# When a problem keeps returning, check the hat before the person [Home](https://theonlyaxelj.com/en) › [Study](https://theonlyaxelj.com/en/study) › [Articles](https://theonlyaxelj.com/en/study/articles) author: [Axel Jedlitschka](https://theonlyaxelj.com/en/about) published: 2026-10-13 updated: 2026-10-13 language: en reading time: 5 min topic: Organization source booklet: [Your Hat](https://theonlyaxelj.com/en/shop/introduction/your-hat) A recurring problem in a business is most often a role that was never written, so you check the hat first and the person second. When something in a business keeps getting stuck, the natural urge is to look for someone to blame. You decide they lack initiative, forget things or avoid responsibility. The booklet puts one check ahead of that: does their role have a hat, meaning everything someone needs to fill it without you standing next to them? ## The rule: missing hats are the root cause This is the booklet's boldest claim, and it sounds overstated until you try it on a business you know. When things go badly, in a family, a team or a company, the cause is missing hats. The booklet names it as the first cause worth checking, because it is also the cheapest to fix. Suppose an online shop owner who was sure his assistant lacked initiative. After he wrote a product and a number for her role, it turned out she had shown too much initiative. She simply had no idea where her responsibility ended. Or a plumber who was certain his employee never remembers anything. Nobody had ever given the employee that information in writing, which is why he kept asking. One thing this diagnosis leaves untouched is responsibility. Nobody is excused. Its purpose is to make sure you fix the right problem before you draw conclusions about a person. ## What happens to a person without a hat This has a human side that is easy to overlook. A person with no hat has no sense of purpose or value. They cannot tell what is expected of them, or when they have succeeded. The result goes beyond weaker work. Someone left without a hat on a post becomes insecure, and the insecurity makes them weaker in the role. They start cutting corners, avoiding and passing responsibility on. The source goes one step further. A person without purpose and value may also commit offences: small theft, lying about hours, taking a client aside. **So discipline cannot stand in for what is missing.** You can install cameras and have everyone sign policies, and neither will give them purpose and value. Suppose a manager who answers every slip with a telling-off and the same line about how many times he has to say it. He gets exactly the behaviour he is trying to correct, because nobody grows stronger in a role by being scolded over something that was never handed to them. Picture a physiotherapy clinic where the manager thought the receptionist did not take ownership. After a hat was written for her, she started proposing diary changes without being asked. She was the same person, and her boundaries had become clear. The booklet puts it in five words: "Hat them, don't hit them." When something keeps recurring, you write first and reprimand later. ## Even an expert needs a hat Serious owners in particular fall into this one. You bring in an excellent professional, an accountant, a lawyer or a developer, and you assume they know what to do. They do know their trade. What they do not know is how the role works in your business: who it goes to, who approves it, what format it takes and when the deadline falls. General expertise cannot stand in for a hat on a specific post. In one organisation described in the source, an excellent lawyer jammed a whole series of cases because he never knew a purchase order had to be raised, and the rule sat in nobody's notes. On inspection there was a qualification and no hat. Suppose an owner who hired an experienced marketing manager and was disappointed after two months. Nobody had written her product. She took it to mean awareness, and he meant enquiries. Or an external developer who delivered code that worked, without knowing that price list changes must be flagged before they ship. Nobody mentioned it, because everyone inside thought it obvious. ## Before you let someone go When an employee is not performing, the instinct is to pick between tolerating it and firing the person. The booklet puts a defined order of steps between the two, and most cases are settled at the first one, which is also the cheapest. The order is a matter of economy. An owner who fires a person who never received a hat hires a replacement, gives that one no hat either, and lands in the same place six months later. Suppose a restaurant owner who was about to fire a waiter who seemed slow. Instead he wrote the waiter a hat, with the sequence, the product and the time. Two weeks later the waiter was among the strongest on the floor. He had never known what fast meant there. Or a shop owner who let three people go from the same position within a year. Only after the third did he see that the thing they shared was the position. The booklet gives this chapter two short exercises, called analyse and spot it, and it sets out the full order of steps before parting ways. In the practice section at the end there is also one called analyse. Before you decide someone is wrong for the job, check whether anyone ever wrote down what they are meant to produce. - [Your Hat](https://theonlyaxelj.com/en/shop/introduction/your-hat): A way to turn a role into something that can be handed over, and a check that tells you whether it actually landed. --- [עברית](https://theonlyaxelj.com/he/study/articles/check-the-hat-before-the-person) · [Español](https://theonlyaxelj.com/es/study/articles/check-the-hat-before-the-person)