The ongoing story of the mounting tension between the United States and North Korea can seem unrelated to how managers in various settings should think about decision-making. But the very same principles that apply in the context of a large-scale, high-stakes international standoff for how to best evaluate alternatives and increase the likelihood that a chosen path will yield the best outcome can be successfully used by managers facing everyday organizational decisions. The insight lies in taking a process approach to decision-making, one of four key managerial processes explored in our course, Management Essentials.
In Management Essentials, Professor David Garvin highlights the Cuban missile crisis to illustrate decision-making principles that leaders at all levels should use. I must admit that I was surprised and skeptical when I heard that this story would be featured in the course. The crisis was over 50 years ago—surely there are more relevant examples to a manager working today?
But, as David’s colleague Joe Fuller told me, “There is no clearer example of decision making done right than Kennedy’s management of his team during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It’s timeless. And breathtaking when you recall what was at stake.”
In 1963, the United States discovered that the Soviet Union had installed nuclear missiles in the island nation of Cuba, just ninety miles from the U.S. coast. President John F. Kennedy and his cabinet viewed these weapons as an unacceptable threat to the U.S. homeland. Kennedy, like political leaders today, faced a trade-off between doing nothing and hoping things didn’t get worse or acting and making them worse sooner.
The Cuban missile crisis illustrates exceptionally well how leaders facing difficult decisions can be deliberate about how they manage groups through the decision-making process and, in doing so, increase the likelihood that the best idea wins. So how do leaders cultivate a climate in which multiple alternatives are brought forth and considered? How can debate and dissent be constructively used to ‘stress-test’ assumptions and arrive at the optimal decision? How can the decision-making process be closed out in such a way that even those team members who might not have advocated a particular course of action ultimately accept the decision? In BBM, we discuss the process in terms of the three C’s of decision-making.
Conflict
Kennedy was able to cultivate constructive conflict among his team, encouraging new perspectives and ideas instead of entering the discussion with a predetermined course of action. He removed the protocols and hierarchies that normally affect communication and allowed his team to discuss options as peers. He asked hard questions, removed himself from some of the discussions so as not to affect the outcome of the conversations, and allowed differing ideas and viewpoints to be fully fleshed out and considered.
Consideration
President Kennedy demonstrated his commitment to inquiry or open discussion, by adopting a “we’re in this together” mentality and giving real weight to all viewpoints on the team. He encouraged creative solutions to the problem and made sure that his team knew they were all responsible for playing an important role in the decision-making process.
Two distinct options emerged in the early conversations: The United States could perform a targeted air strike, destroying the missiles on Cuban soil, or employ a blockade that would stop shipments from the Soviet Union to Cuba. Subgroups were created to think through each of the two plans and create position papers, which were then traded with the other subgroup so they could be critiqued, refined, and improved.
This open dialogue without the feeling of a predetermined outcome or knowledge of the president’s preference contributed to a feeling of transparency in the decision-making process and created a sense of fairness among the members of the two groups.
Closure
Kennedy knew that swift action would be required to implement the plan they settled upon, so he pushed the groups to be quick but thorough in their discussions. On day 5, after hearing the full presentations of both subgroups and considering all of the information available, Kennedy decided he was in favor of the blockade. Because the decision-making process had been designed and executed in a fair and transparent manner, team members were willing to commit to the ultimate decision, irrespective of their personal positions.
Once the decision was publicly announced, the Soviet Union entered negotiations with the United States and ultimately agreed to remove the missiles from Cuba. This was hailed by many as a great success for Kennedy, his administration, and the United States as a whole.
While many managers will not have to make life-and-death decisions such as those being made today in Washington D.C. and those made fifty-five years ago by Kennedy and his cabinet, the tools detailed in the course can have the same efficacy across the spectrum of challenges leaders at all levels face.
With nearly thirty years of general management experience myself—four of which were in the military—I can say with confidence that there has never been a time when I was free from the weight of a significant decision. Whether thinking through how to handle a problem on an intelligence satellite I was in charge of while in the military, deciding between two investment alternatives as the CEO of a manufacturing company, or thinking about how to commit our resources at Harvard Business School Online, there has always been upside to honing my decision-making.
Management Essentials can be an important part of growing your own capabilities—something critical in a world where politics and business are ever more complicated.
Do you want to improve your decision-making skills? Visit the Management Essentials page to learn about how the eight-week online course can help you influence the context and environment in which decisions get made at your organization.
