Exploring the myth: The sinking of the Titanic

The author explores multiple factors contributing to the disaster:

• Management Failures: The Titanic sailed at high speed into a known ice field, ignored warnings, and carried insufficient lifeboats. Design flaws, including brittle steel and inadequate watertight compartments, compounded the disaster.
• Operational Failures: The Californian, a nearby ship, reportedly observed the Titanic’s distress signals but did not respond promptly. However, debates remain over whether it could have reached the Titanic in time due to distance, ice, and timing.
• Crisis of Legitimation: Public inquiries in the UK and the US focused heavily on the actions of the SS Californian and its captain, Stanley Lord. The author critiques the inquiries for shifting focus to a third party rather than addressing broader systemic issues like safety regulations, ship design, and corporate responsibility.

The article contrasts two key perspectives from the literature:

1. Harrison defends Captain Lord, arguing that the Californian was too far to assist effectively and highlighting contextual factors like miscommunication and poor technology adoption.
2. Reade and De Groot portray Lord as negligent, criticising his character and actions as central to the failure to assist.

The analysis contextualizes the Titanic within broader themes of crisis management, organisational failure, and societal values. It concludes that the disaster resulted from a convergence of design flaws, managerial oversights, and human errors. The case remains a cautionary tale about the interplay of technical, organisational, and human factors in catastrophic events. The article also underscores the persistent failure of organisations to learn from such disasters, as evidenced by subsequent similar tragedies.