Member-only story

The “A-Player” discussion is morally reprehensible

Ted Bauer
3 min readMay 6, 2022

It might be. Here’s the analogy I want you to think about, then I will try to present this on both sides of the issue. Ready? Set? Let’s go.

If you could design a workout program and there were tiers of equipment — let’s say world-class equipment, mid-level, and shitty — would you give the world-class equipment to those people who were already tremendously fit?

Well, you might. Or they might gravitate towards it naturally, whereas those who aren’t fit at all might not even know what to do.

This is probably a flawed analogy, admittedly, but it ties back to how companies deal with their perceived “A-Players,” or “top talent.” They tend to throw every resource, perk, benefit, extra piece of scratch, learning opportunity, travel/conference opportunity, etc. at those people. Everyone considered mid-level gets scraps. Everyone considered low-level gets ignored and then fired when revenue erodes.

(Not “everyone” per se, but these are general buckets.)

There are a couple of different issues with the whole “A-Player” ecosystem, which we’ll now go one-by-one on.

Are “A-Players” even “A-Players?”

I’d argue “no.” Oftentimes they are C-Players who make bosses look good/better, so the bosses anoint

--

--

Ted Bauer
Ted Bauer

Written by Ted Bauer

I write about a lot of different topics, from work to masculinity to relationships and social dynamics, I.e. modern friendship. Pleasure to be here.

Responses (4)