Almost exactly three years ago the
Oceangate submarine implosion happened
. The disaster came about when a billionaire called
Stockton Rush
created his own unclassified submarine to go sightseeing on the Titanic. Ignoring all advice from experts he created a "macgyveresque death trap" that eventually killed him and sadly also 4 innocent people. The whole thing was a massive display of stupidity and arrogance with unfortunate outcomes. We are not going to go into the actual event any deeper, but those interested can find lots of material online.
Instead we are going to look more deeply into one often overlooked points of Stockton Rush's character. Apparently he felt like he was something of a "new James T. Kirk" (
link1 paywalled
,
link2
). Liking Star Trek is not that unusual. I'm guessing that more than 99% of the readers of this blog are fellow
Star Trek
fans. The problem lies elsewhere, but to understand it we first have travel back in time.
A brief overview of the British navy during the Napoleonic wars (by a non-historian, so probably inaccurate)
The original concept for Star Trek was, approximately,
The Adventures of
Horatio Hornblower
in Space
! The
Enterprise
is basically a British warship sailing through the vast ocean of outer space. The command structure mirrors this, where you have a captain, navigator, ship's doctor and so on.
The Next Generation
leaned into this even further by having a first officer and so on. The original Star Trek never went into detail on how the main cast got to their current positions, just that there was an Starfleet Academy they went to.
In the Napoleonic era of Hornblower things were quite different. Anyone who wanted to become a captain pretty much had to be from the upper classes. They had to obtain a letter of recommendation so that they could join a vessel as a
midshipman
at the age of 13 or so. They were expected to be able seamen by this time and then spent the next six to seven years working on the ship rigging sails and doing all manner of random jobs. This went on for six to nine years depending on circumstances, after which the person could take a formal examination to become a lieutenant. The test was not trivial, many people could not pass even after trying multiple times.
A lieutenant then had to work successfully for several years before obtaining the rank of captain. Even that did not guarantee a commission. Some captains never commanded a ship simply because there were not enough of them to go around. All in all becoming a ship's captain was a long and difficult journey. In a surprisingly non-British turn of events it was not possible for aristocrats to sneak past the gates. Getting a midshipman position was obviously easier with connections, but the lieutenant's test was something they had to pass on their own.
All of this is to say that every captain of the time was an expert with decades of working experience on many different positions aboard the ship.
What does a captain actually do?
[Note: I have not fact checked this portion at all. Feel free to consider it fanfiction.]
The year is 1808 and we are aboard a British warship about to leave for a mission of great importance. The captain gives the order to set sail. Whistles are blown, bells are rung and sailors springs into action. Every single man, with one exception, is either doing manual labour or directly supervising their underlings. That exception is the captain, who seemingly stands around doing nothing (at least if you ask the crew). This is not so.
What he is doing is crucial. He is observing the state of the ship and her crew. This includes things like overall crew morale, any aberrations from normal operations that could cause problems, thinking of workflow improvements and so on. In a sense he has to
sense the ship itself
. This only works because of two things. First of all he has personal experience doing the exact work he is observing. If you have not personally "been there", you can't really know if a crew is working well or not. You need a "gut feeling" to be able to sense this. Secondly the captain does not have any manual labour so he can focus all of his mental energy on observing the ship's state. He is preparing for all the unexpected things that may occur in the future. This can only happen if your brain is free from menial tasks.
This is exactly what most books on business and project management advocate. It is a time tested way of improving your chances of success. A highly skilled commander can take an average team of people and lead them to victory. It is the basic plot of most military and sports movies.
Getting back to the present
Now take a typical modern day billionaire-via-inheritance and show them Star Trek at an impressionable age. Do they see the advantages of education, hard work and ethics? The foundation upon which Gene Roddenberry carefully built the show? Hell no! What they see is this (TNG screenshot used because TOS did not have a suitable maritime episode).
And then they think: "Wow! I want to be exactly like that! Parading around in a funny hat while everyone obeys my orders without question is my life's mission from now on. And I get to have sexy space sex with hot sexy space ladies of sex whenever I want. This appeals to me even more profoundly than
Atlas Shrugged
." Some of them might go on to watch
Master and Commander
and shed tears upon realizing that they cant publicly flog employees for failing to salute their superiors. Yet. Expect this to be made legal in Silicon Valley any day now.
Liking Kirk is not in any way a bad thing. Wanting to "be just like Kirk" is, because in the real world running a business like Kirk runs the Enterprise is a
terrible
way to do things. An example will illustrate this nicely. Let's imagine a random episode where the Enterprise has gotten into trouble. Eventually Kirk will call for Scotty and tell him: "You need to <babble> <babble> <babble>." Scotty will then reply with a varying level of scottish accent something like: "I cannae change the laws of physics, captain". Kirk will then say the same thing again, just more aggressively and in a close up shot. Scotty replies with "Well in that case I can get it done in sixty minutes." Kirk counters with: "You have five." And thus the problem is solved. Kirk gets a commendation for incredible valour under stress while Scotty, who did all of the actual work, is never mentioned.
In "Kirk style" management the Big Boss tells his underlings what to do. If they try to give any sort of feedback, the Boss ignores everything and just repeats his original orders again and again until the other party yields. The only reason underlings ever resist The Vision is that they are lazy and it is the job of the manager to put them in their place. This seems like a bit from a comedy show, but I have unfortunately worked under bosses like this. Either you try to talk at least some sense into them, fail, get labeled as a "not team player", watch the project crash and get blamed for the failure, or you try to do the impossible task given to you, fail watch the project crash and get blamed for the failure.
Another major problem with Kirk is that due to the way tv shows and movies need to be structured, he is actually an obsessive gambler. The stakes must always get higher and the ways to get out of trouble must become ever crazier. Kirk will break any and all laws and regulations he sees fit and then, once he has succeeded, no disciplinary action is taken. The ends justify the means. Idolising this sort of behaviour leads to thinking that wild one-in-a-million gambits will succeed at least 99 times out of a hundred. And even if it fails, you can get out of it by betting everything on an even bigger gamble. The real world does not work like that. Reality is not a story and you are not its hero. It does not owe you eternal, or even eventual, success. Had Stockton Rush survived his death trap, he would most likely have faced
criminal charges and, if convicted, gone to jail
.
The myth of the existence of the professional manager
Let's make one last detour in the 1800s and assume that the 7th Earl of Sidcup or some such really wants to get his idiot son instated as a captain. He and contacts the appropriate naval officers.
"My offspring needs to become a captain of a ship post haste!"
"Well first he has to become a midshipman and ..."
"Phah! None of that nonsense. It's way too slow and not becoming of my statute. Also my son is 35 years old so the post of a midshipman would be beneath him."
"I see. Well what sort of prior naval experience does he have?"
"None."
"Has he even ever been out to sea?"
"Not to my knowledge. But that does not matter. He is highly skilled in using the
abacus excelius
to compute annual budgets."
"By himself?"
"Of course not. That is what secretaries are for. He just gives them orders. That he can do. And that is all that matters. Same as in sailing."
This person is unlikely to get his wish with this line of reasoning. On the other hand in modern business life this is common. For example when startups get VC money, a common requirement is that they need to get a "proper manager" as a CEO. Typically this means the investor's friend, and more often than not an MBA.
Contrary to common belief, having an MBA does not make you incompetent at managing a technical company (though there is a strong positive correlation). It is entirely possible to be a good manager on a field you have no personal experience in. You just have to have a lot of humility, listen (actually, properly listen) to your employees and let the people with hands-on experience make the most technical, product and development decisions. In other words you have to be the enabler, not the maverick decision maker. People with these sorts of personality traits are rare and typically their career choices steer as far away from getting an MBA as possible.
The absolute worst thing happens if the CEO in question combines the (lack of) skills of an MBA with the attitude of Kirk. That leads to incompetent decisions based on willful ignorance, executed with the fury of an egomaniac who refuses to even entertain the notion that they might be wrong. Further, any person inside the organisation who dares to point out potential flaws in the plan will soon find themselves outside said organisation. Disagreement is treason. Treason shall not go unpunished.
In the 1800s the British navy could be said to be the best in the world. It seems plausible that one component of this success was the requirement that the officers running their ships had to have actual experience operating the ship. Not looking at other people operating it. Not pretending to read about operating it for a test. Actually doing it. If we look around how MBA wielding sociopath CEOs are enshittifying absolutely everything about the tech industry, bringing this requirement back into active use starts to feel awfully tempting.
Epilogue: Why doesn't everything immediately explode?
A reasonable counterpoint to everything written above would be that if managers truly are that bad, shouldn't all those companies be bankrupt by now? In an ideal world they would be, but there are opposing forces that keep them going.
The first one is that all corporations have inertia. If you took an established major company and actively started to mismanage it to death, it would still take
years
for things to eventually collapse.
The second one is a dirty little secret. Many employees care more about the product they work on than "corporate visions" that seem to stem from overuse of peyote. They don't blindly obey idiotic commands but instead try to make things silently work within the system. Basically this means that corporations thrive
despite
their mad kings, not
because
of them. I know several people who have worked in these kinds of organizations and this is not as rare of an occurrence as one might imagine.
I have also experienced it personally. Years ago I was at a company, whose CEO (who, to the best of my knowledge, did not have an MBA) wanted to change the company's product so that it would do a specific thing X. Everybody thought this was a horrible idea and tried to reason with him using solid business and technical reasons (which turned out to be 100% correct). That failed. Spectacularly. This lead to an eternal series of secret meetings. The participants were main developers and all managers except the CEO. The only item on the agenda was "How can we make the CEO think that we did what he ordered while doing the exact opposite".
Eventually we did succeed, but boy was that a surreal couple of weeks.
