It's also idiotic because there are so many variations, and people can change. There are C players who have the talent to become B players in 6 months, and A players after 5 years, and B players worth having because of their other abilities (management potential, mentoring). There are also A players who will flame out, or become discouraged upon meeting the wrong challenge. Humanity does not divide so neatly.
Our company has not experienced this paradox. In fact, it seems easier to hire good people right now because few other companies are hiring. Maybe this is more of a problem if you are hiring outside your network. So far, I don't think anyone we have hired has been layed off. They all are top people who see the writing on the wall at their less successful companies and are happy to find a better job elsewhere before things get really bad.
In my experience the noise in a recruitment is generally a reflection of how well you write your ad and how clear you are in your mind about the kind of person you are looking for. Even in a downturn, I doubt anybody wants to waste their time applying for a job they are clearly not qualified for. Through the years I have learned to write much tighter job ads avoiding generic terms like "DBA" in favour of things like "Sybase administrator". At least that weeds out the people who don't know that Sybase is a database :-)
Anyone know whether the problems of that Stanford programming course are online? It'd be fun (maybe!) to test oneself against the benchmarks. Of course, I'm sure the correctness tests aren't available even if the project specs are.
I have a serious loathing for people who divide the world into "C players", "B players" and "A players". I have indeed worked in places where I could do things that other people couldn't. But I still feel that people fall down in performance because they aren't given things that suited their ability.
But, reading more, this so-and-so doesn't just incidentally divide people, he makes this division the foundation of his approach.
"They ("great people") only want to work with other great people. Once you recruit a few great people, you’re in a bit of a quandary. You’ll need to, from then on, only recruit other great people or the great people you do have will leave. And if you hire any good people by mistake, the great people will (directly or indirectly) want you to let the perceived mediocrity (i.e. good people) go. And letting go of someone that is good is really hard to do. So you’re stuck and that’s the rub."
(http://blog.summation.net/2008/02/the-power-of-gr.html). I actually haven't noticed that "rock star quality" makes people anything but jerks to work with. This moron's description of a great person sounds like the "brilliant" software engineer previously featured on hn who "write incredible code" and sneered at anyone who expected comments. He "only wants to work with great people". Right. Smart people who can keep their "genius bubble" intact can indeed run rings around the fools who accept their dodges.
Authentically good and pleasant people can work with many kind of people ...
The funny thing is that Rapleaf as company is a complete joke. Their server takes many minutes to up with the most minuscule bits of information from any email address. But the company keeps its genius bubble visible all the time. Their hiring smart engineers... maybe some more great people can make the scheme work.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think you have interpreted the author in a very different way to me. You say:
I actually haven't noticed that "rock star quality" makes people anything but jerks to work with
Nowhere does the author suggest that A Players are jerks to work with. In fact, had he had this assumption, he surely wouldn't have called them 'A Players'. It appears to me that you have correlated something that he said 'being very good at what you do' with another trait 'being a jerk to work with'. In my experience, this is not a strong correlation. Maybe in your experience it is, hence your interpretation. But the crux here is that your issue with his points hinges on your addition: A Player = jerk to work with.
As to serious loathing for people who divide the world into "C players", "B players" and "A players" I really do see where you're coming from - it does sound a little distastefully, doesn't it? Anything that apparently force-ranks human kind risks sounding distasteful I feel. But this isn't about classifying the person themselves (in their entire life), it's about classifying the person's ability to job the job that they are currently pursuing. This is hugely important. Someone might be a B Player in the world of software engineering, but an A Player on the soccer pitch.
If you glance at the page that Auren Hoffman links to, you'll see that he defines his "A players" in the classic "Rock Star" fashion - they won't work with anyone but other "A-Players", they'll leave if you hire other types, etc. You can follow the link I provide for this.
Sure, people perform differently in different job and people who perform well should be hired. Even then, the "only A-players" thing is dubious - even in a super bowl team, some people are supporting players and good "stars" respect their support and* a variety of talents is useful even in software creation.
It's pretty obvious that venture capitalist Hoffman using his "Rock stars" rhetoric to pump up Rapleaf as "another Google". "Truly outstanding people" is not a particularly well articulated criteria for hiring but it sure appeals to the plebs and the marketers. It's unfortunate, because your management philosophy shouldn't be a "look at how great I am" tool. If you really need to get people to look at you, there are other ways to do it.
Of course, this is all predicated on the ability to successfully classify potential employees as A, B, or C players.
A couple of months ago, I interviewed at a startup for a product management position. During the interview, it became clear that none of the interviewers had a clue about what product managers are supposed to do. It was almost as if somebody told them "You need a product manager!" (and it certainly seemed like they did), so they went out searching for one. I doubt that they would have been able to tell a good product manager from a smooth-talking bad one.
If you're trying to hire somebody for a position with which you have no expertise, I recommend bringing in an outside expert to advise you and screen candidates.
I know that this is how everyone thinks nowaways but I think a solid team will beat a team of disagreeing rock stars.
Easy-to-work with B+ players are completely missed by the A,B,C system. There are some awesome engineers who will never be famous.