Fix the Process, Not the Person

"Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets."

Paul Batalden, adapted from Arthur Jones

BLUF: An effective leader focuses on ensuring the stage is set for success and then helps the team develop individual ways to thrive on a well-set stage.

Before You Blame the Player, Check the Field

Imagine this: A young leader walks into a one-on-one with a team member who keeps making the same mistake. They have the talk. The employee nods, apologizes, and says they understand. Two weeks later, it’s the same mistake. So, the supervisor has the talk again…and again... Though the leader took action, the mistake never stopped because the conversation was never aimed at the right target.

Most chronic performance problems are not character flaws or attitude issues. They are symptoms of other issues. When a team keeps missing the same step, making the same error, or falling short on the same standard, that pattern is a signal to leaders, but patterns belong to systems, not individuals.

Before you engage the person, examine the environment and processes they are working with. A leader focuses on setting the stage for success and helping employees develop individual ways to thrive on a well-set stage.

What Your Brain Does to You

Social psychologist Lee Ross coined the term Fundamental Attribution Error in 1977 to describe something we all do: when we see someone fail, we instinctively attribute that failure to who they are rather than to the situation they are in. We blame the worker before we question the process.

Leaders constantly fall into this trap, and it costs them credibility and time. When your team watches you confront someone for a problem that is clearly rooted in a broken process, they do not think you are holding the line; they think you missed it entirely.

The 5-Factor Diagnostic

Before you schedule a coaching conversation, answer these five questions honestly:

1.     Is the process itself clear? Are the steps documented, agreed upon, and accessible to everyone who needs them?

2.     Do they have the right tools? Can they reliably access what they need to do the job correctly?

3.     Have they been trained to standard? Not just shown once and checked off, but trained to observable, demonstrated proficiency?

4.     Are they getting useful feedback? Do they know in real time when something is off, or do they find out weeks later?

5.     Is this a pattern or an isolated event? Patterns point to systems. A single incident may point to the person.

If you cannot confidently answer yes to the first four questions, fix those before you have any performance conversation.

A Moment from the Field

As a Special Forces Medic, I spent a great deal of my time teaching others the basics of combat care. I recall a time when I was teaching IV therapy, and I had one team member who just could not start the IV. He struggled through each available team member’s arms, but could not get it started. I continually critiqued his lack of steadiness and timidity in the process. About halfway through the 4th “victim,” I noticed he was sweating and pale. I asked and was told that he had a significant fear of needles stemming from a past traumatic situation and was barely staying upright through the training.  I had not taken the time to ask about such concerns prior to the training and dismissed his issues as a lack of ability.  He was doing the best he could; I was not. After some discussion and intentional 1-on-1 time, he was able to work through his fear and succeed in the task. The problem was my process, not his performance. A great deal of frustration (and painful sticks) could have been avoided if I had done better for him.

When It Really Is About the Person

However, know that system fixes will not solve every problem. Once the process is solid, the tools are available, training has been completed to standard, the feedback loop is working, and you are still seeing the same failure from the same person, then it is time for a direct accountability conversation.

The signals that it is a people issue: the problem is exclusive to one person, while others in the same system succeed. The person has been clearly coached and has previously demonstrated the ability to meet the standard. The behavior continues despite genuine support and clear expectations.

Even then, lead with curiosity before you lead with judgment. Ask what is getting in the way and be willing to look in the mirror. You might be surprised by what you find.

Fixing It Without Making It an Accusation

When you change a process, be intentional about how you frame it. Avoid language that implies your team has been doing it wrong all along. Instead, acknowledge what they have been working with and name what you are changing and why.

"I’ve found some challenges in the process and we are going to change them" lands completely differently than "you've been doing this wrong and I will fix it."

One builds trust. The other builds resentment. Your team will never forget which one you chose.

What the Research Tells Us

W. Edwards Deming pointed out in Out of the Crisis (MIT Press, 1982) that between 85 and 94 percent of all quality and performance problems in an organization are caused by the system, not the individual worker. His entire philosophy of management rested on the idea that leaders own the system, and blaming workers for system failures is not only unfair but also counterproductive to effective leadership.

Peter Senge extended this thinking in The Fifth Discipline (1990), showing that organizations that develop the ability to see systemic root causes, rather than surface-level symptoms, perform better and retain people longer. Systems thinking is not a luxury for large organizations. It is a practical, learnable skill for any frontline leader willing to ask better questions before jumping to conclusions.

This research is not ambiguous. When performance problems show up in patterns, your systems are telling you something. As a leader, your job is to listen before you lecture.

Reflect on This

Before your next performance conversation, ask: Have I done everything I can to set this person up for success? Is the process designed for them to win?

What is one chronic issue on your team right now that might actually be a process problem wearing a people mask?

If you mapped the process around that issue today, what friction points, gaps, or missing resources would you find?

This Week's Challenge

Take one chronic performance issue on your team. Before you address the person, map the process around that task. Write down every step. Mark where the documentation is unclear, where the tools are unreliable, or where training was skipped or done to a low standard. Fix one of those gaps this week. See what changes.

Lace up your Boots, and Go Lead!

You've Got This.

Suggested Reading

Out of the Crisis by W. Edwards Deming.

MIT Press, 1982 (reissued 2018). Deming's foundational argument that management, not the worker, owns responsibility for system performance. This is the source of the 85/15 rule and the bedrock of modern quality management thinking. Dense in places, but worth it.

The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization by Peter M. Senge.

Currency Doubleday, 1990. The classic text on systems thinking and why organizations that learn to see systemic root causes outperform those chasing individual blame. One of the most cited management books of the last 35 years.

"The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings" by Lee Ross.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10, 1977. The original academic source for the Fundamental Attribution Error. More readable than most journal articles. Directly applicable to how supervisors interpret their team's performance.

The Human Contribution: Unsafe Acts, Accidents and Heroic Recoveries by James Reason.

Ashgate, 2008. Reason's systems approach to human error, developed across aviation, healthcare, and nuclear industries, translates powerfully to any frontline setting. Helps you understand why well-intentioned, capable people make mistakes in broken systems.