I hate this BS about A managers hire A people, B people hire C etc. This is total MBA thinking (I think it comes form GE, or at least they espoused it) on a forum where people routinely mock MBAs.
I have been lucky to work in a field where teams frequently work in parallel and success or failure is pretty clear cut. And teams are often stratified based on the priority of project. Many times-- not always -- the "B" team crushes the "A" team. Why? Some reasons include: the A team is performative and focused on the things that burnish the careers and reputation of its members. B teams have more of a sense of the wolf being at the door and that if they don't perform their task they will feel the consequence. Being underdogs promotes teamwork.
Obviously people have profound differences in their strengths and weaknesses and some people are completely inappropriate. But calling people stars or A player covers up a lot of lazy thinking that includes a lot of bias. I have worked at smaller startups that say "we only hire A players". Obviously that is delusional but worse it covered up the more profound questions. Why did you hire the wrong person? Why did that person or team fail?
The corollary is: find out where you thrive and go there.
Don't beat yourself up if you get spun out of a FAANG, or a startup or a smallco or a bootstrap or a founding role or a mid-tier enterprise. Don't contort to a role or company that isn't a fit.
"We took two stunt people who were the same body mass of Kate and Leo and we put sensors all over them and inside them and we put them in ice water and we tested to see whether they could have survived through a variety of methods and the answer was, there was no way they both could have survived. Only one could survive," he said.
Speaking in absolutes is never useful even though I think this advice might apply when looking for a new role, but small companies tend to grow if you help them succeed so it would be difficult to say your fit is at 10 person companies when that means you would have to jump ship every year just to stay in your comfort zone.
I joined my current company when it was 40 people (and around 10 developers). Almost 6 years later we're ~1500 and the engineering org is something like 200-300. I think I was most comfortable around 20 or so developers but that doesn't mean I can't make continue to have meaningful impact now that there's an order of magnitude more people and the org has completely changed.
I've seen folks who were supposedly "A player"s from small start-ups and FAANG join the company at different stages. Some succeed and some fail but I never noticed any correlation between current size of the company they're currently thriving at and our size when they joined.
Fit is never going to be perfect so don't give up on something just because it might be a little uncomfortable. Give up if you've tried to make it work and it's clear you can't find a way to have impact.
I have. Pretty sure I've seen every movie he was in, huge fan.
He's a great actor, but he hasn't shown the range that other A-listers have. Whether that's because of skill, interest, or typecasting, I couldn't say.
Kind of dumb to say an actor that's clearly proven he has immense range when there are so many other obvious choices. Vin Diesel for example is an A-list star who clearly does not have anywhere the range that Carrey or DiCaprio have.
Many times-- not always -- the "B" team crushes the "A" team. Being underdogs promotes teamwork.
It's clear you don't understand what A and B people are then. If the "B team" is crushing the "A Team", then they aren't the "B team". Also, notice how you switched "player" with "team"? The quote is "A players hire A players", not "team".
The point is that top tier individuals typically hire top tier individuals. The reason this notion isn't so clear cut is because its hard to identify A players before the fact. It's a retrospective truthism.
Yup, this is the one thing that struck me wrong in the essay.
After spending multiple paragraphs about how they found that they had to dig much deeper into the background of every exec, getting 10+ references from reports, peers, and their managers, and developing specific lists of red flags . . .they end the section with: "Takeaway: Always trust your gut on people. "
Yes, for sure, if you 'gut' tells you something is off about someone, seriously consider and trust that also, but what was really effective was not gut-trusting, but gathering more hard data and observations to evaluate.
Just seems like the author didn't really think it through.
This is just garden-variety narcissism (btw, not trying to accuse the author of anything, I think we all feel this way sometimes) telling you that when you made the right decision, you were right and even when you made the wrong decision, you were actually right all along, you just let your true self be overridden. In reality, a lot of difficult decisions involve you being on both sides of the decision at different times, so it's very easy to look back on any wrong decision you made and decide that the real issue was not trusting yourself.
I'm also a bit surprised that she's throwing the "big company executive" under the bus here, given that it's very easy to identify who this is. She doesn't seem to be merely saying that the fit was the issue, given this:
1. They frequently use the wrong pronoun “I” followed by “[contribution to the company]”.
I have hired before. A few times. "Trust my gut" is still the best predictor of success for me. Every hire i have talked myself into didn't end up working out. Nowadays for hiring, i live by, "if it's not a strong yes, it's not a yes"
Agree that a 'gut feeling' that something is off is not to be ignored; it's likely just factors unconsciously processed.
That said, how much of your 'Strong Yes' assessments are on your gut and how much on you have enough info to see that this candidate is qualified, enthusiastic, and a good fit? Also, how many times have those failed to work out and how many have 'Weak Yes' candidates actually worked out in the end? Those counter-examples might be worth looking into...
I think it’s trusting your gut when it says „no”, not that you can trust only your gut when it comes to hiring. Wasn’t clear but that’s how I understand it and agree.
But in an article for publication it seems best to say something like "Trust your gut when it says "No", and get lots of data when you don't have strong gut feelings", rather than just that general trope...
In general good people will be able to identify good people (colloquially: game recognizes game). And good people will know they are being interviewed by someone who is not so good, and they won't want to join. A hires A.
Additionally, people who are not so good tend to be threatened by good people. So they will rather hire someone that won't threaten or "find them out". B hires C.
Comments
I hate this BS about A managers hire A people, B people hire C etc. This is total MBA thinking (I think it comes form GE, or at least they espoused it) on a forum where people routinely mock MBAs.
I have been lucky to work in a field where teams frequently work in parallel and success or failure is pretty clear cut. And teams are often stratified based on the priority of project. Many times-- not always -- the "B" team crushes the "A" team. Why? Some reasons include: the A team is performative and focused on the things that burnish the careers and reputation of its members. B teams have more of a sense of the wolf being at the door and that if they don't perform their task they will feel the consequence. Being underdogs promotes teamwork.
Obviously people have profound differences in their strengths and weaknesses and some people are completely inappropriate. But calling people stars or A player covers up a lot of lazy thinking that includes a lot of bias. I have worked at smaller startups that say "we only hire A players". Obviously that is delusional but worse it covered up the more profound questions. Why did you hire the wrong person? Why did that person or team fail?
An A player from Google will fail at a 10 person startup. An A player from a 10 person startup will choke on FAANG bureaucracy and fail.
Fit matters. You wouldn't hire Jim Carey for a DiCaprio role.
This is an underappreciated truth.
The corollary is: find out where you thrive and go there.
Don't beat yourself up if you get spun out of a FAANG, or a startup or a smallco or a bootstrap or a founding role or a mid-tier enterprise. Don't contort to a role or company that isn't a fit.
If you have solid skills, you can find a place.
Jim Carey as the protagonist of titanic does sound like a great movie. I’m sure he would have found space on that piece of wood and survived.
I saw this over the holiday period last month. James Cameron commissioned a study because he got sick of people yelling at him for killing Jack.
https://www.insider.com/james-cameron-had-forensic-analysis-...
This is peak underappreciated stuntpeople.
Speaking in absolutes is never useful even though I think this advice might apply when looking for a new role, but small companies tend to grow if you help them succeed so it would be difficult to say your fit is at 10 person companies when that means you would have to jump ship every year just to stay in your comfort zone.
I joined my current company when it was 40 people (and around 10 developers). Almost 6 years later we're ~1500 and the engineering org is something like 200-300. I think I was most comfortable around 20 or so developers but that doesn't mean I can't make continue to have meaningful impact now that there's an order of magnitude more people and the org has completely changed.
I've seen folks who were supposedly "A player"s from small start-ups and FAANG join the company at different stages. Some succeed and some fail but I never noticed any correlation between current size of the company they're currently thriving at and our size when they joined.
Fit is never going to be perfect so don't give up on something just because it might be a little uncomfortable. Give up if you've tried to make it work and it's clear you can't find a way to have impact.
"Speaking in absolutes is never useful" is a great paradox
You obviously haven’t seen eternal sunshine of the spotless mind
I have. Pretty sure I've seen every movie he was in, huge fan.
He's a great actor, but he hasn't shown the range that other A-listers have. Whether that's because of skill, interest, or typecasting, I couldn't say.
Kind of dumb to say an actor that's clearly proven he has immense range when there are so many other obvious choices. Vin Diesel for example is an A-list star who clearly does not have anywhere the range that Carrey or DiCaprio have.
Bestest movie together with Lost in Translation
Can I guess you're between 37 and 42 years old.
It's clear you don't understand what A and B people are then. If the "B team" is crushing the "A Team", then they aren't the "B team". Also, notice how you switched "player" with "team"? The quote is "A players hire A players", not "team".
The point is that top tier individuals typically hire top tier individuals. The reason this notion isn't so clear cut is because its hard to identify A players before the fact. It's a retrospective truthism.
Seems like a no true Scotsman
Huh? I'm not excluding any portion of the cohort I'm speaking of. You're either an A player or you're not.
Yup, this is the one thing that struck me wrong in the essay.
After spending multiple paragraphs about how they found that they had to dig much deeper into the background of every exec, getting 10+ references from reports, peers, and their managers, and developing specific lists of red flags . . .they end the section with: "Takeaway: Always trust your gut on people. "
Yes, for sure, if you 'gut' tells you something is off about someone, seriously consider and trust that also, but what was really effective was not gut-trusting, but gathering more hard data and observations to evaluate.
Just seems like the author didn't really think it through.
This is just garden-variety narcissism (btw, not trying to accuse the author of anything, I think we all feel this way sometimes) telling you that when you made the right decision, you were right and even when you made the wrong decision, you were actually right all along, you just let your true self be overridden. In reality, a lot of difficult decisions involve you being on both sides of the decision at different times, so it's very easy to look back on any wrong decision you made and decide that the real issue was not trusting yourself.
I'm also a bit surprised that she's throwing the "big company executive" under the bus here, given that it's very easy to identify who this is. She doesn't seem to be merely saying that the fit was the issue, given this:
I have hired before. A few times. "Trust my gut" is still the best predictor of success for me. Every hire i have talked myself into didn't end up working out. Nowadays for hiring, i live by, "if it's not a strong yes, it's not a yes"
Agree that a 'gut feeling' that something is off is not to be ignored; it's likely just factors unconsciously processed.
That said, how much of your 'Strong Yes' assessments are on your gut and how much on you have enough info to see that this candidate is qualified, enthusiastic, and a good fit? Also, how many times have those failed to work out and how many have 'Weak Yes' candidates actually worked out in the end? Those counter-examples might be worth looking into...
I think it’s trusting your gut when it says „no”, not that you can trust only your gut when it comes to hiring. Wasn’t clear but that’s how I understand it and agree.
Indeed likely!
But in an article for publication it seems best to say something like "Trust your gut when it says "No", and get lots of data when you don't have strong gut feelings", rather than just that general trope...
If that is the case, how do the B people get jobs in the first place? Who hires them?
The same reason A engineers can put out B work: resource/time/reward tradeoffs and the inevitable unknowns.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34357689
Nepotism
In general good people will be able to identify good people (colloquially: game recognizes game). And good people will know they are being interviewed by someone who is not so good, and they won't want to join. A hires A.
Additionally, people who are not so good tend to be threatened by good people. So they will rather hire someone that won't threaten or "find them out". B hires C.