Running head: THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
The Strategic Planning of President Kennedy
Carrie G. Connolly
Virginia Commonwealth University
1
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
2
The Strategic Planning of President Kennedy
John F. Kennedy was the 35th president of the United States, and he was the youngest
president, elected at the age of forty-three. Due to Kennedy’s lack of corporate experience and
young age, he struggled with the ability to plan strategically. Americans felt threatened by the
possibility of a nuclear war, and President Kennedy needed to be able to create a strategic plan to
alleviate these fears. Drath (2001) refers to this as an adaptive challenge. An adaptive challenge
is defined as a challenge of which there is no precedent or preexisting resources, thus causing the
leader to make a change in his or her leadership style to adapt to the situation and resolve the
issue (Drath, 2001). After a failed plan with the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy showed remarkable
improvement in strategic planning with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy, facing an adaptive
challenge with strategic planning during both events, created additional resources and made
executive decisions to help Americans feel protected and safe under his leadership. He was able
to do so by adjusting his leadership frame from political to structural. Bolman and Deal (2008)
explain that a frame is a set of ideas of which a leader uses in situations to form his or her
perspective and take action on the issue. As seen with President Kennedy, different situations
require different frames.
President Kennedy
President Kennedy needed to create credibility with his constituents due to his lack of
experience. President Kennedy was elected by a small margin of votes, and Beschloss (2000)
points out that America did not know Kennedy well. The president worked hard to make a good
impression on the American people once in office. Kennedy was not a large corporate
businessman nor had he held an executive cabinet role. When Kennedy spoke in public or at
televised events he would remain stiff and formal in order to portray an older, serious, and more
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
3
experienced president (Beschloss, 2000). President Kennedy wanted to do well as president, and
he knew he needed the support of the American public. He did not want them to question his
abilities or decisions due to his age.
The United States was still recovering from the Pearl Harbor attacks and current Cold
War when Kennedy took office. However, in addition to helping Americans heal, Kennedy had
additional goals for his presidential term. He wanted to land a man on the moon, and he also
wanted to create a nuclear test ban treaty. Beschloss (2000) states that Kennedy’s leadership
method was not a grand vision, but rather “crisis management, hour to hour” (p.67). While
Kennedy’s presidency ended prematurely with his assassination, one can see growth in
leadership from the Bay of Pigs to the Cuban Missile Crisis (Benchless, 2000). His catastrophe
with the Bay of Pigs embarrassed Americans, but his extensive strategic planning with the Cuban
Missile Crisis showed Americans that President Kennedy was overcoming his adaptive challenge
of using his resources wisely and learning to plan strategically.
The Bay of Pigs
Kennedy was constantly concerned about his reputation as president, however, there were
many who were excited for the change of having a Democratic leader in the White House after
eight years of Republican terms (Raven, 1998). His Executive Committee, eager to make their
mark in history, presented the president with a plan to overthrow Fidel Castro, leader of Cuba,
using CIA trained Cuban exiles. This was a covert mission that excluded the American military.
President Kennedy attended several meetings with his Executive Committee to learn about the
plan before he agreed to the mission (Kramer, 1998). Raven (1998) notes that with the high
enthusiasm from his Executive Committee, groupthink began to take over and those who
dissented were overlooked and forced to change opinions. The notion of groupthink, making
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
4
poor decisions to keep group cohesiveness, is seen as one of the reasons Kennedy was unable to
strategically execute a plan to effectively address the Bay of Pigs (Raven, 1998).
The Bay of Pigs is described as one of the most disastrous events in American history as
the plan failed miserably (Raven, 1998). Castro’s army defeated the CIA trained Cuban exiles,
and the entire nation was made aware of the failed attempt. Americans were embarrassed, and
leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev began to think of Kennedy as weak (Landers,
2012). Kramer (1998) states that although the group had one opinion, in the end it was President
Kennedy who made the decision to execute the plan for the Bay of Pigs. Although Kennedy had
expressed some opposition to the plan, he still moved forward with it because he was concerned
about the poor political backlash of not acting on the plan at all. His intense focus on the
political implications of his career prevented him from creating a strategic plan for the Bay of
Pigs (Kramer, 1998). Kennedy was criticized for acting too hastily early in his presidential term
and not using his advisors to the full extent or utilizing resources outside of the Executive
Committee to seek alternatives (Grattan, 2004). Documents state that there were several
members of the Executive Committee who did have concerns, but President Kennedy did not
create an environment in his meetings that allowed for these members to speak up and voice their
opposition (Kramer, 1998).
President Kennedy’s decision to move forward with the Bay of Pigs had been largely to
protect his political reputation, but the plan backfired and did the opposite. In addition to
questioning the president, Americans were concerned about how his Executive Committee
presented and advised him on a morally disastrous plan with poor execution. His Executive
Committee had previously been thought of as one of the best-educated and well-prepared
committees, but the Bay of Pigs brought a negative stigma to this group (Kramer, 1998).
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
5
The Political Frame
Kennedy’s approach of protecting his political reputation suggests he was using a
political leadership frame when planning the Bay of Pigs. The political frame views leadership
with competition, conflict, power and organizational politics. Leaders using the political frame
are often working off their own agenda (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Kramer (1998) states that
although Kennedy may have had some reservations about the Bay of Pigs, he agreed to the plan
because he was concerned about the greater catastrophe, losing his credibility as a leader and
having a tarnished political career. Landers (2012) notes that Kennedy was always concerned
about appearances. The potential damage to his career was at the forefront of his decision
making process. He viewed the option of doing nothing with Cuba and Castro as unacceptable.
President Kennedy thought a lack of action threatened his presidency and potential legacy and
thus, he moved forward with the Bay of Pigs invasion (Kramer, 1998).
Unfortunately, Kennedy’s Executive Committee was also using the political frame. His
advisors became consumed in groupthink, and they lacked the ability to view the plan
objectively due to their political frame. Similar to Kennedy, the members on the executive
committee focused on maintaining their strong reputation as a cohesive group rather than
question and reconsider if the plan was the best decision for the American people (Kramer,
1998). If the Executive Committee had a different frame, it may have assisted President
Kennedy with reframing. Reframing allows a leader to go from one leadership perspective to
another (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Had Kennedy used a different frame, the outcome of the Bay of
Pigs may have been different.
The Cuban Missile Crisis
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
6
Kennedy’s strategic planning was put to the test again when he learned that the Soviets
had placed missiles in Cuba. He knew Americans were still in doubt of his abilities due to his
poor handling of the Bay of Pigs. America had never faced a situation like this, so he was unable
to look to past resources and learn from previous presidents about how to proceed. He opted not
to tell the American public about the situation in order to give himself more time to devise a
plan. Kennedy understood the urgency of the matter, but he could not allow another catastrophe
like the Bay of Pigs (Gratton, 2004). President Kennedy chose his own team of advisors to
work on the Cuban Missile Crisis, which included his brother and confidant, Robert Kennedy
(Beschloss, 2000). He took time to listen to all of his advisors and asked questions. He
remained non-assertive as he challenged his advisors to think about the situation before giving
solutions. He led the committee using a Socratic method. His advising team had extreme views
on the correct path of action, but President Kennedy learned from the Bay of Pigs that an
extreme measure might not be the best option. Everyone agreed that the missiles needed to be
removed, but the decision of how to make this happen was more complex (Gratton, 2004).
Kennedy not only needed to make a decision on how to handle the missiles, he also
needed to establish a plan on how to communicate his decision to the world. Kennedy made a
televised announcement to America. This announcement was also sent to the Soviet Nikita
Khrushchev in a letter. Even without a corporate background and a botched plan with the Bay of
Pigs, Kennedy remained confident in his speech as he communicated his decision. His
confidence was comforting, but the reality of a potential nuclear war frightened Americans
(Landers, 2012) Kennedy decided to put a blockade around Cuba until the missiles were
removed. If the missiles were not removed, he threated further military action against the Soviet
Union. Kennedy listened to his advisors, but he was able to keep his eye on the goal of removing
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
7
the weapons. He was not sidetracked by other agendas, such as overthrowing Castro. Kennedy
did not pick an extreme measure. He selected the option that worked to resolve the crisis and
keep Americans safe (Gratton, 2004). Kennedy created several plans of action based on each
potential response of the Soviets. These plans did not indicate a lack of confidence, but rather
they indicated his desire to be well prepared. He did not want to have another situation like the
Bay of Pigs (Landers, 2012).
The Soviets removed their missiles, but the waiting time between the announcement of
the Cuban Missile Crisis and the removal of the missiles seemed long for frightened Americans.
During this time Congressional staff urged Kennedy to take stronger action, such as invading
Cuba (Landers, 2012). Kennedy understood his decision could result in World War Three.
However, he believed he had made a well-informed decision that would protect the American
people (Beschloss, 2000). Landers (2012) describes Kennedy as working well under pressure by
using his intelligence and tough façade to remain calm. The president showed restraint by not
listening to extreme military measures that could have had prolonged effects, and he did so while
presenting a confident appearance (Landers, 2012). Unlike the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy was able to
use his resources wisely and adapt to the situation. His reputation as an effective leader grew
after the handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis (Gratton, 2004).
Structural Frame
President Kennedy’s success with the Cuban Missile Crisis can also be attributed to his
ability to reframe to the structural frame. When he used the political frame in the Bay of Pigs, it
was a disaster, but reframing allowed Kennedy to take a new perspective on strategic planning.
The structural frame relies heavily on policy and procedures. Leaders in the structural frame
have strong analytical skills and design effective structures using well developed management
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
8
(Bolman & Deal, 2008). There was no set policy in place on how to address the Cuban Missile
Crisis, however after the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy knew that the best place to start was organizing
an advising team. He hand selected each member of the team based on their experiences in order
to get several perspectives. Although Kennedy had limited corporate experience, he worked well
managing a small group of people (Beschloss, 2000). He set a schedule of meetings to determine
the best course of action. Using his structural frame, he kept the discussions on the goal of
avoiding nuclear war and removing the missiles from Cuba. Before he committed to a decision
he challenged the team to think of potential scenarios and consequences for each course of
action. He had been unprepared for the fallout during the Bay of Pigs, so he understood the need
to be well organized for the situations that may lie ahead for the United States after the Cuban
Missile Crisis (Gratton, 2004).
Once the decision was made to quarantine Cuba, Kennedy continued to use his structural
frame to communicate the decision. Kennedy followed through with his established plan to wait
to announce the issue with the American people until a plan of action had been created. He also
used that same time to inform the Soviet Union of America’s demands to remove the missiles
(Gratton, 2004). Kennedy promised the Soviet Union no invasion only if the Soviets would
remove the missiles. Kennedy had many political advisors try to sway him to change his
decision at the last minute, but Kennedy stayed with his plan of action and waited for the
response from Khrushchev. Luckily, the Soviet Union agreed to remove the missiles (Landers,
2012).
If President Kennedy had used the same political frame he had during the Bay of Pigs,
the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis may have been extremely different. Landers (2012)
notes that both Khrushev and Kennedy were intelligent leaders whose suspicion of each other’s
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
9
country created a great fear. Neither leader wanted to engage in nuclear warfare. However,
when using a political frame, the competition factor plays a large role. Kennedy use of the
structural frame kept his sight on the goal of safety for the American people. It also forced him
to consider each possibility before committing to one course of action. The irony is that during
the botched Bay of Pigs invasion, Kennedy was overly concerned with his reputation, whereas
during the successful Cuban Missile Crisis, he put Americans first, and in return his reputation as
a credible leader grew (Landers, 2012).
Conclusion
President Kennedy was a young president who faced an adaptive challenge of strategic
planning based on his lack of experience. Kennedy was determined not to have his age give
Americans a negative impression of his abilities as president. However, the failed mission with
the Bay of Pigs brought much skepticism. His political frame contributed to his inability to plan
strategically with the Bay of Pigs. When he reframed to the structural frame, he showed
tremendous growth in his leadership and strategic planning. This growth can be seen in the
successful handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy’s ability to reframe also allowed him
to utilize his calm, confident and persistent leadership style, which avoided a nuclear war for the
United States.
THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
10
References
Beschloss, M. R. (2000). A tale of two presidents. The Wilson Quarterly, 24(1), 60-70.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Drath, W. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership (pp. 1-61). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grattan, R. F. (2004). The Cuban missile crisis: Strategy formulation in action. Management
Decision, 42(1), 55-68.
Landers, R. K. (2012). Statecraft as stagecraft: How JFK managed the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Commonweal, 139(17), 20.
Kramer, R. M. (1998). Revisiting the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam decisions 25 years later: How
well has the groupthink hypothesis stood the test of time. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 43(2/3), 236-271.
Raven, B. H. (1998). Groupthink, Bay of Pigs and Watergate reconsidered. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2). 352-361.