The Standard is the Standard
Standards are neither high nor low. Nobody gets a job or keeps one by telling people they have low standards. Nor do I know anyone who believes they have low standards, but one knows through action. The issue isn't whether standards are high or low. The issue is that high and low imply universality or objectivity, while standards are inherently relative and, typically, flow top down. Because the Head of School (or similar) can delegate responsibility but not accountability, it’s their job to set the standard. Tobi Lütke of Shopify writes: "Companies exist at room temperature. It’s a founder’s job to inject heat." Standards reflect the leader's definition of excellence, shaping expectations, influencing hiring decisions and, ultimately, impacting organizational outcomes and performance.
The team’s job is to align itself with the leader’s standards. Lack of calibration or strong alignment will almost always show in the quality of the work, and eventually break a team through interpersonal conflict and/or attrition. In a 1995 interview, Steve Jobs spoke of the "dynamic range between average and the best." According to Jobs, A-players want to work with, and for, other A players, but B-players will hire C-players, those inferior to them. In his foreword to the book, "Becoming Steve Jobs" (2015), venture capitalist Marc Andreessen writes:
There are standards. The standards have to be enforced. If the standards aren’t enforced, then the standards slip. This is the role of the CEO in any company. Some care and some don’t. Great CEOs care a lot. Steve cared a lot. “Nice” CEOs who don’t hold the line on standards do not build great places to work. They may build a nice place to work, but they will not build a great place to work. Then the great people will leave, and then the company will degenerate into mediocrity.
In his book "No-Rules Rules" (2020) describing Netflix's culture, Reed Hastings talks about the "keeper test":
If a person on your team were to quit tomorrow, would you try to change their mind? Or would you accept their resignation, perhaps with a little relief? If the latter, you should give them a severance package now and look for a star, someone you would fight to keep.
Estée Lauder also clearly embodied this principle. Shane Parrish highlights Lauder's commitment to excellence in his recent Outliers podcast episode:
The standard is excellence. She trained her sales team in remote locations, personally showing them how to showcase products. This hands-on demand for excellence ensured her vision reached every customer, every time.
So when you're a small team, you cannot afford just average; everyone needs to level up or show up as an A-player, otherwise you're better off facilitating their exit. The standard is the standard. Debating whether my standards, or yours, are high or low is irrelevant and distracting. As the President, it's my job to set the definition of excellence, support the conditions for them, and expect that you will expect nothing less of yourself, the team, or me because know that I will do the same.
The hardest part, of course, is knowing who's an A-player and who isn't. If nobody will admit to low standards because standards are neither high nor low, then how does one tell the difference between the exceptional and the mediocre, the best and the average, the A-players from the rest?
Brian Chesky of AirBnB offers one clue, inspired by Jobs again, when hiring:
'Start with the results and work backwards to the people. Most people start with resumes. They start with brands — 'Oh, this person worked at Google.' But you should actually ask yourself: What products do I admire? And then who built those products?'
Interviews, and people, can lie or mislead, but actions and results do not. If the standard is excellence, then look for excellence in the person's actions and results. What have they done, and do you admire it? Does it inspire you? Does it challenge you? Next, ask follow-up questions to confirm details. Anything great will come from struggle. What was the struggle, and how did they work through it?
Investor Naval Ravikant defines A-players accordingly:
Low ego. Low drama. High agency. Good judgment. High output. Integrity.
Stephen A. Schwarzman of Blackstone provides more detail on the difference between average (<8) and the exceptional (10s):
We had been judging talent long enough to know a 10 when we saw one. Eights just do the stuff you tell them. Nines are great at executing and developing good strategies. You can build a winning firm with 9s. But people who are 10s sense problems, design solutions, and take the business in new directions without being told to do so. Tens always make it rain.
The standard is the standard. I leave you with the following questions:
- Are you setting the direction and speed on your team for excellence or mediocrity?
- If you're not the CEO or similar, do you work for someone whose standards align with your own?
- If you are the CEO or similar, are you consciously setting a standard of excellence by example, or are you unintentionally settling for mediocrity?
- And, how do you know your own value and worth?
Standards matter because "the team you build is the company you build" (Vinod Khosla). Since none of us will ever admit to having low standards, ask what you have built that others respect and admire? What measurable or visible results, not just actions, define your standard? Because whether you are leading or not, your standard isn't measured by what you claim--it's measured by the quality of outcomes you and your team produce.