Why I’d Rather Pay More for One A-Player Than Two B-Players

Earnings Disclaimer: You have a .1% probability of hitting million-dollar months according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. As stated by law, we can not and do not make any guarantees about your own ability to get results or earn any money with our ideas, information, programs, or strategies. We don’t know you, and besides, your results in life are up to you. We’re here to help by giving you our greatest strategies to move you forward, faster. However, nothing on this page or any of our websites or emails is a promise or guarantee of future earnings. Any financial numbers referenced here, or on any of our sites or emails, are simply estimates or projections or past results, and should not be considered exact, actual, or as a promise of potential earnings, all numbers are illustrative only.

I turned down a candidate last month who wanted $30,000 less than the person I actually hired. On paper that looks like a bad decision. In practice it was the easiest call I made all quarter. The cheaper candidate would have needed a second hire within six months to cover what the expensive one does alone.

That’s the trade nobody wants to run the real math on. Two B-players look cheaper on a spreadsheet. They almost never are once you count what it actually costs to manage them, coordinate them, and clean up after mistakes an A-player wouldn’t have made.

Why the Cheaper Hire Math Never Works Out

Every founder does this calculation at some point. You’ve got budget for one $120,000 hire or two $60,000 hires. The two-hire option feels like you’re getting more for the same money. More hands, more hours, more coverage.

The math only works if you stop counting at the salary line. It ignores the fact that two average performers rarely produce the combined output of one great one. High-quality talent can be up to 400% more productive than average employees across various fields, and in complex roles that gap widens to as much as 800%. That’s not two people doing double the work. That’s often one person outproducing both combined.

You’re also not buying two full people when you hire two B-players. You’re buying two partial people. Someone still has to manage them, review their work, and catch what they miss. That management overhead is real payroll spend that never shows up in the offer letter.

What Actually Separates an A-Player From a B-Player

I don’t use A-player as a vague compliment. It’s a specific standard: someone who needs less oversight, catches their own mistakes before they become your problem, and gets to a usable result fast.

A B-player isn’t lazy or incompetent. They’re often perfectly pleasant, reasonably skilled, and genuinely trying. The difference shows up in judgment under ambiguity. Give an A-player a half-formed brief and they fill the gaps correctly. Give a B-player the same brief and they either freeze or fill the gaps wrong, and now you’re fixing it.

The real cost of a B-player is never the work they do. It’s the work you have to redo. I’ve built out how to run this evaluation before an offer goes out in the hiring pipeline that finds A-players at speed. The pattern holds across every role I’ve ever hired for.

The Hidden Cost of Managing Two Average Hires

Two B-players don’t just need twice the management a single A-player needs. They need more than twice. Now you’re also managing the handoffs between them.

Every task that touches both people creates a coordination point where something can go wrong. Who owns the final decision. Whose version is correct when they disagree. What happens when one is out and the other doesn’t know the context. None of that exists when one strong person owns the whole thing start to finish.

Replacing a bad hire costs real money on top of this. SHRM research puts the cost of replacing an employee at up to five times their annual salary once you count lost productivity, training, and the ripple effect on everyone covering for them. Run that math across two hires instead of one. You’ve doubled your exposure to the exact scenario you tried to avoid by hiring cheap.

Results are not typical. Your results will vary and depend entirely on your individual capacity, business experience, expertise, and level of desire. There are no guarantees concerning the level of success you may experience. The testimonials and examples used are not intended to represent or guarantee that anyone will achieve the same or similar results. We don’t believe in get-rich-quick programs. We believe in hard work, adding value and serving others. As stated by law, we can not and do not make any guarantees about your own ability to get results or earn any money with our information, courses, programs, or strategies.

Why Coordination Overhead Eats Your Savings

This isn’t just a hiring problem. It’s a math problem that gets worse the more people you stack on a task.

Brooks’s Law, from decades of research on team output, holds up in modern data too: communication overhead scales quadratically as headcount grows. It grows far faster than the team itself. A team of three has three communication pairs. A team of ten has forty-five. Recent analysis of coding teams found that smaller teams consistently show higher per-person output, precisely because there’s less coordination tax eating into actual work time.

Two B-players aren’t a team of ten, obviously. But the principle scales down the same way. Every extra person you add to cover a capability gap adds a communication pair, a status update, a place where context gets lost. You’re not paying for extra output. You’re paying for extra friction.

How Much More You Should Be Willing to Pay

I don’t think in terms of “can I afford the A-player.” I think in terms of what the A-player replaces. If one strong hire genuinely outproduces two average ones, and I’d have spent $120,000 on the two anyway, I’m not overpaying at $150,000 for the one. I’m getting a discount.

The number that matters isn’t the salary gap between the candidates. It’s the output gap. If someone can do the job of 1.5 or 2 average people, the math tips in their favor at a much higher price point than most founders are comfortable considering.

Where this breaks in practice is founders anchoring to the wrong comparison. They compare the A-player’s salary to the B-player’s salary. They should be comparing it to what two B-players actually cost once management time, coordination overhead, and mistake cleanup get factored in. Compared correctly, the A-player is usually the cheaper option.

Running the Actual Numbers on One Hire vs Two

Let’s run a real example instead of talking in the abstract. Say you need a marketing operator. Two B-players at $60,000 each costs you $120,000 in salary. One A-player runs $140,000. On the surface, the two-hire path looks $20,000 cheaper.

Now add what actually happens after the offer letters go out. Someone has to manage both B-players, which realistically eats five to eight hours of a manager’s week, every week. At even a modest $75/hour value on that time, you’re looking at another $20,000 to $30,000 a year in management overhead that never appears on the org chart.

Then factor in the output gap itself. If the A-player genuinely produces what 1.5 average performers produce, and the research on productivity gaps between top and average talent backs that kind of multiple up in complex roles, the two B-players aren’t even matching the A-player’s output. You’re paying more, in total, for less delivered. The $20,000 “savings” evaporates the moment you count anything past the base salary line.

Why A-Players Multiply Everyone Around Them

The productivity gap between an A-player and a B-player isn’t static. It compounds, because A-players raise the standard of everyone working next to them.

When I run a team meeting, an A-player asks the question that reframes the whole discussion. A B-player waits to be told what to do. Over months, that difference trains the people around them. The team either learns to think at a higher level because someone’s modeling it daily, or it drifts toward the average.

This is a huge part of what I build with operators inside my Inner Circle, my private mastermind for people scaling past the point where they can personally do every job themselves. The businesses that scale fastest aren’t the ones with the most headcount. They’re the ones where every seat is filled with someone who raises the standard instead of just filling the chair.

When Two B-Players Actually Is the Right Call

I’m not saying every role needs an A-player at a premium. Some work is genuinely commoditized: repetitive, low-judgment, easy to standardize into a checklist. Data entry, basic customer support, simple fulfillment tasks. For those roles, redundancy and coverage matter more than individual brilliance. Two reliable B-players covering shifts can beat one expensive specialist sitting idle half the week.

The mistake is applying that logic to roles where judgment, ownership, and independent decision-making actually drive the outcome. Sales, marketing leadership, operations management, anything where the person makes dozens of small calls a day that compound over time. Those are exactly the roles where I’ve documented the hiring screen that protects margin and culture, because a wrong hire there costs far more than the salary difference ever saved.

Results are not typical. Your results will vary and depend entirely on your individual capacity, business experience, expertise, and level of desire. There are no guarantees concerning the level of success you may experience. The testimonials and examples used are not intended to represent or guarantee that anyone will achieve the same or similar results. We don’t believe in get-rich-quick programs. We believe in hard work, adding value and serving others. As stated by law, we can not and do not make any guarantees about your own ability to get results or earn any money with our information, courses, programs, or strategies.

How to Actually Test for A-Player Talent

You can’t tell the difference between an A-player and a B-player from a resume or a friendly interview. Both types interview fine. The gap shows up under real conditions. That means you have to create real conditions before you commit.

Give candidates an actual piece of the work, paid, with a real deadline. Watch what happens when the brief is slightly ambiguous. B-players ask a dozen clarifying questions or guess wrong. A-players make a reasonable judgment call and flag it clearly, which is exactly the behavior you’re trying to buy. I go deeper on structuring compensation and vetting for this exact tier of hire in how to find, vet, and hire elite closers, and the same evaluation logic applies well beyond sales roles.

Once you’ve made the hire, protect the premium you paid for. Master Internet Marketing, our 7-week live comprehensive training, walks operators through the frameworks for structuring roles so an A-player’s judgment actually gets used instead of buried under process built for average performers. Pay for the person who needs less management. Then actually give them less management. That’s the whole point of paying more in the first place.

Results are not typical. Your results will vary and depend entirely on your individual capacity, business experience, expertise, and level of desire. There are no guarantees concerning the level of success you may experience. The testimonials and examples used are not intended to represent or guarantee that anyone will achieve the same or similar results. We don’t believe in get-rich-quick programs. We believe in hard work, adding value and serving others. As stated by law, we can not and do not make any guarantees about your own ability to get results or earn any money with our information, courses, programs, or strategies.