I know this is now a meme about how "We at globocorp only hire 'Rockstars' and etc.. etc...", but this point to me is really salient:
The best thing you can do for employees—a perk better than foosball or free sushi—is hire only “A” players to work alongside them. Excellent colleagues trump everything else.
I firmly and wholeheartedly believe in that. Find the absolute best people for the job, that play well with the team, pay them really well and treat them like adults. It's a winning combo that has repeatedly worked.
Argue all you want about how there aren't enough of "the best people" which I also agree with - but that's why it's worth working really hard to recruit them.
Wouldn't the practice of "A" players only hiring other "A" players imply a certain monoculture to your team?
Do you hire junior "A" players who aren't really at the levels of skill or professionalism as their senior counterparts, but who have the potential to be and can still be given economically viable work to do? Do you call these people "lowercase 'a' players" or something?
How do you count on your "A" players to recognize top talent in slightly different domains or areas of expertise?
How do you account for people being creative and unique, like the person who has a background in something else but who adds value by being able to bridge cultures and bring new, unfamiliar ideas to your existing "A" players?
Wouldn't the practice of "A" players only hiring other "A" players imply a certain monoculture to your team?
Yea, probably. If the goal is the dominate some sector, then having a mono-culture is incredibly valuable. Singular focus, shared task, shared vision is just staggering when it comes to effectiveness. All high functioning teams, from sports, to military and especially in business share this. And yes it looks like a cult from the outside - partly because it shares cult-like aspects.
It's worth defining what "A" players are, however because I think while there is a pool of them, not all of them would work out for any team.
I think people get the wrong idea that mono culture means no diversity. That's basically what your questions do.
I think back to the spy world and while everyone has the idea that all of the best spies in the world look like James Bond, the reality of it is that the best spy teams in the world look - well like a cross section of the planet. Old people, young people, uber nerds, jocks, preppies etc...but they all have a critical piece of a singular mission of collecting some critical piece of information.
Here is how I define an "A" team: A team that for a defined macro-goal, there is no better possible combination of persons on the planet to be filling the individuals roles, which accomplish micro-goals in furtherance of the macro-goal.
You compose that as needed. It doesn't "look" any way - but there are common features among the individuals usually: Domain expertise, Flexibility, Leadership Ability (which includes followership), Emotional Maturity etc...
I don't think anyone is arguing against "Excellent colleagues trump everything else." As someone else mentioned, statements like these are simplistic truisms. However, I think that treating employees like adults is also recognizing that there is more nuance to people than simply defining them in static terms such as "A players" and assuming they will always remain in neat little categories. Given how quickly things in tech change (or life for that matter), one day you may be an "A player" and the next you may be a B or C. People are dynamic, events happen; how you treat your existing employees when things change matters.
The best thing you can do for employees—a perk better than foosball or free sushi—is hire only “A” players to work alongside them. Excellent colleagues trump everything else.
I firmly and wholeheartedly believe in that. Find the absolute best people for the job, that play well with the team, pay them really well and treat them like adults. It's a winning combo that has repeatedly worked.
Argue all you want about how there aren't enough of "the best people" which I also agree with - but that's why it's worth working really hard to recruit them.