I think breaking people down into A, B, and C-players is dehumanizing bullshit.
And its totally possible for a supposed 'A player' to suffer a dip in productivity (due to, y'know, LIFE) and its similarly possible for a B player to upgrade to an A given enough experience.
Overall the whole A/B/C boxing just smacks of 'humans as resources'.
I have a theory that because American society is so ultra-competitive it alienates people who think it's impossible for them to ever be "winners", leading to Some of these people to "win" by shooting the Winners and the indifferent. Are mass school shootings done by C players so think they won't ever be A players and who take it out on the perfect As and indifferent Bs?
I've caught myself thinking things like "I have to be the best in the world or I'm going to be stuck in $DEADENDJOB". That can be detrimental and have the opposite effect to what you want.
Over the past while, I've become more proactive and I'm trying to make positive changes in how I interact with co-workers and what I do and don't get involved with at work. Even if you do believe in "A" players, there's a limit to how much one person can take on and manage.
In fact, I specifically addressed the case of an "A player" having a dip in productivity, and essentially said there is nothing wrong with that. They manage their time and their output accordingly to strike an appropriate work/life balance to take care of what needs to be done outside of work, and also manage against burnout when they've been pushing too hard for too long. And the fact that they manage this effectively on their own and can get back into things is part of what distinguishes an "A player" from a "B/C player."
The A/B/C boxing is just a shorthand for categorizing overall performance of people on a team. But if you think it is an inappropriate way to classify individuals, I'd love to learn how you approach it, and how much management experience you have with that approach.
My issue is that A/B/C boxing is almost binary view.
You're either good or you're not.
Life isn't that simple.
I've worked with fantastic developers who are a pain to communicate and participate on a team with. I've worked with average developers who can anticipate customer needs from a spec better than most and are energising for a team. I've never worked with someone who is excellent at all facets of their job. I have worked with some people who seemed hopeless at all facets (though it always struck me that they're in the wrong sector rather than just being completely useless individuals).
The largest team I've led has been 5 people whom I had much experience with and so knew various strengths and weaknesses.
And I'm rambling here but that loops back to my first point: people have strengths and weaknesses and boxing them into lettered teams just ignores this.
The boxing is simply a way of summarizing those in a simplified (perhaps overly-simplified) manner.
If a developer is great at coding but a paint to communicate with and has participation issues, that honestly strikes me as a "B player" if communication and participation are key parts of their job. If not, then those factors aren't as important in terms of weighing overall performance, and that could make the same person an "A player" in a role with differing responsibilities.
I also have never worked with someone who is excellent at all facets of their job. The question is, are they excellent enough at the core aspects of the job where their weaknesses are sufficiently offset. And this is where you can compare team members. It all comes down to their responsibilities, the needs of the team/business, and how they are tracking against those.
So to summarize--everyone is indeed unique in terms of strengths and weaknesses. But at some point the weighting of those strengths and weaknesses tends to crystallize into something more easily categorized as a higher-level bucket of "exceptional", "meets expectations" (and that's not a bad thing), or "needs improvement." A/B/C is just a shorthand convention for that.
It claimed exactly this mentality, where, for example, A players are allowed to manage their worload and avoid burnout, B players have little liberty, and C players had none.
Not that I don't think everybody is as capable, but the environment's influence is so great that, except for a really small amout of obviously incompetent people, you won't have a good idea of who is who.
Maybe A,B,C players was an insightful distinction at one time, but now it's such a cliche that the only people you expect to say it are the ones that sleep with a copy of Jack Welches autobiography under their pillow
In any team, there is often a sense of some people being better at their jobs, or performing at a higher-level than others. If they do it consistently enough and progressively tackle higher-level problems, that is a good indicator someone might be on track for a promotion.
If someone is good at their job, but doesn't really push themselves to improve, that might be ok for the time being depending on the role, it just means that person is less likely to advance, or advance as quickly as the former person.
And then you have people who are very clear underperforming. Whether it be lack of attention to detail, poor communication, letting things slip through the cracks, or just not doing their work. If you can work with them to improve in the areas needed, awesome. If not, you often need to get them off the team one way or another.
There is nothing dehumanizing about this. It is recognizing people's strengths and weaknesses, and trying to optimize accordingly for the best outcome. Further, to pretend that this dichotomy does not exist is sticking your head in the sand.
At the end of the day, regardless of the category these individuals fall into, they are people, and I never said otherwise, so I don't appreciate you trying to paint me as such. Not all humans are equal at their jobs, and if you can't identify that and adjust your management style and approach accordingly, you can't be a successful manager.
I'd disagree his comment is unconstructive and argue that the aforementioned philsophy is a _destructive_ one.
If we take that away, the terms are as good as any, and I think it does a disservice to believe that all employees (sw engineers in this case, but in general I suspect) have equal capabilities.
In the context of my engineering experience, I consistently see ~4 strata. Not all levels may be present at a given company.
* Outstanding - has vision not only about how to do something, but why they need to be done in the first place. Open to helping others learn and improve. Has a way of being able to demonstrate that his or her plan for things is the best approach - and can accept when it's not. Is quick to learn both the internals of a system, and internalize the bird's-eye view of it as well. As such can design complex interactions between components.
* Excellent - just under 'outstanding'. This person gets things done with little direction, but gets lost in the weeds sometimes. Has a deep knowledge of the system and troubleshoots well. Can design key components of the system. Can often grow to 'outstanding' over time.
* Good - Needs direction to make the scope of problems clear. Can usually find a solution to a problem on his or her own - it may not be optimal, but you can be certain he or she will understand it thoroughly. Good troubleshooter. Can design small changes.
* Adequate - give them a spec and/or strict instructions, and they'll get the job done. Don't come to them for any deep understanding of the system - unless you have years to wait for that knowledge to seep in via osmosis or repetition.
Note that none of those mentions as criteria, "willing to go the extra mile", "works around the clock", and "buckles down and see crunch time through".
I think when you add those additional criteria is when you get into dehumanizing territory.
I think it is a lot about focus, and the type of work. If you are 100% laser-focused on something in a very stressful situation, you can still burnout from spending "normal" hours on it without overtime.
For example, if I'm running a major holiday promotion (and I am), that is incredibly stressful from a cognitive load standpoint. The actual tasks may not require me to burn the midnight oil, but I sure as heck need a mental break afterwards. Whether that break is actual time off or just switching gears to something not as mentally demanding is a separate issue.
Individuals who can constantly be laser-focused on mentally straining tasks are a rare breed. I'm also not sure how healthy it is for someone to keep that pace up.