How Many A Players Make Sense for Your Work Team?

How Many A Players Make Sense for Your Work Team?
We know from action learning leadership development programs that most executives want to hire as many “A players” as possible to accelerate their strategic growth plans. But in practice, a talent management strategy that relies on stacking a team with top talent isn’t always realistic or the best path to consistently deliver exceptional results. Not only is finding top talent difficult and expensive but having too many A players on a single team can backfire. The real question is: how many A players do you need on a work team to drive sustainable high performance?

What Is an A Player at Work?
Before exploring team composition, let’s clarify what we mean by “A player.” A players consistently exceed expectations and drive disproportionate value creation.  We know from leadership simulation assessment data that true A players at work combine superior competence with adaptability, emotional intelligence, and a deep sense of ownership.

But here’s the nuance: being an A player isn’t just about individual output or being a lone wolf— it’s also about how well someone amplifies the performance of the team. That distinction matters.  Top performers markedly outperform peers in similar roles, elevate those around them, and thrive under pressure without creating collateral damage.

The Myth of the All-Star Team
Many organizations fall into the trap of trying to build “dream teams” by hiring only the best-of-the-best. This works well in sports, right? Not always. In fact, research from Harvard and Stanford has shown that in both business and athletics, teams overloaded with high performers tend to underperform due to ego clashes, employee burnout, poor collaboration, and diminished psychological team safety.

For example, in the 2023 MLB season, the top three spenders to acquire the most top talent – the New York Mets, the San Diego Padres, and the New York Yankees – all missed the playoffs.

When everyone is an alpha, team conflict and dysfunction often follow. Without complementary roles — those who coordinate, support, mediate, and execute — the team often lacks the balance needed for team interdependence, cohesion, and long-term success.

The Strategic Sweet Spot: 20-30% A Players
We know from organizational alignment research combined with experience across high-performing organizations, that you only need about 20–30% A players on a high-functioning team. That’s one to two top performers on a team of five to seven.

Why this ratio? Because A players are not just producers — they are force multipliers. When placed strategically, they raise the bar for others, model best practices, and set a cultural tone of excellence. They bring ambition and velocity, but if overrepresented, can dominate discussions, erode collaboration, and unintentionally stifle emerging talent.

The Role of B Players — and Why They Matter
This doesn’t mean the rest of the team should be average. High-performing teams often rely heavily on what some call “B+ players” — steady, reliable professionals who execute with precision, communicate well, and carry deep institutional knowledge. These individuals may not always be in the spotlight, but their role is essential for operational continuity and cultural stability.

While A players ignite innovation and stretch performance, project postmortem data tells us that B+ players ensure follow-through, consistency, and cohesion. Without them, teams often burn out or break down.

Tailoring A Player Density to the Task
There are exceptions. In fast-paced environments like startups or crisis-response teams, a higher density of A players may be appropriate — if team roles are clearly defined and egos are kept in check. Conversely, in matrixed or highly interdependent teams, balance and harmony often matter more than raw horsepower.

So, context is king. Leaders need to assess the charter of the team, the maturity of its members, and the nature of the work. In high-ambiguity, high-stakes situations, a few strategic A players can drive breakthroughs. But in steady-state operations, too many A players can create unwanted organizational churn.

Managing A Players: Retention and Risk
Having the right number of A players in mission critical roles is only part of the success planning equation. Retaining top talent is the other. High performers are typically ambitious and mobile; they need stretch assignments, visibility, and growth. If not challenged, our organizational culture assessment data tells us that they’ll often disengage or leave.

Moreover, over-reliance on A players carries risk. If your team’s success hinges on a few stars, you’re vulnerable. Smart leaders build systems and workplace cultures that scale performance with various types of talent.

The Bottom Line
You don’t need a team full of A players to win. In fact, you shouldn’t have one. If you want to know how many A players make sense for your work team, know that the optimal mix often includes 20–30% A players — strategically placed to elevate the team — supported by high-performing B+ players who ensure execution and cohesion. Building the right team is about complementary strengths, not just raw talent. We know from strategy retreats that the best leaders know how to amplify and balance talent for their unique business strategy.

To learn more about how many A players make sense for your work team, download 5 Steps to Align Teams to Pull in the Same Direction