The study aims at examining the use of wisdom in strategic decision making, respectively. A good example is a case during the cold war. It happened during the Cuban crisis of 1962 (Peltonen, 2019). The US president at that time, John F. Kennedy, is depicted to have played a very wise and vital role in decision making during the cold war. In between the amplified timidity and security jeopardies over the unearthing of the atomic artilleries in the Island of Cuba, he acted with great wisdom. Many unfolding events came about before the war, respectively, by members of the crisis groups and the leaders. President Kennedy is outlined as putting prejudice aside. At the same time, he tried to comprehend the drives and the qualms of the conflicting side that is within the leader of the Soviet Nikita Khrushchev He read of the historical wars which helped to avoid escalation of the war (Peltonen, 2019). It is logical, therefore, that he avoided using military force and thus went for a better way of solving the issue. Being a leader, he portrayed a moral outlook manifesting a case of philosophical wisdom, respectively.
Type of Leadership Approach used
Kennedy has been depicted as being a peacekeeper and not being egotist’s tic. Kennedy made sure to meet with the characters of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The leaders involved had a sagacity of the Past and were prepared to accommodate each other. Despite their differences and preferences, they made sure they were able to make concessions while being very cautious facing the challenge with courage, flexibility, and humility. Kennedy and the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev resolved to find an approach out short of the battle, respectively (Frame, 2016). It preordained being able to face down their hardliners and being humble. That moral decision of the two leaders played a very vital role during the war. It came about as they realized there was not any better way they would have solved the war. Khrushchev proved to this when he wrote to Kennedy that if both kept holding to their side of the rope, then the war would have broken out disastrously. They, therefore, had to stop pulling.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Both Kennedy and Nikita had learned about history, and it was evident to them as to how missteps and misperceptions would unfold disaster. Kennedy, therefore, decided to side with a blockade that would lead to diplomacy (Abrams, 2017). It meant that he ordered his vessels to retract 300 miles, and this would allow the soviet longer time to reach the line.
I think it was wise for Khrushchev and Kennedy to put aside their overweening pride and false honor, and in return, they helped save the world on a significant aspect. They escaped the trap and decided on peace, and on October 7, 1963, they signed a Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and none of them wanted to win the cold war, but instead, they all wanted to end it( Abrams, 2017). That is a very appealing charact6er of ethical leadership, which I think all leaders ought to consider respectively.
References
Abrams, D. E. (2017). The Cuban Missile Crisis, Historian Barbara W. Tuchman, and the ‘Art of Writing.'
Frame, G. (2016). The Myth of John F. Kennedy in Film and Television. Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 46 (2), 21-34.
Dennett, B. (2016). The nature of the presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, an update part 2: Popular history, a media paradigm. Teaching History , 50 (1), 8.
Davis, A. L. (2018). Faith and the face-off: John F. Kennedy, religion, and averting nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University-Camden Graduate School).
Peltonen, T. (2019). Case Study 1: Wise Leadership During the Cuban Missile Crisis. In Towards Wise Management (pp. 69-102). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
