Movie 13 Days Case Study

Write Up On Thirteen Days Case Study: We will watch the film “13 Days” in class. You will then write a paper consisting of five to seven descriptive and concise paragraphs in bulleted form discussing how the negotiation issues are presented/used in the film and its connection to the readings. You should analyze each scenario and offer a series of observations related to the negotiation. When citing, be sure to include the author and page number(s). Think in terms of both integrative or distributive negotiation practices. Some things you to consider: How are problems handled? What impact do certain approaches/styles have?

You may think in terms of the negotiations with the Russians or within the Kennedy administration. In the first actual meeting within the Kennedy Administration where the head of Chiefs (Taylor) wants to strike the missiles in Cuba, John F. Kennedy (JFK) walk outs with no final decision on what he would like to do. After the meeting, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were baffled that he just up and left the meeting. The military gurus were trying to get JFK to make a decision on the spot without taking much thought into the situation. JFK was finding out what everyone felt was the right thing to do in the room.

He said he would want air forces prepared if this is the sort of attack they plan to do but never gave a concise final answer. Later on, someone in the room asked if this was the means he planned on using rather than political action. This was his trigger to get up and depart. He did not want to make a rational decision on something so serious. The Joint Chiefs were intimidating by stating this was the mutual decision between all of them. However, they want to use their military power in a peaceful world, where ultimately it would cause worse circumstances.

Also, Dean Atchison (who is someone that supposedly understands everything about how the Soviet Union acts) was backing up the ideas of the Joint Chiefs. The Joint Chiefs assuring the invasion would succeed and it would be easy just like that by signing the dotted line. In this situation, JFK did the right thing here in which he got up and left and began to consult with Bobby and Kenny about the situation. They want to make sure there are no other alternatives that can create a peaceful outcome. The situation present here is an intragroup conflict (p. 7, Lewicki) since everyone is on the same team in this scenario. Everyone was not on the same page, but they are not fighting against each other rather they are coming up with the most viable solution. The team basically split into two groups, JFK’s (JFK, Bobby, and Kenny) and then the Joint Chief of Staff’s (plus Dean Atchison) afterwards which held their own bias perceptions on the matter stated earlier (p. 18, Lewicki). There are two important scenarios in this situation, make sure the missiles are removed/dismantled from Cuba, and to make sure nothing more occurs that can cause lives to be lost.

This was an example of an integrative negotiating process due to their being no bargaining of any sort between the two groups. They were able to identify a problem (missiles in Cuba), understand the problem (enough range to hit United States), generate alternative solutions (three options about how to strike), and then they did not complete the final step. (p. 61, Lewicki) For the Joint Chiefs to try to close the deal they offered three solutions to give JFK alternatives to the one. Ultimately, all three solutions created a means of action which JFK did not want to go to if possible. p. 46-47, Lewicki) The situation did not end with a compromise because none of the alternatives were viable choices for JFK. JFK must talk to the Publisher of Times about not publishing the story about the situation at hand until after he releases his statement to the public on Monday. The public must not know until JFK officially speaks to the public about his course of action on the situation. The publisher does not want to make the same mistake he made by not issuing the “Bay Of Pigs” story.

In the end, the publisher agrees to the terms, but asks for something to tell his guys since they will want his head on a plate. JFK tells him they will be saving lives including their own. In this situation, JFK was negotiating with the Publisher to hold off on the story until after he is able to release a statement because if the story is released first, there could be extreme consequences like nuclear attacks on the United States. In the book, Getting to Yes, a key to integrative agreements is the ability for the parties “to understand and satisfy each other’s interests. (p. 64, Lewicki) In this scenario, the parties “have different types of interests at stake,” (p. 66, Lewicki) in which the publisher wants to be the first to release a huge story while the president wants to make sure people do not die. Ultimately, one of the interests becomes more powerful than the other in this situation, which allows for interests to change to the most important issue at hand. (p. 67, Lewicki) By JFK providing the publisher with a life changing issue the publisher surely acknowledges the situation and allows for JFK to win the negotiation.

There isn’t always a victor in a negotiation, but there is in this confrontation. The tone of voice in which the president spoke was also important, making sure he was touching yet charismatic at the same time. When John (the reporter) has his monthly dinner date with Fullman (the Russian spy who is a personal friend of Khrushchev) he brings up a resolution they discussed about earlier. The agreement would be for the Russians to dismantle the missiles in Russia, and have them sent back to the Soviet Union under UN inspection to make sure there are none left behind.

In return the United States would agree not to invade Cuba. In addition, there would need to be a response from Khrushchev within 48 hours. The agreement was confirmed that if anything were proposed during the UN meeting it would be highly favorable for acceptance coming from the highest power (the president). This situation would be considered “end-result ethics” due to the fact it would create peaceful solution which would entail happiness. (p. 170, Lewicki) Both sides have a “legitimate power” in which the final decision falls upon. (p. 52, Lewicki) For the United States, the legitimate power was JFK, and for the Soviet Union the legitimate power was Khrushchev. Each party went through a trusted individual. Trust is critical in any negotiation, in particular one that does not involve the legitimate powers face to face. Kenny had to make sure that Fullman was truly trusted by Khrushchev, so he went to the FBI for his files and found they were old war buddies (even if it was just instincts). However, when the two that met up together spoke they seemed to have a trust in between themselves as well.

There is a serious matter at hand, so no phony discussions can take place. This is a win-win situation for both sides since there will be no bloodshed. Bob Kennedy speaks with the Ambassador of the Soviet Union about the deal that had been proposed earlier in a letter that was sent to the White House. The letter was about the discussion the reporter, John, and the Russian spy, Fullman had spoke about. Bobby Kennedy pretended like there was never a second letter sent to the White House due to the fact they feel the first one was from a valid source and the best possible solution to the whole matter.

When Bobby relays the message directly from the president to the ambassador he asks for removal of the missiles in Turkey. Bobby says he cannot do so under the threat of the Soviet Union. Once the ambassador doesn’t get the response he wants he begins to look as if he is leaving but Bobby adds an incentive to the offer. He says if you agree to the deal then the United States will remove the missiles from Turkey in roughly 6 months. The US cannot make it seem like the Soviet Union forced the US to withdraw their missiles from the Turkey.

If the ambassador can relay the message to the upper authorities of the Soviet Union but not release this information to the public then there can be a deal. Bobby needs a response by the next day. The ambassador says he must hurry and relay the message to the Soviet Union if he needs to get the response by tomorrow. Bobby did a great job of negotiating here. He offered the same proposal over again that was relayed earlier without using what he had in his back pocket. Right when it seemed he had no chance, he gave him the incentive to add on top of the proposal.

It was the seller that made the deal. I would like to consider this removal of the Jupiter missiles from Turkey a sweetener, since the deal did not work the first time around. He gave him something he was previously not willing to do but will now in a different form. (p. 47, Lewicki) Before Bobby proposed this sweetener, the ambassador said “do you want war? ” and Bobby just lifted his hands like I guess this is what will happen so be it. He was showing nonverbal discouragement by hand gestures. (p. 39, Lewicki) Unlike some of the other negotiations in this movie, Bobby used both distributive bargaining along with integrative negotiating. The ambassador also said there are good people within the US, in particular, Bobby, and his brother John. This was a sign of trust and relief from the ambassador. He knew that the US military juggernauts wanted to go to war or at least use firepower to resolve the situation. However, Bobby was looking for a type of frame called outcome, which allowed for a win-win scenario.

This type of frame normally falls under an aspiration; “strong aspiration frame are more likely to be primarily engaged in integrative (win-win) negotiation than in other types. ” (p. 115, Lewicki) Since both parties goal was a specific result in no bloodshed or war, it is considered an outcome frame. (p. 115, Lewicki) A great line that is stated in Getting to Yes by JFK is, “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. ” (p. 180, Fisher) A great end for a movie completely about fearless negotiations with JFK.