Re-Defining the Corporate Superstar

Frankly, there are few emails that I receive that are worth reading time and time again, but I do particularly appreciate the email from Victor Cheng that outlines the importance of being an A player. In the war for talent and competitive advantage, it's hardly surprising that companies invest significant time, money and resources in attracting and retaining star performers. However, as a business leader interested in building a sustainable business and competitive advantage, it's also useful to reflect back on the 2003 HBR article valuing B Players by Thomas DeLong and Vineeta Vijayaraghavan.

First, here is Victor Cheng's inspiring message. Titled "How to be a Superstar in Corporate Life" Victor Cheng examines the key characteristics that make up an A player. Be sure to read through to the B player comparison. It's important and may offer you a new perspective on the way you recognise and reward your team members - and it's not what you think!

Dear Leesa

Amongst US Corporations, employers use the term “A” player to denote an employee that’s exceptional. This is based on the US academic grading system where the top performing students are awarded an “A” grade and the worst performing students earn an “F” grade.

If you are working in corporate or expect to do so at some point in your career, you want to become the “A” player. Let me explain how an “A” player differs from a “B” player.

PRO-ACTIVE vs Reactive

B Player = Does what they are asked to; they do it on time; they do it well.

A Player = Does what is asked AND anticipates what else should be done too (and either does it or asks her boss if she should do it)

The #1 complaint I hear amongst company executives today is how many new hires in their 20’s are extremely passive. They just want to be told what to do so they can just crank out work without thinking too hard.

When I ran my first P&L, I immediately told one of my staff members that while he does report to me, I work for him. He leads. He figures out what needs to be done. I will do what he asks me to do to get rid of obstacles in his way. But he LEADS, not me.

OUTCOME Oriented vs Task Oriented

A “B” players asks her boss for the “to do” list and executes the to do list giving very little thought as to whether or just completing the to do list is sufficient to achieve the overall goal.

An “A” Player focuses on achieving the overall objective and will herself add tasks to the to do list (or suggest they be added to “to do” list) and not just rely on explicitly assigned tasks.

For that same staff member I mentioned earlier, I told him on day #1 as his boss. Get me $16 million in sales out of North America in the next 12 months. Figure it out. Tell me what you want to do and what you need. Lets meet in a week to go over your plan.

The plan is negotiable. The $16M goal is not.

(Incidentally, he was half excited about getting so much autonomy and have scared. Incidentally I find “A” players thrive at this kind of “stretch” assignment -- incredibly exciting and intimidating all at the same time)

OVER-DELIVER vs Deliver

Simply put, “A” players do MORE than is required or expected. They either have taken the time to develop advanced skills and use those skills to outperform similarly tenured peers, or they work harder than their peers thereby accomplishing more in the same amount of time.

An A player proactively achieves the desired outcome and does so by over-delivering. What more could you ask for?

There’s a saying that a single “A” player is worth five “B” Players. The late Steve Jobs violently disagreed with this statement.

He said an “A” player is worth 50 “B” players.

As an example the team lead for the iPhone (which has now generated hundreds of BILLION in revenue) was an “A” player. You could have staffed 50 “B” players in that role, and it would have failed.

So what’s the takeaway here?

For starters, whenever you’re assigned something to do and your boss doesn’t tell you WHY you’re supposed to do and how what you will be doing fits into everything else that’s going on, stop and ASK.

Most people rarely ask more than a superficial clarifying question. Ask to obtain deep UNDERSTANDING of the GOAL and how your work product fits into the work product of others.

It may be your job to do YOUR work, but an “A” player seeks to UNDERSTAND the work of OTHERS that surround his work -- so he sees both his piece and how it fits into the “big picture”.

In corporate, there are extremely few SYSTEM WIDE thinkers. Easily less than 1%, and probably less than 0.1% of employees can do this.

This is a HUGE opportunity for you to be one of these people as they are in extremely short supply.

Finance people do not see the sales and marketing implications of their “finance” decisions.

Sales people do not understand the legal implications of modifying standard deal terms to win the sale.

Engineers don’t grasp how making a single engineering change might cause a customer training and education issue.

Don’t just do work. UNDERSTAND what you are doing (and why you are doing it) THEN do the work asked of you. Be the “A” Player.

Thanks, -Victor Cheng

Personally I have always worked hard and even prided myself on being that A player. It is the A player who sets the vision, gets things started and closes the big deals.

But it is also important as an active member of a team and as a company leader seeking long term sustainable business performance, to read and reflect back on the 2003 Harvard Business Review article, “Let's Hear It for the B Players". This is particularly important when reflecting on how you motivate and manage your team for both performance and succession planning.

Thomas DeLong and Vineeta Vijayaraghavan argue that it is the loyal B players, comprising on average 80% of a firm's workforce, who do most of the work, are the backbone of a Company's productivity and service and are largely taken for granted by their employers.

In contrast to Victor's view, the study by DeLong and Vijayaraghaven (2003) notes that while A players, "can make enormous contributions to corporate performance, in their collective 20 years of consulting, research, and teaching, they found that "companies’ long-term performance—even survival—depends far more on the unsung commitment and contributions of their B players. These capable, steady performers are the best supporting actors of the business world."

B players are competent, steady performerswho balance their work and personal lives while still doing the bulk of the work of the company. B players tend to stay put, don't require a lot of attention, and they get the job done. Because B players stay, they tend to carry the corporate history with them.

You know who the B players are - these are the loyal team players you awarded a performance rating of 3 out of 5 to in the annual performance reviews and gave minimal or no salary increase to at the end of the financial year. Why is it that we often overlook and underrate their value and contributions?

Is it no wonder that Daren Fonda, who wrote an article in Time reviewing the HBR piece, interviewed a number of workers who viewed themselves as B players and discovered that they are not only the most important group, B players are the “angriest.”

There are many types of B players, but most are loyal (to a point), don't live and die for the next promotion (but want challenging work), don't need coddling (but can die of neglect), are honest (if not diplomatic) and are not driven by power, status and money as are A players, who live for little else. Indeed, A players admit to being maddened by the B players' seeming indifference to what matters most to those at the top.” USA Today

Interestingly, many B players are former A players whose views on how to best manage their lives has changed.

In contrast, DeLong and Vijayaraghaven (2003) define A Players as follows:

A players are the star performers: They are employees who put their professional lives ahead of their families and personal lives because they are striving to accomplish more or move upward in the organization. A players are the risk-takers, the “high potentials,” and employers enjoy finding and hiring them. They are also the players most likely to leave the organization for opportunities elsewhere.

C players are performers who are not achieving enough to satisfy their employers and are most likely to be asked to move along. In fact, a small number of organizations still use the forced ranking method of employee evaluation to require managers to rank 10% of their employees as C players with an eye toward removing them. DeLong and Vijayaraghaven (2003).

When the talent shortage worsens or employment demand picks up, it is our B players - those consistent and loyal performing workers who constitute the heart of our organizations - that will find an Employer who appreciates them. In this situation, the A players are likely already long gone.

Some would also argue that the too big to fail Banks and Insurance companies, Enron, Tyco and MCI Worldcom, were awash with high risk taking A Players. Rather it was the B players who were uniquely valuable in times of corporate scandal, both as the loyal contributing employee and as the whistle blowers.

I also agree with Del, no-one is an A, B or C player ALL of the time - and there is no reason with support and good leadership that a B or C player does not have the potential to be an A player when required.

There is no reason why the B players can't play on the A team most of the time, and B players will, if they know their efforts won't go unnoticed. This is the 21 st century; this is everyone's time to shine.

Food for thought. While I agree with the value of A players to any organisation's short term performance, any Leader in a Company that has been focused only on developing and supporting its A Players and high potentials, does so at their own peril.

To be a corporate superstar, we must create an environment or culture of recognition that appreciates every employee for what they bring to our workplace each and every day.

________________

To read the Harvard Business Review article by DeLong and Vijayaraghaven (2003) you can find it here, “Let's Hear It for the B Players"

To read the Del Jones, USA today review of their HBR article, click here: "Employers learning that B players hold all the cards".

To read the Baudville article, click here "A Players, B Players, and C Players: Appreciating the Differences"

About Victor Cheng: A graduate of Stanford University, Victor landed job offers at McKinsey, Bain, Monitor (since acquired by Deloitte), LEK, AT Kearney, and Oliver Wyman. Out of 400 Stanford University applicants to McKinsey, he was one of 6 candidates who received an offer from McKinsey. At McKinsey, Victor was ranked in the top 10% of consultants worldwide in his start class and served as a resume screener and case interviewer for the firm.When not mentoring aspiring consultants from 100+ countries around the world, he serves as a strategic advisor to Inc 500 CEOs. He has been featured as an business expert by the Fox Business TV Network, MSNBC, TIME, The Wall Street Journal, The Harvard Business Review, Fortune Small Business, SmartMoney, Forbes, Inc., and Entrepreneur magazine. He’s also the author of Extreme Revenue Growth and The Recession-Proof-Business.If you would like to read more from Victor Cheng, be sure to subscribe to his newsletter here: The Strategic Outlier Letter (www.StrategicOutlier.com)

_________________________________________________________________

I appreciate that you are reading my post. Here, at LinkedIn, I write about board related issues - corporate strategy, human capital, reputation risk, technology, corporate governance and risk management trends.

If you enjoyed reading this post, please click the thumbs up icon above and let me know.

If you would like to read my regular posts then please click 'Follow' (at the top of the page) and send me a LinkedIN invite. And, of course, feel free to also connect via Twitter and Facebook and check out our blog here: www.rlexpert.com

For more on these topics, check out my other recent LinkedIn Influencer posts:

• Addressing McDonald's $39B Reputation Risk Challenge
• Challenges for CxO's with APAC's top 10 Risks
• Why Nike's path is not paved to Luxury
• Reinventing Risk for an Asian Century
• Attention all Board Ready Woman
• New weapon of choice for complex global supply chains?
• Enhanced Fraud Transparency in Emerging Markets
• 5 steps for effective due diligence in Asia
• 3 tips from Asian Leaders for talent retention
• For water security first prepare for water insecurity
• Sustainability metrics in Executive pay
• Global Water Security - Whose Responsibility is it?

About Leesa Soulodre:

Director of RL Expert Group, an international reputation and risk management think tank and consulting practice. A Member of the Global Advisory Council of NY Investment Advisory Firm, Cornerstone Capital; an Innovation Advisor to the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign Advanced Digital Science Centre, Singapore and Board Advisor to Belgian PR Software firm, Prezly and US Sports Analytics firm, Autoscout.

An Adjunct in Corporate Communications at Singapore Management University, lecturing part time on "Risk Issues and Crisis Management "and "Content Strategy" at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business. Prior to moving to Asia, spent 7 years part time in European Academia, lecturing on the Luxury MBA programs in Marketing, Communications and Reputation Management at two french business schools, Ecole Superieur de Gestion and Mod'Art International.

Connect: Leesa Soulodre, Managing Partner, RL Expert Group - [email protected]