Intent-Based Leadership: Turn Followers into Leaders

Introduction

Many organisations say they want employees to take greater ownership.

However, those same organisations often require people to seek permission before making even small decisions.

Managers provide detailed instructions, approve every change, and step in whenever something becomes difficult. Employees then learn that following orders is safer than thinking independently.

When leaders later ask for initiative, the team hesitates.

This is the problem addressed by intent-based leadership.

In Turn the Ship Around!: A True Story of Turning Followers into Leaders, L. David Marquet explains how he replaced a traditional leader–follower structure aboard the nuclear-powered submarine USS Santa Fe with a leader–leader model.

Marquet had originally prepared to command a different submarine. However, he was unexpectedly assigned to the Santa Fe, a vessel with unfamiliar systems, poor morale, weak performance, and serious retention problems. That situation forced him to reconsider the assumption that the person at the top should always know the most and make every important decision.

The transformation did not come from a motivational speech or a general instruction to “be empowered.”

It came from changing how people communicated, transferred control, developed competence, understood organisational purpose, and accepted responsibility.

The central lesson is clear:

The purpose of leadership is not to create more followers. It is to create more leaders.

The Danger of the Leader–Follower Model

Traditional leadership usually places authority and thinking at the top.

The leader studies the situation, makes the decision, and tells everyone else what to do.

This model can appear efficient because one person provides clear direction. It may also work reasonably well when tasks are stable, information is concentrated at the top, and employees are expected mainly to perform routine work.

However, modern organisations rarely operate under those conditions.

Important information is distributed across:

Customer-facing employees
Technical specialists
Production teams
Salespeople
Project managers
Service personnel
Regional offices
Data and quality teams

The senior leader may have authority, but the people closest to the work often possess the most current information.

When every decision must travel upward, several problems develop:

Work slows while people wait for approval.
Employees stop offering independent judgment.
Managers become overloaded.
Problems are hidden until they become serious.
People focus on following instructions rather than achieving the purpose.
Responsibility becomes unclear when an order produces a poor result.

The leader–follower structure may create compliance.

However, compliance is not the same as commitment, ownership, or thoughtful execution.

The Order That Exposed the Problem

Shortly after taking command of the Santa Fe, Marquet participated in a training exercise involving the submarine’s backup electric propulsion system.

He ordered the officer of the deck to move “ahead two-thirds.”

The order was repeated down the chain of command, but nothing happened.

The reason was simple: that propulsion setting did not exist on the Santa Fe in the operating mode being used.

Marquet had issued an impossible order because he was relying on knowledge of another submarine. More importantly, the officer repeated the order despite knowing that it could not be carried out.

When Marquet asked why, the answer was effectively:

Because the captain gave the order.

The incident revealed a dangerous combination. The captain did not possess the necessary technical knowledge, while the crew had been trained to obey rather than challenge him. On a nuclear submarine, blind compliance could create catastrophic consequences.

The problem was therefore not one incorrect command.

It was an organisational system that separated authority from information.

From Leader–Follower to Leader–Leader

Marquet began moving away from the belief that leadership belonged only to people with senior titles.

Under the leader–leader model, individuals at every level are expected to:

Understand the purpose
Examine the situation
Think through the available options
Recommend or intend a course of action
Communicate clearly
Accept responsibility for the outcome

This does not remove the formal leader.

The captain, executive, manager, or team leader still establishes direction, protects standards, develops capability, and remains accountable for the organisation.

However, decision-making moves closer to the information.

The official Intent-Based Leadership framework describes this as distributed decision-making combined with organisational alignment. Senior leaders explain what the organisation is trying to achieve, while the people closest to the work explain how they intend to achieve it.

The change is subtle but powerful.

Instead of asking:

“What do you want me to do?”

people begin saying:

“Here is what I intend to do, and here is why.”

Replace Permission with Intent

Permission-based language reinforces dependence.

An employee may say:

“May I contact the customer?”
“Should I delay the launch?”
“Do you want me to replace the supplier?”
“Can I change the process?”
“What should I do next?”

These questions send the decision upward.

They also allow the employee to avoid full responsibility for evaluating the situation.

Intent-based language sounds different:

“I intend to contact the customer today because the delivery risk has increased.”
“I intend to delay the launch by 48 hours so the team can correct the safety issue.”
“I intend to begin the supplier-replacement process because the current supplier has missed three critical commitments.”
“I intend to revise the process to remove the duplicate approval.”

The employee is no longer simply requesting an answer.

They are presenting a decision, the reasoning behind it, and the intended action.

The leader can still ask questions, correct a misunderstanding, or stop an unsafe decision. However, the default direction changes from waiting for permission to acting responsibly unless a valid concern is raised.

Marquet’s official framework describes intent as different from permission because permission defaults to inaction until approval is granted, while intent defaults to action unless the leader identifies a reason to intervene.

Intent Requires More Than Confident Language

Changing “May I?” to “I intend to” is not enough.

An employee could state an intention without understanding the risks, purpose, or technical requirements.

Therefore, a credible intent statement should include:

The proposed action
The reason for the action
The relevant facts
The expected outcome
The important risks
Any support or coordination required

For example:

“I intend to move the customer deployment to Monday. The security review identified two unresolved vulnerabilities, and releasing on Friday would expose the customer to unnecessary risk. The technical team can complete and retest the fixes during the weekend. I have informed customer support and prepared a revised communication for approval.”

This statement demonstrates thinking.

It gives the leader enough information to assess the decision without taking the decision away from the person who owns the work.

The Three Foundations of Leader–Leader Leadership

Transferring control without preparation can create confusion.

People need the authority to act, but they also need the knowledge and organisational understanding to use that authority responsibly.

The leader–leader model rests on three connected foundations:

Control
Competence
Clarity

These elements are repeatedly associated with Marquet’s leader–leader framework and its goal of moving decisions to the people who hold the relevant information.

1. Control: Move Authority Toward the Information

Control means giving people meaningful authority over the work they understand and perform.

It is not enough to assign responsibility while keeping every decision at the top.

For example, a project manager cannot truly own delivery when they must request approval for every supplier conversation, resource adjustment, or technical change.

Leaders can transfer control by:

Defining decision boundaries
Reducing unnecessary approvals
Allowing teams to design their methods
Moving decisions closer to customers and operations
Asking for recommendations instead of giving immediate answers
Giving responsibility for complete outcomes rather than isolated tasks

However, control should not be transferred carelessly.

The appropriate level depends on the risk, the employee’s experience, the quality of available information, and the organisation’s legal or safety responsibilities.

The objective is not maximum freedom in every situation.

It is the greatest responsible level of control.

2. Competence: Build the Ability to Decide Well

Control without competence can produce avoidable errors.

Before people can make important decisions, they need the technical knowledge, practical skills, and situational awareness required by the role.

Competence grows through:

Training
Practice
Certification
Coaching
Deliberate review
Access to accurate information
Learning from mistakes
Clear operating standards

Marquet had previously attempted to give broad control to another submarine team, but the experiment failed because the team lacked the preparation to make strong decisions independently. On the Santa Fe, giving control therefore had to be matched with deliberate learning and technical capability.

A leader should ask:

Does this person understand the system?
Can they identify the main risks?
Do they know when escalation is necessary?
Can they explain the reasoning behind the decision?
Have they practised under realistic conditions?
What additional support would improve their judgment?

Empowerment without development is abandonment.

Competence turns delegated authority into responsible ownership.

3. Clarity: Connect Decisions with Purpose

Even highly skilled employees can make conflicting decisions if they do not understand the organisation’s direction.

Clarity means that people know:

What the organisation is trying to achieve
Why the work matters
Which priorities are most important
Which standards cannot be compromised
How success will be measured
How their responsibilities connect with the wider mission

When clarity is strong, employees can make local decisions that remain aligned with organisational goals.

For example, a customer-service representative may have authority to resolve complaints. However, that authority becomes far more useful when the person understands whether the company prioritises customer retention, immediate cost reduction, long-term trust, or strict policy consistency.

Clarity allows people to answer:

“What decision best serves our purpose?”

Without clarity, distributed decision-making becomes fragmented decision-making.

Take Deliberate Action

Routine work can become automatic.

A person performs a familiar step because it has always been performed that way. Over time, the action becomes separated from thought.

In a high-risk environment, mindless repetition can be dangerous.

The leader–leader approach therefore encourages deliberate action.

Before carrying out an important step, the person pauses long enough to state what they are about to do and confirm that it is correct.

In a normal workplace, deliberate action may involve:

Reading the customer name before sending confidential information
Confirming the production line before changing a setting
Repeating the agreed deadline before committing externally
Reviewing assumptions before approving a financial model
Naming the expected result before beginning a complex process

The pause may last only a few seconds.

However, it interrupts automatic behaviour and returns attention to the task.

Leaders Should Ask, Not Immediately Answer

Managers often provide answers because they want to be helpful.

However, quick answers can create slow teams.

When the leader solves every problem, employees learn to escalate instead of think.

Before responding, ask:

What do you think is happening?
What options have you considered?
What do you recommend?
What risks do you see?
What information supports your view?
What do you intend to do?
What would cause you to change direction?

These questions keep the intellectual responsibility with the person closest to the problem.

The leader can still contribute experience. However, that experience should strengthen the employee’s thinking rather than replace it.

Let the Leader Speak Last

The most senior person’s opinion carries unusual weight.

Once the leader announces a preferred option, other people may stop examining alternatives. Some will agree because agreement feels safer. Others will adjust their evidence to support the emerging decision.

Therefore, leaders should often collect independent views before sharing their own.

A useful process is:

Define the decision.
Give people time to examine the information.
Collect views independently.
Invite concerns and opposing interpretations.
Ask what evidence would change each view.
Share the leader’s perspective.
Decide and explain the reasoning.

This approach reduces automatic agreement and makes better use of distributed expertise.

Empowerment Must Include Accountability

Leader–leader leadership is not an escape from accountability.

In fact, greater authority should create stronger responsibility.

A person stating an intention should also be prepared to:

Explain the reasoning
Deliver the result
Monitor the effect
Report unexpected developments
Learn from errors
Adjust when evidence changes

Leaders should avoid taking ownership back at the first sign of difficulty.

However, they should also avoid allowing the language of empowerment to hide poor preparation or weak execution.

The balance is:

You own the decision, and I will support, question, and hold you accountable for it.

Why Command-and-Control Leaders Become Bottlenecks

A leader who approves everything may initially feel essential.

However, the organisation becomes increasingly dependent on that person.

The consequences include:

Delayed decisions
Overloaded executives
Weak succession
Employees afraid to act
Reduced innovation
Slow responses to customers
Poor performance when the leader is absent

This structure can also create a misleading image of leadership success.

If performance collapses whenever the manager leaves, the manager may appear indispensable.

In reality, the leader may have failed to develop the organisation’s independent capacity.

A stronger legacy is a team that continues making sound decisions after the leader has moved on.

The Santa Fe continued to perform strongly after Marquet’s departure and produced an unusually high number of people who advanced into greater leadership responsibility. That endurance is presented as evidence that the change was organisational rather than dependent on one charismatic captain.

Common Barriers to Intent-Based Leadership

“My people are not ready”

They may not be ready for complete authority.

However, they can probably take the next level of responsibility.

Transfer control gradually while increasing competence.

“It is faster to decide myself”

That may be true for one decision.

However, repeatedly making every decision prevents the team from becoming faster in the future.

“I am still accountable”

Accountability does not require making every choice personally.

It requires building a system in which decisions are made responsibly.

“Mistakes will happen”

Mistakes already happen under command-and-control systems.

The goal is to create safe boundaries, improve competence, and make errors visible early.

“People prefer being told what to do”

Some people may initially prefer clear instructions because responsibility feels risky.

Begin with small decisions, coaching, and explicit support.

“The work is too regulated”

Regulated environments still contain choices about planning, communication, improvement, coordination, and problem-solving.

Authority can move without ignoring mandatory controls.

How to Introduce Intent-Based Leadership

Step 1: Identify the Decision Bottlenecks

List the decisions that repeatedly wait for one manager.

Ask which could safely move closer to the work.

Step 2: Define the Purpose

Explain the outcomes, priorities, and boundaries that should guide local decisions.

Step 3: Assess Competence

Determine whether employees have the skills and information required to use additional authority.

Step 4: Change the Language

Replace automatic permission requests with recommendations and intent statements.

Step 5: Transfer One Level of Control

Do not move from full control to complete independence immediately.

Transfer the next reasonable decision.

Step 6: Review the Thinking

Discuss how the decision was made, not only whether the result was successful.

A fortunate result can still come from weak reasoning. Similarly, a responsible decision can produce an unfavourable result because of uncertainty.

Step 7: Reinforce Ownership

Recognise people who identify problems, speak up, explain their reasoning, and act responsibly.

A Seven-Day Leader–Leader Practice

Day 1: Observe

Record how often employees ask for permission during one day.

Day 2: Ask

When someone brings a problem, ask for their recommendation before giving your answer.

Day 3: Clarify

Explain one important organisational priority and why it matters.

Day 4: Transfer

Move one suitable decision to the person closest to the information.

Day 5: State Intent

Ask team members to use the phrase:

“I intend to…”

followed by their reasoning.

Day 6: Build Competence

Identify one skill gap that prevents responsible delegation and create a development plan.

Day 7: Review

Ask:

Which decisions moved faster?
Where did people hesitate?
Which information was missing?
Where did I take control back unnecessarily?
What authority can move next?

The purpose is not to remove leadership.

It is to distribute it.

Who Should Read Turn the Ship Around!?

The book is especially useful for:

Founders whose companies depend too heavily on them
Executives trying to develop stronger succession
Managers overwhelmed by constant approvals
Operations leaders working in high-risk environments
Project managers coordinating skilled specialists
HR professionals building leadership capability
Team leaders who want greater ownership and accountability
Employees who want to contribute more independent judgment

Its lessons are particularly valuable for organisations that say they want empowerment but still operate through detailed permission and control.

About L. David Marquet

L. David Marquet is a former United States Navy submarine commander, author, leadership speaker, and creator of Intent-Based Leadership.

He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1981 and later commanded the nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine USS Santa Fe from 1999 to 2001. After retiring from the Navy in 2009, he began working with organisations on leadership, decision-making, and organisational culture.

In addition to Turn the Ship Around!, he has written Leadership Is Language and co-authored Distancing: How Great Leaders Reframe to Make Better Decisions. His wider work continues to explore how language, distributed authority, and better thinking can improve organisational decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Intent-Based Leadership?

Intent-Based Leadership is a model that moves decision-making toward the people with the relevant information while maintaining alignment with organisational goals.

What is the difference between leader–follower and leader–leader leadership?

Leader–follower leadership concentrates thinking and authority at the top. Leader–leader leadership expects people throughout the organisation to think, decide, communicate intent, and accept responsibility.

What does “I intend to” mean in leadership?

It means that an employee has examined the situation and is stating a proposed action with supporting reasoning rather than simply asking the leader what to do.

Does Intent-Based Leadership remove managers?

No. Managers remain responsible for purpose, standards, competence, coordination, support, and accountability. Their role shifts from giving every answer to creating sound decision-makers.

What are control, competence, and clarity?

Control is meaningful authority over the work. Competence is the ability to make sound decisions. Clarity is understanding the organisation’s purpose, priorities, and standards.

Can Intent-Based Leadership work in regulated industries?

Yes, but authority must remain inside legal, safety, quality, and professional boundaries. Teams can still gain greater control over many operational and improvement decisions.

How do leaders avoid losing control?

They establish clear boundaries, build competence, communicate purpose, review reasoning, and retain the ability to stop decisions that create serious risk.

What is the main lesson of Turn the Ship Around!?

The main lesson is that sustainable leadership develops people who can think and lead independently rather than creating followers who depend on instructions.

Conclusion

Intent-based leadership changes the basic direction of workplace communication.

Instead of sending problems upward and orders downward, it moves information, judgment, and responsibility toward the people doing the work.

However, leaders cannot simply announce that everyone is empowered.

They must transfer real control, build competence, and create clarity.

They must also resist the urge to answer every question, approve every step, and rescue the team whenever work becomes uncomfortable.

A leader’s greatest contribution is not always making the correct decision personally.

It may be creating an organisation in which many people are capable of making responsible decisions without waiting for the leader.

That is how followers become leaders.

It is also how an organisation becomes stronger than the person currently in charge.

Call to Action

Review one area of your team that depends heavily on your approval.

Then write:

The decision people repeatedly bring to me
Who holds the best information
Why I have kept control
The risks of transferring authority
The competence the team needs
The organisational purpose that must be clear
The boundaries that cannot be crossed
The next level of control I can transfer
The intent statement the employee should use
How we will review the result

During the next suitable conversation, do not begin by giving an order.