You don't need Force Multipliers everywhere. Different work types demand different skill and agency combinations. Learn how to deploy the right people to the right work.
Work falls into four quadrants based on whether it's differentiating vs commodity and strategic vs legacy. Each quadrant needs different employee archetypes. Putting Force Multipliers on maintenance work wastes them. Putting low-agency employees on innovation work fails.
The insight: Strategic talent allocation is as important as hiring great people.
Most organizations make one of two mistakes
Force Multipliers are distributed "fairly" across all projects. Innovation work gets the same staffing as maintenance work.
Result: Your best people are bored on maintenance. Innovation projects lack the critical mass of talent to succeed.
Low-agency employees are assigned to innovation projects because they're "available." High-skill Brilliant Passengers lead R&D initiatives.
Result: Innovation stalls waiting for direction. Projects that need autonomous execution get employees who wait to be told what to do.
Match employee capabilities to work requirements. Not all work is created equal. Not all employees fit all work.
Classify work by two dimensions: business differentiation (does it create competitive advantage?) and strategic alignment (is it part of your target state?).
Factory mode. Major releases. Structured delivery with established patterns.
Examples: Internal tools, operational systems, infrastructure upgrades
Velocity: Quarterly releases
MVPs becoming products. Managed delivery centers. Scaling what works.
Examples: Customer-facing products, platform capabilities, API ecosystems
Velocity: Weekly/bi-weekly releases
Legacy maintenance. Minor releases. Keep the lights on until replacement.
Examples: Legacy systems, deprecated features, sunset products
Velocity: Bug fixes only
Innovation lab. Ideation and prototyping. Exploring the unknown.
Examples: R&D projects, new market exploration, emerging tech POCs
Velocity: Rapid experimentation
Framework adapted from HCL's FENIX 2.0 portfolio management model.
The Performance Matrix defines four employee archetypes based on skill (Dreyfus) and agency. Here's where each archetype excels.
| Quadrant | Ideal Archetype | Dreyfus Level | Agency Level | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1: Disrupt | Force Multipliers only | Proficient-Expert | Level 5 | Innovation requires autonomous execution. No one to tell you what to do. |
| Q2: Scale | Force Multipliers + Hungry Learners | Competent-Expert mix | Level 4-5 | Scaling innovation needs leaders + people who can learn fast. |
| Q3: Build | Competent performers + Brilliant Passengers | Competent-Proficient | Level 3-4 | Structured work. Clear requirements. Direction is provided. |
| Q4: Run | Lower performers acceptable | Adv. Beginner-Competent | Level 2-3 | Routine maintenance. Following procedures. Minimal judgment needed. |
Only Force Multipliers. Innovation labs require people who can identify opportunities, research solutions, prototype, and iterate—all without being told what to do.
Warning: Putting Brilliant Passengers here fails. They'll wait for requirements that don't exist. Putting Hungry Learners here is risky—high agency but not enough skill to avoid expensive mistakes.
Staff Q1 sparingly with your absolute best. 2-3 Force Multipliers beat 10 average performers.
Force Multipliers leading Hungry Learners. Scaling proven innovations needs autonomous leaders who can mentor growing talent.
Sweet spot: This is where Hungry Learners thrive. They have structure to learn from (established patterns from Q1 exploration) but enough ambiguity to develop high-agency habits.
Ratio: 1 Force Multiplier per 3-4 Hungry Learners. The FM sets standards; learners execute and grow.
Competent performers and Brilliant Passengers. Factory mode with established patterns. Clear requirements. Predictable delivery.
Good fit for Brilliant Passengers: They're technically skilled but need direction. Q3 provides direction. Don't waste them on Q1 innovation or frustrate them on Q4 maintenance.
Force Multipliers here get bored. Move them to Q1/Q2 or they'll leave.
Lower skill/agency acceptable. Legacy maintenance. Bug fixes. Keeping systems alive until replacement.
Strategic use: Q4 can absorb employees who aren't suited for higher-stakes work. Better to have them maintaining legacy than blocking innovation.
Never put Force Multipliers or Hungry Learners here. You'll kill their motivation and lose them.
Five steps to align talent with work types
Map every active project/product to a quadrant. Be honest: most "innovation" projects are actually Q3 (Build to Change) once patterns are established.
Use the Performance Matrix to identify each team member's archetype. 360 feedback reveals agency gaps that interviews miss.
Force Multipliers on Q4 maintenance? Brilliant Passengers leading Q1 innovation? Low performers on customer-facing products? These are your urgent reallocation targets.
Don't spread your best people thin. Concentrate Force Multipliers on Q1/Q2 work. Two FMs on one innovation project beats one FM each on five projects.
Hungry Learners in Q2 should graduate to Q1 as skills develop. Competent performers in Q3 can move to Q2 as agency increases. Make the progression visible.
"Every team gets one senior engineer." This sounds fair but fails strategically. Q1 innovation needs concentration of talent, not distribution.
"You built it, now you maintain it." Putting Force Multipliers on Q4 work as "ownership" wastes their capability and drives them to quit.
"Who's free?" is the wrong question. A free Brilliant Passenger shouldn't lead Q1 innovation just because Force Multipliers are busy.
Legacy systems still need people. Assigning no one means technical debt compounds. Q4 is where lower performers can contribute value.
High technical skill ≠ innovation capability. Brilliant Passengers need direction. Q1 has none. They'll wait for requirements that never come.
Maintenance work doesn't develop high-agency habits. Hungry Learners stagnate on Q4. Move them to Q2 where they can grow.
The quadrant model draws from established portfolio management thinking. These frameworks offer complementary perspectives.
The original enterprise framework our quadrants adapt. Defines digital transformation execution across dimensions of technology, people, and process.
Three layers: Systems of Record (stable), Systems of Differentiation (medium pace), Systems of Innovation (fast). Different governance for different change rates.
Visual strategy tool mapping components by value chain position and evolution stage. Used by UK government and enterprise tech teams. Strong community following.
Two-speed IT: Mode 1 (predictable, stable) vs Mode 2 (exploratory, agile). Influential but controversial—critics argue it creates unhealthy silos.
Most portfolio frameworks (Pace-Layered, Bimodal, FENIX) focus on systems and applications. They answer: "How should we govern this application?"
Our extension asks: "Who should work on this application?" The insight is that different work types need different people, not just different governance.
A Force Multiplier on legacy maintenance is wasted. A Brilliant Passenger on innovation work is blocked. Matching archetypes to quadrants is the missing link in portfolio strategy.
This framework builds on two foundational models. Make sure you understand them first.
The research-backed framework for evaluating technical skill from Novice to Expert. Understand how people develop expertise.
Learn Dreyfus Model →Technical skill alone doesn't predict performance. Learn how to measure ownership mindset from passive (Level 1) to autonomous (Level 5).
Learn Agency Levels →See how Dreyfus + Agency create four archetypes: Force Multipliers, Hungry Learners, Brilliant Passengers, and Low Performers.
See the Matrix →Before you can deploy the right people to the right work, you need to know who your Force Multipliers are. Blik's 360 feedback questionnaires measure both technical skill (Dreyfus) and agency levels.
Not sure how to evaluate your team? Start with our default questionnaires that measure both dimensions automatically. Get reports that show exactly where each team member falls on the Performance Matrix.
Learn the Archetypes First