The Right & Wrong of "A-Players"

So, you are kicking off a new recruitment piece and your CTO says "I only want A-Players!!"

Sigh....Panic sets in. Is this whole recruitment piece going to be sabotaged by the arbitrary whims of the CTOs feelings (and biases) of ...A-Playeriness?

Or do they actually know what finding A-Players entails?

In cases like this, knowing where A-Players comes from, and being able to properly support your stakeholder with practical knowledge puts you in a really advantageous position.

What you Need to Know

So the concept of the 'A-Player' comes from "Who: The A Method for Hiring". A 2008 book by Geoff Smart and Randy Street.

It presents a structured framework, called the “A Method,” which is geared toward identifying and hiring top-performing candidates or ‘A Players’ who are well aligned with the company’s goals and culture.

The A Method has core principles, designed to replace intuition with structure and to elevate the quality of hiring decisions.

Why Do CEOs Love This Method?

Smart and Street have done a really good job of outlining the problem statement. A key theme is the problem statement that the cost of a bad hire is an order of magnitude higher than the cost of hiring, so a process that rigorously validates a candidate skills and competencies, even if operationally more expensive, reduces cost by reducing the number of 'bad hires'

For a founder and their investors, and objective (and auditable) methodology that minimises risk is a pretty sweet deal.

How the A Method Works

Scorecard

Define what success looks like for each role before beginning the hiring process. There are 3 components:

• Outcomes: Clear, measurable objectives that define what the person needs to achieve.

• Competencies: Core behaviours, skills, and attitudes that the ideal candidate should possess.

• Skills: Specific knowledge or technical skills required to succeed in the role.

This becomes the benchmark for evaluating all candidates and ensures alignment among stakeholders.

Source

Proactive sourcing to create a steady pipeline of qualified candidates rather than relying solely on job boards. The book suggests:

• Networking & Referrals: Leveraging personal and professional networks to find potential hires.

• Direct Sourcing: Actively searching for candidates rather than waiting for them to apply.

The goal is to cast a wide net and identify potential A Players before there’s an immediate need to fill the role.

Select

A multi-step interview process to assess against the Scorecard objectively:

• Screen: Initial interview to filter out candidates who do not meet basic requirements.

• Topgrading Interview: A detailed chronological review of the candidate’s career to understand their accomplishments, motivations, and reasons for leaving each role.

• Focused Interviews: Interviews led by multiple team members, each focusing on specific competencies from the Scorecard.

• Threat of Reference Checks: Instead of the traditional approach, Smart and Street recommend gathering “reference calls” with former managers to verify the candidate’s performance and fit.

This structure is meant to reduce bias and ensure a data-driven, thorough evaluation.

Sell

Once an ideal candidate has been selected, it’s essential to “sell” the position effectively. the book emphasise that top candidates often have multiple offers, so the hiring team must:

• Connect the Role to the Candidate’s Goals: Align the job’s objectives with the candidate’s career aspirations.

• Present a Compelling Vision: Show how the role contributes to the organisation’s larger mission.

• Personalise the Offer: Ensure the offer addresses the candidate’s specific needs and motivations.

The authors also recommend addressing potential concerns directly and highlighting the unique opportunities within the role and organisation.

Continuous Improvement

Not a step in the A-Method, but the book does advocate for a cycle of continuous improvement to lock in marginal gains over time.

The Rights of the A-Method

Scorecards

Building objective success criteria for a role is a good idea in any talent acquisition strategy.

Instances where the A-Method falls down is when this first step is not successfully completed or correctly governed and trained into the stakeholders.

If the scorecard isn't being used consistently, any candidate is subject to the arbitrary biases of each stakeholders own definition of "A-Player"

Source

Yes Yes Yes. Sourcing is a core component of any talent strategy focussed on finding high calibre candidates consistently, with the lowest level of effort.

I would only argue that the book doesn't go far enough. I always advocate for an always on sourcing model, where sourcing is decoupled from individual roles.

Sourcing is a capability of your TA team that should be ritualised daily and used, yes to fill open roles, but also to engage high skills candidate pools for future roles, to discreetly build warm lists for future exec hiring, and to load balance volume across individual recruiters. It can even be used for sales and M&A in some instances.

Always on Sourcing for the win.

The Wrongs of The A-Method

Topgrading

Topgrading interviews can last up to four hours. It is fundamentally disrespectful to a candidates time, particularly the passive, high calibre candidates your organisation are seeking.

The Topgrading process involves extensive, often lengthy interviews that can feel repetitive and exhausting for candidates. This can lead to frustration, especially for high-performing candidates who may find the process unnecessarily intense

Topgrading requires interviewers to conduct detailed, chronological interviews that can introduce considerable unconscious bias, particularly if interviewers aren’t well-trained.

The A-Method assumes interviewers can objectively evaluate each career stage, which isn't true. But untrained interviewers may misinterpret career decisions or performance, leading to inaccurate conclusions.

If interviewers are inconsistently trained or don’t understand the structured approach, they may provide varied or subjective feedback. This lack of standardisation can lead to an unreliable evaluation process and contribute to hiring decisions that don’t align with the defined Scorecard.

Threats of Reference Checks

Potentially illegal. if not, very legally dubious, either way, a needless risk for the business.

In Europe, this practice often falls into legally grey areas. Due to GDPR regulations, employers must obtain explicit consent from candidates before contacting past employers for references.

Without this, such reference checks may breach privacy laws, risking penalties and damaging the employer’s reputation. Consent should be clear, informed, and voluntary—anything less is non-compliant.

Additionally, consent is revokable, ie, if a candidate gives permission, doesn't receive a role and becomes a brand detractor. they can say that they felt compelled to give consent otherwise they would have been rejected. This is a valid argument that their consent wasn't valid.

This approach can leave candidates feeling uncomfortable or distrustful, especially if they’re not fully informed beforehand. When candidates feel like their privacy has been infringed, it can create a negative impression, which may lead to reluctance in joining the company or sharing the experience with others.

High-performing candidates may even drop out of the process if they feel the reference check process is invasive or overly controlling.

Luke's Rule of Thumb : If the step starts with the word "threat" maybe you are one of the baddies...

Sell

The concept is not wrong but it sits in the wrong place. The sell piece needs to be under Scorecard.

Once you have a clear set of success criteria, you should seek to build a candidate persona, identify their motivations and use this to build better candidate pools and attractive messages that will convert to screens, thus reducing the level of effort to hire.

The idea of Sell being the final stage would make sense to a senior stakeholder or a management consultant, but us recruiters know that this piece is inherent t every stage of talent attraction and acquisition.

Screen

The book underplays the value of the screen call. this is the first interaction and is not only used to screen out candidates with a basic misalignment to a role, eg, salary or location restrictions.

Its also the initial relationship build, the lace where candidates do or do not get enough buy in to continue to more time intensive stages and where we get the most knowledge about the candidates motivations and goals, so is a critical component to the 'sell'

Overall

A good system spoiled by top grading and the quasi-unlawful use of personal data.

Nail the scorecard, do the selling piece earlier, put more focus on good screens, dump the topgrading and quasi-unlawful threatening of candidates and this is will have positive outcomes.