I’ve noticed the same. I don’t thing that means there’s no difference in talent between people, however. I do agree that “just hire A players” is too simplistic.
Can the environment massively change a person’s contribution?
Yes, in either direction. A poisonous or process-mired environment can take the best person and render them inoperative if not worse. A great environment can bring out the best in people, and they can perform better than they themselves ever thought possible.
I don’t think that means there’s no difference in people. Rather, there’s innate attributes that intersect the environment. Think of the A player as a strong swimmer, who loves to swim. So when the water is high and rough (tough times), they can swim and survive, and perhaps they even love the challenge, because great people love to exercise their greatness, especially with others who can keep up. When the water is medium-height and calm, they can do whatever. If the water is low (too easy, no challenges), they’re bored. They’ll “survive,” but they want to do more than survive, they want to swim, so they go somewhere else.
Now there are people who can swim but not well. If the water is too high, they don’t make it. If the water is calm, they can survive. These might be B players.
At any given time, a company might have different water levels, even different team to team. It’s possible that one team is in a great, healthy place, with no need for urgency, even doing A+ work. There, a so-called B player might fit in well, and improve just by being surrounded by great people and great process, to learn from or just to not drown in. But another team might be in the chop, and you can’t put just anyone on that team for them to turn it around and not just survive but thrive.
I also believe that some attributes can be changed, and some not. How much of that is built in, and how much of that is will, and how much is whether the environment is supportive and conducive? I don’t know. But I know that when I run into someone 10 or 20 years later, some things are different and some are not.
I also believe in “fit.” That is, it’s possible that a person is a so-called B-player in one position (or company/culture) but an A-player in another. In fact, we all are. I can easily find situations where I’m an A++ and where I’m an F. So I wouldn’t label the human a letter grade overall, but I do think you can say where strengths and gaps are, or where fit would be great or not (even if not with a letter grade). In a sense, you could say this is environmental too, but not because the environment “changed the person” but rather that having “person / environment fit” allows the person’s strengths to shine.
How to get the best work out of people
You get what you expect, and you get what you model.
When your attitude is that the team isn’t working well, and lots of things need to change, that expectation is felt. When your attitude is that this team has all the ingredients of greatness already, and just needs a shift in policies or procedures or letting go of certain constraints or adding some enabling constraints or changing their philosophy or replacing just one “bad apple” person, or…. then that expectation is felt too.
Mostly though I find that modeling is the way. When I’m engaged all the time, asking questions, poking in Slack, discussing in documents, asking “why not faster” or “what’s another way,” then others do too. Maybe they want to impress me. Maybe they now see that something better is possible. Maybe they’re just inspired by the energy.
Another thing I think is very important to model is honesty, especially about whatever is “bad,” and with a constructive mindset. When I dive in with a team, I specifically look for things that’s “bad” or a “mistake” or “broken” or a “failure” or other words people like to use, and then I call them out, and then explain why this is not a failure at all, but rather this is healthy and the way forward.
Example: If a feature we released doesn’t have usage, I say how great it is that we measure usage, so we can know that and do something about it. I say that all teams make features and sometimes they’re not used — that’s life! We don’t love that obviously, we’d rather that didn’t happen. But there’s no such thing as a team that never makes a feature that isn’t perfect. We’re so good, however, that we’re able to detect that, and then do whatever we want. We might want to kill the feature, or iterate it, or ask more questions of customers, or whatever else. Team decides because the team is in command of the situation. That’s why it’s not a “failure.”
When you can be honest about “bad stuff,” and see that “being in command and trying to be smart and trying to do the right thing and being honest” is actually the expectation, then the team is free. Free to celebrate wins and call out misses and stay in command. That’s fun.
I believe this sort of thing brings the best work out of people.