This article is an excerpt from the Shortform book guide to "Turn the Ship Around" by L. David Marquet. Shortform has the world's best summaries and analyses of books you should be reading.
Like this article? Sign up for a free trial here .
Traditional leadership often operates on a “leader-follower” model, where those at the top hold the reins while the front lines simply execute orders. To build a resilient organization, leaders must shift this power dynamic and decentralize authority to the people actually doing the work.
By moving decision-making closer to the source of information, organizations can move faster and more effectively. Read on to see how L. David Marquet’s transformation of the USS Santa Fe reveals how decentralizing authority creates a culture of ownership where every team member is empowered to act like a leader.
Originally Published: August 4, 2021
Last Updated: December 20, 2025
Decentralizing Authority
In his book Turn the Ship Around!, L. David Marquet argues that decision-making authority should rest with the people doing the work. In many organizations, information flows up to decision-makers, then orders flow back down. Instead Marquet recommends decentralizing authority, turning decision-making over to the people who have access to the best information. This requires changing the rules that dictate who makes which decisions. On the Santa Fe, Marquet gave the chiefs (senior enlisted personnel equivalent to middle managers) real authority over their teams. Previously, approving a crew member’s leave request required 14 steps, but Marquet gave authority to the chief responsible for that member. This gave chiefs control over their crews’ schedules, watch rotations, and training timelines.
(Shortform note: Research suggests that pushing decision-making authority to those closest to the information works not because more information leads to better decisions, but because it helps avoid information overload at higher levels of the organization. Even small amounts of extra information can worsen decision quality—people struggle to identify which details matter. The problem gets worse for people with expertise on a topic, like managers making decisions about frontline work: Their existing knowledge interferes with using new information effectively. Marquet’s approach may work because it places decisions where relevant information is naturally concentrated and irrelevant details are automatically filtered out.)
To give people more control, language must also change. Marquet required crew members to state their intentions rather than ask permission. Instead of “Request permission to shift to backup power,” an officer would say, “Captain, I intend to shift to backup power.” Asking permission keeps control with the person being asked—they make the decision. But stating an intention puts control with the speaker—they make a decision and inform their supervisor. Similarly, Marquet believes leaders should resist providing solutions when problems arise, since that keeps control with the leader. Instead, Marquet would ask, “What are the options?” This gave the crew a cue to think through alternatives, rather than wait to be told what to do.
(Shortform note: Some studies affirm that the way we speak shapes our thinking, and cognitive science research suggests that the benefits of stating intentions may extend beyond the moment of communication: People who speak languages that emphasize active grammatical constructions tend to assign accountability more readily. So, when workers say “I intend to,” they strengthen their sense of agency and build a mental record of themselves as decision-makers. This accumulated self-perception may be why Marquet’s changes stuck: Crew members weren’t just trained in new procedures; they developed new perceptions of their identity and ability.)
Finally, Marquet contends that to give people more control over their work, it’s crucial to invert the traditional expectations on who tracks and reports on progress. In most organizations, supervisors monitor their team’s work by checking in on projects and asking for updates. This puts supervisors in control. Marquet eliminated top-down monitoring. Instead, people tracked their own work and proactively reported progress. Department heads would tell the executive officer what they’d accomplished and what they planned to do next, rather than waiting to be asked.
(Shortform note: Research validates Marquet’s approach of having people track their own work rather than being monitored: The more frequently people monitor their progress toward goals, the more likely they are to succeed at reaching those goals. The effect is even stronger when progress is physically recorded or publicly reported. The framing of this tracking matters, too. While looking forward at how far you still have to go can feel discouraging, looking backward at how far you’ve come can motivate you to keep going. When Santa Fe crew members reported their progress—telling supervisors what they’d accomplished—they naturally emphasized their gains, which likely reinforced their motivation to keep making progress.)
———End of Preview———
Like what you just read? Read the rest of the world's best book summary and analysis of L. David Marquet's "Turn the Ship Around" at Shortform .
Here's what you'll find in our full Turn the Ship Around summary :
- How a captain turned the U.S. Navy’s worst-performing nuclear submarine crew into one of the best
- The principles for developing leaders at all levels to create a passionate, high-performing workforce
- Why the "leader-leader" model works better than the "leader-follower" model
