One of the most rewarding aspects of leadership is the chance to shape a team that excels. Watching high-potential individuals develop, coaching them into greater confidence, and building a strong internal pipeline of future leaders brings a deep sense of satisfaction. Cultivating this kind of talent-driven environment is a hallmark of successful managers.
But alongside those rising stars, most leaders also find themselves investing disproportionate time and energy into employees who continuously underperform. Every team has them—the people you coach repeatedly, encourage constantly, and hope will turn a corner. Yet, despite good intentions, the cycle often feels like running in place. There’s a performance plan, a reset, maybe a slight uptick—and then a return to the same challenges.
“A” Players are easy to spot. They are adaptable, driven, and consistently rise to the occasion. In Leading Apple with Steve Jobs, former Apple executive Jay Elliot shared that Steve Jobs believed one top-tier performer could produce exponentially more than their average peers. Jobs famously advocated for building teams of “A+” players, noting that a small group of exceptional individuals could outperform much larger teams that were only average.
So where does that leave “B” and “C” players? “B” players are solid contributors. They’re reliable, steady, and play an essential role in the day-to-day functioning of the business. They don’t demand a lot of attention, they get their work done, and they maintain a balance between professional and personal commitments. These employees form the backbone of many organizations. In contrast, “C” players often demand the most from leaders—while delivering the least. They’re the source of constant delays, missed deadlines, and excuses. Their continued employment is sometimes less about performance and more about the complexity or discomfort of replacing them.
The concept of topgrading, coined by industrial psychologist Bradford Smart, challenges organizations to raise their hiring and retention standards. Smart defines topgrading as the practice of building a team made up of primarily “A” players—those who represent the top 10% of available talent for any given salary range. According to Smart, the ultimate goal is a workforce that is at least 90% A-players, particularly in leadership and critical roles. It’s a bold standard, but one that underscores the competitive advantage of exceptional talent.
Still, the question remains: what about the solid but not spectacular “B” players—or the underperforming “C” players? Smart doesn’t suggest immediate or indiscriminate turnover. Instead, he acknowledges the uphill battle organizations face when A-level talent is underrepresented. The first step is understanding that without a long-term commitment to raising the bar, performance gaps will continue to hinder progress.
A more realistic approach for many companies is to adopt a proactive strategy. While maintaining day-to-day operations, leaders can begin laying the foundation for a stronger team in the months and years ahead. Start by assessing team members who fall below a “B+” in areas like reliability, competence, and consistency. For those individuals, provide specific, actionable feedback and offer support to help them improve. Keep the focus on measurable goals and documented performance—not generalities or assumptions.
At the same time, invest in forward-looking hiring practices. Don’t just focus on backfilling roles when people leave—recruit with an eye toward upgrading the overall team. Seek candidates who not only meet the job requirements but who demonstrate growth potential, strong accountability, and alignment with your culture. The goal is not perfection, but progress: hiring the kinds of individuals who will elevate your team, even if they don’t start out as “A” players from day one.
Most teams won’t achieve 100% top-tier performance overnight—but with intention and consistency, leaders can shift the balance toward excellence. When you prioritize quality in every hire and hold clear expectations for growth, your bench gets stronger, your culture gets sharper, and the organization becomes more resilient for the future.
