Re: Right Mix for Group? LO4003

JOHNWFIELD@aol.com
Sat, 2 Dec 1995 07:58:19 -0500

Replying to LO3983 --

I didn't intend to say that the group work on the Cuban Missile Crisis was
an example of a good process. What I intended to say was that it was an
improvement over the Bay of Pigs process, which is an exemplar of how not
to do critical issues in government. The Cuban Missile Crisis process is
another example of what I was urging be discontinued; namely, having
amateurs design the processes to be used for their own group work.

The idea that some good came out of it is one I have no trouble accepting.
Still that's not the same as saying that its process was good.

One of the things that was an improvement was that President Kennedy
himself recognized that he should stay out of the process as it unfolded,
so as not to bias the outcome, as he had done by injecting his views in
the Bay of Pigs process. Apparently that particular amateur was smart
enough to recognize that "Groupthink", as described by Irving Janis, and
as studied by Allison among others, actually did take place in the Bay of
Pigs group activity, under the urging of Bobby Kennedy to have the group
arrive at what the President apparently had pre-determined.

How could President Kennedy have known that such an ostensibly experienced
and prestigious group as those advising him would have so little
intestinal fortitude to fight what apparently had already been decided by
a poorly informed president?

Among others, Prof. A. Schlesinger of Harvard was later quoted as very
sorry that he had not pressed his counterviews, but even then, that he had
felt they would merely be seen as obstructive. And other prominent points
of view, including those from well-informed people in the State
Department, were suppressed by their supervisors who, as it turned out,
lacked adequate knowledge about the situation.

--
JOHN N. WARFIELD
Johnwfield@aol.com