The Effectiveness of Leadership Portrayed in the Thirteen Days - Movie Review Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : The effectiveness of leadership portrayed in the movie Thirteen Days (JFK and the Cuban missile crisis) Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx @ 2011 Executive Summary The “Thirteen Days” movie shows the way the 35th president of United States of America, John F. Kennedy dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis in between 14-28, October, 1963. As a result, the movie shows how he used his leadership skills to do away with the crisis. Through his good leadership skills, he was able to influence his cliques’ interpretation of the situation by reminding them time and time again of the threat of starting a new war if they decide to follow their emotion to start an attack was a bad move since it could result into third world war. John F. Kennedy illustrated his leadership skills when he showed a sense of balance between the tasks oriented conduct and the relation related conduct. The tasks oriented conduct was illustrated in his ability to organise, plan, lead and control capably and well. John F. Kennedy as a leader used both Persuasion Tactic and The Negotiation Tactic in DuBrin’s Leadership Model and this is how he managed to control his followers and influence them into following his orders. The effectiveness of leadership portrayed in the movie Thirteen Days (JFK and the Cuban missile crisis) Introduction The “Thirteen Days” movie depicts the way the 35th president of United States of America, John F. Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis in between 14-28, October, 1963. The movie illustrates how John Kennedy’s leadership saved the world from experiencing third World War or even nuclear war. In regard to leadership, crisis management skills as well as decision-making skills of John Kennedy were tested this time. He was left in a dilemma since Cuba had missiles that were almost getting into use and majority of his Generals advised him to start a military attack, while he did not wish to initiate a war and thought it wise not to keep off. To worsen the situation, the Joint Chiefs, who majority of them were older than John F. Kennedy, put him under extreme pressure so that he would listen to them and consequently attack Cuba. They took advantage of the fact that they were older than him and thought that they could intimidate him. At that particular time, John F. Kennedy was only 45 years old. However, he remained unshaken and did not move an inch. On the contrary, he reminded them that he was the president of the United States and that he had the power designated to him by the people to make decisions for the state. On the long run, he was able to make very peaceful political negotiation with the Soviet Prime Minister, Mr. Nikita Khrushchev. The main objective of this paper is to illustrate how John F. Kennedy as a leader used the concepts of DuBrin’s Leadership Model in his decision making as well as in general leadership. His effectiveness as a leader is what saw him eventually succeed in his activities and he managed to avoid third World War which was a remarkable achievement for John F. Kennedy as a leader (Bernard 2009). The decisions made by John F. Kennedy were a reflection of what good leadership ought to be. He influenced his clique to get to know what would result from attacking Cuba. In addition, he convinced them that there was a calmer manner to get the missiles out of Cuba and that is through a political negotiation. Through his good leadership skills, he was able to influence his cliques’ interpretation of the situation by reminding them time and time again of the threat of starting a new war if they decide to follow their emotion to start an attack. As a consequence, he asked for some other alternative scheme and resolution from his group (Bernard 2009). The film has a scene where the Cuban and the Russian ambassadors are against the United States. This is in a United Nations debate. A few members of John F. Kennedy’s decision making team which consisted of the Political Adviser and the Attorney General advising him to sack Adlai at the final moments and replace him with someone who appeared to be more aggressive to carry on the Security Council debate. A good manager is one who will always know his staff’s strengths and weaknesses. He ought to show confidence in the abilities of his juniors. He should know more about the other side’s position than they know his. He should not let his key man get intimidated by the other side and of great importance, do not let him get blind-sided amazed (Bernard 2009). Nevertheless, even after other schemes had been anticipated, he would in one way or another manipulate the outcome by holding-up it and in the anticipation that a possibility of having a peaceful political negotiation would present itself so as to bring the standoff into a standstill. One of the solutions John F. Kennedy proposed was the “harmless” one. This method would put a barrier on Cuba. Initially, his group was against the method. They claimed that it would not be efficient at all and that it was sluggish. Nevertheless, John F. Kennedy as a leader managed to motivate them as well as gain their trust in this issue. This is illustrated in some part of the movie where it shows the manner in which Robert McNamara, the secretary of defence successfully convinced Admiral Anderson, the chief of naval Operation, not to begin shooting until John F. Kennedy gave orders for shooting to take place. John F. Kennedy gained the trust and support of his followers and hence effectively organized and coordinated his followers to obey his orders in times of crisis (Ralph 2005). As a leader he also shared his opinions with his followers, for example where he told his followers that launching an attack was a bad move since it could result into third world war. Individuals in this movie represented Interpersonal Roles, Informational Roles in addition to Decision-Making Roles. The movies illustrated how John F. Kennedy as an authentic leader, put Kenny O’Donnell (the one who directed subordinates, for example, calling pilots and asking them to lie to prevent military from launching a counter-attack) as well as Bobby F. Kennedy, (the person who coordinated subordinates, for example having ExComm meetings and arranging consent) in charge under John F. Kennedy’s management (James 2005). John F. Kennedy also has the managerial role as the figurehead. In the movie, it is demonstrated how he represented the cabinet at Chicago and could not be replaced by the other representatives, for example, by Vice president Lyndon Johnson. Furthermore, there was a hilarious portion of the movie where the movie shows that John F. Kennedy was anxious of cancelling his Chicago visit, maybe because his supporters were mainly from this state. On the other hand, a leader is supposed to depict liaison role in an organisation. This leadership role was best portrayed by Kenny O’Donnell. He socialised with numerous individuals, for example pilots, newspaper publishers, his colleagues and USA representatives to the United States, outside White House, to maintain calmness and keep things under control. Apart from Kenny, John F. Kennedy as leader also plays a liaison role where he interacted with the USA military leaders who pressurised him to attack Cuba (Timothy 2008). The task of processing information was exclusively John F. Kennedy’s. In one way or the other, he would search for information on the existence of missiles in Cuba and a way he would get rid of them from there. Further, he carried out a study on Alexander Fomin’s background that he handed over to Walter Sheridan of the FBI and Kenny. John F. Kennedy directed Kenny to spread the information on the crisis to his juniors who included Pierre Salinger the Press Secretary. As well as monitoring and spreading information, the movie depicted Robert McNamara, the USA Secretary of Defence, as the spokesperson of john F. Kennedy. He made sure that not a single act was undertaken without john F. Kennedy giving the go-ahead. Adlai Stevenson acted on behalf of the United States in the United Nations. He took part in a spokesperson’s role through this. Adlai came up with the proposal of a possible political negotiation. This, according to him, would be achieved by trading American’s missiles in Turkey with those of the Soviet in Cuba. This coincidentally brought to end the stand off of the missiles in Cuba. In addition, Adlai was also involved in an argument with Zorin of the USSR at the UN Secretary meeting (Timothy 2008). In view of decision-making roles, the cabinet and the military leaders operate as industrialists since they instigate their ideas and scheme so as to resolve the Cuban Missile crisis. In the course of the crisis, John F. Kennedy acts as one who handles troubles by acting whenever a threat that could endanger the American people arises. From another perception, both Bobby F. Kennedy and Kenny also do act as trouble handlers. This is because they act in response to intimidation that could jeopardize john F. Kennedy’s presidency. For example, Kenny threatened Scotty Reston, the New York Washington bureau head, directing him not to publish the matter of the crisis on the newspaper as it was sensitive. He also added that it could arouse the situation and damage John F. Kennedy’s plan of initiating a peaceful political negotiation. In addition, John F. Kennedy was the task allocator who knew which person to assign what task and the degree to which they would exercise their respective power. For example, allocating Bobby F. Kennedy the task of developing a consensus, assigning McNamara the task of overseeing the barricade of Cuba and conveying Kenny the task of investigating Fomin’s environment. Bobby F. Kennedy held the role of a negotiator later on when he negotiated with the USSR ambassador with reference to the mutual agreement (Ralph 2005). John F. Kennedy illustrated his leadership skills when he showed a sense of balance between the tasks oriented conduct and the relation related conduct. The tasks oriented conduct was illustrated in his ability to organise, plan, lead and control capably and well. The movie explicitly shows him annoyed by the fact that the military leaders were messing around with his authority. However, he did not allow himself to get carried away by the irritation. He maintained his good relationship with his juniors but at the same time insisting that he was still the one with the authority. On the other side, John F. Kennedy’s relationship with his juniors is by how loyal the juniors are. In addition to that, it is the way they always adhere to John F. Kennedy’s instructions. Further, he recognized his juniors where he was sending a message of condolence to Major Rudolph Anderson’s parents. Rudolph Anderson was a pilot who had died when his plane was shot down in Cuba (James 2005). For example in this movie, we see that Bobby Kennedy is elected by John F. Kennedy to be the team leader of the Executive Committee (EXCOM). John F. Kennedy has the final verdict. His crisis panel talk about the probable alternative. Strong opinions from the panel (SECSTATE, Dean Rusk; former SECSTATE, Dean Atchison; SECDEF Robert McNamara; CJCS Maxwell Taylor; and Gen Curtis Lemay) advocate for instant decisive military attack before the Cuban missiles became functional. This is a “doing first” concept. However, Adlai Stevenson, the US ambassador to the United Nations comes up with another option. I.e. give up Guantanamo Naval Base and the missiles of the United States in Turkey. This is a “seeing concept”. From this, we are able to learn that a good manager is one who stays in control of the team decision making process, making an allowance for all sides, and pushing for consensus in highly momentous verdict making, managing the panel differences and recognising influential sub-elements agendas in panel members that can interrupt the target set 9 (Achua 2009). Another example is where a meeting of the crisis team prior to the President speaking to the public for his first time. Being the eventual verdict giver of the panel, he does not give in to the mammoth pressure. Instead, his body language portrays calmness. A teaching from this section is that a manager should always retain outward composure so as to instil confidence into the panel members. While the panel gives him alternatives, he is still the one to give the final verdict (Vroom 2005). John F. Kennedy usually involved the Executive Committee, the cabinet and military leaders whenever he intended to make a decision. This is an effectual leadership feature demonstrated by him. As per Vromm and Yetton model, John F. Kennedy’s decision procedure is most likely to be categorised into: CI; where the principal shares problem with others individually and makes a verdict single-handedly, and CII; where a principal shares problems with others jointly and makes a verdict single-handedly. It goes without saying that he tried to guide each and everyone to an agreement of having a peaceful political negotiation with the USSR (James 2005). . It is without doubt that all the actors in the film have the power to leave a mark or make history. One would imagine the kind of world we would have today had John F. Kennedy attacked Cuba. In addition, all of these characters influenced each other in one way or the other. Consequently, the decision of the president would be altered. Luckily, it was not the juniors who made decisions but John F. Kennedy. In regard to specialist power, the military chiefs had their proficiency on their respective areas, while Kenny and Bobby F. Kennedy had their know-how on political subjects. In order to coerce John F. Kennedy into coming up with verdicts, the military chiefs used logical opinion tactics. This was by presenting evidence of the missile location photographs and explaining why the missiles were a real threat to the United States in regard to the missiles’ ballistic range. Coalition tactics is put into use by Adlai to get the support of the United Nations and other countries to support the USA to take away the missiles out of Cuba. Bobby F. Kennedy used exchange tactic when holding negotiations with the ambassador of the USSR. In his part, General Lemay used pressure tactic on John F. Kennedy but it was not a success. Other than his rightful authority, John F. Kennedy used personal appeals too as we can see in the film how Kenny was faithful to John F. Kennedy and gave his best companion full support. A scene shows John F. Kennedy leaving a crisis meeting. However, he gives instructions to his Special Assistant for Political Affairs, Kevin Costner. Kevin acts as the direct agent of the President reporting directly to him on the process of EXCOM’s negotiating and consensus decision efforts. This technique is unique in that it is valuable for a manager to get feedback on how his juniors are carrying out their activities. The scene demonstrates the use of an agent by a manager to keep watch on the process of negotiations and advise him in case there are a few hitches. Similarly, he may advise the manager in case there is need to re-evaluate the problem in light of the opposition’s moves. The agent operates independently from the negotiation team leader and reports directly to the verdict giver (Vroom 2005). Further, we see Alexander Poulin, a Russian spy, approaching the United States with an offer said to be from Khrushchev. The proposal provided that Russia was to remove the missiles from Cuba and in turn the United States was to pledge not to attack. John F. Kennedy suspects that it could be a trick. He thought it could actually be from either the KGB or Politburo. Further, he wonders why they could be doing this. In the long run he accepts the offer. This is an explicit example where the advisors will make certain recommendations to the manager while he is to make the final verdict (Antonio 2005). Conclusion The excellence of both the decision making and the decision process increased considerably in this film. In the beginning, only John F. Kennedy’s close associates agreed with his decision, while some murmured behind his back. For example, in the film we are shown where General Lemay and some military chiefs were left dissatisfied with both Bobby and John Kennedy after a meeting. As more persons got involved in the meeting and as John F. Kennedy shared most of his thought about evading World War III, the juniors learnt to become less opposed to his verdicts. Further in the film, John F. Kennedy begun to delegate more powers to his juniors and at some point left them to perform important responsibilities on their own. A good example is where he lets Bobby Kennedy to carry out the negotiation with the ambassador of the USSR on his behalf. In the end, John F. Kennedy organises a meeting between his team head, Bobby Kennedy, and Anatoly Dobrynin, the Russian ambassador. Bobby Kennedy gives his last compromise which is giving up the missiles of the United States in Turkey. Finally, a peaceful deal is struck. Generally, a teaching from this is that a good manager ought to know his region of probable agreement. Knowing other panel members is also quite significant. John F. Kennedy as a leader used both Persuasion Tactic and The Negotiation Tactic in DuBrin’s Leadership Model. This means that as a leader he influenced others in explaining his reasons and convincing his followers what he wanted them to do. He also influenced his followers through conferring with others to reach consensus which himself as a leader and others found acceptable (DuBrin 2003). Appendix Scene 1 Another meeting of the crisis team prior to the President addressing the nation for the first time. As the ultimate decision maker of the team, his body language continues to reflect calm even while under enormous stress. Leadership Point: Maintain outward composure to ensure confidence within the team (and the country). While teams give you options, the senior leader must make the final decision (a level IV decision) Scene 2 The Cubans and Russian Ambassador Zorin are lambasting the United States. Some members of President Kennedy’s decision making team (the Attorney General and the Political Advisor) are strongly urging the president to remove Adali Stevenson at the last moment in favour of someone seemingly more aggressive to carry on the Security Council debate. Leadership Points: Team building and negotiating psychology and how to select team members (remember the MBTI!). Know your team member’s strengths and weaknesses. Show trust and confidence in their abilities. Know more about the other side’s position than they know about yours. Keep an “ace in the hole” for bargaining (Stevenson “baits” Ambassador Zorin and then displays classified recon photos, instantly destroying his credibility). Don’t let your chief negotiator become rattled by personal attacks by the other side, and more importantly, don’t let him get blind-sided/surprised (i.e., by satellite photos). Scene 3 A soviet spy, Alexander Poulin, approaches the US with an overture allegedly from Khruschev: Russia removes missiles from Cuba, US pledges not to invade. The President ponders: Is this a trick? Is it actually from the KGB or Politburo? Why are they doing this? Ultimately, he goes with “my gut tells me this is a good offer.” Leadership points: Advisors/teams give recommendations; the leader has to make (and ultimately be responsible for) the decision (a level IV decision). The value of “instinct” in decision making. This again relates directly back to the last lesson on Decision Making and the Hayashi article, “When to Trust Your Gut.” It also displays the psychology of negotiations with the use of back-channel messages or couriers to break stalemates in talks (you will learn about this in the next lesson). Scene 4 Finally, at the 11th hour, the president has his Team Chief (Bobby Kennedy) see Russian ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. At the last moment, Bobby Kennedy plays his last concession: giving up US missiles in Turkey. A deal is struck at last averting open hostilities. Leadership points: Most of these points will carry over into the next IP on Negotiation. Knowing the other teams’ members. The value of trust built between negotiators. Knowing your Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA) and Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) (we will learn about these concepts in the next lesson…in this case, no agreement would lead to war). Bibliography Achua, C., 2009, Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development, Cengage Learning, London. Antonio, K., 2005, Perspectives of an Iconoclast: Writings in Latin American Studies and International Relations, Trafford Publishing, Trafford. Bernard, A., 2009, Group Performance, Taylor & Francis, California. DuBrin, A., 2003, Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York. Timothy, M., 2008, The Cuban Missile Crisis, ABDO, Toronto. . James, D., 2005, Managerial Decision Making, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York.      Ralph, S., 2005, Handbook of Leadership, Free Press, New York. Vroom, V., 2005, Leadership and Decision-Making, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. Read More