[asdff]

What I don't like about this is that people really aren't A players or B players in practice. It's not a video game, real life is messy. In some situations, a B player can be an A player, and vice versa. Past performance does not indicate future results, and in my experience usually the best worker is the one who has simply been given a chance and the freedom to self optimize their job for some months, and rarely are they the most qualified applicant. No one is good at their job on day one nor should they be expected to be.

There are too many confounding variables involved with the very abstract concept of 'work effort,' for it to be reliably used. Instead, set a price for the role, and if someone is exceeding their anticipated productivity and putting more work on their back, give them a raise.

[true_religion]

I think if you're at the level of A or B player, then you're already at the top of the field. There's a lot more letters in the alphabet, and a lot more difference in experience that people can have.

My company for example will hire F players. We'll even hire G or H players too. Those are the roles that we are actually hiring for when we open up an entry level job. However if a C player comes along, naive and fresh out of a masters program, we'll also snap them up and pay an absolutely exorbitant rate compared to the normal salary range for their position because we want them to stay for at least 5 years. In 5 years, if they improve they'll be A or B players and we'll bump them into Director level roles in the hope that they will stay due to the responsibility and freedom the role offers even though we can't pay Google-level salaries.

Having a posted initial salary will just scare off a candidate who is unnaturally good versus the rest of the local market.

Disclaimer:

I like to think I am/was a solid C rated developer. If you are an A player, I bow to your wisdom. I have never applied to FAANG. I know I wouldn't make even the phone cut.