Keeping B-players doesn't just produce mediocre results; it actively drags down your A-players. Firing the B-players often results in the remaining A-players becoming even more productive, achieving more with a smaller, more expensive-per-head team. The net result is higher output for lower total cost.
Related Insights
Challenge the 'hire slow' mantra. Hiring is an intuitive guess, so act quickly. Once a person is in the organization, their performance is a known fact, not a guess. This clarity allows for faster decisions—both in removing underperformers and, crucially, in accelerating the promotion of superstars ahead of standard review cycles.
The common fear of overpaying for top talent is misplaced. No company fails because it paid its extraordinary performers too much. The true path to financial ruin is overpaying average or mediocre employees, as this creates a bloated, unproductive cost structure that kills the business.
Capital allocation isn't just about multi-million dollar acquisitions. Hiring a single employee is also a major investment; a $100k salary represents a discounted million-dollar commitment over time. Applying the same rigor to hiring decisions as you would to CapEx ensures you're investing your human capital wisely.
Leaders misallocate time on low performers who won't improve or top performers who don't need coaching. The greatest return on coaching time comes from investing 80% of it in the solid B-players (the "six pluses") who have the raw ability to become elite A-players.
By strictly limiting team size, a company is forced to hire only the “best in the world” for each role. This avoids the dilution of talent and communication overhead that plagues growing organizations, aiming to perpetually maintain the high-productivity “mind meld” of a founding team.
Firing decisions should be a function of both incompetence and business constraint. Not all underperformers are equal priorities. Some are like a "trash can on fire in the driveway"—a problem, but not the company's main bottleneck. Focus firing efforts on roles that are the direct constraint to growth.
Biologist William Muir's 'super chicken' experiment revealed that groups of top individual performers can end up sabotaging one another, leading to worse outcomes than more cooperative, average teams. In business, this 'too much talent problem' manifests as ego clashes and a breakdown in collaboration, undermining collective success.
True A-players are 'undeniable' drivers whose impact is immediately obvious. If you find yourself constantly wondering or second-guessing if someone is the right fit, they are a B-player. Trust that indecision as a signal to cut them fast, as B-players create drag on the entire team.
A significant portion of profitability issues stems from serving "bad money" customers who are unprofitable or break-even. Firing them eliminates direct losses and frees up time, energy, and resources to better serve your best clients, leading to a direct and immediate improvement in the bottom-line and team morale.
Top talent isn't attracted to chaos; they are attracted to well-run systems where they can have a massive impact. Instead of trying to "hire rockstars" to fix a broken system, focus on building a systematic, efficient company. This is the kind of environment the best people want to join.