5 ms·

I come from a different generation where people aren't all assumed to be equally smart and equally talented. So I very much subscribe to the idea that some peo

I come from a different generation where people aren't all assumed to be equally smart and equally talented. So I very much subscribe to the idea that some people are clearly smarter and more talented than others. There are definitely A players who are demotivated and become B players. But the point of "Only hire A players! Fire B players!" is simply due to the fact that most startups can't afford to sit around and move demotivated employees around until they find a good fit. It's also the same reason why many startups don't train people for jobs and instead expect them to be already experienced. The number 1 currency for startups is time, and if they don't get traction quickly, the entire company will falter. Wasting time and money on an employee that isn't a good fit, regardless of how intrinsically talented they are doesn't make sense, because the entire survival of the company demands that everyone is performing at top levels for a relatively short period of time. As the company grows and turns a profit, and if it can afford to invest in employees, it might make more sense to try to elevate the performance of their B players by moving them around, etc. But that requires a more mature company.

mike_hearn 12y ago
I first heard this mantra at Google, which was far from a startup even when I joined in 2006. It could easily afford to try and find the right fit for people. In fact it took the opposite approach: you were only allowed to move around and try a new job or position if you already were doing well in your existing position. Internal transfers were seen as a reward for good behaviour, or perhaps it was to avoid bad employees avoiding detection by constantly moving around between managers.
vonmoltke 12y ago
> But the point of "Only hire A players! Fire B players!" is simply due to the fact that most startups can't afford to sit around and move demotivated employees around until they find a good fit. I think that is very much correct. However, a central point of Daniel's post, modified for this example, is that one startup's "A-player" is another startup's "B-player", and vice versa. Additionally, its kinda hard to figure out who is going to be an "A-player" for you in the hiring process. > It's also the same reason why many startups don't train people for jobs and instead expect them to be already experienced. I'd argue that many startups don't have a handle on what they actually need, and depending on how fluid their execution is at a given time such a handle may not be possible.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > one startup's "A-player" is another startup's "B-player", and vice versa. Or even within the same company, just different roles.
sheepmullet 12y ago
"It's also the same reason why many startups don't train people for jobs and instead expect them to be already experienced." Most A players don't have experience with your specific stack. The A players who do can contract for 3-4x what a startup can offer (and 1% equity offers won't change their mind). Which is why startups end up hiring mainly B players. Nothing wrong with a solid B player btw.

mike_hearn 12y ago

I first heard this mantra at Google, which was far from a startup even when I joined in 2006. It could easily afford to try and find the right fit for people. In fact it took the opposite approach: you were only allowed to move around and try a new job or position if you already were doing well in your existing position. Internal transfers were seen as a reward for good behaviour, or perhaps it was to avoid bad employees avoiding detection by constantly moving around between managers.

vonmoltke 12y ago

> But the point of "Only hire A players! Fire B players!" is simply due to the fact that most startups can't afford to sit around and move demotivated employees around until they find a good fit. I think that is very much correct. However, a central point of Daniel's post, modified for this example, is that one startup's "A-player" is another startup's "B-player", and vice versa. Additionally, its kinda hard to figure out who is going to be an "A-player" for you in the hiring process. > It's also the same reason why many startups don't train people for jobs and instead expect them to be already experienced. I'd argue that many startups don't have a handle on what they actually need, and depending on how fluid their execution is at a given time such a handle may not be possible.

jacquesm 12y ago
> one startup's "A-player" is another startup's "B-player", and vice versa. Or even within the same company, just different roles.

sheepmullet 12y ago

"It's also the same reason why many startups don't train people for jobs and instead expect them to be already experienced." Most A players don't have experience with your specific stack. The A players who do can contract for 3-4x what a startup can offer (and 1% equity offers won't change their mind). Which is why startups end up hiring mainly B players. Nothing wrong with a solid B player btw.