13 days — negotiations analysis


General Maxwell Taylor,

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff


General Curtis LeMay,

Air Force Chief of Staff

13 President, Jack Kennedy

This is the scene where the representatives of the USA Army try to persuade the President to start military actions against Cuba and Soviet Union. During the scene two generals used the tactics of united, two-against-one persuasion, pressing him with their authority, limiting the time and hurrying the President to take final ‘right’ decision.

The sources of power are the following:

  • Reward power. Mr. LeMay and Mr. Tailor have the power to make the future safety available and guarantee this if only Jack Kennedy approves their plan.
  • Coercive power. This kind of power is some kind of inversion, hidden and veiled but still presented, as long as generals can’t really possess coerce power overtly to Jack Kennedy, they threaten the President with the possibility of WW3 and being the source of this events only supplementary, however their (and military) omission can lead to the danger that President can’t prevent without Army Forces.
  • Expert power. Mr. LeMay and Mr. Tailor have knowledge and expertise in the question of hostilities, they are proficient in missiles, their characteristics and time for installation.
  • Legitimate Power. Legal legitimate power comes from the generals’ position in the government as the defenders of the nation’s piece and protection. Moreover, generally, the President as the Supreme Commander is connected with the Army and Generals in terms of solidarity and mutuality in the face of the world trouble.

Strategies used in this episode:

  • Promise strategy. They both use as reward the future promised piece in the USA and them as the only tools being able to achieve this piece. They are insisting that attack will guarantee protection. The generals here are the generators and producers of this ‘piece’ in the world but only by means of war. 
  • Threat strategy. Both LeMay and Taylor, who was additionally frightening the President with the possibility of WW3 and a lot of aspects of unfavorable consequences. They state that if their plan wasn’t finally put in action the catastrophe will begin. 
  • Legalistic strategy is used in connection with already started mobilization and persuading him to remain consistent to his previous ‘commitment’ to start war.
  • Recommendation strategy. Generals exchange the information with the President and then insist on the only one final decision. A caveat with a large share of pressure and manipulation is often used here.

02:03:51,562 — 02:06:15,511 (fragment 15)

14 Ambassador Dobrynin
15 Bob Kennedy

During this meeting both protagonists were trying to persuade each other in some terms of agreement, trying to reach consensus, using different tactics and strategies of their power.
However, both Ambassador Dobrynin and Bob Kennedy being equal in this negotiations wanted to prevent the war, and much was dependent on them, both understood the prospective possible deleterious consequences of this meeting, at the same time representing their home country they were unable to meet all the demands of the counterpart.

Mr. Dobrynin as well as Mr. Kennedy had some sources of power, quite similar to each other at this rank, were skillfully using them to achieve their aims.

Mr. Dobrynin and Mr. Kennedy both have only two sources of power in this situation: reward and coercive. First of all, Soviet Ambassador had in his arsenal and applied only promise and threat strategies, promising to remove the missiles in return to the liquidation of US missiles in Turkey or threatening to facilitate the war in the opposite case.

From his turn, Bob Kennedy was using several strategies:

  • Promise strategy. He stressed that if the missiles were removed (as US government desired) his government would stop the Cuba quarantine and would never invade it in future. Later, he proposed a plan that if the Soviet missiles on Cuba were removed now, US government would remove Turkish missiles later and secretly from present deal.
  • Threat strategy. Mr. Kennedy showed that his country would meet the challenge and counter stand this situation if the missiles were not removed and the war would be started.
  • Request strategy. Bob Kennedy simply requested at the beginning what was his and President’s position and wishes and at the end while pointing the deadlines Mr. Kennedy provokes some pressure stressing the limited time to get the answer.

ISO/IEC 20000-1:2011

Информационные технологии – система менеджмента услуг: Цикл и документация ПВКД

ISO / IEC 20000-1:2011 обеспечивает комплексную (технологи агностическую) структура для разработки и внедрения системы менеджмента услугам (СМУ) в любой организации. Читать/смотреть далее

Technologies and Fertilizers Industry at the Technology Market

Technologies in Demand

With the rapid progression of contemporary technologies that embrace totally all aspects of human lives and existing industries the determinant role of the innovations, technological breakthrough and IT is hardly undervalued. Читать/смотреть далее

Tata Steel





Risk Management

Marsh & McLennan Companies

After several decades of considerable growth and reputation-building, Marsh & McLennan Companies were faced with the dramatic events of 2003-2004 years. Читать/смотреть далее

One Brand

The new Brand that Ian Schrager in a partnership with Marriott International is going to introduce for a range of his ultra hip boutique hotels is relevant for both clients and owners; for provided hotel and accommodation services its especially crucial because Brand will help to concretize the abstract essence of the services and branding is effective when its necessary to get to customers a message about this unique and innovative hotel chain. Читать/смотреть далее

Merger of Dresdner and Henning Schulte-Noelle

To consider whether to merge with Dresdner or not Henning Schulte-Noelle should think about all benefits and obstacles, weight the impact of each statement Читать/смотреть далее

Major strengths and weaknesses of the global trading system

Economic integration is moving through the world at rapid speed and globalization has brought great benefits to both developed and developing countries. As trade is considered to be the ‘engine’ (driving force) of the integration process, the World Trade Organization (WTO) with its 153 members can be viewed as an essential pillar of globalization. Читать/смотреть далее

Health and Safety Standards in Chemical and Petroleum Industries

During the recent years the world community was shocked by numerous great disasters connected with improper operational management and the exposure of such disasters on the environment and people’s lives led to the logical strengthening of safety and health regulations imposed to multinational chemical and petroleum corporations. Accidents that have taken place in these sectors are potentially more harmful and their consequences can be observed in decades forcing the management of such companies to take a sharper look at their operational facilities, conditions and workplaces. With the pace of globalization some multinational companies have begun to implement their home countries’ safety and health standards to all their subsidiaries worldwide; others still apply different standards that vary from country to country and are adopted to specific rules and conditions inherent to each place where business is held. 

The main tendencies that prevail in the nowadays world is the combination of the increasing use of health and safety management systems unified and identical at all subsidiaries of multinational corporations driven by the increased social pressure and economic globalization on the one hand, and increasing integration of health and safety standards in the business planning and their adaptation to local conditions on the other hand. However, the core question remains the extent of which the home country’s health and safety standards should be adapted to the rules and regulations of the host country and the associated differences in language, perception, cultural difficulties, regulatory policies, acceptable levels of risk relationships and the necessity to take these facets into consideration.

Identical Health and Safety Standards

The unified principles and standards of safety and health in all operations introduced by multinationals in chemical sector and potentially in petroleum one carry a lot of benefits, that are among others the reduced risk of accidents and harmful exposures especially in developing countries, reliance on proved and tested norms that in the long-run mitigate operational risk dramatically, minimized risk to human lives and environment. The usage of identical standards increases the quality of each plant’s operations in several times, avoiding the trap of double standards and contributing to the good reputation of the ethical business conduct. 

Additionally, safety and health standards that are approved in developed countries and implemented in developing ones are supported by strong company’s hierarchy, where the question who bears the responsibility of safety issues is clear and the unified plan of emergency reporting and response drastically reduces lead-time of decision making and delivering information to those who can deal with it in the case of emergency that can eventually prevent the negative consequences. Top-down implication of safety and health rules from headquarters to all local operations limits the risk of applying lax safety standards of host countries and reduces excessive risk of violating home country standards locally and provides adequate protection from the industrial hazards in either petroleum or chemical industry. 

In contrast to numerous benefits the unified safety and health standards can themselves be a subject of risk. The primary risk is associated with the ignorance or violation of the identical rules at places based on the local management decision and their assurance of these rules uselessness rested on the belief that complex home standards can be simplified if afforded by the law. The other risk arises from the poor local infrastructure where some of the standards can’t be applied and supported. But merely the central question is the risk of misunderstanding of these concepts limited by the host country’s people ability to perceive the information and psychological differences.

These features are needed to be considered wisely before single system of standards in health and safety in chemical/petroleum multinationals is used, as the questions of culture, politics and safety laws, even lax and poor, can affect the initiative of identical standards implication. The example is the Union Carbide manuals written in English for its Indian subsidiary, or the necessity to provide additional training for local employees for them to understand the norms correctly otherwise the operational risk of dealing with more sophisticated equipment is not reduced but enhanced. 

From the economic perspective, the implication of identical standards can significantly reduce transaction and installation costs if the system is well-designed and was previously introduced by the company in other subsidiaries but only under the conditions that the subsidiary in question enjoys the same infrastructure to support and maintain new technical safety which is highly doubtful in developing countries otherwise necessary supplementary equipment or plant modifications will increase the capital costs that is negative for companies which transfer their operations to countries with lower economic development to gain the cost advantage.

Adaptation of Health and Safety Standards

Adapted to the conditions, rules and regulations standards conceal far greater operational risk as the costs of people or process losses and the physical damage to assets as the result of the lowered safety exceed the costs of additional expenses in the case of unified standards. Obviously, lower standards of workers and environmental protection provide only short-term savings, higher sickness rates, increased employee turnover, risk of defects and higher overall operational risk due to the abdicated norms, such as storage time, workers training and inadequate personnel safety gear. A great diversity of risks is faced by the management of a petroleum company that is running its operations based on the poor safety conditions dealing with ultra-hazardous and toxic materials, pollutants, fuel and other dangerous chemicals: risk of system failure, risk of accidents and higher rate of capital at risk. Simultaneously, such a company with lax safety issues if affected by the accident will suffer more from lawsuits and compensations, blamed for discrimination that can negatively influence the overall reputation. 

However, sometimes it’s difficult to conduct business in a particular country with your own standards for safety and protection because of the natural limitations. So when adapting these standards to each operational environment a company receives advantages of a more responsive system designed to operate in local circumstances and adapted to cultural and political differences, cost savings due to reduced environmental taxes and minimal requirements for occupational safety, local management responsibility for operational safety that requires the headquarters to provide only general corporate strategy and less people in subordination chain.

Chemical and petroleum companies in this case reduce the installation and operational costs but in the long run carry higher risk of incidents, environmental pollution, fines (if provided by legislation) and a higher rate of conducted repairs and equipment testing. 

Summarizing, after looking at the tragic experience of chemical companies that have ignored high safety and health standards of their home nations and were operating under lax and minimized requirements, suffered losses and the need of business termination as a result of accidents during the last decades petroleum multinational companies are, firstly, aware of the probable consequences of each approach, and, secondly, bear the moral responsibility to the society and environment. Evidently, higher safety and health standards will reduce operational risk and in the long run contribute to the profitability – the main aim of any organization.