Why your senior engineer spotted a critical bug, messaged you about it, then went to lunch. They have the skills but lack the agency. Traditional performance reviews miss this completely.
Technical Skill (Dreyfus Model) × Agency Level (5 Levels) create four distinct employee archetypes. Most performance reviews only measure skill, missing 50% of the picture.
Key insight: A Competent engineer with Level 5 agency often outperforms an Expert with Level 2 agency. Skills can be taught. Agency mindset is harder to change.
Technical Skill: How good are they at their craft? Novice → Expert progression through pattern recognition and intuition.
Agency Level: How proactively do they solve problems? Level 1 (report and walk away) → Level 5 (fix it and inform).
Critical point: These dimensions are independent. You can be an Expert who waits to be told what to do. Or a Novice who owns every problem they encounter.
Every engineer falls into one of these quadrants
High Technical Skill + High Agency
"Database was slow. Added indexes on foreign keys, reduced query time 80%, deployed to prod. Monitoring shows it's stable."
Characteristics:
Action: Hire, promote, clone. Give them leverage and autonomy. These are your 10x engineers.
Low Technical Skill + High Agency
"I'm new to React but researched this state management bug. Based on the docs, I think we should lift state to the parent. Can you review my approach?"
Characteristics:
Action: Best junior hire. Invest in training. They'll outpace passive seniors in 12-18 months.
High Technical Skill + Low Agency
"The microservices architecture has a latency problem." (Then waits for someone else to investigate)
Characteristics:
Action: Coach on ownership. Reject Level 1 behavior. If resistant after 6 months, may be cultural fit issue. Never promote to leadership.
Low Technical Skill + Low Agency
Note: Direct language illustrates the performance gap. Everyone starts somewhere—trajectory and coachability matter most.
"The deployment is broken." (No follow-up, no investigation, waits to be told what to do)
Characteristics:
Action: Intensive coaching for 3 months with clear performance goals. If no improvement in both skill development and ownership mindset, likely not a cultural fit.
One-dimensional evaluations create blind spots
What most reviews measure: "How good are they at coding?" (Technical skill only)
What they miss: "Do they own outcomes or wait to be managed?"
Result: Brilliant Passengers get promoted because they "know their stuff" technically. Teams end up full of people who need constant direction despite being "senior."
Scenario: Customer reports "Dashboard takes forever to load my data."
Force Multipliers require minimal manager time—they identify problems, research solutions, and fix issues autonomously. Brilliant Passengers need constant direction despite high technical skill. Low performers require extensive management with minimal output. Optimizing for high agency dramatically reduces management overhead.
Concrete questions and red flags for each dimension
What to look for:
Interview question: "Walk me through how you'd architect X. What trade-offs would you consider?" (Listen for depth of reasoning, not just correct answer)
What to look for:
Interview question: "Tell me about a time you encountered an unexpected problem. Walk me through your response." (Listen for: Did they stop at identification? Recommend? Fix?)
Colleagues spot agency gaps quickly:
What's coachable vs what's cultural fit
Why: Skills can be taught in 6-12 months. Agency mindset can take 2+ years to change—or may never change if it's cultural fit.
Trade-off: A Hungry Learner (Novice + Level 5 agency) will outgrow a Brilliant Passenger (Expert + Level 2 agency) in 12-18 months. Plus they require less management from day one.
Exception: Specialized domains where expertise takes years (security, ML infrastructure). Here you may need to hire Brilliant Passengers and coach them on agency. But never put them in leadership roles.
You don't need everyone to be Force Multipliers, but you need the right mix
Never promote Brilliant Passengers or low performers to leadership roles. A low-agency leader creates a culture where everyone stops taking initiative. They become organizational bottlenecks who train their reports to wait for direction. One low-agency leader can destroy a high-agency team culture.
A team of Force Multipliers doesn't add linearly—it multiplies. Three Force Multipliers don't produce 3x output. They produce 10x output because they unblock each other, raise the bar, and create a self-reinforcing culture of ownership.
Use these frameworks in your next performance review
Assessment questions:
Interview probe: "Walk me through your approach to [complex problem]. What trade-offs did you consider?"
Assessment questions:
Interview probe: "Tell me about a time you encountered an unexpected problem. How did you respond?"
| Archetype | Profile | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Force Multiplier | High Skill + High Agency | Hire, promote, give leverage |
| Hungry Learner | Low Skill + High Agency | Best junior hire, invest in training |
| Brilliant Passenger | High Skill + Low Agency | Coach on ownership, never promote to leadership |
| Low Performer | Low Skill + Low Agency | 3-month PIP or exit |
Want to implement this framework in your team?
Blik's 360 feedback questionnaires measure both dimensions automatically. Get detailed reports showing exactly where each team member falls on the Performance Matrix.
360-degree feedback that captures the complete picture
Measure technical skill progression:
Measure ownership mindset:
Peers quickly identify:
Blik's questionnaires measure technical skill (Dreyfus) AND agency levels (ownership). Get 360 feedback that actually shows you who your Force Multipliers are—and who needs coaching.
View PricingTraditional performance reviews measure technical skill and miss ownership mindset. Use the Performance Matrix to identify Force Multipliers, coach Brilliant Passengers, and build high-agency teams.