I couldn’t look away from the Titan documentary. As someone who’s spent years building teams and pushing technological boundaries, watching Stockton Rush’s (CEO OceanGate, died in his last submarine dive) journey felt uncomfortably familiar. The relentless drive, the impatience with bureaucracy, the absolute conviction that you’re revolutionizing an industry—I’ve been there. But somewhere in that familiar entrepreneurial passion, Rush crossed a line that cost five people their lives.
The Seductive Power of Visionary Thinking
Rush wasn’t a villain—he was a visionary who lost his way. His dream of democratizing deep-sea exploration was genuinely inspiring. For decades, only government-funded missions could reach the Titanic’s depth of 12,500 feet. Rush wanted to change that, making the impossible accessible to civilians willing to pay $250,000 for the experience.
The problem wasn’t his vision; it was how completely he became it.
The Data Tell the Story: According to maritime safety records, properly certified deep-sea vessels have a failure rate of less than 0.1%. Experimental, uncertified vessels? The numbers are staggeringly different—failure rates approach 15-20% in extreme depth applications. Rush knew these statistics but convinced himself his carbon fiber innovation would beat the odds.
This is what psychologists call “optimism bias”— (Read more) the tendency to overestimate positive outcomes while underestimating risks. Research by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman shows that entrepreneurs exhibit this bias at rates 3-4 times higher than the general population. It’s what makes us start companies against impossible odds, but it’s also what can make us ignore flashing red warning lights.
The Regulatory Rebellion: Understanding Both Sides
I get Rush’s frustration with certification bodies. I’ve watched brilliant innovations die slow deaths in regulatory purgatory. The FDA takes an average of 12 years to approve breakthrough medical devices. Aviation certification can stretch beyond a decade. When you’re burning through investor capital and your team is depending on you, these timelines feel like innovation killers.
Rush chose to operate in international waters specifically to avoid U.S. Coast Guard oversight. His argument? “Innovation doesn’t happen when you have to follow restrictive regulations.” On the surface, it’s compelling.
But here’s what the data actually show: Industries with robust safety regulations don’t just save lives—they often accelerate long-term innovation. The aviation industry, heavily regulated since the 1950s, has achieved remarkable safety improvements while continuously advancing technology. Commercial aviation fatality rates have dropped 95% since 1970, even as air travel increased 10-fold.
Companies like SpaceX prove you can work within regulatory frameworks while still pushing boundaries. SpaceX conducted over 50 successful launches before their first crewed mission, working closely with NASA throughout. Their approach: “Regulation as a design constraint, not a roadblock.”
When Expertise Becomes the Enemy
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Rush’s story was his systematic dismissal of expert warnings. Multiple deep-sea engineers, including his own employees, raised concerns about the Titan’s carbon fiber hull design. Industry veterans warned that carbon fiber, unlike steel or titanium, doesn’t fail gradually—it fails catastrophically, with no warning.
Rush’s response? He fired critics and publicly stated that industry experts were “uninspiring” and stuck in old ways of thinking.
The Psychology Behind This: Research from Harvard Business School shows that as entrepreneurs become more successful, they increasingly discount external advice. It’s called “expert blindness”—the more passionate we become about our vision, the less we hear dissenting voices. In a study of 847 startup failures, 34% could be traced directly to founders ignoring critical technical feedback from domain experts.
This hits close to home for any leader who’s ever built something from scratch. You become so emotionally invested in your creation that criticism feels like personal attacks. But in safety-critical applications, this emotional attachment can literally be deadly.
The Success-Fame Convergence Trap
What struck me most about Rush’s interviews was how intertwined his personal identity had become with OceanGate’s success. He wasn’t just building a submersible company—he was becoming the visionary who would change deep-sea exploration forever. His LinkedIn described him as a “Innovator, explorer, and entrepreneur revolutionizing ocean access.”
The numbers paint a clear picture: According to venture capital data, founder-led companies where the CEO maintains more than 60% equity ownership have 40% higher failure rates in safety-critical industries. When personal wealth and reputation become completely tied to a single product’s success, rational risk assessment becomes nearly impossible.
Jeff Bezos spoke about this phenomenon at a leadership conference in 2019: “The moment you think you are your company, you stop making decisions in the company’s best interest. You start making decisions to protect your ego.”
Building Better Safety Cultures: What Actually Works
So how do we maintain entrepreneurial drive while protecting the people who trust us with their lives? I’ve seen effective approaches across multiple industries:
The Titan wasn’t just an engineering failure—it was a leadership failure that cost five lives. As entrepreneurs and executives, we must learn from Rush’s mistakes before we repeat them in our own domains. Because in the end, no innovation is worth destroying the trust people place in our judgment.
Larry Bossidy, Ram Charan, Charles Burck
The three processes—people, strategy, and operations— remain the building blocks and heart of good execution. But as the economic, political, and business environments change, the ways in which they are carried out also change.”
Change or not change, that’s the constant tug of war an organization faces. Change being only constant, and our love of inertia (why to change), leads to this war within each organization. A successful company becomes successful, by knowing customer better than its competition, but then same company faces competition to safeguard its turf due to its ‘belief’ that they know customer! Customers are more prone to change, and they have fewer option to avoid it, and the organization which constantly tap such changes in customer’s expectations make it sustain and bloom constantly!
Recently I read book “Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done”
Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done by Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan emphasizes the importance of executing strategies effectively to drive success in any organization. The book argues that many companies fail, not due to a lack of vision, but due to a failure in execution. It breaks down execution into three main processes: people, strategy, and operations. The authors highlight the role of strong leadership in establishing a culture of accountability, aligning the right people with the right tasks, and maintaining a rigorous focus on the practical steps needed to reach goals. The book provides actionable advice for leaders to ensure that plans turn into results by consistently focusing on follow-through and engagement at all levels of the organization.
With such challenges, the book help answer following three questions, these aspects not only enable a faster change but also help us being more dynamic and adaptive to constantly changing environment.
The thing is not always what we assume it is. Often, we get in our own way when solving problems with a new way of thinking, because we’re afraid it won’t yield better results than the tried-and-true methods of yesterday! We need a framework for thinking through the most common problems with a new lens on what might work to bring about the most effective, long-term solution
In business, where competition is between products rather than companies, the line of sight between a CEO’s decisions and whether a customer will buy a product at any given time is much less clear. The individual outcomes of customers’ decisions are far from easy for executives seating in head office, removed from the front line, to predict and control.
If the judge of the value of any product or service is the customer who chooses to buy, not the provider, then it is the provider’s (Company’s) people at the front line, in front of the customer, who are best placed to determine what the customer values. It is up to the rest of the company to help the people in the front lines, where the revenues come in, to satisfy those customer needs. The lower level, in effect, is the customer of the level above it. And like a customer, it should expect to get more value from those services than it pays to get them.
Companies should build Cumulative advantage as the layer on its initial competitive advantage by making its product or service an ever more instinctively comfortable choice for the customer. Focus on helping customer make easy choice over making the product a habit.
The common belief about competitive advantage is that successful companies choose a position, focus on certain consumers, and design activities to serve them better. The aim is to get customers to buy again by matching the value offered to their needs. By creating unique and personalized experiences, the company can maintain a competitive edge. This way of thinking assumes that consumers make careful and logical decisions. Although emotions may play a role in buying, many times these decisions come from a conscious thought process. A good strategy understands and responds to this thought process. However, research in behavioural psychology suggests that buying decisions aren’t always made consciously. Our brains work more like machines that fill in gaps: they take incomplete information and quickly complete it using past experiences. This fast thinking, known as intuition, includes thoughts and feelings that come to mind quickly and strongly influence our actions. It’s not just what we remember that shapes our quick judgments but also how easy and fast we can remember it. When we decide based on what “feels right,” it usually means our thinking process was smooth and effortless. Hence, one reason people often choose the leading product is simply that it is the easiest option available, as it stands out in the shopping environment.
If consumers are slaves of habit, it’s hard to argue that they are “loyal” customers in the sense that they consciously attach themselves to a brand on the assumption that it meets rational or emotional needs. In fact, customers are much more fickle than many marketers assume: often the brands that are believed to depend on loyal customers achieve the lowest loyalty scores. So why do fringe brands like local competition survive? The answer, perhaps perversely, is that with big-brand loyalty rates at 50 percent, just enough customers will buy small brands from time to time to keep the latter in business. But the small brands can’t overcome the familiarity barrier, and although entirely new brands do enter categories and become leaders, it is extremely rare for an established fringe brand to successfully take on an established leader.
Strategic planning often gets bogged down in numbers and analysis. This creates a sense of scientific rigor, but it can also lead to a lack of creativity. Many managers find that the annual planning process is time-consuming and doesn’t produce truly innovative strategies.
To break this pattern, we need to shift our thinking. As the saying goes, “In strategy, what counts is what would have to be true—not what is true.” Developing a winning strategy is like creating and testing scientific hypotheses. It involves imagining a new reality where our ideas would work and then figuring out what needs to change to make that happen. This creative process is just as important as the analytical one.
Few steps one can follow for such strategy building: A Possibility Based Approach
It’s a new model, introduced in the ongoing dialogue about the existing frameworks we rely upon to enhance the effectiveness of our strategies. The essence of this discourse revolves around a fundamental truth: you are the master of your models. It’s vital to understand that if you find yourself constantly attributing failures to your model while simultaneously striving to harness its potential, then, inadvertently, you have granted it a monopoly over your thought processes. This situation creates a paradox where the model, rather than serving you, becomes an oppressive force, dictating your decisions and stifling creativity.
Imagine this scenario: you enter into an agreement with a model, believing it has the keys to success. You attempt to optimize your connection with it, tweaking here and there, but the results remain disappointing. Each setback chips away at your confidence, leading to a self-blame spiral. You question your abilities, thinking you simply have not mastered the model’s intricacies. This is a dangerous mindset; it breeds dependency and diminishes your agency.
In contrast, if you adopt an empowered position and hold your model accountable for its outputs, you take the reins of your intellectual journey. You evaluate its effectiveness in delivering the promised results consistently. When you find it lacking, instead of forcing it to work for you, you make the courageous decision to discard it and seek out better alternatives. It’s an exercise in discernment and strategic thinking—embracing flexibility and adaptability rather than a rigid adherence to a failing system. If a model does not meet your needs or align with your goals, there’s no shame in letting it go. After all, your primary objective is to cultivate strategies that genuinely foster growth and drive success, not to be shackled by ineffective tools. Embrace the autonomy of ownership over your models, ensuring they serve your aspirations effectively rather than the other way around.
I’m fan of GTD, in its spirit. GTD stands for getting things done.
GTD way of working ask to put some task in “Someday/ May be” list. The Someday/Maybe list is a big creative resource that can provide big adventures to your life and work. This list gives you permission to write down anything you can think of, without any kind of restrictions. Later you will have enough time to analyze what you have captured and eliminate it if it doesn’t make too much sense.
I had Someday list for quite a while. With day to day focus on actual ToDo with deadlines, this list is the one which I never opened. 👎
And reading some books on GTD, it’s seems something without any deadline goes to the back hole.
“Someday” is a curse to your dreams, because you’ll take your dreams to the grave.
Life is about moving and getting things done. We live in a giant rock with water and dirt, and we walk around like bags of meat and bone. What is really life about?
Leaving a legacy behind. Being remembered. But to achieve this we must work, work , work.
For that reason, don’t postpone something just because the timing isn’t right, if it is important to you and you want to do it eventually just go it and correct the course along the way of any obstacles if you find.
Take away: Deadlines are important to make sure your dreams are not dead 😊 !
Even if it’s not immediate, try to put some deadline.
Ringtone: Exploring the Rise and Fall of Nokia in Mobile Phones
Nokia, which easily can be termed as the most innovative company, helped bring the mobile revolution which currently we are in, adapting the need of being connected 24×7, and at its peak having more than 40% market share and a true leader. Though unnoticed many of us don’t know Nokia still exists and is the world’s largest 5G infra company and still innovating. But what touched us is the Nokia Mobile Company, and this book is about its rise and fall. Breaking general misconception and reasons behind its fall.
Against the general perception of failure due to not looking ahead or lack of innovation, the reason behind the fall of Nokia Mobile company is due to a change in business model to a matrix organisation
That’s the summary of why Nokia mobile failed so miserably, it’s just because of poor execution of matrix organisation. And that’s what interests me, as a leader myself, justifying the use of matrix organisation for better productivity, it’s even important to understand the consequences of its poor execution. This book covers all those aspects with Nokia as a centrepiece. Whereat all the phases of it, we were touched as a consumer or as heartbroken engineers to see the fall of such a beautiful product company.
Before I begin the review of this book, let me share how mammoth the Nokia is. We always see it’s mobile and thinks Nokia started as a mobile company and ended as one. However, it’s surprising to know Nokia started as a Cable company in Finland in the 1800s, moved to Telecom infra in the 1900s, followed by infra for the first car telephone and diversified with the mobile decision in the late 1990s
It tries to answer following questions, which generally we also want to know.
Nokia always had the edge with its strong innovation. For example, although Sharp launched the first camera phone in 2001, it was Nokia’s camera phone released the following year which really changed the landscape, providing not only superior picture resolution but also picture-sharing applications that paved the way for multi-media communication. This product innovation came from fifteen labs around the world and a number of technical cooperation projects and partnerships.
Beyond product innovation, Nokia’s success was supported by an innovative and highly efficient supply chain system that had been built in the 1990s. Through this, Nokia was able to achieve much lower prices from suppliers than its competitors and ramp up new production lines to full capacity in a matter of days. In the 1990s it had also mastered lean production and Japanese quality processes and organized its integrated manufacturing around a few key regional hubs in Europe (Finland, Germany, Hungary), Asia (China), and North America (Mexico).
Just as success often results from many small positive steps, the roots of failure can usually be found in multiple small mistakes, which seem manageable when viewed in isolation. However following this book we can see small cracks, however, they are evident now, and could not be avoided in the actual scenario. For example communication gap between R&D and Sales and Marketing lead to ultimate failure with the Symbian operating system. Though a leader in OS development themselves, delay in adapting Android and working with Microsoft’s half-cooked mobile platform led to the last nail.
Author has evaluated the various ups and downs in Nokia with CORE dimensions .
