Looking for Risk-Friendly Leaders

Author: Dave Crisp

28 Mar

Today’s issue of the Herman Trend weekly newsletter on workforce trends divides potential hires into A, B and C-player levels, categorization that’s being used more commonly lately. I was intrigued to see them say: "“A” players seek future opportunity and the right chemistry with their bosses. They have a high tolerance for risk and ambiguity. They are more focused on pay-for-performance or merit-based pay, than on base salary."

I agree to a point. But as any summary misses some key points, I’m not sure I’d place everyone else in B or C status. People can be terrific, but increasing life responsibilities may cause them to seek stable plateaus for a time. Meanwhile they continue to be outstanding contributors. If everyone you hire is constantly trying to climb over the others to take the best opportunities, that can become a nerve-wracking escalator of increasing expectations.

Of course, one might argue there’s no danger of hiring all A’s no matter how hard you try and that their scarcity suggests you should always tune your recruiting and culture (as the newsletter suggests) to attract them because you’re sure to have enough of the rest anyway. Again I agree to a point. A culture that appeals for its offer of opportunity, pay for performance and good chemistry with leaders is always a plus… for every type of staff.

But… and it’s not a small but… people need to be able to manage risk levels to adapt to their stages of career and life. I contantly chose risky assignments, which was interesting since I came from a highly risk-averse background and remain that way today. I happened to organize my life so if I were fired at any moment, I’d always have time to job search and an up-to-date resume that looked strong. Not everyone can or chooses to live that way. By emphasizing that recruits must present themselves this way to be considered, we’re likely to perpetuate some of the problem myths that only super-aggressive people can be leaders.

The point: it’s fine to look for high-flying risk-takers, but not to short-change powerful contributors who may sometimes pursue a logical, more thoughtful risk-taking approach. We need diversity of opinion, styles and contribution patterns to make the best teams. Classifying people as A’s should take into account more than just their aggressiveness.

Bookmark and share this post