We recorded this one because it kept coming up in conversation. Every time someone asked Mike to describe what Double Loop Performance actually does, he’d end up explaining the same core idea — and it landed every time. So we turned it into a webinar. Here’s what he covered, what checked out when we dug into the research, and the parts worth sitting with.
Listen Now:
The Central Argument (And Why It Resonates)
Mike’s thesis is deliberately uncomfortable: most organizations aren’t solving problems, they’re managing symptoms. Every time something feels broken, the instinct is to add something — a tool, a training, a process, a dashboard — and move on. He calls this single-loop thinking, borrowing language from the late organizational theorist Chris Argyris: detect the error, correct it, done. The problem never gets examined. The conditions that produced it stay intact.
The alternative — double-loop thinking — means pausing before the fix and asking what’s actually underneath the problem. Not “what do we add?” but “what is getting in the way?”
That subtle reframe is the whole session. Every framework, every analogy, every diagnostic question flows from it.
The Clogged Toilet (Yes, Really)
Mike’s signature metaphor: your organization is a clogged toilet, and your instinct is to grab the plunger.
Here’s the scenario. A toddler drops a Hot Wheels car in the drain. You plunge. The toilet flushes. Crisis over — until it clogs again. Because the car is still in there. And the toddler is still in the house.
It’s a blunt metaphor, but that’s the point. Organizations invest heavily in the plunger — new technology, new methodologies, more training — and wonder why the problem keeps coming back. The plunger clears symptoms. It doesn’t address the behavior or the environment that created the clog in the first place.
Takeaway: Before you buy the next tool, ask whether you’ve actually removed the Hot Wheels car — or just cleared enough space to flush again.
A Quick Fact-Check on the “70%” Claim
Mike references statistics about organizational change failure — including the widely-cited figure that roughly 70% of change initiatives fail. Worth noting: this number gets thrown around a lot, and its origins are murkier than most presentations let on. Research tracing it back found it largely circulates from McKinsey and Kotter references, without a definitive primary study behind it.
That said — the broader pattern holds up. A 2019 analysis in The Healthcare Manager confirmed the figure is probably in the right range even if the methodology is imprecise. And the why behind failures is well-documented: it’s rarely a bad idea. It’s almost always poor adoption, unchanged incentive structures, and insufficient attention to the human side of change.
The tool overwhelm piece is easier to verify. A 2025 survey of over 2,000 workers in the U.S. and U.K. found 90% report feeling overwhelmed by the number of software tools they use, and 59% say it’s actually harder to be productive than it was before their organization invested in those tools. More recently, a 2026 BCG study found workers using four or more AI tools reported lower efficiency than those using fewer — suggesting the problem isn’t going away as AI layers on.
Takeaway: The exact number is debatable; the pattern is not. Tool proliferation and poor adoption are the real problem, and they’re getting worse.
The Elevator Analogy — Where the Reframing Framework Comes From
Mike draws on an analogy from Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg, an innovation researcher who wrote about reframing for Harvard Business Review in 2017. The setup: tenants in a high-rise complain the elevator is too slow. The obvious solution — fix the motor — is expensive and disruptive.
But reframe the question. Why does waiting feel so long? Add mirrors next to the elevator. People stop noticing the wait. Problem solved. Same elevator.
Wedell-Wedellsborg’s accompanying HBR research is worth citing here: in a survey of 106 C-suite executives across 17 countries, 85% agreed their organizations were bad at diagnosing problems before jumping to solutions — and 87% said that gap carried real costs. The diagnostic skill — asking whether you’re solving the right problem at all — is, as Mike puts it, the most underutilized capability in organizational life.
Mike applies three moves from this to any organizational challenge:
- Zoom out — look at the broader system, not just the presenting complaint
- Look at yourself — is leadership or the structure we’ve created part of the problem?
- Challenge the goal — are we optimizing for the right outcome, or suppressing the symptom?
Takeaway: Most organizations skip step one and jump to solutions. The mirror costs less than the new motor.
The Root Cause Lens — Three Questions
Before any prescription, Mike walks through a diagnostic sequence. For any behavior or performance gap, ask:
Do they know what’s expected — and why?
Not just clarity on the task, but the rationale behind it. People comply with expectations they understand; they own expectations they believe in. The classic WIIFM (“what’s in it for me”) isn’t cynicism — it’s a legitimate question, and if you haven’t answered it, don’t be surprised when commitment is thin.
Can they do it?
This is where organizations rush to training and miss the point. Is it actually a skill gap? Or is it a will issue — someone who knows how but won’t? Or a time issue — someone who’s willing but buried? Or an environment issue — someone who’d do it if the conditions allowed? These require completely different responses.
Do they have reason to?
Motivation — especially intrinsic motivation — is usually the hinge. Mike adds one reframe worth remembering: people don’t always resist change. They resist loss. Loss of autonomy. Loss of the way they’ve always done it. Loss of status or relevance. Change management research has documented this for decades; the emotional work of transition is consistently underestimated.
Takeaway: If you haven’t run through these three questions, you’re not ready to prescribe. You’re guessing.
The MEET Model
This is the practical output of the session — a four-phase facilitation model for moving from diagnosis to action without skipping the hard middle part.
- Map — Get everything out. Right, wrong, or otherwise. How are things connected? What might be related? Don’t edit at this stage.
- Evaluate — Now ask the harder questions. Is this a symptom or a root cause? What assumptions are we holding? What would we need to know to be confident we’re solving the right thing?
- Experiment — Design small. Talk to people closest to the problem. Test before you scale.
- Turn to Action — Build for behavior change, not box-checking. Assign real ownership. Set a revisit date — not just a launch date.
The last point is one Mike is direct about: a lot of organizations celebrate at launch and then wonder why nothing stuck. Launch is the beginning of the adoption curve, not the end of the change effort. The revisit date is what keeps accountability alive after the rollout energy fades.
Takeaway: The MEET model is low-tech and adaptable. It can run in a single meeting or across several, depending on complexity. The only rule: don’t skip to Experiment before you’ve genuinely done the Map and Evaluate work.
On Organizational Baggage
One of the more honest moments in the session is when Mike talks about change history — the organizational memory of initiatives that didn’t land. “We’ve tried that before.” “I remember the last time we did this.” That history doesn’t disappear when a new initiative rolls out; it shapes how people receive it.
His recommendation: name it. Acknowledge the history directly. Be specific about what’s different this time — and only say it if you’ve actually done the work to make it different. That honesty builds credibility in a way that enthusiasm alone never will.
Takeaway: Leaders who skip the history lose the room before they start.
What We’d Add
A few things Mike doesn’t mention explicitly that are worth connecting:
- Psychological safety as a prerequisite. The diagnostic approach he’s describing — asking root cause questions, surfacing assumptions, challenging the goal — requires people to be honest. That honesty only happens in environments where it’s safe to name problems without consequences. Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety is the relevant backdrop here.
- The meeting cost angle. Mike touches on meeting culture as a change adoption issue. The numbers are stark: the U.S. spends an estimated $37 billion annually on unproductive meetings, according to research from Industry Week. That’s not a meeting problem — it’s a diagnostic problem. Organizations are having the wrong conversations.
- The “adjacent possible” of small experiments. The emphasis on making change small maps to what complexity researchers call working at the edge of the adjacent possible — testing interventions at a scale where you can learn without breaking the system. It’s the same principle behind lean startup methodology applied to organizational change.
The Line Worth Writing Down
Mike closes with a phrase that’s practical enough to actually use:
“If you’re furious, get curious.”
When something isn’t working and the instinct is to fix it immediately — that’s the exact moment to pause. Diagnose. Ask what’s actually in the drain. Reframe the problem before you reach for the plunger.
About The Author
Michael Nagorski is the Founding Partner of Double Loop Performance, an organizational development and leadership consulting practice based in Newark, Delaware. He works with executive teams, change leaders, and facilitators who are tired of talking about the right things and ready to actually do them.
Michael has spent more than 15 years helping organizations at inflection points — when they need to move differently without losing what made them good. That has ranged from designing decision-making frameworks for Fortune 500 sales organizations to building facilitation systems for senior leadership teams navigating strategy execution, technology adoption, and culture change.
His work lives at the intersection of facilitation design, behavioral science, and organizational accountability — with a strong bias toward the practical over the theoretical.
He holds graduate degrees from the University of Delaware in Organizational Development and Change and Business Administration, and is the developer of the MEET Funnel methodology for structured decision facilitation.
Contact Double Loop Performance or contact Mike directly through LinkedIn and YouTube.