Promise and Peril of the Decisive Leader

Soon after the OceanGate Titan submersible disaster, we learned that the founder of OceanGate, Stockton Rush, disregarded industry safety standards in his effort to be an innovator in the realm of deep-sea submersibles. In leading the design and construction of the submersible, he is clearly implicated in the disaster. Some have blamed Rush’s behavior on his “innovator mindset.” I’d suggest that it was largely due to the mismatch of his decision-making style to his role.

Rush appears to have been a bona fide decisive thinker. In my work, one’s decision-making style is the product of two dimensions: the amount of information considered prior to acting, and focus, which refers to whether a person focuses on a single or multiple objectives. The Decisive style is a very direct, focused approach to problem solving. Decisive decision makers act quickly towards a single objective with a small amount of information. This contrasts with other styles that are more analytic and slower to act, or those that are prone to changing courses of action or focusing on multiple objectives at once. Sometimes the Decisive style can save the day, and other times it can lead to great mishaps. What makes the difference is the context of the situation.

Here’s an example. Some years ago, I was aboard a tanker as we were transiting the Panama Canal. As is required in the Canal, a pilot had come aboard and taken legal command of the vessel during the transit. Fully laden with toxic chemicals, our tanker was about to exit the canal on the Pacific side via the Miraflores Locks when a sudden wind arose. Standing on the bridge wing, I noticed the wind push the bow of the ship toward the canal wall. Strangely, the canal pilot said nothing. No one said anything! Finally, although he did not have the legal authority in the Panama Canal, the captain entered the wheelhouse and gave the command to fully reverse engines. The ship slowed, but not quite enough. We slammed into the wall! The captain’s decisive action, in violation of the legal chain of command in the Canal, likely averted a significant shipping mishap in one of the world’s most traveled waterways!

Next let’s consider the tragic implosion of the Titan submersible. Intended to explore the wreck of the Titanic, Titan’s construction, for which Rush was responsible, proved inadequate to withstand the tremendous pressures of the ocean at nearly two and one-half miles below the ocean surface. Yet, Rush ignored warnings about the untested ability of the submersible’s carbon fiber hull to withstand the pressures of the ocean’s depths. Rush reportedly complained that industry standards were stifling innovation. He argued that a law regulating construction of ocean tourism vessels and prohibiting dives below 150 feet, "needlessly prioritized passenger safety over commercial innovation.” Sadly, Titan went to meet its implosive fate and the death of Rush and its crew just yards from the wreck of the Titanic.

Three characteristics of the situation set the stage for the success or failure of the Decisive style: availability of alternative actions, the existence of warning signs, and the time factor.

In the Miraflores Locks, there were few alternatives. As we approached the wall, the options shrank to hitting the canal wall hard or doing something to ease the impact, at least. But in the Titan implosion, there were a lot of options going all the way back to the design and construction of the submersible.

During Titan’s construction, there were clear warnings about insufficient testing of the carbon fiber hull. This is where the Decisive style can get into trouble – by ignoring information once an initial course of action has been selected. Warnings raise questions about the decided upon course of action — and reconsidering after an initial course has been selected is not the propensity of decisive thinking.

If time is strictly limited and action must be taken now, decisive thinking tends to have the advantage. Digging deeper into information and considering alternate actions takes time. Taking time can mean that no decision is made, except by default. This is not a scenario for success! In the Miraflores Locks example, time was running out when the captain acted decisively and averted a serious mishap.

This is all clear in retrospect. However, as a team coach, I have seen managers and executives be drawn to act as a “decisive leader” when a more analytic style was needed, or when willingness to change a course of action would have been preferable.

Fortunately, people can learn about their own habits of thinking and understand how context plays a role in the success of each style. When people develop these skills of self-awareness, they develop an adaptability to meet the needs of the situation.

To summarize, keep these points in mind. Thinking decisively is likely to be the right way to go when: