Last week I laid out the paradox. Sports organisations are world-class at player talent identification. Staff talent? Overlooked.

The question becomes: How do you actually identify who's who?

Brad Kelley provides the simplest diagnostic. Imagine each person on your high-performance staff walking into your office tomorrow and quitting.

If your first thought is relief... that's a C player. They must go immediately.

If you think "I don't like this, but we'll manage"... that's a B player. Tolerable, but not transformative.

If you panic thinking "We're screwed!"... that's an A player. Protect them at all costs.

Apply this test today. The clarity will be uncomfortable.

A players display specific, recognisable traits.

Obsessive self-improvement. Like Jordan constantly asking, "What do I need to do better?" despite already being excellent. Never satisfied with current performance.

Sponge-like learning. Kobe's coach described him as having a brain that absorbed information others couldn't or wouldn't process. Learning velocity matters more than current expertise in rapidly evolving fields.

Most importantly: their work changes organisational direction. It doesn't just report on it. Their analyses create value multiples beyond their salary.

Bill Walsh's insight about Jerry Rice and Joe Montana matters here. Arguably the best ever at their positions. Still working fundamentals at career's end. The same boring drills high school kids won't do.

Your high-performance staff should be working fundamentals the same way. Are they?

B players execute competently. They maintain the function but don't revolutionise it. They work within boundaries but rarely push beyond.

"Good enough" is the enemy of competitive advantage.

One trap to watch: tenure masking performance. Those who've been in roles longest need continually higher bars. Long service can create comfortable assumptions about contribution. Loyalty without performance is organisational charity. You cannot afford charity when competitors are stacking their teams with A players.

Now, the culture question.

Many organisations pride themselves on being "family." Sometimes this is code for tolerating B players.

A players typically find overly supportive cultures intolerable. Too slow. No one calls out what could be better. Comfortable mediocrity masquerading as good culture.

Larry Ellison's insight from Oracle Racing applies: "You don't have to like him. I'm not asking you to date him. I'm asking you to sail for him."

Excellence doesn't require everyone to be friends. It requires everyone to be excellent. To show up.

The antidote for small, insular teams? External benchmarking. Compare yourself to the best in the world, not your immediate peers. This external standard prevents the comfortable mediocrity that insular cultures breed.

Implementation starts with the resignation test applied to everyone. Be brutally honest.

C players must go immediately. Not next quarter. The poison spreads.

For B players, Charlie Munger's insight applies: You win by giving virtually all playing time to your best. Concentrate resources on A players. Give them more responsibility, authority, opportunity. A players improve faster. B players either step up or reveal they can't compete.

Three commitments. Audit ruthlessly - apply the resignation test today. Act decisively - C players go, resources concentrate on A players. Protect excellence - keep seats vacant rather than hiring C players. Mediocrity is one bad hire away.

The competitive advantage from stacking your staff with A players might exceed the marginal gains from that next player signing you're obsessing over.

The hardest part isn't learning something new.

It's applying what you already know to the place you've been overlooking.