Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players

danielmiessler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 53 posts

Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players

#11

Post by beachy »

kelukelugames wrote: post #2

I 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.

Maybe what they should have added is "within an acceptable time period".

If it takes a skilled, determined manager (say) 6 months to mould a C player into an A player, then that's a big hit on the manager's time, and an eternity (in the modern fast paced world) before the employee starts delivering the goods. It might not make business sense to make that kind of investment, especially if the typical employee leaves after 2 years.

Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players

#14

Post by danielrm26 »

thesmallestcat wrote: post #8
danielrm26 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 addr…

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

Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players

#15

Post by danielrm26 »

rjsw wrote: post #10

Isn't the real problem that B player managers do treat their C player reports like A players, and that both of them believe it ?

Treating them like an A player includes not babying them and telling them they're amazing when they mess up. So, no, you shouldn't have that problem.

Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players

#16

Post by thesmallestcat »

danielrm26 wrote: post #14
thesmallestcat wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 addr…

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.

Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players

#17

Post by wellpast »

Spoken like an A-player.

It is unfortunately not uncommon to find people who see the world as a fixed bag of A- vs. C-ers (and many of course whom think of themselves in the A category.)

But this is a fixed mindset and I think it correlates (when you get down to it) to one's own private/personal sense of their ability to grow.

You really want to become a rockstar/master/A-player? Don't define yourself by your skill set. Always keep a clear focus on that wide gap between you and what you could be. In other words, always think of yourself as a B-player trying to get to A. Know you'll never get there, but keep trying. Do this, and you'll reach excellence.

You'll also see how little difference there is between you and the "C-"...and then you can collaborate on helping each other toward mastery.

Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players

#18

Post by vladgiverts »

This post touched on an interesting part of human nature. So much of our personality and behavior is based on the identity that we create for ourselves. Most of that gets set in early childhood, but we keep adding to it with our latest experiences at work, with friends, dating, etc.

"Girl didn't like me? Maybe I'm not attractive." Have that experience enough times and it becomes a part of how you view yourself (i.e. your Identity) and you'll behave accordingly. A lot us struggle with identity issues that cause us to act out in unproductive ways, particularly when we're treated badly (like as if we're a c-player the author points out).

I think treating people with respect and giving them the benefit of the doubt as the author advocates is spot on, which is what I suspect is what he meant by treating c-players as a-players.

What I don't think the author meant was that we should treat ALL c-players like a-players as that sounds like an oversimplification. It would only help if someone is actually high potential and their ego and self-esteem issues get in their way. That's far from the only reason people perform poorly. Quite often, someone is simply less capable than the top performers (that flows from the definition of "top" performance). And yes, with experience and practice, people can improve. And it's good to assume they will and give them the guidance they need to get there.

But if you treat someone as if they're better than they really are, they might feel better about themselves but they could also loose the motivation to improve because they're getting the signal that "they're already there" and they'll start to develop a distorted self-image that could lead to other kinds of problems.

Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players

#19

Post by maxxxxx »

kelukelugames wrote: post #2

I 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.

From my experience most people who talk like that are D players themselves. They are just pricks who blame their own failures on the people that work for them.

Most real A players I know are very much into coaching other people and giving them opportunities to grow.

Re: Why You Should Treat C-Players Like A-Players

#20

Post by kybernetikos »

beachy wrote: post #11
kelukelugames wrote: post #2

I 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.

Maybe what they should have added is "within an acceptable time period". If it takes a skilled, determined manager (say) 6 months to mould a C player into an A player, then that's a big hit on the manager's time, and an eternity (in the modern fast paced world) before the employee starts delivering the goods. It might not make business sense to make that kind of investment, especially if the typical employee leaves a…

Sure, if your hypothetical determined manager never expects to need a job elsewhere, is never in a position where a previous employee speaking well of them is useful, doesn't need to hone their mentoring skills and never expects to be in a position where hiring someone who left years ago might be possible.
Post reply on HN