Fix-Not-Blame Learning Loop
Make errors discussable, repair them fast and carry the lesson forward
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 96%
Hancock says teams perform better when people know an error will trigger repair rather than immediate shouting. His recurring question was not who caused a problem but how the team could fix it. That creates a loop: name the failure, contain its effects, identify what the organisation misunderstood, change the decision or process and examine the next comparable result. He links the approach to pandemic testing and to improved performance in later waves, although those outcome claims are his assessment in the interview rather than an independent evaluation. The important mechanism is psychological and operational: making revision legitimate reduces the incentive to conceal mistakes or defend a failing choice. The boundary is equally important. A no-blame first response should accelerate learning, not erase responsibility, block scrutiny or excuse deliberate wrongdoing.
Origin
Hancock describes using this approach while leading the UK health department during the pandemic. Extracted from The Diary of a CEO.
Core principles
- 01People surface errors sooner when correction is safer than concealment
- 02The first question after a failure should identify the repair
- 03Changing a decision is evidence of learning, not automatic weakness
- 04Later outcomes should improve because earlier errors were examined
- 05A repair culture does not remove personal accountability
How to run it
- 1
State what failed
Describe the observed gap between the intended and actual result without beginning with an accusation. Separate known facts from interpretations that still need testing.
Pro tip Use a neutral sentence containing the expected result, actual result and immediate impact.
- 2
Contain the harm
Take the smallest immediate action that prevents the problem from worsening. Preserve evidence needed for later review.
Watch out Do not rush into a permanent fix before the failure mode is understood.
- 3
Ask how to fix it
Invite the people closest to the work to explain what must change. Keep the discussion focused on the decision, process, assumption or missing information rather than personal defence.
Pro tip Ask what would make the same error harder to repeat.
- 4
Change the system
Revise the policy, workflow or resource allocation and make the new expectation explicit. Assign an owner and a point at which the change will be reviewed.
Watch out A verbal lesson without an observable process change is not a completed repair.
- 5
Compare the next result
Use the next similar event or operating period to test whether the correction helped. If it did not, reopen the diagnosis instead of defending the new decision.
Pro tip Choose the comparison measure before declaring the correction successful.
- 6
Apply proportionate accountability
After stabilising and learning, determine whether training, process ownership, formal review or another response is warranted. Distinguish good-faith error from concealment or misconduct.
Watch out Psychological safety must not become immunity from consequences.
In the wild
Hancock says the UK began without the testing capacity it needed and that the system had to grow faster. He credits a repeated focus on fixing each failure rather than finding someone to blame. He later cites foreign interest in the UK testing system as evidence of improvement; that comparison is his claim in the interview.
→ The team kept revising the testing operation instead of treating the first design or each subsequent mistake as fixed.
Hancock recounts seeing the effects of highly restrictive funeral guidance, including cases in which shielding relatives did not attend. He says the government listened and clarified the rules. The example shows a policy correction prompted by consequences visible on the ground, while not resolving wider questions about the original decision.
→ The guidance was changed after the practical human cost became clearer.
Common mistakes
Starting with the culprit
Immediate accusation can make people defend themselves or hide useful information. Stabilise and understand the failure before deciding what accountability requires.
Confusing no blame with no accountability
A repair-first response does not excuse misconduct or repeated negligence. Apply proportionate consequences after facts and system lessons are clear.
Declaring victory from one comparison
A later improvement may have several causes. Treat it as evidence to examine, not automatic proof that one management practice caused the result.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for teams operating under pressure where information changes and rapid correction matters more than protecting prior choices.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal as a way to excuse misconduct, repeated negligence or failures that require independent investigation and formal accountability.
From the transcript
“The question is not who did that, it's how do we fix it?”
“allow your team to essentially learn from and change their decisions”
“every time we had a screw-up the question that we asked was how do we fix it”
From the episode
Matt Hancock: Opens Up About His Affair, Mistakes & The Pandemic