Leadership Tips - What is a player B?

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 to take risks, we would be in big trouble. Top performers are available in various styles.

Ask the Experts

I just finished reading an article originally published on Harvard Business Online. The title was "We feel for the players of B", and it bothered me, especially at first.

You see, the authors have made the argument that players B were actually more valuable to the organization of a player. They described the players as B Rock Solid, stable performers know that they are more committed to society for their own personal glory.

They suggested that A players often seek out and make a killing, but they are also more prone to "missteps" and errors, not to mention leaving for another position.

Let me get this straight. These guys are arguing for good soldiers to be more useful than those who take risks? We live in a changing world, where competitors are constantly striving to improve their people, their processes and their technology. Do not take risks, and you might as well prepare to eat their dust.

What is a B player?

The article goes on to describe who the players are B. First we talk to former players of A, and here use a computer language to describe essentially the older workers have a lot of knowledge. These people have reached a point in life where the pursuit of personal glory, is no longer worth the sacrifice, especially in terms of balance between work and life.

OK, but these are not necessarily gamers B. Perhaps not wanting to travel 80% of the time, and perhaps are not looking for the corner office, but most of them do not like the idea that they are "former" stars.

Other players described as B are those with longevity and strong "organizational memory", not to overreact to crises and turbulence, and that are highly adaptable to change. These are players of B? They sound like potential leaders for me.

I once knew a guy in a fairly senior IT, who was fond of saying "I do not understand the stress, I do." But he said that this mood (at least I think he did). Under pressure, he was a very solid player who has stayed calm and kept his people focused on the goal at hand. It's never been a player of B.

Labels A Problem

The article in Harvard Business was making a case for the value of these people, and the dangers of giving all the recognition and reward for high-risk takers, while the silent people quietly but constantly frustrated. That argument is sound, is that the labels are wrong.

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

If you are going to label artists (and not discussing the philosophy of Jack Welch, we must understand that most of us do), you have room in the category for more than just cowboys buyers risk.

The idea that a player B is more valuable than an A player does not make sense. If you are going to people of interest rates, the highest score he needs to go to your most important players. If you're coming out with a different answer, you need to Relook at your approach to rating. Some players are more valuable players B.

Now players C, which is another story....