decision making in the 13 days movie
Strategic Decision Making and Leadership Principles in the Movie “Thirteen Days”
Introduction
The movie presents a situation where decisions (with long term consequences) need to be made. A successful outcome will not only result in a positive outcome for an organisation but will also increase the leader’s credibility and image. A negative outcome will have terrible consequences.
Context of decision-making as strategic decision-making in business
From a business perspective there are two large multinationals competing (the US and the URSS) with a number of subsidiaries (e.g. USA’s Turkey and Berlin and URSS’ Cuba). Kennedy represents a company’s CEO trying to take the company through a period of crisis. The Soviet CEO (Khrushchev) has made a move that affects USA’s market position (deploy missiles in Cuba). The American CEO has a clear goal and a strategy is built to achieve it (remove missiles pacifically). He seeks advice from his leadership team (Ministers and heads of Military) to make decisions that will create value to the company’s board (Congress) and shareholders (electorate).
During the crisis, the American CEO and advisors constantly analyse the current situation and events (Hubbard and Beamish 2011, 198) and develop alternative plans as backup choices prior to making the next decision (Hubbard and Beamish 2011, 199). There is a sense of urgency for decisions to be made. The best decision requires understanding the rival and anticipating its decision and movements.
Both CEOs are ultimately responsible to make final decisions and must take full responsibility of the consequences. Bad decisions will result in damage in image and loss of confidence from shareholders who might opt to not vote for them again at the next AGM (elections). The American CEO keeps the board and shareholders informed of critical situations (press conference), but does not reveal any details that are strategic in nature (plans for air strikes and invasion are kept
Introduction
The movie presents a situation where decisions (with long term consequences) need to be made. A successful outcome will not only result in a positive outcome for an organisation but will also increase the leader’s credibility and image. A negative outcome will have terrible consequences.
Context of decision-making as strategic decision-making in business
From a business perspective there are two large multinationals competing (the US and the URSS) with a number of subsidiaries (e.g. USA’s Turkey and Berlin and URSS’ Cuba). Kennedy represents a company’s CEO trying to take the company through a period of crisis. The Soviet CEO (Khrushchev) has made a move that affects USA’s market position (deploy missiles in Cuba). The American CEO has a clear goal and a strategy is built to achieve it (remove missiles pacifically). He seeks advice from his leadership team (Ministers and heads of Military) to make decisions that will create value to the company’s board (Congress) and shareholders (electorate).
During the crisis, the American CEO and advisors constantly analyse the current situation and events (Hubbard and Beamish 2011, 198) and develop alternative plans as backup choices prior to making the next decision (Hubbard and Beamish 2011, 199). There is a sense of urgency for decisions to be made. The best decision requires understanding the rival and anticipating its decision and movements.
Both CEOs are ultimately responsible to make final decisions and must take full responsibility of the consequences. Bad decisions will result in damage in image and loss of confidence from shareholders who might opt to not vote for them again at the next AGM (elections). The American CEO keeps the board and shareholders informed of critical situations (press conference), but does not reveal any details that are strategic in nature (plans for air strikes and invasion are kept
References: Burke, Shaw, Kevin Stagl, Cameron Klein, Gerald Goodwin, Eduardo Salas, and Stanley Halpin. 2006. “What Type of Leadership Behaviors are Functional in Teams? A Meta-Analysis.” The Leadership Quarterly 17:288–307. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.007. de Vries, Reinout E., Angelique Bakker-Pieper, Wyneke Oostenveld. 2010. “Leadership = Communication? The Relations of Leaders’ Communication Styles with Leadership Styles, Knowledge Sharing and Leadership Outcomes.” Journal of Business and Psychology 25(3):367-380. Doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2 Gumusluoglua, Lale and Arzu Ilse. 2009. “Transformational Leadership, Creativity, and Organizational Innovation.” Journal of Business Research 62(4):461–473. Doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.032 Hubbard, Graham and Paul Beamish. 2011. Strategic Management: Thinking, Analysis, Action (4th Edition). Frenchs Forrest: Pearson. Porter, Michael. 2008. “The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy.” Harvard Business Review 86(1):78-93 Schlechter, Anton and Amos Engelbrecht. 2006. “The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership, Meaning and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour.” Management Dynamics 15(4): 2-16. Vinkenburga, Claartje, Marloes van Engenb, Alice H. Eaglyc and Mary C. Johannesen-Schmidtd. 2011. “An Exploration of Stereotypical Beliefs About Leadership Styles: Is Transformational Teadership aRroute to Women 's Promotion?” The Leadership Quarterly 22(1):10-21. Doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.003