Olivia: Jackson, I saw a Gallup poll that said disengaged employees cost the U.S. economy over $300 billion a year. Jackson: Wow. That’s a staggering number. So, bad bosses are expensive. Olivia: Exactly. But what if the solution isn't better bosses, but getting rid of the whole idea of 'bosses' and 'followers' altogether? Even on a nuclear submarine. Jackson: Okay, now you have my attention. That sounds like a radical, and frankly, dangerous idea in a place with missiles and a nuclear reactor. Olivia: That's the radical premise of Turn the Ship Around! by L. David Marquet. And this isn't some business school theory. Marquet was a real US Navy Captain who was handed command of the USS Santa Fe, which at the time was the worst-performing submarine in the fleet. He turned it into the best, not by being a tougher commander, but by doing the complete opposite. Jackson: The worst in the fleet? So he was basically given a sinking ship... literally. Olivia: Precisely. The crew had terrible morale, low retention, and failed inspections. Yet his approach was so successful that the legendary Stephen R. Covey, author of The 7 Habits, visited the Santa Fe and later called it the most empowered organization he had ever seen. That's what we're unpacking today: how you turn followers into leaders.

Olivia: The whole journey starts with a moment of intense personal failure for Marquet. He's newly in command, and they're running a drill. The submarine is running on a backup electric motor, and to test its limits, Marquet gives what he thinks is a simple order: "Ahead two-thirds." Jackson: Sounds like a standard command. What happens? Olivia: Nothing. Absolute silence. The helmsman, the guy steering the sub, just looks at him. Marquet, feeling his authority being challenged in front of the crew, repeats the order, more forcefully this time. "Helmsman, ahead two-thirds." Jackson: Oh, the tension must have been thick enough to cut with a knife. What did the helmsman do? Olivia: The helmsman quietly replies, "Captain, there is no 'ahead two-thirds' on the electric motor. It only goes to 'ahead one-third'." Marquet had trained for a year to command a different class of submarine, the USS Olympia. He was reassigned to the Santa Fe at the last minute and didn't know its systems inside and out. Jackson: Whoa. So the captain gave an impossible order. That’s more than just embarrassing; in that environment, that could be deadly. Olivia: Exactly. In that moment, Marquet had an epiphany. He realized the traditional leader-follower model, where the crew blindly obeys the all-knowing leader, was fundamentally broken. His crew was so conditioned to follow that they would have tried to execute a flawed order if it had been possible. He saw a future where his own ignorance could get 135 people killed. Jackson: That’s a terrifying realization. So what does he do? Double down on training? Study the manuals 24/7? Olivia: He does something far more radical. He gathers his officers and makes a vow: "I will never give another order." Jackson: Hold on. A submarine captain just… stops giving orders? On a nuclear submarine with 135 souls on board? How is that not complete abdication of responsibility? That sounds insane. Olivia: It sounds insane, but it was the beginning of a new model. He replaced a language of permission with a language of intent. He coached his crew to stop asking "Captain, may I submerge the ship?" and instead state, "Captain, I intend to submerge the ship." Jackson: I see the subtle shift there. "May I" puts all the responsibility on the captain. "I intend to" forces the person speaking to own the decision. They have to have thought it through. Olivia: Precisely. It moves the psychological burden of ownership down the chain of command. Marquet’s job was no longer to have all the answers, but to ensure his crew was competent enough to form the right intentions. He wanted to move authority to where the information lived. The sonar technician knows more about the sonar than the captain. The engineer knows more about the reactor. So why should all the information flow up to one person to make a decision? Jackson: It’s like decentralizing the ship’s brain. But did it work right away? I can’t imagine a military crew, trained for obedience, just flipping a switch. Olivia: Of course not. It was a struggle. Early on, he tried to empower his team on another submarine, the USS Will Rogers, and it failed miserably. Performance declined. He learned that just saying "you're empowered" within a leader-follower structure is a contradiction. You have to change the underlying mechanisms. Jackson: Okay, so give me a concrete example from the Santa Fe. How did he change a mechanism? Olivia: A perfect one is the leave request process. To get time off, a sailor’s request form, or "chit," had to go through a long chain of signatures, ending with an officer. The chiefs, the senior enlisted leaders who are closest to the crew, had no real authority. They just passed paper. Jackson: I can see how that would be demoralizing for the chiefs. Olivia: Totally. So Marquet met with the chiefs and asked them, "Do you want to run this ship?" They said yes. He asked what they needed. They said, "We want to be in charge of our people's leave." So Marquet changed one word in the ship's regulations. He made the Chief of the Boat, the most senior enlisted person, the final signature authority for all enlisted leave. Jackson: Wow. So he just handed over control of the crew's time off to the chiefs. What was the result? Olivia: It was hugely powerful. Suddenly, the chiefs were truly in charge. They had to manage their divisions' watch schedules, training, and readiness to approve leave. They were accountable. It was a small administrative change that sent a massive signal throughout the ship: we are a leader-leader organization now, not leader-follower.

Jackson: Okay, I get the 'I intend to...' part, and I see how changing a small rule about leave requests can have a big ripple effect. But that only works if the crew's intentions are... you know... good. What stops them from intending to steer into a rock? Olivia: That is the million-dollar question, and it’s the second half of the entire philosophy. Giving away control without building competence and clarity is just chaos. Marquet realized this very quickly. The new model required two essential pillars to support it. Jackson: Competence and Clarity. Break those down for me. What does that look like on a submarine? Olivia: Let's start with clarity. There's a great story about the ship's quartermasters, the guys who prepare the navigational charts. They were getting ready for an inspection, and they had prepared the charts perfectly. Every line was drawn according to regulations, every symbol was correct. They were flawless. Jackson: Sounds like a good thing, right? Ready for inspection. Olivia: Except for one tiny problem. The charts were for the wrong part of the ocean. They had prepared a perfect route for an area they had no intention of sailing to. They were so focused on following the rules to avoid errors that they completely missed the actual goal, which was to prepare for the real mission. Jackson: That’s a perfect metaphor for so many workplaces. People are busy, busy, busy, checking boxes, but what they're doing is completely irrelevant to what the organization is actually trying to achieve. Olivia: Exactly. That’s a failure of clarity. The crew didn't understand the why behind their work. Marquet’s solution was to have short, early conversations. He started saying, "A little rudder far from the rocks is a lot better than a lot of rudder close to the rocks." In other words, let's make sure we're all heading in the right direction from the very beginning, instead of trying to make a massive, last-minute correction. Jackson: And what about competence? How do you build that when you're not just giving orders? Olivia: This is where it gets really interesting. The Santa Fe had a serious incident where a sailor violated a "red tag" on a shore power connection. A red tag is a giant warning sign that says "Do Not Touch, Danger." It's one of the most serious safety violations you can have. Jackson: Okay, that’s bad. The typical response would be more training, more rules, more supervision, right? Olivia: That’s what everyone suggested. But Marquet realized the problem wasn't that the sailor didn't know the rule. The problem was that he was acting on autopilot. He was going through the motions without thinking. So they invented a new mechanism called "Take Deliberate Action." Jackson: What does that entail? Olivia: Before a sailor performs any critical action, like flipping a switch or turning a valve, they have to pause. They point to the switch, they say out loud what they are about to do—"I am energizing the shore power breaker"—and only then, after that deliberate pause, do they perform the action. Jackson: That sounds like what surgeons do with a pre-op checklist or what pilots do before takeoff. It's about engaging the conscious brain to prevent mindless mistakes. It forces you to be present. Olivia: You nailed it. It’s about breaking the script of automatic behavior. And it worked. They found that this simple, deliberate action dramatically reduced errors. It built technical competence at the most critical interface: where the human hand touches the machine. Another mechanism they used was "thinking out loud." Jackson: I can see how that would be useful. It makes everyone's thought process transparent. Olivia: Right. During a tricky maneuver, instead of the officer on deck just silently making decisions, they would verbalize their thought process. "I see the current is strong here, so I'm going to start the turn five seconds earlier than the chart says." This did two things: it allowed the captain to understand their reasoning without having to ask, and it allowed junior team members to learn how senior leaders think. It built competence across the entire team. Jackson: So it’s a constant, real-time training session. The combination is powerful. You give people control with "I intend to," but you support them with absolute clarity on the goal and build their competence with mechanisms like "deliberate action" and "thinking out loud." Olivia: Exactly. It's a complete system. You can't just do one part. You need all of it. Control without competence is chaos. Competence without control is frustrating and leads to disengagement. You need both.

Olivia: So when you put it all together, you see that Marquet’s genius wasn't in being a better commander who gave better orders. It was in fundamentally changing the definition of leadership itself. Jackson: It seems like the leader’s job shifts from being the hero with all the answers to being the architect of a system that creates more heroes. You’re not the star player anymore; you’re the coach who designs the plays that let everyone on the team score. Olivia: That's a perfect way to put it. He built a system that would continue to produce leaders long after he was gone. And the data backs it up. After he left, the USS Santa Fe continued to be a top-performing ship, and an unprecedented number of its officers and crew were promoted into command positions themselves. He didn't just turn the ship around; he created a leadership factory. Jackson: The book is widely acclaimed, but some readers have found the military jargon a bit dense. But it seems like if you can get past that, the principles are universal. Olivia: Absolutely. The high-stakes environment of a nuclear submarine just makes the lessons more vivid. The core ideas—giving control, building competence, and ensuring clarity—are applicable everywhere, from a tech startup to a hospital to a classroom. Jackson: So for someone listening who isn't a submarine captain, what's the one thing they can do tomorrow to start turning their own 'ship' around? Olivia: Start small. Find one place where you can replace a language of permission with a language of intent. The next time a team member comes to you and asks, "Can I send this email to the client?" try responding with, "Tell me what you intend to say in the email." Jackson: I like that. It’s a small coaching moment. It doesn't reject their question but nudges them toward ownership. You’re not just giving them the fish; you’re not even just teaching them to fish. You’re asking them to design the fishing rod. Olivia: Exactly. The goal isn't to stop being a leader. It's to start creating them, one intention at a time. It’s about asking yourself: are you building a team of followers who are great at taking orders, or are you building a team of leaders who are great at taking initiative? Jackson: A powerful question to end on. It really reframes the entire purpose of management. Olivia: This is Aibrary, signing off.