TLDR
- Hiring rarely fixes a problem that’s been around for more than one person.
- When the same dynamic returns with a new face, the problem was never the person — it was a pattern the business is producing.
- The fix is a different kind of attention, not more effort.
- Single-loop learning replaces the person. Double-loop learning examines the system that keeps producing the situation.
The misdiagnosis most owners make
When a role isn’t working, the conventional response is to look at the person in it. Did we hire the wrong type? Were the expectations clear? Should we have done another reference check? These questions are reasonable, and sometimes the answer is yes. But when the same dynamic shows up with the second person in that role — and the third — the question stops being about hiring. It becomes about what the role is sitting inside of. I saw this clearly in my PhD research with Australian small business owners. The most common version went like this: an operations manager kept leaving every nine to fifteen months. Each time, the exit conversation surfaced something close to the same complaint — decisions weren’t being made, or were being made and unmade, or were being made by people who weren’t supposed to be making them. Each time, the founder responded by hiring better. Higher calibre, clearer brief, more onboarding. Each time, the new person inherited the same dynamic and, eventually, the same complaint. The role wasn’t broken because of who was in it. The role was producing the complaint.What a recurring role problem actually is
Chris Argyris, working at Harvard, gave the cleanest name to this pattern. He called it the difference between single-loop and double-loop learning. Single-loop learning fixes what’s in front of you. The role isn’t working, so you change who’s in it. The thermostat reads too high, so you adjust it. Most businesses are excellent at single-loop learning — it’s how they survive the week. Hiring is a single-loop response. Double-loop learning is different. It steps back and asks why this kind of problem keeps appearing in the first place. Not “is this the right person for the role” but “is this role doing what we think it’s doing — and what’s it actually doing instead?” The answer is usually uncomfortable. The role exists, on paper, to make a certain set of decisions. In practice, the founder has been quietly making those decisions for years, and the role’s actual job has been to absorb the friction of that arrangement without naming it. The first hire learned to live with it for fourteen months. The second hire learned to live with it for ten. The third hire is currently learning. The role isn’t broken. It’s doing exactly what it’s structured to do, which is exactly the thing that makes the person in it leave.One bad fit is hiring. Two is a pattern. Three is a system.
A worked example
A founder I spoke with during the research described arriving at this realisation. He’d hired three operations leads in four years. Each one had left citing some version of “I couldn’t make decisions stick.” He’d interpreted each departure as a hiring miss and gone back to the market. Before the fourth hire, his accountant — not someone he expected to give him management advice — asked a question that broke the pattern. “What would have to change about how you work, for the next person to actually do this job?” The founder said the honest answer took him three weeks. The change required wasn’t about hiring. It was about a belief he’d been carrying for fifteen years — that final calls had to come back to him, even when he’d said they didn’t. The role he’d designed assumed that belief was untrue. His daily behaviour reinforced that it was. Every operations lead had walked into that contradiction and, after some months, walked out of it. He didn’t hire the fourth person until he’d worked through the belief. The fourth person, two years on, was still there.Five questions to ask before hiring again
Before you write the next job description, sit with these.- Has this role had recurring problems with more than one person in it? If yes, the role itself needs examination before the recruitment process does.
- What’s the unwritten rule about this role that nobody puts in the job ad? Every role has one. Naming it is usually the first step toward seeing what’s producing the pattern.
- What would the previous person in this role say is actually wrong, if they were free to say it? If you don’t know, ask. The honest version of an exit conversation, three months after someone leaves, is often the most useful data your business has.
- What would have to change about how you work for this role to actually function? This is the double-loop question. It’s also the uncomfortable one. If the answer is “nothing,” you’re probably still in single-loop.
- Who else in the business has noticed the pattern? Recurring role problems are almost always visible to the people around them, well before they’re visible to the person hiring.
Where this connects
The full framework behind this article is on the Single-Loop vs Double-Loop Learning page — the most useful single tool I know for situations where a problem keeps coming back in different clothes. If the recurring role problem looks like “we keep having the same conversation and nothing changes,” the underlying communication dynamic is worth understanding through Model I vs Model II Communication. If you suspect the role is sitting inside a wider pattern — that other things in the business are also returning with different faces — the Eight Conditions diagnostic takes about a minute and will tell you which underlying conditions are most likely producing it. The most useful thing about Argyris’s distinction isn’t the language. It’s the recognition that some problems can’t be hired around — and that knowing which problems those are saves you a year of recruitment fees and three good people who’d otherwise have left. If the same role has produced the same complaint twice, the next move isn’t a job ad. It’s a quiet hour with the right question.— Jose
Frequently asked questions
Why does hiring sometimes not fix a recurring problem?
Because hiring is a single-loop response — it changes who’s doing the work without examining what the work is structured to produce. If the same dynamic returns with a new person, the problem is in the structure of the role or the assumptions around it, not in the person who held it.
How do I know if my hiring problem is actually a system problem?
The clearest signal is recurrence. If the same role has produced the same kind of complaint or departure with more than one person in it, the role is producing the complaint. One bad fit is hiring. Two is a pattern. Three is a system.
What is double-loop learning in simple terms?
Double-loop learning is the willingness to question the assumption underneath a recurring problem, not just the action that triggered it. Single-loop learning asks “how do we fix this?” Double-loop learning asks “what belief or structure is making this keep happening?”
Should I hire again if the previous person didn't work out?
Yes — but slow down before writing the job ad. If this is the second or third person in the same role, spend the time before recruitment examining what the role is actually structured to do, not what it’s described as doing. A clearer role usually attracts a better outcome than a higher salary.
How long does double-loop learning take?
It depends on what assumption needs examining. Some surface in a single honest conversation. Others take months because they’re tied to beliefs the owner has held for a long time. The work isn’t fast, but it’s the only kind of work that stops the problem from coming back.
