.bh__table, .bh__table_header, .bh__table_cell { border: 1px solid #C0C0C0; }
.bh__table_cell { padding: 5px; background-color: #FFFFFF; }
.bh__table_cell p { color: #2D2D2D; font-family: ‘Helvetica’,Arial,sans-serif !important; overflow-wrap: break-word; }
.bh__table_header { padding: 5px; background-color:#F1F1F1; }
.bh__table_header p { color: #2A2A2A; font-family:’Trebuchet MS’,’Lucida Grande’,Tahoma,sans-serif !important; overflow-wrap: break-word; }
Brad Jacobs has built several billion dollar companies across totally different industries: waste management, equipment rental, logistics. When someone like that says his most useful talent tool is a thought experiment, it’s worth paying attention.
Here’s the test. Imagine one of your people walks into your office and quits, no warning. They’re not negotiating. They already took another job in another city and bought a house. They’re just there to plan a graceful exit.
Jacobs says your first internal reaction tells you almost everything:
If it’s relief (“I was going to have to deal with this sooner or later anyway”), that’s a C player.
If it’s acceptance (“not ideal, the transition will be bumpy, but we’ll run a search and maybe even upgrade”), that’s a B player.
If it’s panic (“we’re so screwed, there’s no way we replace this person”), that’s an A player. And in Jacobs’ world, losing an A player is a cardinal sin. The moment he notices that reaction, he has HR review that person’s comp package and promotion timeline. Not after they resign. Before they’ve ever thought about it.
The line from the book that stuck with me most, though, was about compounding: if you hire a B player, they’ll probably hire C players. Then you have C players led by B players. Talent decisions cascade. One hiring compromise at the top quietly becomes the ceiling for the whole team underneath.
In the businesses I’ve been around, this shows up with an extra twist. Smaller founder-led companies rarely have formal talent reviews, so the A players are identified by accident, usually on the day they resign. And the knowledge those people carry often isn’t written down anywhere. When one of them leaves, you don’t just lose output. You lose part of the operating system.
Two things worth doing this week:
First, run the resignation test on your key people. Just imagine each one quitting and notice your honest reaction. Then look at whether their pay, growth path, and recognition match what you felt.
Second, steal Jacobs’ relationship appraisal. Sit down with a direct report and ask each other to rate the working relationship one to ten. If it’s not a ten, ask the follow-up: “What would make it a ten?” It’s a disarmingly simple way to surface problems while they’re still cheap to fix.
Your gut already knows who your A players are. The only question is whether you ask it before they resign, or after.
Talk soon,
Matt
P.S. When I’m not writing this, I’m buying and operating founder-led businesses for the long term at Eidolon Capital. If you’re a founder thinking about your next chapter, or you advise one who is, just hit reply. I read every note.