How B Players Affect Sales Team Performance

B-Players are a silent threat to high-performance cultures. First, B-Players create the illusion of competence without the impact. They deliver "just enough" but rarely move the needle. Leaders tolerate them because they’re not actively failing like C-Players, but this tolerance slowly lowers the bar for the entire team. Second, B-Players drain leadership time and energy. Because they aren’t obvious underperformers, leaders spend months or years coaching, nudging, and waiting for them to "break through." That investment rarely pays off—and the opportunity cost is massive. Third, B-Players set a cultural ceiling. High performers watch B-Players get by without evolving and start to wonder why they should stretch. The presence of B-Players signals that mediocrity is acceptable, which silently kills ambition in your true A-Players. Fourth, B-Players create drag on team dynamics. Unlike C-Players, who are clear mismatches and easy to remove, B-Players are "fine"—but fine is friction. They slow decision-making, resist change, and rarely innovate. Over time, they become blockers rather than builders. The move-up-or-move-out rule is mercy, not cruelty. The best leaders challenge B-Players to rise and give them real, developmental pressure. If they can’t level up, exit them quickly and cleanly. Keeping them "because they’re nice" is leadership malpractice. Learn more at https://buff.ly/BP12FLY #HumanCapital #TalentStrategy #HR #CEO #CHRO #TalentSherpa

🚨 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘦 𝘔𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱 𝘮𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘈-, 𝘉-, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊-𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 — 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥. For years, I’ve said the quiet part out loud: “𝘈-𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦. 𝘉-𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵. 𝘊-𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘬 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵.” After 50,000+ executive interviews, one truth keeps showing up: 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂-𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 — 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁-𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬. They perform just well enough to earn recognition, but avoid anything that exposes their gaps. They block talent. Slow innovation. And lower the ceiling for everyone around them. A-players? They admit when they don’t know something. They run toward stretch assignments. They want pressure and smart peers to sharpen them. C-players? They just want safety — they don’t pretend to be anything else. But B-players? 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀-𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞. That’s why Fortune reached out — because this isn’t just about performance. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘺𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘳𝘴. 🔗 You can read the full Fortune piece here: https://lnkd.in/eJ9mEhUa I’ll keep saying what others won’t: ✨ Your biggest threat isn’t low performers — it’s the people who look successful while limiting everyone’s potential. More to come. The corporate game is being rewritten — and I’ll keep telling you the truths leaders whisper behind closed doors. #Leadership #WorkCulture #EliteRecruiter #CareerTruths #PerformanceMindset #OrganizationalDynamics #CorporateTruths #EliteEdge #Fortune

You insist you want top talent, yet your culture rewards B players who protect their image and play politics. Then you wonder why your bar for performance feels lower every year; it is because your B players are setting it. And you are allowing it. Here’s how to spot the difference between A, B, and C players and build a winning team. A players seek challenges and do what is right. They will: →Seek out hard problems and ambiguity instead of avoiding them →Take responsibility for outcomes, not just tasks →Raise the bar for themselves and others without being asked →Give direct, clear feedback and invite it in return →Say “I don’t know” with pride because they can figure it out →Share information, context, and credit freely →Attract and hire strong talent (more A players) →Think about the business impact before they think about personal credit →Stay calm and solution-focused under pressure →Protect the culture by refusing to tolerate toxic behavior, even from high performers B players are competent but have underlying insecurities and will be a ceiling on performance. They will: →Do what is asked, but rarely rethink the goal or the approach →Care a lot about visibility, recognition, and titles →Say they want strong teams, but feel threatened by people who are better than they are →Manage up very well, but inconsistently support peers and direct reports →Hoard or block information because it keeps them valuable →Avoid clear, direct conflict and use side conversations instead →Focus on activity metrics more than real business outcomes →Support “change” in theory, quietly resist it in practice →Hire safe, compliant people (more C players) who will not expose their weaknesses →Protect their territory first and the company second WARNING: B players are the REAL danger to any company. C players seek safety, have low initiative, low impact, and high drag. They will: →Do the minimum needed to stay out of trouble →Wait to be told what to do and how to do it →Avoid accountability and attach themselves to group decisions →Blame systems, leaders, or “the company” for everything →Resist learning new skills or tools unless forced →Avoid visibility so their lack of contribution is less obvious →Undermine change with passive comments like “this will never work here” →Frequently miss deadlines and treat them as normal →Need constant follow-up to complete basic work →Drain energy from teams instead of adding to it C players hire more C players. Again, C players are not the problem. B players are. A players build teams that win. B players build teams that stall. C players just want to survive. If you want a high-performing team Let A players lead. Let them hire. Let them set the standard. B players will slowly destroy your company from the inside out. Who you choose to let build and steer your teams changes everything.

Most salespeople suck. Not because they’re bad people. Or lazy. But because sales is really hard. In 2023, across 650,000 opportunities representing ~$50B of pipeline, just 20% of reps delivered 80% of revenue. In 2024, that number fell to 14%. Just 14% of reps delivered 80% of all revenue in B2B tech! Want to know the funny thing? Those numbers haven’t changed much in the 25 years I’ve been doing this. 15yrs ago, we used Objective Management Group to assess our sales team. The numbers were the same. The assessment told us to hire 2 out of every 10 people we thought would be a good fit. And keep 2 out of 10 that already worked for us. The rest were unsalvageable. Time and again, it turns out that a small percentage of sellers generate almost all the revenue in an organization. The real question is: Are the other 80% redeemable? Perhaps a more precise question is, “Can we shift the median performance of the other 80% to warrant investing in development?” Research would indicate, YES. Investing in B players increases their odds of becoming A players by 63%. Can you afford to make that investment? Or better yet, can you afford not to? Let’s compare what’s more expensive... Investing in development or trying to hire only A players. INVESTING IN DEVELOPMENT - According to Spotio, the typical ROI of training is 3.53:1 meaning for every $1 you invest you generate $4.53 in return - Companies that prioritize training are 57% more effective than competitors - High-growth companies are ~2× more likely to provide ongoing sales training HIRING ONLY A PLAYERS - Hiring A players feels like the smart bet. Except it’s not. For two reasons: You’re not very good at hiring and performance isn’t portable. Previous success often depended on firm-specific factors — supportive culture, familiar products, internal networks — that don’t transfer to the new employer. In sales, this means a top 1% performer at Company A might struggle at Company B due to products, processes, or team dynamics. Harvard research calls this the “portability of performance” problem: star employees are “imperfectly mobile” resources. There are additional challenges with hiring stars: - High cost and ROI uncertainty: Top performers command top $ — not just in salary, but guarantees, bonuses, recruiting fees. If the star hits a slump or takes a long time to ramp, the investment may not pay off.     - Expensive mistakes: A failed sales hire can cost $500k — and more if you include lost revenue and morale drag. BOTTOM LINE: Most people are bad at their jobs. Most sales people cannot sell. You can invest in development and it will have some impact. You can try to hire only A players but you'll fail. The answer is probably trying to do both but quickly routing your best leads to people that prove themselves and creating a system that will look unfair but will drive higher productivity. Which means 10-20% of your reps will generate all your business. And maybe that's OK.

I have two people in my team. Let’s call them A and B. On paper, both are doing their jobs. If a strategy document is needed, it comes. If a follow-up has to happen, it happens. If a client needs servicing, the task gets completed. Both are hitting their KRAs. But the difference lies in how they approach the work. A treats the work as if it is his own. He looks deeper into the brief. He suggests improvements even when none are asked for. He thinks about what would genuinely help the client, not just what was assigned. He owns the outcome. B, on the other hand, is extremely efficient. If something is asked, it gets done. Clean. On time. Exactly as instructed. Task given. Task completed. Now look at what has happened over the last three years. A’s compensation has grown almost 4x. B continues to be a dependable performer. But every year his appraisal carries the same rating: Meets Expectations. And when someone like B asks, “But I did everything that was required…” The answer is simple. Yes, he did. And that is exactly the difference between "meeting expectations" and "outstanding performance". Organizations don’t grow because people complete tasks. They grow because some people start treating the work as if it were their own. And that's a lesson for everyone reading this. What are your views? #SamparkSeSampark #Leadership #Ownership #Performance #Careers

You don’t have a talent problem—you have a tolerance problem Every leader loves to complain about talent. • “It’s so hard to find good people.” • “No one wants to work anymore.” • “If only I had a stronger team, we’d be unstoppable.” But let’s be honest: your problem isn’t talent—it’s what you tolerate. The best teams aren’t found. They’re built. & if you’re tolerating mediocrity, excuses, or a lack of execution, then you’re the reason your team isn’t great. Want to know why your best people leave? Because they’re tired of carrying dead weight. A high performer in a low-accountability culture feels like an Olympic sprinter forced to run in ankle weights. Eventually, they’ll get frustrated, stop pushing as hard, & then leave for a place that values their effort. Meanwhile, your B-players? They’re perfectly comfortable. Why? Because you let them be. As Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings put it: “Adequate performance gets a generous severance package.” That’s the mindset of a leader who doesn’t tolerate mediocrity. Culture isn’t what you say—it’s what you allow. • If you allow excuses, you’ll get more excuses. • If you let deadlines slip, your team will assume deadlines don’t matter. • If you tolerate office politics, you’ll get more drama than execution. The best teams operate under one unbreakable rule: High standards are non-negotiable. & here’s the kicker: You’re always setting a standard. Even when you think you’re being lenient, you’re setting a new bar for what’s acceptable. If you’re waiting to “find” the perfect team, you’re already behind. Great leaders don’t hire unicorns—they create them. Michael Jordan didn’t wake up great—he trained like a man possessed. The same goes for any high performer. The question isn’t whether you can hire perfect people; it’s whether you can demand excellence from the people you already have. • Coach your team relentlessly. Stop expecting people to be self-managing. • Give them direct, honest feedback. • Raise the bar. Make excellence the standard, not the exception. • Cut the dead weight. The fastest way to improve a team isn’t by hiring—it’s by removing those who slow it down. Great teams aren’t built on excuses. They’re built on expectations. If your team isn’t where you want it to be, look in the mirror. What are you tolerating? • Are you allowing excuses? • Are you letting standards slip? • Are you holding onto people who should have been gone months ago? You don’t have a talent problem. You have a tolerance problem. Raise the bar & watch what happens. #Management #Leadership #LeadershipDevelopment #BusinessStrategy #Strategy #PersonalDevelopment #Culture #Business #CareerDevelopment #TalentAcquisition #TalentManagement #Hiring #Recruiting #Recruitment

Recruiters - how to coach A, B and C players: 1. A Players It’s easy to assume it's best to leave A players alone: they’re hitting / smashing target and we don't want to get in their way (or give the impression of micromanagement) so we keep our distance. This is a big mistake - you should actually spend more time on your heavy hitters as that's where you’ll often get the biggest return. The key here is to continually challenge them: - Challenge their thinking - help them stretch even further. - Challenge them to think bigger about their role and career overall. - Challenge them to think about true mastery and skill development. In short, don’t let them rest on their laurels and instead continually challenge them to think BIGGER. 2. B Players B players make up the majority of your sales floor. One of the biggest challenges B players face is consistency of execution - a big part of what separates them from A players. So for B players: - Focus on improving consistency. - Focus on one thing at a time (no “drinking from the fire-hose.”) - Understand their strengths and motivations AND accept them for who they are. Some managers assume you should try to move every B player up to A player standards. Which is an appealing idea but often not the best use of your time (or realistic.) - Give them options. B players might not always want to grow and develop as much as their A player colleagues, but they don't want to stagnate either. So provide then opportunities to grow within their ability and/or comfort zones. 3. C Players. C players are individuals who are consistently underperforming (despite appropriate support.) C players need lots of coaching and can consequently make huge demands on your time. You have to be very careful about this otherwise you’ll spend all your time with them, to the detriment of your A and B players. For C players: - Firstly, determine whether the problem is a will problem (won’t do) or a skill problem (can’t do). - If it’s a will problem, you face a much larger challenge (which is typically impossible to resolve.) - Give compassionate but honest feedback - you are doing them no favours by withholding it and they need to understand exactly how and why they're falling short. - Create a clear (agreed) plan for improvement, including concrete metrics/goals within defined timescales. - If they don't meet agreed upon standards within the specified amount of time, help them make a dignified exit. - And watch out. Sometimes C players will improve their performance when they realise their job’s at risk. But they’ll quickly slip back into bad habits as soon as the pressure is off.

I’ve been asked numerous times to write a book on leadership. My answer: “It would be short: one page with five letter letters. AA, BC. D.” This is the essence of my take on leadership and organizational diagnosis. Pretty much all culture and performance problems fall into this framework, in my experience. A players love working with other A players because they don’t feel threatened by other strong people and they truly aim to bring the people and the organization forwards. A Leaders deliver “Managment Alpha”: they can deliver more with existing teams by elevating people. They also see the potential in B and C, and thrive when other people flourish. A players are shakers, shapers, innovators, serviant leaders, truly client focussed, spreaders of positivity, inspirers of growth. B players hire C players because it makes them feel good about themselves. C players are simply less experienced, and mostly say yes to their bosses. B players will avoid having any A players around them, who could challenge them - and frequently are the cause of talent drain in organizations. A players don’t want to work for B leaders. B deliver “Management Beta”: they play musical chairs with their teams, buy talent at (higher) market prices, thus buying themselves time (12-24 months) before coming under pressure to deliver Management Alpha. By then, they are already working on the next management reshuffle. B might enable but won’t systematically empower nor elevate others, not to a level that might threaten their own ego or position in any way. B players talk about clients and people, but in reality put process first: whip harder, grow faster. Or they challenge constantly, without providing clear direction: narcissistic leaders fall into the B category, too. C are simply less experienced than B or A. They have potential to grow into either A or B, or depending on the leadership they experience. Or decline into D when they feel there is no perspective but don’t want to leave. D don’t really care whether their leader is A or B. They are there to secure their own future, do a decent job and survive on the sidelines until the next management reshuffle comes along. Don’t rock the boat. Nod along and ignore the fuss. When passiveness turns to negativity, D can destroy a corporate culture as much as B can. Does this short summary sound superficial? I can assure you it’s not. Take a moment to ask yourself: - Is your boss an A or B leader? (Easy to answer!) - Is your organization led by A leaders? - Who are the people you would not want to work for? - Which talents has your organization lost? - Is there an unhealthy acceptance of B? - Is C really given a space to grow or just constantly overloaded with work, to the benefit of B? - How much D is tolerated and how does it impact growth or hinder change? Share your thoughts in the comments. All feedback welcome 🙏

What if I told you that letting go of your underperforming sellers could actually boost your business, not harm it? Recent research categorises sellers into four distinct groups: Super Star Performers, Top Performers, Middle Performers, and Under Performers. The first two categories thrive with minimal guidance or substantial training and coaching, consistently meeting or exceeding targets. Middle Performers, while hardworking, often stick too closely to features and functionalities and need systematic coaching to refine their sales approach. It’s the last group - the Under Performers - where tough decisions can yield significant benefits. Often believing they are top-tier without the results or attitude to match, these sellers resist training and blame external factors for their failures. Cutting this group from your team might seem harsh, and there's a valid concern about the impact on company growth if you let go of, for example, 10% of your sales team. However, the reality is that this will set a new standard, a standard that you as a business owner have the power to define, that encourages the remaining team to take their performance seriously, compensating for any lost revenue and then some. Removing underperformers can elevate your entire team’s performance standards. It lowers costs and raises the bar, creating a culture where continuous improvement is valued. This not only helps to improve the performance of middle performers but also reinforces a high-performance culture throughout the organisation. This approach is a triple win: it reduces costs, elevates standards, and boosts team morale by showing that underperformance and lack of engagement won’t be tolerated. #Leadership #SalesPerformance #SaaS #HighPerformanceCulture