On the night of April 15, 1912, poor decisions sealed the fate of the Titanic, dooming the ship and its more than 2,000 passengers. 111 years later, the tragedy of the OceanGate submersible seems to remind us—once again—of the cost of bad decisions and the consequences of careless choices.
I couldn’t help but draw a parallel between the Titanic and the State, as both resemble massive, complex, compartmentalized vessels that are hard to steer—where citizens from various classes sail at the mercy of a select few, who are themselves guided by a captain responsible for getting them, hopefully, to safe harbor.
If you think about it, one of the primary responsibilities of public officials—whether from the legislative, executive, or even judicial branches—is to make decisions for the good of the society that has entrusted them with its direction. A poor decision-making process can veer the ship off course—or even sink it entirely.
Decision-making is often equated with choosing, overlooking the thorough analysis and process that should underpin any rational and objective outcome. In contrast, choosing can be an intuitive or emotional act, not necessarily a thoughtful one.
Even a basic decision-making process should include evaluating options and forecasting outcomes, an analysis of scenarios designed to serve the collective good—in the case of public policy, legislation, or rulings. This assumes, of course, that public officials understand they are deciding not with their own money, but with everyone’s money.
That’s why decision-makers must be capable of executing rational processes when adopting measures. Yet we often encounter public officials who lack skills in problem-solving, critical thinking, and risk analysis—leaving too much to chance.
Another important factor is bias. Psychological studies have shown that certain cognitive flaws are inherent in human behavior. These biases can sometimes be overcome through mathematical models, financial tools, or even software-based systems.
And while making decisions is key, so is taking action—yet some prefer inaction. In matters of State, inaction becomes a snowball that eventually leads to an avalanche, because inaction accumulates consequences—it doesn’t erase them.
This often stems from the pursuit of certainty, but the very purpose of structured decision-making is to reduce uncertainty and prompt action. This becomes even more complicated when multiple stakeholders must align around a decision.
Returning to the Titanic example, I want to highlight a key factor behind both the transatlantic shipwreck and the OceanGate tragedy: arrogance. We see it in both government and business leaders, who fall into the trap of pride—forgetting that, as the saying goes, “pride comes before a fall.”
Carolina Rojas Gómez
Student, Executive Master of Management in Energy
BI Norwegian Business School
