Book Review: Turn The Ship Around

Tom Frearson
Feb 14
5 min read

By David Marquet

Why This Book

I came across this book because it was referenced in Leaders Eat Last by Simon Sinek — another excellent book that I’ll review separately.

When a serious leadership thinker points repeatedly to another work, I pay attention.

At face value, this is a story about a nuclear submarine.

It is not.

You do not need to care about submarines, the Navy, or the military to get value from this book. Yes, a submarine operates in a life-and-death environment. Yes, the decisions carry extraordinary gravity. But the setting is not the lesson.

The lesson is structural leadership.

This book is about what happens when a leader realises that control at the top creates passivity below — and decides to dismantle that system.

Why This Book Matters

There’s a moment early in the book that should unsettle any leader who believes they are “in control”.

A captain gives an order. It is acknowledged. It is passed down the line.

Nothing happens.

Not because the crew are incompetent. Not because they are mutinous. But because the order makes no sense on that submarine — and the officer who knew that still passed it on.

“Because you told me to, sir.”

In my opinion, that is one of the worst things a leader can hear.

Not open defiance. Not failure. Not even confusion.

But blind compliance.

That sentence is the problem.

David Marquet’s account of taking over the worst-performing submarine in the fleet isn’t a story about inspiration. It’s a dismantling of the leader–follower model and a reconstruction of something far more demanding: leader–leader at every level.

And that matters far beyond a submarine.

The Core Idea — Leader–Leader, Not Leader–Follower

Leader–follower feels efficient. Orders move down. Compliance moves up. Responsibility appears concentrated at the top.

It works — until the leader is wrong. Or tired. Or misinformed. Or absent.

On Santa Fe, the crew were well-trained, technically proficient, and obedient. What they were not doing was thinking. They had been conditioned to seek permission, not to exercise judgment.

Marquet realised something most leaders miss:

If you train people to wait for orders, they will wait — even when they know better.

That’s not a character flaw. It’s a system outcome.

The shift to leader–leader was not motivational. It was structural. He didn’t ask them to “be empowered”. He changed the language and the mechanics of decision-making.

Self-leadership became the expectation — at every level.

Language as Behaviour — “I Intend To”

The pivot was simple:

No more asking permission.

Instead of:

“Sir, request permission to submerge.”

They would say:

“I intend to submerge.”

That shift forces ownership. It moves someone from child-to-parent dynamics into adult-to-adult responsibility. You are no longer waiting to be told. You are declaring considered action.

But — and this is crucial — it is not arrogance.

It is not:

“I’m doing this whether you like it or not.”

It is:

“I intend to act, and I am prepared to justify that intention.”

That distinction is the difference between ego and ownership.

I’ve already started using it. In small moments. In conversations. In planning. It changes how you think. You don’t casually float ideas. You step into them. You assume responsibility before someone else assigns it to you.

Language shapes posture. Posture shapes behaviour.

Certify, Don’t Brief

Marquet noticed something else.

Sailors would say, “I intend to…,” and stop there — still subtly waiting for approval.

So he tightened the mechanism.

Now it became:

“I intend to dive. We have checked A. We have confirmed B. We are within parameters C.”

That’s certification.

Not a briefing upwards for instruction — but evidence that the thinking has already been done.

And what does the captain say?

Often, nothing more than “Very well.”

He is no longer the bottleneck. He becomes a verifier of competence rather than the sole source of action.

This is where many organisations collapse. They delegate responsibility without building competence. They push decisions down without ensuring capability. That is not empowerment — that is abdication.

Delegation without competence is dangerous.

Marquet understood that. Control could only move downward if competence moved with it.

Competence Is Layered

Being capable technically is part of it — but competence in this model includes:

Technical mastery.
Clarity of purpose.
Understanding consequences.
Ownership of preparation.
The confidence to state intent publicly.

It is layered.

You cannot say “I intend to” unless you know what you are doing, why you are doing it, and what failure would look like.

This is why leader–leader is harder than leader–follower. It demands more of everyone.

Move Authority to Information

One of Marquet’s most practical decisions was to place responsibility with those closest to the work — particularly the chiefs. In naval structure, chiefs are senior non-commissioned officers. They are the ones who truly understand how things function on the deckplates.

Instead of routing decisions upward to the captain and executive officer, he reinforced the authority of those who had the information.

This does two things:

It removes delay.
It restores dignity to expertise.

In most teams, the people who know the job best are not the ones making the decision. That gap creates friction, resentment, and mediocrity.

When authority follows information, ownership follows naturally.

Act Like the Best — Then Become It

One of the more counterintuitive shifts on Santa Fe was behavioural.

They stopped trying to think their way into being the best submarine in the fleet.

They simply began acting like they already were.

Standards tightened. Introductions sharpened. Bearing changed.

The three-name rule is a perfect example:

“Hi Admiral Grant, I’m David Marquet, welcome aboard Santa Fe.”

Name the senior.

Name yourself.

Name the ship.

No shrinking. No hiding. No mumbling.

Identity becomes explicit.

It’s a small ritual — but rituals build culture. And culture shapes performance faster than speeches ever will.

They didn’t think their way to excellence. They behaved their way there.

Act first. Belief catches up.

The Three Pillars

Marquet’s model rests on three structural supports:

Control — push it down.
Competence — build it deliberately.
Clarity — ensure everyone understands what “good” looks like.

Without clarity, control becomes chaos.

Without competence, control becomes danger.

Without control, competence becomes frustration.

When aligned, something different emerges: leadership at every level.

A Word of Caution

Leader–leader is not soft leadership.

It is harder.

It requires a leader willing to give up being the central decision-maker. It requires building competence before distributing authority. It requires tolerating short-term discomfort for long-term strength.

Many leaders prefer being needed to being obsolete.

Marquet chose to make himself less central. And in doing so, he made the submarine stronger.

Would I Recommend It?

Yes.

Not because it’s a military story. Not because submarines are fascinating. Not because of the drama.

But because it exposes a flaw that exists in most teams: the quiet normalisation of waiting to be told.

If you lead people — in business, coaching, community, sport, or family — this book will force you to examine whether you are building followers or leaders.