The most expensive person on your team usually isn't the C player. Everybody already knows about the C player. It's the B player you've quietly decided is "good enough," because whatever standard they set becomes the standard everyone else learns. My view is simple: rate everyone on one scale, check it with one question, and act on the answer within a quarter.
The problem: "fine" is a rating nobody wrote down
Ask most founders to rate their team and you'll hear a lot of "solid," "pretty good," and "they're fine." None of those words mean anything. They drift with your mood, the last thing that went wrong, and how much you like the person.
Hiring has the same problem. One interviewer loves the candidate, another is lukewarm, and the team splits the difference. Nobody agreed on what they were looking for, so the loudest opinion wins.
The fix is one standard. The rating has to mean the same thing whether it comes from you or from a manager in another office. Otherwise "A player" just means "someone I get along with."
Why keeping B players feels safe and isn't
A B player is inconsistent. They have real potential and real gaps, and nobody can say for sure which way they're heading. There's nothing wrong with a B player who is moving. Plenty of A players were B players a year ago.
The trouble is the B player nobody is moving. I've watched founders keep that person for years because replacing them feels expensive and the work mostly gets done. Meanwhile, the A players are keeping score. They see the missed deadlines that carry no consequence. They pick up the slack. Eventually they either lower their own bar or leave.
What you tolerate is what you teach. Keeping a B player without a plan is a decision, and the whole team reads it.
The framework: one scale, four lenses, one override
Here's how I'd rate people.
A players are top 10% performers. They live the company's values, take initiative without being asked, use sound judgment, and bounce back when things go wrong.
B players are inconsistent. The potential is there, and so are the gaps.
C players chronically underperform. They get defensive, resist feedback, and drag down the people around them.
Look at every person through four lenses:
- Ownership. What have they actually done in the past, and did they own the result?
- Execution. How do they approach a real problem, and does the reasoning hold up?
- Skills. Can they do the core work of the seat, proven hands-on?
- Collaboration. Do they make the team around them better or worse?
Use it on two tracks. For candidates, score right after the interview, based only on what you saw in that conversation. For your team, score every quarter, based on the last 3 months of actual work.
Then the override: "Would I enthusiastically rehire this person if they left and reapplied tomorrow?" If the score says A and your answer is a pause, the pause wins. That hesitation is information your scorecard didn't capture.
The move: what to say to a B player
Most B players have never been told they're a B player. They've been told "good job" in a review and then quietly worked around. That's not fair to them.
Here's the conversation: "I want to be straight with you. Right now I'd rate you a B in this seat. Here's what an A looks like: [two specific things]. I want to get you there in the next 90 days, and I'll check in every two weeks. If we can't close the gap, we'll have a different conversation."
That's clear, it's fair, and it has a deadline. Some people rise to it fast. Others show you in 30 days that they aren't going to. Either way, you have your answer.
For a C player, the conversation is shorter. If someone has been costing you more than they produce for a full quarter, you already know. Make the call and protect the team.
What to do this week
- List every direct report. Give each one an A, B, or C in under 10 seconds. Don't overthink it. Your first instinct is data.
- Ask the rehire question for each name. Circle anyone where the answer wasn't "yes, enthusiastically."
- Pick one circled name and schedule the conversation before Friday.
A Players
I built A Players to turn this into a scorecard you can use in minutes. Pick the candidate path right after an interview or the team member path for quarterly reviews. It walks you through the four lenses, gives you an A/B/C rating, and asks the rehire question at the end so a strong score can't hide a real concern. Run it on your whole leadership team and compare how different managers rate the same people. The gaps are usually the most useful part.
Open the A Players →Get the next lesson in your inbox
Short, practical lessons like this one for founders running $1M–$20M companies, plus every new free tool before anyone else.
If this is the call in front of you, let's talk it through.
A focused 30-minute conversation. No pitch. Just a direct discussion about the decision and whether I can help.
Book a call with Danny →
Danny Feldman is a 3× founder and the advisor behind Feldman Advisory. He founded and scaled Stellar to $100M in annual revenue across 15 states, raised $55M+ as a founder, and used AI to double revenue before exiting to private equity. Earlier, he recruited and trained 55,000+ sales reps at Cutco and grew a division from 1 to 58 locations. Operator to operator, he now helps founders of $1M–$20M companies get out of the middle of the business, build the leadership team, and raise capital. Book a 30-minute call →