Huselid, M. A., Beatty, R. W., & Becker, B.E. (2005). A players or a positions?Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 110-117.

Mark Huselid et al, discuss the strategic logic behind A players and A positions. They believe that it is more important to identify the A, or key, positions within the company, and then find the A players for the positions. To identify the A positions one must assess the value of a particular position from multiple viewpoints. Each sector of a company values different attributes and they must all be taken into consideration. The authors believe that once a company groups positions into A, B and C they will be able to more effectively manage the players and maximize budgets.

I am not sure if this is the best way to manage a workforce. It is an efficient way to do it. By breaking management down into a portfolio of position anyone can be a fairly good manager. I also have to question the effectiveness of this kind of system in a CLIC. While CLIC librarians have specific titles and roles there is a great deal of collaborative overlap. Because of this I think it would be almost impossible to identify A, B and C positions within a CLIC.

I would like to know if this hypothesis has been tested in a real-life scenario. A test would reveal if A players and A positions are really so valued that 1/3 of a workforce can eliminated, as the authors claim. I am also curious about the effect on morale that this would have on employees. I cannot imagine that being told that your job is of no value to the company is good for morale.