nerdleader

A few weeks back I read a job posting that went something like “Consistent A players only. Hard working B players need not apply” and I was immediately critical. Maybe it is because I believe in the American Dream, maybe because I believe in hard work and am a hard worker myself, maybe it is because it is tone deaf and ignorant of neurodivergent employees, or maybe because I strongly believe in hybrid vigor and the synergy of difference. Whatever it was, my opinion of the organization – which was low to begin with – sank more.

Perhaps it was the recruiting department misrepresenting the company as they tried to find highly self-motivated individuals – the kind of employee who sees that in a job posting and says to themselves “Yeah! I’m an A player, I want to work with A players!” I understand that instinct, of course. Perfection is amazing when you can achieve it, and certain job occupations require only A players. But as I have said before, perfection is the enemy of good, and in corporate America perfection is not an appropriate outcome – amazing, great, wild, disruptive, sure – but perfection is illusive, transitory, and expensive.

When it comes to people, I want great employees, not perfect employees. I can build the perfect team out of a mixture of A and B players, but having a team with only Tom Bradys is dysfunctional and sub-par. Self-motivation is important, but not critical (integrity and commitment are critical, for example), because our jobs as leaders is to motivate others – it is a conclusion begged by the job description that not all individuals are motivated in the same way or with the same vigor. It is also a truth that great employees are often intrinsically great, while the people at the pinnacle of their profession (aka Tom Brady) are often lacking in other important areas (aka rushing, catching, tackling, etc.)

Keeping with the “return of football” analogies, I have been thinking about how, in any given struggle or competition, there are participants and there are spectators. Frankly, there is a synergistic effect here – one does not really exist without the other. Both have vital roles to play in each other’s purpose, and that is how it is supposed to be. The best warriors fight for others, the best athletes compete for fans (and the adoration and money that comes with having fans), and the best artists compete for fame (and the adoration and money that comes with it). But in the Infinite Game of business, where there are not hard and fast rules, points, and conclusions, the best employees are adaptable, they excel in some areas and not in others, and care about the team, the work they are doing, and the mission.

Employees are usually participants in some things and spectators in others – they have skin in the game, but it is different at different times. Participants are doing hard work and can bring valuable insights with a “down in the trenches” perspective, but spectators are observing, taking relevant actions, and often have a “50,000 foot view” of the situation that the participant is unable to see. A participant seeks to guide the course of a project, the architecture of a system or solution, the strategy employed to hook or retain a new customer, etc., and are wonderful individuals we can count on to move the ball forwards. Spectators are your workhorses. They keep their head down, power through their workload, do not give you any troubles, and have smart, insightful opinions when warranted. They might not have an opinion on what direction to take or what the best methodology is, but they will implement and follow direction wonderfully.

When working to understand how to motivate and measure a participant, seek to guide them on the best paths. They will have momentum and a raring-to-go engine and may potentially not take differences of opinion very well – you will want to use your best leadership skills with them. Give them room to maneuver and set achievable goals related to outcome and completion. Many participants thrive in an environment with increased responsibility, so give it to them. Make sure they understand that success is on their shoulders and that others are counting on them and seek to give them opportunities and goals to prove their mettle. Lastly, it may be important to continue to monitor their interactions with others as they may butt heads with other stakeholders and take a negative view towards spectators.

Broadly speaking, participants should be rewarded with praise and compensation after a project has been completed. They want to know that they have done a good job and their ego requests that they be set apart via a promotion or merit raise. For these types of individuals, it is appropriate to set an expectation that after their work and success they will be able to reap rewards befitting a key player. As everything in life, use moderation, or risk creating a prima donna.

Spectators often want to have a full hopper of work and a clear definition of “done”, so you will want to make sure you have excellent conditions of satisfaction and strong project fundamentals. Their goals should be related to completion of specific objectives as well as quality of deliverables. A spectator is often an autodidact, so you must enable and foster their learning habits and set goals that encourage the spectator to learn new practices and skills. Provide opportunities for them to pick up the ball and act as a participant when you can tell they are more interested than normal and do not hesitate to counsel a spectator who is on the verge of shirking. Spectators will do more than the bare minimum (they are “B” players after all, not “C” or “D”) but you must pay attention to them and understand what “makes them tick” so you can be aligned with their needs and interests and keep them chugging along.

In general, spectators should be rewarded with learning opportunities and perks of the sort that your culture or organization can provide. As with a participant, they will want to know that they have done a good job, but likely also know that they have not been putting forth the extra effort and/or hours which would have earned a bonus or merit increase. They wish to be seen and appreciated more than “put on a pedestal” and your approach must take this into account.

Putting it all together, at work a great team can be composed of both participants and spectators. We may parse our words carefully to describe why “having all A players” is the best outcome, but when people focus on this kind of ranking, they are truly looking for the best participants and the best spectators. We all need teams to have “first among equals” leaders and motivators and your participants are that person – the sergeants in the unit. Your spectators are the workhorses, dedicated to a fine, quality job and a great work/life balance. A team with all participants can have cultural problems and difficulty navigating strategy, direction, responsibilities, and accountability. A team with all spectators can struggle with strategy, technology, decision-making, and velocity. But a team with both has leaders, learners, workhorses, out-of-the-box thinkers, and the ability to be fast, flexible, and resilient.