending up not being hired.
Returning to the case of XYZ Company, and its surprise choice of a new sales director, the fears of many turned out to be valid. According to my client, it didn’t take very long to discover that the chosen candidate wasn’t up to par. Given his limited knowledge of new sales techniques, he was unable to respond to the challenges posed by the competition. Sometimes later, not only was he blamed for the resulting decline in sales, but his mediocre performance also negatively affected the reputation of the VP who had hired him, who was ultimately held responsible. Although the VP tried to attribute the lack of success to external factors beyond his control, his lame excuses did not fool anyone. I found it ironic, knowing that if he had realized that the smart decision would have been to have the courage to hire someone more capable than himself, his position within the organization might have been more secure.
To finish this depressing tale, as the company’s market position deteriorated, the CEO told the VP to fire his chosen candidate, and soon after, given the sales fiasco, the VP was also asked to leave. Apparently, the CEO felt he had no choice but to step in and do some damage control. He had learned from hard experience that hiring the wrong people was the quickest way to destroy a company. Following this incident, the CEO decided to become much more involved in the hiring of senior people and make talent management, rather than damage limitation, a priority.
Different Scenarios
Returning to the question of A-players versus B-players, I have seen how many A-players do indeed recognize the benefits of working with other A-players. They are not afraid of talented people—in fact, concern for their own careers can motivate them to develop the people who work for them. They understand that the people they work with will determine the success of the organization and support their own personal success. They recognize that organizations full of talented people will offer them more space for growth and development. All of this means that they are prepared to hire people better than themselves. This is a very different mindset from those B-players who prefer to keep their subordinates’ skill levels well below their own. Such people do not prioritize leadership development and the career progression of others.
From a more political perspective, there will always be some A-players with a hyper-competitive outlook who prefer to work in companies full of Bs and Cs, seeing this as an opportunity for a rapid rise to the top. Consequently, they may sabotage the hiring process in their favor. A less cold-blooded scenario is one where A-players realize too late that the company that they have joined is full of B or even C performers. Not having seen this coming, they become disenchanted, and worry that these Bs and Cs will drag them down to their level. It will not be good for their further development. Their situation will be worsened if B-players perceive them as a threat and sabotage whatever they are doing. Some high performers could even become the target of convoluted psychological games to get them out of the organization. More optimistically, some A-players—with a more constructive outlook—will rise to the challenge that such organizations offer and try to change the place for the better. Realistically, however, the greater likelihood is that such people get tired of fighting uphill battles and decide to leave.
It is, of course, possible to have too many A-players in an organization. After the alternative scenarios I’ve presented here, organizations full of A-players may sound like best places to work. Unfortunately, managing and retaining so many high-flyers can become very hard work. Too many A-players can shake things up too much and their restlessness means they are always on the lookout for better positions elsewhere. Also, with too many ambitious A-players, organizational culture can become over-competitive, raising the possibility of an uncomfortably Darwinian scenario, having become an environment based on the survival of the fittest.
Of course, it is also true that not everyone aspires to be the king or the queen of the castle, and not everyone has the same motivations. Some people will be very achievement-oriented, while others prefer a more balanced lifestyle. Some kind of mix between As and Bs would be ideal but for each this always begs the question of how many is too many?
A company’s long-term performance—even its survival—is often the result of the unsung commitment and contributions from its B-players, at least those who have a solid dose of inner security. These people are often the workhorses that bring stability to the organization, counterbalancing the A-players who may be inclined to engage in risky destabilizing behaviors. These more secure B-players—less interested in organizational gamesmanship—just get on with their work.
Another frequent scenario that I have encountered is the presence of a significant number of Bs in A-dominated organizations. Some of these Bs may be delighted about the potential learning opportunities this scenario offers; for others, the experience may be less positive, as the As might not make life easy for them. Dazzled by the capabilities of this elite group, many insecure Bs may find it hard to stand up to them. For their part, some As may find it difficult to deal with the B team, whom they might have labeled “dumb,” or incompetent. They might find it tiresome having to communicate ideas that, to them, seem quite obvious. Obviously, these frictions will not make for a great working environment.
There will also be situations where the loyalty of A-players is questionable. Because they are in high demand, with ample opportunities in other organizations, some of them are inclined to believe that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Some A-players may even look at their current organization as a temporary holding station—a great place to learn and then move on, part of a well-thought-through career strategy. In comparison, B-players tend to be more loyal, recognizing that they do not have so many opportunities elsewhere—another reason why it is wise to have a mix of street-smart, pragmatic Bs and more conceptual A-thinkers. That combination can take an organization a long way.
What I consider the worst scenario, from a talent and cultural perspective, is when a company gradually goes down the drain due to the presence of too many B- or C-players.2 As the top performers leave, the Bs and Cs start to look good but that is nothing more than another kind of optical illusion: they only look better because the quality of the talent pool in the organization has been diminished. When that happens, in relative terms, the Cs begin to look like Bs and the Bs more like As. This downward slide is an insidious but relentless process until mediocrity becomes the norm. In many instances, alarm bells only start ringing when there is a steep slide in profitability and the competition starts outperforming the organization. Unfortunately, from this point on, it becomes increasingly difficult to bring good people back into the company.
I don’t have a simple formula for what makes people and an organization successful. Just as there is no baby without a mother, there are no A-, B-, or C-players without a context. It is everyone’s challenge to create a context where people can operate at their best. I don’t think that anyone has to be stuck for life with a B or C label. Given the right learning opportunities, I have seen many people going through a remarkable transformation. If senior management put real effort into leadership development, many B-players have a good chance to transform into A-players. Also, some people may be ranked as B-players simply because they are less attention-seeking than A-players, and are overlooked when it comes to promotions, or because they don’t disguise their preference for a more balanced lifestyle over a high-pressure job. Or again, some B- or C-players are just in the wrong job, or the wrong company, which can be very demotivating. They will probably be much happier—and ranked differently—in a different position or different organization.
The Psychodynamics of Hiring
As I suggested, the majority of the workforce in most organizations is made up of competent, stabilizing B-players. The question remains, however, whether they can be trusted to be unbiased when making hiring decisions. Are they capable of hiring people better than themselves? Will they be tempted to go for Cs rather than As or other Bs? Typically—given the psychological effects of insecurity and envy—downward hiring is not made at a conscious level, but the effect is no less real because, even at their best, C-players are only marginally competent.
Unfortunately, C-players are not always easy to spot. Like most of us, they try to present their best selves during interviews. The references they provide are often not much help, either. As a general rule, references should always be read with caution.
As we can see from the XYZ Company case, C-players are usually recognized for what they really are after a relatively short period of time on the job, even though they may attribute their lack of success to factors beyond their control. But being found out as C-players doesn’t necessarily mean they will disappear. As the case indicates, some B-players may fear that recruiting, then removing, a poorer performer will be taken as a sign of their ineffective leadership, and so they tend to hold on to C-players for as long as possible, which can turn out to be very costly for the organization.
A major take-away from the scenarios that I have outlined here is that you should pay considerable attention to unconscious psychodynamic processes when making hiring decisions—rather as you do when you are dating. Hiring and dating actually have a lot in common. Both are complex psychological processes during which either party can make huge errors. When hiring or dating, you do well to acknowledge that unconscious biases exist; if you don’t take these into consideration, they can have an insidious effect on the whole process of finding the right fit. It’s not enough to base hiring decisions on gut feelings. Much more is needed to be able to identify and hire talented people.
A-players are a scarce commodity, and it takes time and effort to develop the discipline necessary to put A-level hiring standards in place. Getting the right mix of A- and B-players requires much sensitivity and skill. No organization sets out to deliberately hire only B- or C-players but the people doing the hiring need to recognize that ineffective hiring practices will rapidly degrade the talent management pool, drive out potential A-players, and prevent the company from attracting new ones.
I recommend that all executives should keep in mind that hiring should always be part of a long-term strategy, not a quick fix for an immediate problem. I believe that the tougher the hiring process, the easier it will be to manage the people that are hired later on; so, from a procedural point of view, it is useful to have organizational discussions about (unconscious) biases, and the steps that need to be taken to minimize their negative effects. Although it is not always easy to admit to our personal insecurities, and how these might affect hiring decisions, these discussions will never be wasted. If the organization’s leadership is prepared to deal with “undiscussables” when embarking on hiring, much harm will be avoided.
Selection processes are never going to be perfect but giving more people voice when hiring decisions are made is a highly effective way to minimize the effects of unconscious biases. As a general rule, it is advisable to involve people with very different outlooks in the selection process. The greater the diversity (in age, race, gender, experience, education), the more likely it is that biases will be minimized, groupthink will be avoided, and more thoughtful decisions will be taken.
From what I have learned from having been involved in many of these activities, the hiring process should always start with well-crafted job specifications that clearly define the skills, capabilities, and level of experience required for the position. But as well as verifying these essential qualifications, decision-makers need to assess a candidate’s ability to fit in with the existing organizational culture. Generally speaking, very unstructured interviews aren’t always helpful here. Standardizing the hiring process as far as possible, so that each candidate follows the same steps, will facilitate this assessment. When the people doing the hiring commit themselves to high standards for recruitment, and take a long-term view of expectations, the organization can only benefit.
Another important consideration is that the people involved in hiring should always be prepared to push back against calls to fill a position quickly. This sort of pressure only compromises hiring standards. It is better to delay a hire and resume searching rather than accept a lower-quality candidate who will take a long time to come up to par or, worse still, self-destruct. If several people involved in the hiring decision are ambivalent about a specific candidate, it would be wiser not to go ahead.
Finally, once hiring has taken place, the people who have made the hiring decision need to be able to explain clearly why they have chosen a particular candidate. Undertaking this kind of review will help identify whether certain types of candidates are being deselected or whether an opportunity to hire suitable candidates has been affected by unconscious biases in the selection process. Always remember that time spent on hiring is never wasted. A rush to recruit, with the risk of taking on the wrong person, is so much costlier.
The redoubtable business leader Lee Iacocca once said, “I hire people brighter than me and I get out of their way.” This could be taken as a mantra for the hiring process. However, this involves successfully transcending our inner demons of insecurity and envy. In short, you better remind yourself that people who lack inner security are more likely to make self-interested decisions that are not in the best interests of the organization.