What are Superstars For?

Recently, a Harvard Business Review article was published citing the prestige as the main reason that top MBA graduates vie for jobs at Goldman Sachs. It's an interesting read about the advantages of a firm having a stronger reputation than its competitors, and what causes these top graduates to ultimately leave GS.

I came across an article, also from HBR, that presents the complete opposite perspective to the article mentioned above. It was found that firms and organizations hire top performers (superstar talent, "A" player, rainmaker etc.) to ultimately increase its reputation and attract better talent. From HBR, citing a study done in a faculty department at a university:

On average, department-level output increases by 54% after the arrival of a star. A significant fraction of the star effect is indirect: after removing the direct contribution of the star, department level output still increases by 48%.

The researchers found that the superstar’s impact on recruiting was far and away the more significant driver of improved organizational productivity. Starting just one year after the superstar joins the department, the average quality of those who join the department at all levels increases significantly.

This reason is not immediately obvious when we think about why organizations hire top talent. However, going off the first article mentioned, it definitely does explain why there is always an endless pool of fresh graduates vying for an analyst position at GS/MS/JPM.

Knowing this, will it help you better assess why you want to work for a certain firm (beyond the image of prestige presented by superstar(s) within the company)? What are your experiences with this (either when you were the superstar talent or when a star was brought into your team)?

The Big Reason to Hire Superstar Employees Isn't the Work They Do