Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players
danielmiessler.com
Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players
#2I remember listening to a 30 year old manager say you can't turn a C player into a B or a B into an A. That's a poor attitude for a manager.
Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players
#3Great article. I very much agree with all the points made, and see a lot of myself in the author's hindsight about themselves.
Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players
#4You know you're in for a good ride when,
"This is so pronounced that if I were to evaluate myself 15 or even 10 years ago, I wouldn’t recognize myself as an A-player. I simply wasn’t one. And yet here I sit looking down at my previous self."
Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players
#5The 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.
Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players
#6The 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.
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.
Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players
#7I remember listening to a 30 year old manager say you can't turn a C player into a B or a B into an A. That's a poor attitude for a manager.
Agreed. Their preconceptions would ensure that those under them would adhere to that belief as their achievements would probably be discounted and not be given any opportunities to shine. I would remove this person from a managerial position.
Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players
#8The 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.
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.
Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players
#9I remember listening to a 30 year old manager say you can't turn a C player into a B or a B into an A. That's a poor attitude for a manager.
I think my response would be something like, "You're right, I can't turn them into A people, but they can. That's not my job. My job is to help them get there."
Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players
#10Isn't the real problem that B player managers do treat their C player reports like A players, and that both of them believe it ?