Leadership Tips – What is a B Player?

Introduction

Leadership responsibilities include dealing with the reality that people contribute and perform at different levels, and that leaders must recognize and reward people accordingly.
With innovation and change at the heart of competitive success, we all need people who take risks and challenge the status quo. But if all we had were risk takers, we’d be in a lot of trouble. The best performers come in various styles.

A word from the experts

I just finished reading an article originally published on Harvard Business Online. The title was “Let’s Hear it for B Players” and it annoyed me, especially at first.

You see, the authors argued that the B players were actually more valuable to an organization than A-players. They described the B-players as solid, stable, well-informed performers who are more committed to the company than their own personal glory.

They suggested that A-players seek out and often achieve the big score, but are also more prone to “missteps” and mistakes, not to mention going to another position.

Let me understand it. Are these guys arguing that good soldiers are more valuable than risk takers? We live in a world of change, where competitors are always striving to improve their people, processes and technology. Play it safe, and you might as well prepare to eat your dust.

What is a player B?

The article goes on to describe who the B-players are. They first talk about building A-players, and here they use PC language to essentially describe older workers who are very knowledgeable. These people have reached a point in life where the pursuit of personal glory is no longer worth the sacrifice, especially in terms of work-life balance.

Okay, but these aren’t necessarily B-players. Maybe they don’t want to travel 80% of the time, and maybe they’re not looking for the corner office, but most of them would bristle at the suggestion that they’re “ex” stars.

Others described as B-players are those with longevity and strong “organizational memory,” who do not overreact to crises and turbulence, and who are highly adaptable to change. Are those B players? They sound like potential leaders to me.

I once knew a guy in a pretty senior IT position who liked to say “I don’t have stress, I give it”. But he said it with humor (at least I think he did). Under pressure, he was a very solid player who kept his cool and kept his people focused on the goal at hand. He was never a B player.

a label problem

The Harvard Business article defended the value of these people and the dangers of giving all the recognition and reward to high-profile risk takers while their quiet but steady people are quietly frustrated. That argument is sound; It’s the labels that are wrong.

We need agents of change. We need people with the experience and maturity to recognize the difference between innovative ideas and change for change’s sake. We need the quiet superstars that others look up to. I like to call those key opinion leaders. They are often lost in an organization and a good leader finds and rewards them.

If you’re going to label artists (and without debating Jack Welch’s philosophy, let’s face it, most of us do), you need room in Category A for more than just risk-taking cowboys.

The notion that player B is more valuable than player A is nonsense. If you are going to rate people, your highest rating should be for your most valuable players. If you’re getting a different answer, you need to re-analyze your approach to qualify. Players A are more valuable than Players B..

Now C players, that’s another story.