Hacker News Reader

Comment by joelmichael | Hacker News Reader

I think his disdain for "B-level and C-level people" is arrogant. I see this sentiment a lot amongst startups and coders, the idea that some people are good and the rest are complete garbage. There is no objective measurement for this. I've seen people described as top-level that I thought were awful, and even though I think highly of myself I'm sure not everyone does. Some people use validation by the scene as measurement of a person's worth; I'd like to know what the author thinks makes an A-level person. Presumably, being popular in the scene disqualifies them. Nevermind the hip startups with good connections that get sold for many millions of dollars.

View on HN

"A-level person" is really an attitude, not a personality trait. It means that you're engaged in the work, you're aware of all the relevant factors you need to consider to make a good project, you creatively and proactively seek out problems and solve them, and so on. Basically, that you're Smart and Get Things Done.

You can take someone who's C-level (just coasting) at one company, transplant them to another company, and they might become an A-level player. If someone thinks the work they're doing is pointless, they're probably not going to invest much effort in that work, regardless of how smart they are. Put them in a situation where they really care about how well the company does, and you might see very different results.

Conversely, you can take someone who was A-level at one company, transplant them into another company, and find they're suddenly underperforming. If there's a culture mismatch or they think everyone around them is a doofus, they're probably not going to do a good job.

I think that the article's point is pretty much right on, unless someone's job is specifically to sell to people in the Scene. After all, if they're engaged in the Scene, they're probably not engaged with their work, and that's really what being an A-level player is about.

Totally agree with except for one nit. I don't think involvement of engagement in the Scene is really a damning characteristic in and of itself. Whilst engagement in the Scene is definitely not a necessary or even useful thing for someone to do, I don't think I'd go so far as to say that it can be harmful (at least any more so than I'd warn someone to stay away from drinking or gambling).

I submit that it is possible to enjoy the perks of the Scene like meeting other folks doing similar things, sharing ideas, comparing practices and so forth in moderation, without getting sucked into a time-wasting echo-chamber that doesn't provide any value.

Well, if level is this mutable, it's not really useful. I.e. you couldn't use historical achievements as a predictor of someone's level.

There are higher-level attitudes like: "I won't commit to something I can't deliver / If I commit to something I will deliver" that may fall under your attitude categorization, and also correlate to the person's record.

When the author says, "B- and C-level players" -- I think he means anyone who isn't adding real value. He's not referring to some unseen caste system.

The problem is there is a fair population of people who do believe in such a caste system and use the "A-level" to describe those they think are on top. If you want to mean something else, it would be clearer to use different terminology.

Talks on startup hiring always refer to "A players", "B players" and "C players". I was speaking in that context.

The great companies were built on this kind of arrogance.

There is an objective test to find out if you're an A-player: people who have successfully built something in the past want you on their next team.

(This doesn't capture all the people who could be A-players, or are at that level but aren't known to many.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com