Its important to distinguish (a) talent from (b) rank. The latter is best thought of as Rank=f(talent, experience). It never makes sense to hire the wrong rank, or to invert the rank in a junior/senior reporting role. Hiring top talent is really a separate qustion, but its implied that A players with a lead in experience will outdistance A player of lesser experience...as they both acquire experience linearly together.[1]
[1] Hence you are more likely to successfully hire and incorporate A talent only if you have it to begin with. Senior rank B talent struggles when junior experience A talent is aquired. The benefit of increasing experience accrues disporportionately to the higher talent A, and eventually a rank conflict ensues as the Junior A group catch up and surpass the (previously) Senior B's. A messy promotion/re-organiztion situation typically ensues.
Interesting point. We certainly did end up clashing in the years we worked together, as I am not shy in expressing my opinions about what needs to be done.
It came to a head at one point, and the result was a reorg so that he was no longer my direct supervisor; I threatened to walk if the situation continued. The manager I reported to next wasn't particularly higher "rank", by your f(), since I had at least equivalent talent and more experience, but he was comfortable with the relationship(instead of acting like he felt threatened by it), and as such made a much better manager.
[1] Hence you are more likely to successfully hire and incorporate A talent only if you have it to begin with. Senior rank B talent struggles when junior experience A talent is aquired. The benefit of increasing experience accrues disporportionately to the higher talent A, and eventually a rank conflict ensues as the Junior A group catch up and surpass the (previously) Senior B's. A messy promotion/re-organiztion situation typically ensues.