Stats
Actions
Tags
From grimoire
Matches candidates' specific capability profiles to high-stakes role requirements, avoiding failure from mismatched deployment despite overall excellence.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/grimoire:apply-deploy-to-strengthThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Before assigning someone to a high-stakes role, map the specific capability profile the role actually requires — not a generic "strong performer" template — and match it against what each candidate specifically has; a gap in the role-critical requirement is a match failure regardless of the candidate's overall excellence, and deploying excellence-as-proxy for role-specific fit produces failure.
Before assigning someone to a high-stakes role, map the specific capability profile the role actually requires — not a generic "strong performer" template — and match it against what each candidate specifically has; a gap in the role-critical requirement is a match failure regardless of the candidate's overall excellence, and deploying excellence-as-proxy for role-specific fit produces failure.
Origin: Zhuge Liang's 将苑 (Way of the General, ~220–234 AD) devotes Chapter 13 "智用" (Intelligent Use) to the principle of deploying people according to their specific capabilities, not their general status. The key passage: "智者取其谋，愚者取其力，勇者取其威，怯者取其慎。" (From the wise, take their strategy; from the strong, take their force; from the brave, take their authority; from the cautious, take their care.) The principle is not that the wise should only do strategy and should never be deployed elsewhere — it is that each person has a specific dimension of excellence that constitutes their deployable contribution to a specific type of operation. The great commander knows which dimension each person possesses and assigns operations to exploit that dimension, rather than assigning the person who is highest-ranked or most trusted overall.
The evidence in practice: Zhuge Liang assigned Zhao Yun (veteran, defensive specialist, renowned for composed operations under pressure) to holding and screening operations — roles that required exactly Zhao Yun's specific profile. He assigned more aggressive young generals to offensive thrusts that required their specific profiles. The campaigns that followed the 将苑 doctrine succeeded operationally. The campaign that did not — the Battle of Jieting (228 AD) — failed because Zhuge Liang assigned Ma Su to a role that required battlefield command experience specifically. Ma Su was among the most gifted strategic analysts in Shu Han; Zhuge Liang's personal affection for him was genuine; his overall talent was exceptional. But the Jieting assignment required the specific capability of battlefield unit command under pressure — which Ma Su had never done — not strategic analysis, which was Ma Su's actual strength. Zhuge Liang himself acknowledged the error: his grief at Ma Su's execution was not only personal, but acknowledged that his own matching failure had created the situation.
Adopted by: Peter Drucker formalised the same principle in The Effective Executive (1967): "The effective executive makes strength productive. She knows she cannot build on weakness." But Drucker's insight goes beyond "play to strengths" — he specifically identifies that the executive's task is to define the specific strength a role requires, then find the specific person who has it. Roles define required strengths; people possess specific strengths; the assignment decision is a matching problem, not a ranking problem. Jim Collins' "right people in the right seats" in Good to Great (2001) captures the same mechanism: not only do you need the right people on the bus, you need each person in the seat that requires their specific capability profile. Collins found that companies that got this right outperformed those that assigned by seniority or general excellence.
Impact: The most common and most damaging assignment error in organisations is promoting or deploying the best-performing person in the current role into a role that requires a different specific capability profile. Top sales reps are routinely promoted into sales management — a role requiring coaching, process design, and team coordination capabilities that top sales reps typically lack (and that the sales rep role does not develop). Top engineers are routinely assigned to engineering management — a role requiring people management, cross-functional communication, and organisational navigation capabilities that engineering performance does not develop. In each case, the organisation loses a top performer in the original role and gains an underperformer in the new role, because the assignment was made on overall excellence rather than specific capability-to-role matching.
Why best: The alternative — using seniority, general excellence, or personal trust as assignment criteria — produces systematic mismatches in a predictable pattern. Seniority produces mismatches in roles that require new-context capabilities. General excellence produces mismatches whenever the role's critical requirement differs from the excellence dimension that was measured. Personal trust produces mismatches whenever the trusted person's specific capabilities don't match the role's specific requirements — which is the Zhuge Liang / Ma Su case. Deploy-to-strength converts the assignment decision from a relationship decision ("who do I trust for this?") to a matching decision ("what does this role actually require and who specifically has that?").
Sources: Zhuge Liang, 将苑 "智用" 第十三章 (~220–234 AD); Chen Shou, Records of the Three Kingdoms 三国志 — "Zhuge Liang Zhuan" 諸葛亮傳 (280–290 AD); Drucker, The Effective Executive (1967); Buckingham & Clifton, Now, Discover Your Strengths (2001); Collins, Good to Great (2001)
Most role definitions describe the general qualities of a strong performer ("strong communication skills," "strategic thinker," "collaborative leader") rather than the specific capabilities the role will actually depend on in its critical moments.
The specific capability profile of a role is defined by its critical failure modes — the situations where a mismatch will produce visible failure:
| Role | Generic profile (insufficient) | Specific capability requirement (necessary) |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering manager | "Strong engineer, good communicator" | Experience managing performance issues, comfort with ambiguous authority, patience with slow feedback loops |
| Sales manager | "Top performer, team player" | Coaching capability (teaching what you do intuitively), process documentation, managing underperformance |
| Growth lead | "Analytical, entrepreneurial" | Experimentation discipline, statistical literacy at pace, comfort with ambiguous causation |
| Battlefield commander at Jieting | "Brilliant strategist, trusted advisor" | Experience commanding troops under pressure, knowledge of logistics, direct battlefield authority |
For each role being filled, identify: what is the specific situation in which someone without the critical capability would fail? What does the role require that the role's title does not indicate?
The same general capability label can describe very different specific capabilities at the same level of excellence. "Strategic thinking" as a military capability looks different in offensive planning (identifying where to strike), defensive operations (identifying where to hold), and logistics management (sustaining supply under adverse conditions). Deploying an offensive planner to a logistics operation because both are "strategic" produces a mismatch.
Map the specific type, not just the level:
Assess each candidate against the specific capability requirements identified in Step 1, not against the generic "strong performer" profile:
A gap in a critical requirement is a match failure. A gap in a supplementary requirement is a development opportunity.
Ma Su's gap was in the critical requirement: battlefield unit command under pressure. His strengths — strategic analysis, written communication, intellectual clarity — were supplementary to Jieting's requirements. The match failed on the critical dimension.
The intuitive impulse when filling a high-stakes role is to assign the person you trust most or who has performed best overall. This is the Ma Su error. Interrogate the impulse:
The question for every assignment is: does this person have specific demonstrated capability in this role's critical requirement? If the answer is not clearly yes, investigate before assigning.
Ideal matches are uncommon, especially for novel or rapidly-evolving roles. When no candidate fully matches the role's specific capability requirements:
The complement approach: Zhao Yun was assigned to operations where his defensive capability was the primary requirement and offensive planning was supplementary — the offensive planning was handled by others. The complement did not eliminate Zhao Yun's gaps; it covered them while deploying his strength.
Assignment decisions create data. When a deployment succeeds, identify which specific capabilities drove the success — these are the role's confirmed critical requirements. When a deployment fails or underperforms, identify which specific capability gap drove the failure — this is a gap in the role profile or a matching failure.
Use this data to update role profiles, not just to evaluate the people:
The top sales rep promoted to sales manager: A SaaS company's top sales rep is promoted to sales manager after three consecutive years as the top individual contributor. The promotion is based on general excellence (top performer) and tenure (seniority). The role of sales manager requires: coaching capability (teaching what the rep does intuitively to others who cannot do it intuitively), process documentation (converting individual intuition into repeatable steps), and managing underperformance (having difficult performance conversations with people the manager previously competed alongside). None of these capabilities are developed by top individual contribution in sales. The result is predictable: the company loses its top rep and gains a sales manager who achieves average team results while missing individual contributor targets. The matching failure was not the rep's fault — it was the assignment decision's failure to distinguish the critical capabilities of the sales manager role from the critical capabilities of the sales rep role.
Mismatching founder to scaling role: A startup's founder is exceptional at the exploration phase — identifying product-market fit, iterating rapidly, recruiting early believers. The company reaches $10M ARR and needs to transition to scaling: process design, metrics frameworks, cross-functional coordination, and systematic hiring. The founder's specific capability profile — high tolerance for ambiguity, comfort with pivoting, preference for direct action over process — is precisely the profile that produces disruption rather than scaling in the exploitation phase. The correct deployment: identify the specific capabilities the scaling phase requires, assess whether the founder has or can develop them, and if not, bring in a leader whose specific profile matches the scaling requirements. The founder remains the CEO; the COO or VP Operations fills the scaling gap. Many founders resist this — "I built the company" — but the role has changed, and the changed role requires different specific capabilities.
Zhuge Liang's Zhao Yun deployment (correct match): Zhao Yun was consistently deployed to operations requiring his specific capability profile: composure under pressure, defensive discipline, and the ability to conduct orderly operations in adverse conditions. At the Battle of Changban, Zhao Yun escorted Liu Bei's family through Cao Cao's army. At the Battle of Hanzhong, Zhao Yun held a defensive line against a much larger force with minimal casualties. In the northern expeditions, Zhao Yun's diversionary operations at Ji Valley were conducted with the specific capability of maintaining discipline and order during a staged retreat — a manoeuvre that required exactly his defensive specialist profile. Zhuge Liang did not assign Zhao Yun to offensive breakthrough operations that required a different specific profile. The consistent correct matching of Zhao Yun to his specific strength produced consistent operational success.
Engineering manager assignment — correct vs. incorrect matching: A technology company has two senior engineers. Engineer A is the highest performer by technical output — fastest code, fewest bugs, deepest system knowledge. Engineer B is a slightly lower technical performer but has developed a reputation for helping newer engineers, explicitly navigating cross-team dependencies, and surfacing blockers before they become problems. An engineering manager role opens: the critical requirements are people development (coaching engineers who are struggling), cross-functional coordination (managing dependencies with product and design), and organisational navigation (understanding how to get things done in a specific company's structure). Engineer B's specific profile matches these critical requirements directly — they have demonstrated them. Engineer A's specific profile matches the individual contributor role's requirements. Promoting Engineer A because of general excellence produces the top-rep-to-manager failure mode. Assigning Engineer B produces an engineering manager whose specific capabilities match the role's specific requirements.
Defining the role profile after the candidate is identified: Creating a role description that is designed to fit the preferred candidate rather than to specify what the role actually requires. This is not matching — it is post-hoc rationalisation. Write the specific capability requirements before looking at candidates.
Treating overall excellence as a positive signal for all roles: Strong overall performance signals that someone has specific capabilities — but it does not specify which capabilities. The assignment decision requires knowing which capabilities the role needs and whether the candidate specifically has them. Overall excellence is not evidence of role-specific fit; it is evidence that the person has some capabilities at a high level.
Confusing trust with capability: Assigning the person you trust most to the highest-stakes role. Trust is a judgment about how someone will use their capabilities; it is not a judgment about whether they have the specific capabilities the role requires. Zhuge Liang's deep personal trust in Ma Su — genuine and well-founded on the basis of their relationship — was not evidence that Ma Su had battlefield command capability. Trust and specific capability are independent dimensions.
Treating a capability gap as a development opportunity for a critical requirement: Development opportunities apply when someone has a gap in a supplementary requirement — one whose absence produces manageable degradation rather than the primary failure mode. A gap in the critical requirement produces the primary failure mode regardless of development investment. Ma Su could not develop battlefield command experience at Jieting — that role was the development opportunity and the role simultaneously, which is a mismatch.
Updating only the person evaluation after a deployment failure: When an assignment fails, the natural response is to evaluate the deployed person — and the person often bears genuine responsibility. But the assignment decision also bears responsibility: was the role profile accurate? Was the candidate's specific profile accurately assessed against the role's specific requirements? Updating only the person evaluation and not the role profile or assignment process produces the same mismatch on the next assignment.
npx claudepluginhub jeffreytse/grimoire --plugin grimoireHelps managers identify critical roles, assess readiness, and create development plans for succession resilience.
Assess internal candidates for roles and succession planning. Activate for: talent match, internal mobility, internal candidate, succession planning, succession, who should be promoted, internal promotion, internal hire, talent pipeline, high potential, HIPO, development plan for promotion, readiness assessment, role fit, candidate assessment internal, compare candidates, talent review, career pathway, promotion readiness, who is ready for next level. NOT for: external recruiting pipeline (use recruiting-pipeline), compensation benchmarking (use comp-analysis), org restructuring (use org-planning).
Map team capabilities against current and future role requirements. Use when planning capacity, identifying training needs, or succession planning.