Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • A Player or A Positions PDF

    Uploaded by

    Sasha Khalishah
    8 views10 pages

    Original Title

    A Player or A Positions.PDF

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views10 pages

    A Player or A Positions PDF

    Uploaded by

    Sasha Khalishah

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    Harvard Business Review # A single-minded focus on {finding and developing A players misses the point. A better approach is first to identify strategically critical jobs, then to invest disproportionately to ensure that the right people—doing the right things—are in those positions. www.hbrreprints.org ‘A Players” or ‘A Positions’? ‘The Strategic Logic of Workforce Management by Mark A. Huselid, Richard W. Beatty, and Brian E. Becker Included with this full-text Harvard Business Review article: 1 Article Summary ‘The Idea in Brief—the core idea “The Idea in Practice—putting the idea to work 2 “A Players” or “A Positions”?: The Strategic Logic of Workforce ‘Management 9 Further Reading Alist of related materials, with annotations to guide further exploration ofthe articles ideas and applications Reprint ROS12G ‘This materials only tobe usedin conjunction with MBA lectures The Idea in Brief ‘Superior alent gives your company its ‘competve edge. But your star performers ‘an‘tbumish your bottom ine unless you “deploy ther in those few jobs through which you execute your high love strategy. Ifyou havent identified those’A postions? -youmay be drastically mismanaging your workforce rewarding high performers in onsrategc jobs, oF keeping B or even C players in mission critical oles, Hom takea mote disciplined approachto workforce management? identify your A positions —those most essential to your strategy, Probably less than 20% of your Job A positions are likely scattered ‘throughout your organization at al levels Ten actively develop and generously com- pensate the high performers in those roles, Move C players outof A position, replacing ‘them with top talent. Help Bpayersin sta- ‘tegicpostionstoelevate ther performance toAlevel Nocompany an afford tohave A players in all positions. Bu by placing your very best people in strategic postions, investing dis: ‘roportionatelin them, and managing your and C players shrewdly, you creates workforce that can cary out your stat egyand leave rivals scrambling “A Players” or “A Positions”? The Strategic Logic of Worklorce Management Tomanage your workforce strategically: Identity Your" Positions” ‘postions are crucial to your compary/ abi Inyo execute some par ofits strategy. To Ident these postions, lary the baison which your company competes Price? Qual: ity? Mass customization? Then identi the technologies, infration and sls required to create your intended competitive advan- ‘age. Ask which jobs empl those cial ca- pablitie inthe execution of your strategy > eample ‘Nordstrom and Costco both rly on cus- tomer satisfaction to drive growth and shareholder value. But Nordstrom strategy hinges on personalized service and advice, while Costco relies on low prices and product avalailty Nordstrom's A postions ‘therefor include frontine sales associate Jobs while Costco includes purchasing ‘manage oles, Manage Your A Positions Manage your A positions using these techniques: + Evaluation, Determine what dferentates high an low performance in each A posi tion. Measure people against those criteria, > Bample [ALIBM, A postions include deal-making roles—where people assemble sets of products, software and expertise that par ‘ica cents need, IBM identified 10 at- tibutes (including ability to partner with clients critical to these postions. it mea- ‘utes each attbute ona four-point scale ‘elineated with behavioral benchmarks Employees in those oles assess themselves fon these attributes and ae assessed ‘through 360-degree feedback + Development. Actively develop peoplein ‘Apasiions by providing taining and pro” fessional development opportunities. ‘This materiatis only tobe usedin conjunction with MBA lectures ag UB na ePrice > Example: More than $450:milin ofthe $750 millon [BM spends annually on employee devel- ‘opment goes to people in A postions IM requies them to define development pro ‘rams for themselves. These programs are based on stenaths and weaknesses vealed in performance evaluations and craw on intranet tools designed to improve performance on each atte + Compensation. Generous compensate A ployesin A postions ATIBM, annua! salary ‘increases goto only half the workforce Top- performing employees get raises roughly ‘three times higher than simply strong per- formers + Succession. Suld bench sength foreach A postion IBM invests heavily in feeder jobs for A pos tions tregualy assesses feeder employees readiness for promation into strategically m= portant roles. also idences"pass through jobs where people can develop needed skis, andifilsthesejobs with A-postion candidates ‘Manage Your Workforce Portfolio Inteligerty managing your A postions isnt ‘enough: manage B and C postions, t00.8 po- sitions can support A postions (think MSs {feeder foes). Consider outsourcing or aim ating C Jobs. At minimum, move C players ‘out ofA postions and help 8 playersin those tales become A players A single-minded focus on finding and developing A players misses the point. A better approach is first to identify strategically critical jobs, then to invest disproportionately to ensure that the right people—doing the right things—are in those positions. ‘A Players’ or ‘A Positions”? The Strategic Logic of Workforce Management by Mark A. Huselid, Richard W. Beatty, and Brian E. Becker {A great workforce is made up of great people. What could be more intuitively obvious? Is it any wonder, then, that somany companies have devoted so much energy in recent years to en- tifying, developing, and retaining what have ‘come tobe known as°A players"? Firms like GE, IBM, and Microsoft all have well developed sys- tems for managing and motivating their high performance and high-potential employees— and for geting ri oftheir mediocre ones. Marr ‘agement thinkers have widely endorsed this ap- proach: Larry Bossidy, in the bestselling book Execution, for example calls this sort of diferen tiation among employees the mother’s milk of building a performance culture” But focusing exclusively on A players puts, Well, the horse before the cart. High perform. ers aren't going to add much value to an orgar nization if they're smoothly and rapidly pull ing carts that aren't going to market. They're going to be effective only when they're har nessed to the right cart—that is, engaged in work that’s essential to company strategy. This, too, may seem obvious. But it’s surprising how HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW + DECEMBER 2005 few companies systematically identify their strategically important A pesitions—and then focus on the A players who should fill them. Even fewer companies manage their A pos tons in such a way that the A players are able to deliver the A performance needed in these crucial roles. While conventional wisdom might argue thatthe firms with the mos talent win, we be lieve that, given the financial and managerial resources needed to attract, select, develop, and retain high performers, companies simply ‘can't afford to have A players in all postions Rather, we believe thatthe firms with the right talent win. Businesses need to adopt a portfo- lig approach to workforce management, plac ing the very best employees in strategic pos tions, good performers in support positions, and eliminating nonperforming employees and jobs that don't add value. We offer here a method for doing just that, drawing on the experience of several compa nies that are successfully adopting this ap- proach to workforce management, some of Mark A. Huslid huss suigersedu) and Richard W. Beatty (GCetbeatyopamedia net are pokes srs ofan resource management Inthe Schl of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers Unversity inNew Burswick New Jersey. Brian Becker (boeckenpbutaloed) isa professor of human resouresinthe School of Management at SUNY But fon New York They ae the authors of The Workforce Scorecard: Manag {ng Human Capital to Execute Stat egy arard Business chal Pes 2005, ‘which we have worked with in our research or ‘as consultants. One thing to keep in mind: E& fective management of your A positions re- ‘quires intelligent management of your B and C Positions as well Identifying Your A Positions People traditionally have assessed the relative value of jobs in an organization in one of two ‘ways. Human resource professionals typically focus on the level of skill, effort and respons bility ajob entails, together with working con- ditions. From this point of view, the most im- portant positions are those held by the most highly skilled hardest working employees, ex- ercising the most responsibility and operating, in the most challenging environments. Economists, by contrast, generally believe ‘that people's wages reflect the value they cre: ate forthe company and the relative scarcity of, ‘their shill in the labor market. Thus the most important jobs are those held by the most highly paid employees. The trouble with both ff these approaches is that they merely iden- tify which jobs the company is currently treat ‘ng as most important, not the ones that actu ally are. To do that, one must not work ‘backward from organization charts or compen- sation systems but forward from strategy. ‘That's why we believe the two defining char- acteristics of an A position are first, as you ‘might expect, its disproportionate importance to.a company’s ability to execute some part of, its strategy and second—and this is not nearly as obvious—the wide variability in the quality ‘of the work displayed among the employees in the position. Plainly, then, to determine a position’ stra tegic significance, you must be clear about ‘your company's strategy: Do you compete on ‘the basis of price? On quality? Through mass ‘customization? Then you need to identify ‘your strategic capabilties—the technologies, information, and skills required to create the Intended competitive advantage. Wal-Mart's low-cost strategy for instance, requires state- ofthe art logistics, information systems, and a relentless managerial focus on efficiency and cost reduction, Finally, you must ask: What jobs are critical to employing those capabili- ties in the execution of the strategy? ‘Such positions are as variable as the srate- ies they promote. Consider the retailers Nord- strom and Costco. Both rely on customer satis: Hanan musivess REVIEW + DECEAHER 2005, “A Players” oF “A Positions"? faction to drive growth and shareholder value, ‘but what diferent forms that satisfaction takes: At Nordstrom it involves personalized service and adviee, whereas at Costoo low prices and product availabilty ar key. So the jobs critical to creating statepic advantage at ‘the two companies will be different. Frontline sales associates are vital to Nordstrom but hardly to be found at Costco, where purchas: ing managers are absolutely central to succes. “The point is, there are no inherently strate- fe positions. Furthermore, they're relatively Fare—less than 20% of the workforee—and a likely to be scattered around the organization. “They could include the biochemist in R&D or the field sales representative in marketing. So far, our argument is straightforward. But why would variability in the performance of the people currently in ajo be so important? Because sin other portlios variation in job performance represents upside potential— ising the average performance of indvicuals thes critical roles will ay huge dividends in ‘corporate value. Furthermore, if that variance ‘exists across companies it may also bea source of competitive advantage fora particular firm, ‘making the pesition strategically important Sales postions fundamental tothe success cof many a companys strategy, are a good case in point A salesperson whase performance is inthe Bsth percentile of company’s sles staff frequently generates five to ten times the reve- rive of someone in the soth percentile. But ‘we're not just talking about greater or lesser Value creation—we're also talking about the potental for value creation versus value de- struction. The Gallup organization, for in- Stance, surveyed 45,000 customers of a com- pany known for customer service to evaluate its 4,600 customer service representatives. The reps’ performance ranged widely: The top quartile of workers had a positive effect on 69%of the customers they talkedtothe second ‘quartile hada positive effect on only 40% the thied quartile had a postive effect on just 27%—and the bottom quartile actually had as a group, a negative eect on customers. These people—at the not insignificant cast to the company of roughly $40 milion ayear (assum {ng average total compensation of $35,000 per person) —were collectively destroying value by alienating customers and, presumably, diving ‘many of them away. Although the $40 million in wasted re aces sources is jaw-dropping, the real significance of this situation isthe huge difference that replac: ing or improving the performance of the sub- _par reps would make. If managers focused dis- proportionately on this postion, whether through intensive training or more careful screening of the people hired for it, company performance would improve tremendously. ‘The strategic job that doesnt display a great deal of variability in performance is relatively rare, even for those considered entrylevel. ‘Thats because performance in these jobs in- volves more than proficiency in carrying out a Which Jobs Make the Most Difference? |An A postion is defined primarily by its im- act on strategy and by the range in te per- formance level ofthe people inthe postion, DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS Scope of authority Primary determinant ‘of compensation Effect on value ‘creation Consequences of mistakes Consequences of hiring wrong person From these two characteristic flow a num ber of other attributes that distinguish A po- sitions fom B and C jobs. A Position B Position STRATEGIC SUPPORT Has. direct strategic | Has an inlnect strategie impact impact by supporting || strategicpositions and ‘No ‘minimizes downside risk by previding a foundation Exhibits high performance for strategiceforts variabiltyamong thosein the position representing Of, upside potential Has a potential strategic Impact, but exhibits tle performance variability “Alayers" or A Positions"? task. Consider the job of cashier. The generic ‘mechanics arent dificult. But if te position is part of a retail strategy emphasizing the cus- tomers’ buying experience, the job will cer tainly involve more than Scanning products and collecting money with a friendly smile, Cashiers might, for example, be required to take a look at what a customer is buying and then suggest other products that the person right want to consider on a return vist. In such cases, there i likely to be a wide range in people's performance. ‘Some jobs may exhibit high levels of vari- C Posi SURPLUS in ‘May be required forthe frm to function but has Uitte strategic impact ‘among those inthe position ‘Autonomous decbion making Speci recesses or proced rypialy mustbe followed Peformance Joblevel Creates value by substatly Supports vale-ceating May be very cosy but missed revenue opportunities are 3 greater loss tothe fem ‘May be very costy arc can estoy value Significant expense in terms 6 ost raining investment and Fail casiy remedied thvough hing of epizcement revenue cpporturiies [HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW = DECEAHER 2005 res | Lite cscetio Marke pce as tite post Not necessary crty 3 asly remedied through hiing | @ of replacement z Companies simply can't afford to have A players in all positions. ability (the sales taff onthe floor ata bigbox stor lke Costeo, fr example) but have litle strategic impact (because, a we have noted, Coste strategy doesnot depend on sales tft to ensure customer satisfaction). Neither dr matically improving the overal level of perf mance in these jobs nor narrowing the vark ‘ance would present an opportunity. for improving competitive advantage ‘Attermatively some jb may’ be potentially important strategically but curently repre- sent little opportunity for competitive advan- tage since everyone’ performance i already at a high evel. That may either be because of the standardized nature of the job or because a company oF industry has, through traning or careful hing reduced the variability and in- creased the mean performance of workers to a point where further investment int merited. A pit, for example, is key contributor 0 mast airlines’ strategic goal of safety, but ming to regular traning throughout plots reers and government regulations, most pilots peeform well Although there definitely is a strategic downside if the performance of some piles were fll nto the unsafe category, im- proving pilot performance i the area of safety is unlikely and even i marginal gains are pos- sible, unlikely to provide an opportunity for competitive advantage. So ajob must meet the dual criteria of stra- tegic impact and performance variability if it {sto qualify as an A position. From these two defining characteristics low a number of oth «ers—for example a position’ potential to sub- Sandally increase revenue oF reduce costs— that mark an A postion and distinguish it from B and C positions B positions are those that are either indirectly strategic through ‘hei suppor of A positions or are potentially strategic but curently exhibit litle perfor ‘ance variably and therefore ofe litle op- portunity for competitive advantage. AF {hough B positions are unlikely 10 create value, they are often important in maintaining it postions are those that play n0 role in furthering a company’s strategy, have litle ef fect onthe creation or maintenance of value— and may, in fact, not be needed at all (For a comparison of some atributes of these three ‘ypes of postions, se the exhibit "Which Jobs Make the Most Ditference?”) 1's important to emphasize that A post tions ave nothing todo with a firm’ hierar HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW = DECEMBER 2005 “A Players* or “A Positions"? chy—which isthe eiterion excutive teams $0 often use to identify their organizations’ ertical and opportunityrch oles. As natural ast may be for you, a a senior executive to view your own job as among a select group of vital positions in the company, resist this temptation. As we saw inthe case ofthe cash- jet, A postions can be found throughout an organization and may be relatively simple jobs that nonetheless need to be performed ereatively and in ways that ft and further a company’s unique strategy. ‘Aig pharmaceutical firm, for instance, try ing to pinpoint the jobs that havea high im- pact on the companys success, identifies ser eral A postions. Because its ably to test the safety al efficacy of its products ia required strategic capability, the hea of clinical tril, as well asa numberof positions inthe regula tory alfars office, ae deemed critical. But some top jobs in the company hierarchy, in- cluding the director of manufacturing and the corporate treasurer, are not. Akbough people these jobs are highly compensated, make portant decisions, and pay Key roles in ‘maintaining the company’s valu, they dont creat value through the firms business model. Consequently, the company chooses not to ‘make the substantia investments (in say, su cession planning) in these postions that it des for more strategic jobs. ‘A positions also arent defined by how hard they are to fil, even though many managers itakenly equate workforce scarcity with workforce value. A tough Job to fil may not have that high potential to increase a firm's value. Ata high-tech manufacturing company, forexample,a quality assurance manager plays, a crucial role in making certain that the rox ‘cts meet customers’ expectations. The Jb re auires sills that may be dificuto find. Bu, like the aieine pilots, the postion’ impact on company success i agmmetrial. The down- side may indeed be substantial: Quality that falls below six Sigma levels wil certainly de- stroy vale for the company. But the upside i limited: A manager able to achieve a Nine Sigma defect rate won't add much value be ‘cause the difference between Six Sigma and [Nine Sigma wont be great enought translate into any major value creation opportunity (al though the dliference between Two- and ‘TheceSigma defect rates may well be) Ths while such @ position could be hard to flit paces There are no inherently strategic positions. What's more, they're relatively rare—less than 20% of the workforce. doesn’t fit the definition of an A postion. ‘Managing Your A Positions Having identified your A positions, you'll need to manage them—both individually and as part ofa portfolio ofA, B, and C positions—so that they and the people in them in fact fur ther your organization’ strategic objectives. ‘first and crucial step isto explain to your workforce clearly and explicitly the reasons that different jobs and people need to be treated differently. Pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline is identifying those postions, at both the corporate and businessunit levels, that are critical to the company’s success in a rapidly changing competitive environment. As part of that initiative, the company developed a statement ofits workforce philosophy and ‘management guidelines. One of these explic: itly addresses “workforce differentiation” and reads, in part: “I is essential that we have key talent in critical positions and thatthe careers ofthese individuals are managed centrally ‘But communication is just the beginning. A positions also require a disproportionate level of investment, The performance of people in these roles needs to be evaluated in detail, these individuals must be actively developed, and they need to be generously compensated. ‘Also, pipeline must be created to ensure that their successors are among the best people availabe. IBM isa company making aggressive investments on each ofthese four fronts. In recent years, IBM has worked to develop what it calls an “on-demand workforce made ‘up of people who can quickly put together or bbecome part of a package of hardware, sft ware, and consulting services that will meet the specific needs of an individual customer. ‘As part of this effort, IBM has sought to attract and retain certain individuals with what it terms the “hot sills" customers want in such bundled offerings. In the past year ors, the company has also focused on identifying is A postions. The ros ter of such positions clearly will change as IBM's business does. But some, such as the country general manager, are likely o retain their disproportionate value. Other strategic roles include midlevel_ manager positions, dubbed “deal makers? responsibie forthe cen- tral strategic task of pulling togethes, from ‘both inside and outside the company, the di verse set of products, software, and expertise RARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW» DECEMBER 2005, “A Players" or “A Positions”? ‘hata particular client will find attractive. Evaluation. Because of their importance, IBM's key positions are filed with top-notch people: Obviously, putting A players in these A positions helps to ensure A performance. But IBM goes further, taking steps to hold its A players to high standards through an explicit process—determining the factors that differen- tiate high and low performance in each posi- tion and then measuring people against those criteria. The company last year developed a se- ries of ten leadership attributes—such as the abilities to form partnerships with clients and to take strategic rsks—each of which is mea- sured on a fourpoint scale delineated with lear behavioral benchmarks. Individuals as- sess themselves on these attributes and are also assessed by others using 360-degree feedback. Development. Such detailed evaluation isn't ‘very valuable unless i's backed up by a robust professional development system. Drawing on ‘the strengths and weaknesses revealed in theit ‘evaluations and with the help of tools avail able on the company’s intranet, people in IBM's A positions are required to put together a development program for themselves in ‘each ofthe ten leadership areas. ‘This is only one of numerous development ‘opportunities offered to people in A positions. Infact, more than $450 million ofthe $750 mil- lion that IBM spends annually on employee ‘development is targsted at either fostering hot skills (both today’s and those expected tobe to- ‘morrow’s) or the development of people in key positions. A seniorlevel executive devotes all ‘of his time to programs designed to develop the executive capabilities of people in these jobs, ‘Compensation. IBM supports this dispro- portionate investment in development with an even more disproportionate compensation system, Traditionally at IBM, even employees with low performance ratings had received regular salary increases and bonuses. Today, annual salary increases go to only about half the workforce, and the bestperforming em ployees get raises roughly three times as high as those received by the simply strong per- formers. Succession. Perhaps most important, IBM has worked to formalize succession planning and to build bench strength foreach ofits key positions, in part by investing heavily in feeder jobs for those roles. People in these feeder po- Paae 6 sitions are regularly assessed to determine if they are “ready now"“one job avy” oF “two jobs away” from promotion into the strtegi- cally important roles. “Pass-through” jobs, in which people can develop needed skills, are identified and filled with candidates for the key strategic postions. For example, the post tion of regional sales manager isan important passthrough job on the way to becoming a country general manager. In this way, IBM en ‘sures that its A people will in fact be ready to fill ts top positions. ‘Managing Your Portfolio of Inelligently managing your A positions can't bbe done in isolation. You also need strategies {for managing your B and C positions and an ‘understanding of how all three strategies work together. We find it ironic that managers who ‘embrace a portfolio approach in other areas of ‘the business can be slow to apply this type of thinking to their workforce. Alltoo frequently, for example, companies invest in their best and worst employees in equal measure. The ‘unhappy result is often the departure of A Are We Differentiating Enough? ‘Managers who know that differentiated strategies are the key to competitive success ai too often fal to differentiate in strategies for thelr most important asset—their ‘workforce. This checklist can help you determine if you are differentiating enough in the treatment of your compary’s positions and people. fyou check off any ofthese, you have work to do, Positions _— Position descriptions are based on history, not strategic value — Most positions are paid at about the market midpoint. — Recruitment and retention for al positions involve the same effort and budget. — the same selection process is used forall positions. — Ute developmental rotation occurs. — Few positions are eliminated or outsourced. Players Performance evaluation forms are completed rarely or only at salary review. ~ There is ttle candor in performance reviews. ~ Many or most employees are rated the same. — Forced distribution of ratings i used ~ Those receiving the middle rating are labeled “proficient” or successful” and receive regular pay raises despite being viewed as average or marginal — Bath very tough and very lenient raters operate without consequences — Pooe performers stay yet don’ improve Top management isnot rigorously evaluated “A Players” or “A Positions"? players, discouraged by their treatment, and the retention of € players. ‘To say that you need to disproportionately invest in your A positions and players doesn’t mean that you ignore the rest of ‘your workforce. B positions are important ei- ther as support for A positions (as IBM's feeder positions are) or because of any po- ‘tentally large downside implications of theit roles (as with the airline pilots). Put another ‘way, although you aren’ likely to win with ‘your B positions, you can certainly lose with them. As for those nonstrategic C postions, you ‘may conclude after careful analysis that, just as ‘you need to weed out C players overtime, you ‘may need to weed out your C positions by out sourcing or even eliminating the work. Roche is one firm that is placing more em- phasis on the strategic value of positions them- selves, Over the past few years, the pharmacet tical company has been looking at different ‘positions to determine which are necessary for ‘maintaining competitive advantage. Regard Jess of how well a person performs in a roe, if ht prion oop of ig re ie climinated. For example, Roche looked A the srategi valve provided by data services in a recent project and as a result decided Which positions need to be added, which ‘needed to change (or be moved)—and witch, such as data center services (DCS) engineer, needed to be eliminated. n a similar manner, another pharmaceutical firm, Wyeth Con- sumer Healthcare, following a strategic deci sion to focus on large customer, eliminated ‘what had been a strategic position for the com- pany—migdlemarket account manager—as ‘well as staff that supported the people inthis postion ‘The ultimate aim is to manage your portfo- lio of positions so thatthe right people are in the right jobs, paying particular attention to your A positions. First, using performance er- teria developed for determining who your A, ', and C players are, calculate the percentage of each currently in A positions. Then act quickly to get C players out of A positions, re- place them with A players, and work to help B players in A positions become A players Glaxo- SmithKline currently fs engaged in an initia tive to push both line managers and HR staff to ensure that only topetler employees (as de- termined by their performance evaluations) Pace? Many managers will mistakenly equate workforce scarcity with workforce value, but A positions aren't defined by how hard they are to fill. are in the company’s identified key positions Making Tough Choices Despite the obvious importance of developing high-performing employees and supporting the jobs that contribute most to company suc- ess firms that routinely make difficult dec sfons about R&D, advertising, and manutac- turing strategies rarely show the same discipline when it comes to their most valu- able asst: the workforce. In fact, in our long experience, we've found that firms with the ‘most highly differentiated R&D, product, and ‘marketing strategies often have the most ge- neric or undifferentiated workforce strategies. When a manager at one of these companies ‘does make a tough choice in this area, the de~ cision often relates to the costs rather than the ‘value of the workforce. (The exhibit “Are We Differentiating Enough?” can help you deter- ‘mine whether you are making the distinctions likely o create workforce value.) Te would be nice to lve ina world where we didnt have to make hard decisions about the ‘workforce, but we don't. Strategy is about male ing choices, and correctly assessing employees ‘and roles are two of the most important. For us, the essence ofthe issue i the distinction be- ‘tween equality and equity. Over the years, HR. practices have evolved in a way that increas: HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW + DECEMDER 2005, ‘A Players” or “A Positions"? ingly favors equal treatment of most employ ‘es within a given job. But today’s competitive environment requires a shit from treating ev- eryone the same to treating everyone accord: ing to his or her contribution. ‘We understand that this approach may not be for everyone, that increasing distinctions between employees and among. jobs runs counter to some companies cultures. There is, however, a psychological as well as a strategic benefit to an approach that iitaly focuses on ‘A positions: Managers who are uncomfortable with the harsh A and C player distinction—es pecially those In HR, many of whom got into ‘the business because they care about people— ‘may find the idea of frst differentiating, be tween A and C posits more palatable. But shying away from making the more personal distinctions is also unwise. We all now that ef fective business strategy requires dfferentiat- ing a firm’s products and services in ways that create value for customers. Accomplishing this requires a differentiated workforce strategy, as well Reprint ROS12G ‘To order, sce the nest page (or call 800-988-0886 oF 6177837500 (or go to wnww.hbrreprints.org Harvard Business Review % ToOrder For Harvard Business Review reprints and subscriptions call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500,Go to wwwhbreprints. oq For customized and quantity orders of Harvard Business Review avicle reprints, (1 617-782-7626 or emai customizationsehbsphaverdedu “A Players” or “A Positions”? “The Strategic Logic of Workforce Management ARTICLES Let's Hear it for 8 Players ‘By Thomas J. DeLong and Vineeta Vijayaraghavan Harvard Business Review June 2003 Product no. Ro306F ‘The authors agree that 8 players can play a ‘tal rte in your workforce pono. Many 8 players ae former A players who have jumped of the fst track to balance work nd family. Highy skilled power brokers they often pos ‘238 a profound understanding of company processes and norms and amass extensive ‘etworks. Everyone consuls them when ‘pushing iiatves through postically chal Jenging terrain. B players aso provide stabilty |, curing turbulent times, by remembering how their company survived eatler rises and adapting to change. To keep 8 players moti- ‘vated, ont ignore—and thus alienate them. Allocate resources—coaching, romo- tions-—to high-potentia 8 players. Express ‘your appreciation forthe value they bring— even handwritten thank-you notes can mot vate them, ‘ANew Game Plan for ¢ Players by Beth Axelrod, Helen Handfieléjones, and Ed Michaels Harvard Business Review January 2002 Product no. Ro201G ‘This atc focuses on ways to manage your © players Faure to remove C payers pulls «down your entire company’s performance by blocking talented employees advancement,

    You might also like