Group Decision-Making In The Film The Missiles Of October (1974)
My paper will identify a group decision making experience. The existence for any organization to be successful it must have a group of participants wanting to attain the identical purpose. The successful example I like to use is the real world experience that happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis that nearly led the Nation into a nuclear war with the USSR. The movie, “The Missiles of October” (Page, 1974), was a great illustration that challenged the group decision making process. When groups come together for the purpose of discussing ideas and formulate plans that will affect the organization and in this case the security of the Nation, several issues will arise. To be more successful and effective, the techniques used in performance to complete the task or activity are essential. The nominal group technique of brainstorming and even electronic meetings can potentially assist
…show more content…
in complicated situations. For increased organizational decision making to occur, the assumption of these methods must be facilitated. Verbal and non-verbal interface are key for interacting groups to communicate effectively. A cause for members to question each other and withhold alternate ideas is the hidden pressures of judgment and disapproval of recommendations is attributed to poor organized meetings. Brainstorming promotes “an idea-generation process that specifically encourages any and all alternatives while withholding any criticism” (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2008). The movie, “The Missiles of October” (Page,1974), covers the progressive process of decision making. While watching this production, I recalled during my childhood I was in the second grade back in 1962. I could not imagine how aware my parents were because they were not into the politics thing. President Kennedy’s decision he would have to make would put the lives on the line for millions of people and the future on the Nation was at stake. Good or bad, he would be held accountability and liable for the decision’s outcome. According to Harrison (1999), the powerful and complex process of decision making is full of information, diversions, distrust, ambiguity, and struggles. The decisions made in most of America do not reach the pinnacle of those made by world leaders such as during the missile crisis but must the process must still be reviewed which we should all understand in order to make appropriate decisions as leaders. Awareness in setting objectives is necessary to follow the decision making process. Accomplishing the organizational purpose objectives are used to measure success. (Harrison, 1999). When first made aware of the crisis, President Kennedy was presented with a number of objectives. After presented with photographic evidence there were missiles in Cuba delivered to them by the Soviet Union, he knew this was a direct threat to the security of our Nation. The Soviet Union on several meetings with the President had assured the missiles did not exist there however, intelligence revealed the fact the missiles were there. President Kennedy’s immediate reaction benefitted him personally. Knowing elections were coming, his objective was to win it. The decision he makes if wrong, chances are he would lose the faith of the American people. As information flowed from his select committee and people of America to include his personal contacts with the Soviet Union, the objectives changed. The big worry was avoiding a war and not winning or losing the election. The potential outcomes of his decisions included finding America in the midst of a war, and potentially with a new president and government. Granted, his desire was for a peaceful resolution and to govern for four more years, however we can see how one decision has the ability to stream into so many other potential areas. (Bazerman, 2005). The decision making processes the search for alternatives once an objective is determined if a war is to be avoided. How can we avoid a war? During the many meetings conducted either with the President or without, it became apparent that some of the alternatives were going to be difficult to decide upon. The movie mentions blockades, quarantines, invasion, threats, and war. In addition, alternatives also involve informing the public and the world of the processes being considered, and to what degree should they be informed. Every decision made, leads to yet another decision, another problem or solution. The process becomes ineffective when responsible parties don 't use known information, or ignore it and make haphazard decisions. Once alternatives are discovered, the next process must include the evaluation and comparison of these alternatives. To accomplish this, one must use the processes of judgment, bargaining, and analysis. (Harrison, 1999). This process was not taken lightly during the movie. Every participant brought their own agendas to the table. Some worked in an effort to please the president, some to insure their own internal voices would be at rest. (Bazerman, 2005). They all had different strengths and weaknesses and they all had different backgrounds and experience. This group needed to use all of their skills to the best of their ability in order to evaluate all of the potential alternatives to war. Oddly, some were apt to declare war even before all of the information was on the table. Imagine if the wrong person overshot the goal or this had been an individual responsibility instead of the group’s decision, history would definitely have changed tremendously. The importance in avoiding the use of a single authority with decisions of this magnitude can be to the detriment to benefit the many as oppose to the few. Making the choice is the final step in the decision process. Carry out the decision and measure the value of the decision is the last thing once the decision is made. In the movie, Kennedy and Khruschev made the decision mutually. They used their negotiation skills, along with compromise and trade to come to a mutually satisfying decision. Both men risked the potential of losing face. By this I mean that Kennedy knew that his decision to promise not to invade Cuba might mean the loss of respect of his party and public. He may lose his bid for presidency by making a decision others deem weak. On the other hand, Khrushchev, known as a hard leader, was making concessions and potentially looking soft to his countrymen. Their decision to avoid war was made to provide the best good to the most people. In profiling the behavior of the executive committee, I found it interesting to note that Robert Kennedy was aware enough of group behavior that he suggested that the council meet without the president in the room. He felt that it would encourage more open communication. I assume this means the approachability of the president was such that his opinion would not be challenged, even if a better option were available. Interestingly enough, the President agreed. I think this reflects on his leadership skills in a positive manner. He had the option of being insulted that men he trusted would not answer him honestly. Instead, he understood the psychology of group behavior and used it to the benefit of everyone. Another aspect I found interesting was the amount of risk involved in making such a detrimental decision.
As Harrison (1999), mentions, risky behavior is more prevalent within a group setting. People are not as apt to make a risky decision (such as starting a war) when they may be held accountable. In effect, the final decision was not going to belong to this group, but to the President, however, I wonder how each man would have voted had he known the decision was going to be labeled as "his" idea? As a result, leaders need to keep in mind that the decision of any group they form does have a tendency toward a more risky decision, thus the leader needs to review the information presented with an open mind and the strength to disagree if necessary. Within the group of people chosen by President Kennedy as his Executive Committee, there were noted instances of the availability heuristic among many of the members of the group. This heuristic occurs when people access the likely cause of an event based upon information that is readily available in their memories. (Bazerman,
2005). The more frequently something is processed into memory, the more accurately we are able to make judgments. When analyzing the opinions of the men in the military, it was noted that they were much more willing to go to war, to advance the troops, and to put pressure on the Soviet Union and Cuba than those individuals who did not have memories of war or military training. As a result of the above, it is possible that other members of the group made use of the representative heuristic in that they would expect the men who were members of the armed forces to desire a more military response. This heuristic claims that people look for traits an individual may have that correspond with previously formed stereotypes. (Bazerman, 2005). Our take away from the movie, "The Missiles of October," concerning the decision making process are priceless. There were a number of examples about leadership. All characters depicted played a leadership role of some kind in the government. Together, they form a group dynamic of strength and strong wills. The group hierarchy allowed those with more power to help the group in avoiding conflict and did not sway them from the fact a decision had to be made. Because time is of the essence, the potential for groupthink much be avoided. Decisions can 't be made without honest input and there is no time for side-stepping and internal politics. In all, it is apparent that we need lots of input and information in order to make the appropriate decisions in our lives. You never skimp the details when the need requires an effective decision to be made. Take the time, delegate when necessary, follow the decision making process and although you may not make the right decision, you will have done everything you can to make the best decision possible with all of the information you have available. In conclusion, as the culture of organizations change over time, it is essential that managers are aware of the pros and cons of different decision-making methods. The group decision-making process has many strengths; however, it is difficult to fully capitalize on its strengths when managers are unaware of its weaknesses and are therefore unable to present an environment conducive to proper decision making. Efficiency, groupthink, and group shift are three weaknesses that every manager should be aware of when forming groups in an organization. (Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, & Uhl-Blen, 2010).
REFERENCES
Bazerman, M. (2005). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making (6th ed.). New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Harrison, E. F. (1999). The Managerial Decision Making Process (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Page, A. (Director). (1974). The Missiles of October (Motion Picture). Orland Park, IL: MPI Media Group.
Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh. (2008). Organizational Behavior. Australia: Pearson Education
Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., Osborn, R. N., & Uhl-Blen, M. (2010). Organizational Behavior (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
in complicated situations. For increased organizational decision making to occur, the assumption of these methods must be facilitated. Verbal and non-verbal interface are key for interacting groups to communicate effectively. A cause for members to question each other and withhold alternate ideas is the hidden pressures of judgment and disapproval of recommendations is attributed to poor organized meetings. Brainstorming promotes “an idea-generation process that specifically encourages any and all alternatives while withholding any criticism” (Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh, 2008). The movie, “The Missiles of October” (Page,1974), covers the progressive process of decision making. While watching this production, I recalled during my childhood I was in the second grade back in 1962. I could not imagine how aware my parents were because they were not into the politics thing. President Kennedy’s decision he would have to make would put the lives on the line for millions of people and the future on the Nation was at stake. Good or bad, he would be held accountability and liable for the decision’s outcome. According to Harrison (1999), the powerful and complex process of decision making is full of information, diversions, distrust, ambiguity, and struggles. The decisions made in most of America do not reach the pinnacle of those made by world leaders such as during the missile crisis but must the process must still be reviewed which we should all understand in order to make appropriate decisions as leaders. Awareness in setting objectives is necessary to follow the decision making process. Accomplishing the organizational purpose objectives are used to measure success. (Harrison, 1999). When first made aware of the crisis, President Kennedy was presented with a number of objectives. After presented with photographic evidence there were missiles in Cuba delivered to them by the Soviet Union, he knew this was a direct threat to the security of our Nation. The Soviet Union on several meetings with the President had assured the missiles did not exist there however, intelligence revealed the fact the missiles were there. President Kennedy’s immediate reaction benefitted him personally. Knowing elections were coming, his objective was to win it. The decision he makes if wrong, chances are he would lose the faith of the American people. As information flowed from his select committee and people of America to include his personal contacts with the Soviet Union, the objectives changed. The big worry was avoiding a war and not winning or losing the election. The potential outcomes of his decisions included finding America in the midst of a war, and potentially with a new president and government. Granted, his desire was for a peaceful resolution and to govern for four more years, however we can see how one decision has the ability to stream into so many other potential areas. (Bazerman, 2005). The decision making processes the search for alternatives once an objective is determined if a war is to be avoided. How can we avoid a war? During the many meetings conducted either with the President or without, it became apparent that some of the alternatives were going to be difficult to decide upon. The movie mentions blockades, quarantines, invasion, threats, and war. In addition, alternatives also involve informing the public and the world of the processes being considered, and to what degree should they be informed. Every decision made, leads to yet another decision, another problem or solution. The process becomes ineffective when responsible parties don 't use known information, or ignore it and make haphazard decisions. Once alternatives are discovered, the next process must include the evaluation and comparison of these alternatives. To accomplish this, one must use the processes of judgment, bargaining, and analysis. (Harrison, 1999). This process was not taken lightly during the movie. Every participant brought their own agendas to the table. Some worked in an effort to please the president, some to insure their own internal voices would be at rest. (Bazerman, 2005). They all had different strengths and weaknesses and they all had different backgrounds and experience. This group needed to use all of their skills to the best of their ability in order to evaluate all of the potential alternatives to war. Oddly, some were apt to declare war even before all of the information was on the table. Imagine if the wrong person overshot the goal or this had been an individual responsibility instead of the group’s decision, history would definitely have changed tremendously. The importance in avoiding the use of a single authority with decisions of this magnitude can be to the detriment to benefit the many as oppose to the few. Making the choice is the final step in the decision process. Carry out the decision and measure the value of the decision is the last thing once the decision is made. In the movie, Kennedy and Khruschev made the decision mutually. They used their negotiation skills, along with compromise and trade to come to a mutually satisfying decision. Both men risked the potential of losing face. By this I mean that Kennedy knew that his decision to promise not to invade Cuba might mean the loss of respect of his party and public. He may lose his bid for presidency by making a decision others deem weak. On the other hand, Khrushchev, known as a hard leader, was making concessions and potentially looking soft to his countrymen. Their decision to avoid war was made to provide the best good to the most people. In profiling the behavior of the executive committee, I found it interesting to note that Robert Kennedy was aware enough of group behavior that he suggested that the council meet without the president in the room. He felt that it would encourage more open communication. I assume this means the approachability of the president was such that his opinion would not be challenged, even if a better option were available. Interestingly enough, the President agreed. I think this reflects on his leadership skills in a positive manner. He had the option of being insulted that men he trusted would not answer him honestly. Instead, he understood the psychology of group behavior and used it to the benefit of everyone. Another aspect I found interesting was the amount of risk involved in making such a detrimental decision.
As Harrison (1999), mentions, risky behavior is more prevalent within a group setting. People are not as apt to make a risky decision (such as starting a war) when they may be held accountable. In effect, the final decision was not going to belong to this group, but to the President, however, I wonder how each man would have voted had he known the decision was going to be labeled as "his" idea? As a result, leaders need to keep in mind that the decision of any group they form does have a tendency toward a more risky decision, thus the leader needs to review the information presented with an open mind and the strength to disagree if necessary. Within the group of people chosen by President Kennedy as his Executive Committee, there were noted instances of the availability heuristic among many of the members of the group. This heuristic occurs when people access the likely cause of an event based upon information that is readily available in their memories. (Bazerman,
2005). The more frequently something is processed into memory, the more accurately we are able to make judgments. When analyzing the opinions of the men in the military, it was noted that they were much more willing to go to war, to advance the troops, and to put pressure on the Soviet Union and Cuba than those individuals who did not have memories of war or military training. As a result of the above, it is possible that other members of the group made use of the representative heuristic in that they would expect the men who were members of the armed forces to desire a more military response. This heuristic claims that people look for traits an individual may have that correspond with previously formed stereotypes. (Bazerman, 2005). Our take away from the movie, "The Missiles of October," concerning the decision making process are priceless. There were a number of examples about leadership. All characters depicted played a leadership role of some kind in the government. Together, they form a group dynamic of strength and strong wills. The group hierarchy allowed those with more power to help the group in avoiding conflict and did not sway them from the fact a decision had to be made. Because time is of the essence, the potential for groupthink much be avoided. Decisions can 't be made without honest input and there is no time for side-stepping and internal politics. In all, it is apparent that we need lots of input and information in order to make the appropriate decisions in our lives. You never skimp the details when the need requires an effective decision to be made. Take the time, delegate when necessary, follow the decision making process and although you may not make the right decision, you will have done everything you can to make the best decision possible with all of the information you have available. In conclusion, as the culture of organizations change over time, it is essential that managers are aware of the pros and cons of different decision-making methods. The group decision-making process has many strengths; however, it is difficult to fully capitalize on its strengths when managers are unaware of its weaknesses and are therefore unable to present an environment conducive to proper decision making. Efficiency, groupthink, and group shift are three weaknesses that every manager should be aware of when forming groups in an organization. (Schermerhorn, Hunt, Osborn, & Uhl-Blen, 2010).
REFERENCES
Bazerman, M. (2005). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making (6th ed.). New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Harrison, E. F. (1999). The Managerial Decision Making Process (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Page, A. (Director). (1974). The Missiles of October (Motion Picture). Orland Park, IL: MPI Media Group.
Robbins, Judge, Millett & Waters-Marsh. (2008). Organizational Behavior. Australia: Pearson Education
Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., Osborn, R. N., & Uhl-Blen, M. (2010). Organizational Behavior (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.