There is something inherently compelling about an A-Player. This individual consistently delivers results – not only when conditions are favorable, but with a relentless, dependable rhythm. They are driven by an intrinsic need for improvement, not just by the expectations of a performance review. For them, excellence is the norm, not the exception.
To delve deeper into my definition of A-Players, you can read more here. In summary, A-Players thrive in a self-sustaining cycle of curiosity, performance, and growth. They are intrinsically motivated, seldom requiring external management, and they frequently challenge those around them, especially in leadership roles, to think more critically.
But what occurs when an A-Player is placed in a team dominated by C-Players or even just a single C-Player? Worse yet, what happens when leadership knowingly allows this situation to persist?
Initially, not much changes. The A-Player continues to perform at their usual high standards. They hope the C-Players will elevate their performance and assume leadership will take corrective action. However, as time goes on and the C-Players continue to coast, remaining part of the team and enjoying the same recognition and compensation, the unspoken message becomes clear: mediocrity is tolerated here.
It is at this point that a more dangerous shift begins to occur.
The A-Player starts to downshift, subtly at first. They still show up and complete their tasks, but their edges begin to soften and their pace slows. They stop pushing others to think more deeply and invest a bit less of themselves. This downshifting can seem like a relief – perhaps even a form of justice – as they are no longer carrying the burden of two. They cease striving for standards that leadership appears indifferent to.
However, here lies the fundamental issue: this new mode is unnatural for them, and living contrary to their nature for too long breeds dissonance.
Eventually, this dissonance manifests in one of three ways:
- They start to question themselves: “Why am I working so hard? Am I the one who is out of step?”
- They begin to feel resentment toward leadership: “If they won’t address something so obvious, what else are they overlooking?”
- They start seeking opportunities elsewhere, places where their natural inclinations are valued as assets rather than liabilities to be stifled.
I have observed this pattern unfold numerous times across various organizations. The outcome is predictable: the A-Player departs.
This issue extends beyond mere retention; it is about trust. Allowing a known C-Player to remain – especially when it’s obvious – communicates to your A-Players just how seriously you regard standards, performance, and accountability. And they are paying close attention.
They are not merely evaluating the C-Player; they are evaluating you as a leader.
Do you make the difficult decisions, or do you evade them, hoping no one will notice?
A-Players notice. Every single time.
If you delay too long, the only ones left will be those who never truly contributed.
For leaders facing this dilemma, the path forward is obvious but seldom easy: address performance issues head-on, establish transparent standards, and be prepared to make tough personnel decisions. The short-term discomfort of taking these actions is negligible compared to the long-term cost of losing your finest talent.