A-Player Enablement Audit
Audit the environment before judging an employee's potential
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 94%
The A-Player Enablement Audit asks managers to examine their own organization before deciding that an employee lacks top-performer potential. The leader first defines what an A player means in this specific company, because revenue creation, system building, leadership, or another outcome may matter differently elsewhere. The leader then checks four environmental conditions: access to tools and resources, sufficient training, a reasonable workload, and psychological and operational room to take ownership. This separates an employee's ability from constraints imposed by the role or manager. It also distinguishes people who want advancement from capable employees who deliberately prioritize stability or work-life balance. The output is a fairer development decision: improve the environment, teach missing capabilities, align on a stable role, or document why advancement is not currently supported.
Origin
Extracted from The Jasmine Star Show as Jasmine Star reflects on redefining A-player expectations, revisiting her organizational chart, and improving how she develops reliable employees.
Core principles
- 01Performance labels must reflect the organization's own objectives and values.
- 02Employees cannot excel without suitable tools, training, capacity, and autonomy.
- 03A manager should inspect the environment before judging individual potential.
- 04Work-life priorities do not automatically indicate low capability.
- 05A safe environment for ownership and innovation can reveal hidden talent.
How to run it
- 1
Define top performance locally
Write down the results, behaviors, values, and capabilities that distinguish an A player in your organization. Explain how those standards connect to business objectives.
Pro tip Use observable evidence such as revenue created, systems transferred, deadlines met, or leadership behaviors.
Watch out Do not borrow another company's definition without adapting it to your goals.
- 2
Check resources and tools
Determine whether the employee has the information, access, technology, authority, and assistance required to perform the role well.
Pro tip Ask the employee which recurring obstacle consumes the most time or causes the most errors.
Watch out Do not interpret workarounds caused by missing resources as evidence of low motivation.
- 3
Review training
List the skills the role requires and compare them with the training actually provided. Offer targeted development where the gap is teachable.
Pro tip Pair instruction with a real assignment that demonstrates whether the skill transfers into performance.
Watch out Generic training may not address the specific capability gap.
- 4
Test workload realism
Review task volume, priorities, deadlines, and interruptions to determine whether the employee can reasonably meet expectations. Remove or sequence competing responsibilities where necessary.
Pro tip Compare expected completion times with actual data from experienced performers.
Watch out Chronic overload can resemble poor organization or low commitment.
- 5
Assess ownership conditions
Examine whether the employee is trusted to make decisions, experiment, and improve the work. Reduce micromanagement where it prevents initiative from emerging.
Pro tip Delegate one bounded outcome with clear guardrails instead of prescribing every action.
Watch out Autonomy without clear outcomes or authority creates confusion rather than ownership.
- 6
Align on development intent
Ask whether the employee wants to develop toward the defined A-player role or prefers to deepen expertise in the current domain. Agree on a path that respects both business needs and personal priorities.
Pro tip Present advancement and stable high-quality contribution as legitimate but different paths.
Watch out Do not mistake a preference for work-life balance for an absence of skill.
In the wild
A dependable coordinator meets expectations but rarely proposes improvements. An audit reveals that the manager prescribes every task and has never provided process-design training. The manager teaches basic workflow mapping and delegates one recurring operation with clear outcome guardrails.
→ The coordinator builds a transferable workflow and demonstrates previously hidden potential for advancement.
A skilled specialist consistently produces excellent work but declines management responsibilities. A development conversation shows that the employee values work-life balance and wants deeper expertise rather than constant advancement. The company creates incentives for mastery without forcing a leadership track.
→ The business retains a strong contributor while avoiding a misaligned promotion.
Common mistakes
Using an undefined label
Calling someone an A, B, or C player without organization-specific standards creates confusion and disagreement about performance.
Ignoring the manager's constraints
Missing tools, inadequate training, overload, and micromanagement can suppress performance that the employee could otherwise deliver.
Equating ambition with ability
A capable employee may intentionally choose balance or stability rather than continuous advancement.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for managers deciding whether a reliable employee can grow into a higher-impact role.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal as a substitute for addressing documented misconduct or immediate safety concerns.
From the transcript
“does this employee have the resources and the tools that they need to excel in their role?”
“Have I provided sufficient training and development opportunities to help them grow?”
“have I created an environment where they feel safe to take a player ownership and innovate? Or are they micromanaged?”
From the episode
How to Identify and Lead A, B, and C Players for Business Success