Using the iconic crew from the movie Jaws as a case study, this article analyzes their clashing risk personalities to reveal critical lessons for credit union executives on the importance of understanding the human factor within their own leadership teams.
In the summer of 1975, a 25-foot Great White shark terrorized the fictional community of Amity Island, forcing Police Chief Martin Brody to famously conclude, "You're gonna need a bigger boat." The line became an emblem of being dangerously underequipped for a looming threat. For leaders in the credit union industry today, the "shark" is not a single entity but a confluence of relentless, high-stakes risks: unpredictable market volatility, disruptive financial technologies, ever-shifting regulatory landscapes, and the ever-present potential for catastrophic human error.
While organizations have become adept at building bigger boats—fortifying balance sheets, implementing robust compliance frameworks, and investing in cybersecurity—they often fail to account for the most dangerous and least understood predator of all: the "human factor".1 The success and survival of any organization depend on maintaining a delicate balance between seizing opportunities and managing the risks involved.1 Yet, there is a growing suspicion that most significant risk failures, from the sinking of the Titanic to the 2008 banking crisis, are primarily attributable to human factors.1 These are the invisible currents of personality, disposition, and decision-making that flow through the executive suite and the boardroom, often steering the organization toward peril without anyone realizing the rudder is not in their control.
This report introduces a sophisticated navigational tool designed to chart these murky waters: the Risk Type Compass™ (RTC). The RTC moves beyond simplistic, linear views of risk tolerance to provide a coherent framework and an accessible vocabulary for understanding the deeply ingrained personality dispositions that govern how leaders perceive risk, react to it, and are willing to take it.1 To demonstrate the profound practical power of this tool, this report presents a detailed case study: an analysis of the leadership team assembled aboard the fishing boat Orca in the film Jaws.
The choice of Jaws as a case study is not a matter of mere entertainment; it is a strategic allegory for the lifecycle of many corporate crises. The initial narrative arc, in which Amity's mayor willfully ignores the shark's existence to protect summer tourism revenue, is a perfect mirror of a board's potential reluctance to acknowledge a looming market threat or a toxic internal culture due to concerns about short-term financial performance.2 The subsequent voyage of the Orca represents the critical moment when a crisis can no longer be denied, forcing a small, high-stakes team—the executive committee or a crisis response unit—into an isolated, pressure-cooker environment where their interpersonal dynamics become paramount. Ultimately, the catastrophic failure of their mission is a direct result of the team's dysfunctional dynamics, driven by their clashing and misunderstood risk personalities. It serves as a powerful, cautionary tale for what happens when the composition of a leadership team is not consciously understood or managed. By dissecting the risk types of Chief Brody, Matt Hooper, and Captain Quint, we can uncover timeless lessons for credit union leaders on team composition, decision-making under pressure, and the critical importance of knowing who, exactly, is driving the boat.
To effectively manage the human side of risk, leaders must first understand its true nature. The common tendency is to view risk disposition as a simple, one-dimensional line, with extreme risk aversion at one end and reckless impulsivity at the other. The RTC technical manual rightly dismisses this as a "relatively crude simplification" of a complex reality.1 An individual's propensity for risk is not a single trait but the outcome of a dynamic interplay between distinct psychological systems. The RTC model provides a more nuanced and accurate map of this internal landscape by focusing on two fundamental, independent dimensions of personality.
The RTC framework is built upon two conceptually orthogonal bi-polar scales that capture the core components of decision-making: the emotional and the cognitive.1 This structure aligns with the observation from the UK Government's Chief Scientific Officer that "Decision-making draws on both the analytical and emotional systems in the brain".1
The Emotional:Calm Scale (The "Fear" Axis): This scale is fundamentally a measure of fearfulness and anxiety. It charts an individual's innate emotional reaction to risk, threat, and uncertainty.1
The Emotional pole describes individuals who are apprehensive, anxious, pessimistic, and emotionally reactive. They tend to worry, dwell on past misfortunes, and are easily influenced by their feelings. They are highly-strung and alert to any potential threat to their well-being.1
The Calm pole describes individuals who are resilient, confident, optimistic, and imperturbable. They are even-tempered, take setbacks in stride, and remain steady and level-headed in situations that would rattle others.1
The Daring:Measured Scale (The "Impulsivity" Axis): This scale is a measure of an individual's cognitive approach to risk, specifically their need for structure, planning, and conformity versus their appetite for spontaneity and novelty.1
The Daring pole describes individuals who are impulsive, unconventional, excitement-seeking, and flexible. They dislike routine, are comfortable with ambiguity, and are willing to challenge established procedures in pursuit of new ventures.1
The Measured pole describes individuals who are cautious, planful, conforming, and systematic. They prefer to operate within established guidelines, value detail and preparation, and work to eliminate uncertainty by planning ahead carefully.1
The revolutionary power of this two-axis model lies in its ability to separate emotional reaction to risk from the cognitive approach to risk. This distinction allows for the identification of leaders who might appear similar on the surface but are, in fact, driven by fundamentally different psychological mechanisms. For instance, a traditional risk assessment might lump a Prudent type and a Wary type together as simply "risk-averse." The RTC, however, reveals a critical difference. The Prudent type's aversion is primarily cognitive (High Measuredness); they are not necessarily anxious, but they require plans, data, and order. The Wary type's aversion is both cognitive and emotional (High Measuredness + High Emotionality); they are not only planful but are also anxious and expect the worst.1
This distinction has profound implications for a credit union board. A board needs to know if its "cautious" Chief Financial Officer is Prudent (and can therefore be persuaded by a solid, data-driven plan for a new initiative) or Wary (and may be paralyzed by anxiety in a true crisis, regardless of the plan). Likewise, a board must discern if its "innovative" CEO is Adventurous (taking calculated leaps buffered by constitutional calmness) or Carefree (driven more by pure impulsivity and a dislike of routine, potentially neglecting due diligence). This ability to deconstruct the "why" behind a leader's risk behavior is the core value proposition of the RTC.
The interplay between the Emotional:Calm and Daring:Measured scales creates a continuous 360-degree spectrum of risk dispositions. For clarity and ease of communication, the compass is divided into eight distinct Risk Types. The four "Pure Risk Types" (Intense, Prudent, Composed, Carefree) sit at the poles of the two axes, while the four "Complex Risk Types" (Wary, Deliberate, Adventurous, Excitable) occupy the spaces where the pure types interact.1 It is crucial to remember that these are not rigid boxes; they are reference points on a continuous spectrum, and individuals will often share characteristics with their neighbors on the compass.1
Table 1: The Eight Risk Types at a Glance
When a 25-foot Great White shark threatens your community, who do you put on the boat? The leadership team assembled aboard the Orca in Jaws—a police chief, a scientist, and a grizzled fisherman—is one of cinema's most iconic. It's also a masterclass in high-stakes team dynamics and a cautionary tale for any boardroom. Using the Risk Type Compass™, let's analyze the deeply ingrained risk personalities of Brody, Hooper, and Quint, and see what lessons their ill-fated voyage holds for leaders today.
Police Chief Martin Brody is the quintessential Wary type. This complex risk disposition is defined by the potent and often stressful combination of high Emotionality and high Measuredness.1 Brody’s emotionality is palpable throughout the film; he has a profound phobia of the water, and his primary motivation is an anxious, protective concern for his family and the people of Amity.3 This isn't the cool detachment of a seasoned officer but the heightened sensitivity of a man who feels personally responsible for every potential danger.5
Simultaneously, his high measuredness is evident in his deep respect for rules, process, and authority. He is the "lawful perspective" on the island, a man who initially tries to solve the problem by the book: closing beaches, posting signs, and seeking the mayor's permission before escalating his response.2 The Wary type is described as cautious, organized, and putting security at the top of their agenda, which perfectly captures Brody’s approach.1 His heroism is not born from a lack of fear, but from the immense effort it takes to overcome his innate anxiety and caution to do what he knows is right. He is the responsible family man who must confront his deepest fears, a classic struggle for the Wary leader who is pushed far beyond their comfort zone.8
Oceanographer Matt Hooper is a classic Adventurous type. This fascinating and effective type blends the fearlessness of high Calm with the impulsivity and novelty-seeking of high Daring.1 Hooper’s calmness is not arrogance but is rooted in his deep scientific knowledge and intellectual confidence. He is a man of science, rationality, and numbers, and this expertise makes him feel in control even when facing a terrifying unknown.9 He calmly dissects the tiger shark, methodically proves it's the wrong one, and coolly presents his evidence to a hostile mayor.2
His daring, meanwhile, is not the reckless bravado of Quint but an intellectual daring. He is driven to test boundaries using new technology and innovative methods, epitomized by his high-tech equipment and the anti-shark cage.3 This is a calculated, high-stakes risk, and his willingness to get in the water himself demonstrates the core of the Adventurous type: they are "intrepid and never discouraged," combining "constitutional calmness with high impulsivity".1 The description of Hooper as both a "nerd" and a "badass" perfectly encapsulates this blend of intellect and fearlessness.3 His famous crushing of the styrofoam cup in response to Quint's beer can is a comedic but deeply symbolic moment: it is the Adventurous type's quiet, intellectual confidence challenging the Excitable type's brute-force machismo.3
Captain Quint is a powerful and ultimately tragic example of the Excitable type. This volatile and charismatic type is defined by the combustible combination of high Daring and high Emotionality.1 Quint’s daring is legendary and obvious in his reckless, impulsive, and seemingly fearless pursuit of the shark.15 He scoffs at caution, pushes his boat and crew to their limits, and romanticizes his life on the water as a constant battle against nature.16
However, his daring is fueled by a profound and unstable emotionality. This is not simple anxiety, but a deep, passionate, and trauma-fueled obsession stemming from his horrific experience as a survivor of the USS Indianapolis sinking.14 The RTC manual notes that Excitable types are "both frightened and excited by their impulsiveness" and "respond emotionally to events and react strongly to disappointment".1 This perfectly captures Quint. His true fear, as revealed in his haunting monologue, is not of being eaten, but of the
waiting—the psychological torment of his past trauma.18 His passion, sea shanties, and larger-than-life personality are captivating, but his emotional reactivity and impulsivity make him dangerously unpredictable, leading him to reject help and destroy his own equipment in fits of pride and obsession.18
Table 2: The Jaws Crew Risk Type Analysis
The analysis of the Orca's crew as individuals is insightful, but the most critical lessons for leadership emerge when they are viewed as a high-stakes, dysfunctional team. The failure of their mission was not due to a lack of skill or courage, but was a direct and predictable outcome of the clash between their unmanaged and misunderstood Risk Types. Their voyage is a microcosm of a dysfunctional board meeting at sea, offering profound lessons for any credit union leadership team.
If we map the crew's Risk Types to common boardroom roles, the sources of conflict become starkly clear:
Wary (Brody): In the boardroom, Brody is the Chief Risk Officer or the head of Compliance. His mandate is to uphold the rules, ensure safety, and mitigate threats. His Wary disposition makes him vigilant and conscientious. However, under pressure and when faced with more dominant personalities, this disposition can lead to a "cautious shift" or even paralysis.1 His valuable caution becomes ineffective because he defers to Quint's authority and is intimidated by his aggressive style, making his calls for a bigger boat and for outside help too little, too late.
Adventurous (Hooper): Hooper represents the head of Innovation, R&D, or Strategy. He brings data, new ideas, and a capacity for calculated risk-taking to the table. The strength of the Adventurous type is their ability to challenge the status quo with evidence and propose novel solutions, like the anti-shark cage. However, as seen in his interactions with Quint, this data-driven approach can be dismissed as too academic or "city hands" by more traditional, experience-based leaders who favor gut instinct over analysis.11
Excitable (Quint): Quint is the charismatic, "gut-feel" CEO or the legendary founder whose past successes have made him believe he is infallible. His passion and drive are infectious and can galvanize an organization. However, the derailers of the Excitable type are catastrophic: their impulsivity and emotional decision-making can lead them to reject data (Hooper's science) and ignore rules (Brody's calls for help) that conflict with their personal narrative or ego.18 Quint's destruction of the ship's radio is the ultimate act of a leader silencing dissent—a symbolic rejection of the cognitive diversity his team desperately needed to survive.
The dynamic aboard the Orca demonstrates the "Risky Shift" phenomenon, where the presence of a dominant high-risk taker can escalate the entire group's tolerance for risk beyond what any individual would accept alone.1 Quint's dominant Excitable personality creates a climate where his high-risk, emotionally-driven strategy is the only one pursued, leading directly to the team's demise.
The success of the mission depended entirely on which Risk Type's strategy was adopted at critical junctures. The failure was not a single event but a series of decisions where the wrong approach was allowed to dominate. Brody's Wary strategy was to follow procedure and call for more resources—a low-risk, high-certainty approach. Hooper's Adventurous strategy was to use technology and science—a calculated, innovative, medium-risk approach. Quint's Excitable strategy was to rely on raw experience, brute force, and obsessive will—a high-risk, emotionally-driven, low-certainty approach. When Quint over-stresses the engine against Hooper's advice and smashes the radio to prevent Brody from calling for help, he is actively choosing his high-risk strategy over the others. For a credit union board facing a crisis, this is a powerful lesson. The key question is not "Who has the best idea?" but "Which strategic approach—cautious, innovative, or aggressive—is most appropriate for this specific situation, regardless of whose personality is championing it?" Answering that question is the essence of mature risk governance.
Table 3: Risk Types in the Credit Union Boardroom: Contributions & Derailers
The story of the Orca and its crew is more than a cinematic masterpiece; it is a timeless parable of leadership, risk, and the human factor. The key insights from this analysis offer critical, actionable wisdom for the leaders of any modern credit union. The central lesson is that a leadership team's Risk Type composition is a strategic asset or liability that is every bit as real as the capital on its balance sheet, yet it is almost always invisible and unmanaged.
The ideal leadership team is not one composed of a single "correct" Risk Type. On the contrary, the RTC framework and the research supporting it demonstrate that the goal should be a balanced portfolio of types.1 Data on occupational differences show that different roles naturally attract and require different risk dispositions; the profile of a successful Chief Auditor is fundamentally different from that of a successful CEO or Head of Marketing.1 A credit union board needs its Wary and Prudent members to ensure meticulous compliance and operational stability, just as it needs its Adventurous and Carefree members to drive growth, challenge outdated assumptions, and foster innovation. The objective is not to eliminate cognitive friction but to harness it constructively.
For credit union executives and board members, the path forward involves a conscious and deliberate effort to make the invisible visible. This report concludes with three actionable recommendations:
Know Thyself and Thy Team: The first step is to move from subjective impressions to objective data. Employing a validated tool like the Risk Type Compass™ to assess the board and executive team provides a common, non-judgmental language for discussing risk. It creates the self-awareness necessary for individuals to understand their own biases and the group awareness needed to understand team dynamics.
Audit for Balance and Cognitive Diversity: Once the team's profile is understood, it must be consciously evaluated. Is the team's center of gravity heavily weighted toward caution (Wary, Prudent, Deliberate), potentially stifling growth and making the organization too slow to adapt? Or is it weighted toward daring (Carefree, Adventurous, Excitable), creating a culture that may overlook critical compliance details or take on uncompensated risk? Identifying these imbalances is the first step toward correcting them, whether through targeted development, strategic recruitment, or adjustments in decision-making protocols.
Stress-Test Your Decision-Making Dynamics: Use the Jaws case study as a catalyst for a frank, board-level discussion. Pose the critical questions: "In a crisis, who on this team would be Brody, who would be Hooper, and who would be Quint? Whose voice would be amplified, and whose would be silenced? How do we design our decision-making process to ensure it leverages our collective cognitive diversity instead of being hijacked by our most dominant personality?"
The ultimate lesson from Amity Island is that while you cannot always choose the risks you will face, you can choose the team with which you face them. In an era of unprecedented uncertainty, understanding the deep-seated risk personalities that make up that team is no longer a managerial luxury; it is a core component of strategic leadership and a fundamental fiduciary responsibility.
As certified experts in the globally validated Risk Type Compass™ (RTC), Glatt Consulting Group delves into the deeply rooted, personality-based risk dispositions of your individuals, teams, and departments. We move beyond conventional risk management to uncover the human factors influencing every decision, providing a unique lens into your organization's risk culture.
This analysis was generated with the assistance of Gemini, a large language model from Google. Additional works cited in this study include:
FINAL-2019-RTC-Technical-Manual.pdf
Jaws Script Analysis: The Endless Fight for Control - Kinolime Blog, accessed June 23, 2025, https://blog.kinolime.com/articles/jaws-script-analysis
The Gentle Masculinity of Jaws - BanterFlix, accessed June 23, 2025, https://banterflix.com/the-gentleness-of-jaws/
Jaws: Why Brody Is A Perfect Protagonist (& The Shark Is A Classic Movie Monster), accessed June 23, 2025, https://screenrant.com/jaws-chief-brody-quintessential-hero-shark-best-movie-monster-antagonist/
www.charactour.com, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.charactour.com/hub/characters/view/Martin-Brody.Jaws#:~:text=Personality%E2%80%A6,willing%20to%20let%20anyone%20down.
Martin Brody from Jaws | CharacTour, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.charactour.com/hub/characters/view/Martin-Brody.Jaws
Chief Brody from Jaws | MJ Fredrick, accessed June 23, 2025, https://mjfredrick.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/chief-brody-from-jaws/
Chief Brody from Jaws: The most important character in 70s cinema, accessed June 23, 2025, https://thedailyjaws.com/blog/chief-brody-from-jaws-the-most-important-character-in-70s-cinema
thedailyjaws.com, accessed June 23, 2025, https://thedailyjaws.com/blog/2017/1/16/why-hooper-is-the-best-character-in-jaws#:~:text=Hooper%20is%20a%20man%20of,comes%20at%20quite%20a%20cost.
Matt Hooper from Jaws | CharacTour, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.charactour.com/hub/characters/view/Matt-Hooper.Jaws
How Hooper finally earned Quint's respect in JAWS - The Daily Jaws, accessed June 23, 2025, https://thedailyjaws.com/blog/how-hooper-finally-earned-quints-respect-in-jaws
Matt Hooper Descriptive Personality Statistics, accessed June 23, 2025, https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/characters/stats/J/3/
Why Hooper Is The Best Character In Jaws, accessed June 23, 2025, https://thedailyjaws.com/blog/2017/1/16/why-hooper-is-the-best-character-in-jaws
The Jaws of War: How Quint Decodes Masculinity in the Films of Spielberg, accessed June 23, 2025, https://brightlightsfilm.com/the-jaws-of-war-how-quint-decodes-masculinity-in-the-films-of-spielberg/
Classic Character: Quint from Jaws (1975) - French Toast Sunday, accessed June 23, 2025, https://frenchtoastsunday.com/2012/06/classic-character-quint-from-jaws-1975.html
www.charactour.com, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.charactour.com/hub/characters/view/Quint.Jaws#:~:text=Personality%E2%80%A6,over%20old%20and%20lost%20times.
Quint from Jaws - CharacTour, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.charactour.com/hub/characters/view/Quint.Jaws
Why Quint from Jaws is the most tragic character in cinema, accessed June 23, 2025, https://thedailyjaws.com/blog/why-quint-from-jaws-is-the-most-tragic-character-in-cinema
The character and significance of Captain Quint in "Jaws" - eNotes.com, accessed June 23, 2025, https://www.enotes.com/topics/jaws/questions/the-character-and-significance-of-captain-quint-3125193