|
Some decisions are so important that there are checks put in place to ensure
there has been the necessary consideration taken before they are
made. A strategy which involves such decisions needs to be very
well thought out. An extreme example, but one which has been important
to us all, is the following:
 |
Case Study: Vasili Arkhipov - The
Man Who Saved The World
All of us need heroes and here is a story about someone
who in an intolerable situation successfully managed a crisis
which could have engulfed the planet. Remarkably it has
got very little coverage.
On October 27th 1962, at the height of the Cuban missile
crisis, a US warship was enforcing the quarantine of Cuba
by depth charging a Russian submarine. To the Russian Captain,
running out of oxygen and with temperatures on board around
100F and rising, they were under attack and were honour
bound to retaliate regardless of the costs. He ordered that
the nuclear weapons should be armed. Russian naval procedure
required that the captain and two other officers had to
agree to the firing. One second captain agreed, but the
other, Second Captain Vasili Arkhipov, argued that the conditions
for firing had not been reached, the hull had not been damaged
and he succeeded in calming the situation.
The submarine's records are now public and at a Conference
held in Havana on October 13th 2002 on the Cuban Missile
Crisis, 40 years after the event, Robert MacNamara, the
then US Defence Secretary, recognised how much closer to
nuclear war we had been than anyone had imagined.
Amongst the lessons from this are:
- You need robust processes for your strategy which are
clearly understood when working under conditions of great
stress and danger.
- Moral courage to go against the opinions of colleagues,
if necessary, is essential.
- Three heads are better than two in such situations.
- The consequences need to be thought through. The US
attendees at the Conference admitted that they had not
done so thoroughly enough.
Sadly, Vasili Arkhipov died a few years ago, but he deserves
a special place in risk and crisis management and in the
relation of strategy to decision making. |
 |
Who do you discuss the strategy with?
Consider the three questions below in relation to the groups
of people you deal with.
Complete the table below by indicating
YES (a tick) or NO
(no tick) to each of the questions posed on the
right for each group of people on the left. Each
box can be ticked or cleared by repeatedly clicking
it. When you have finished, click on the
Advisor button to find out if there is a lack of
communication. A Warning Symbol will appear where
there is a lack of communication.
Note: If you add or
remove any ticks after clicking
the Advisor button, you will need to click
on the Advisor button again to refresh the Warning
Symbols.
| You require
at least version 6 of FLASH player and have JavaScript
enabled to view interactions on this page. At least
one of these criteria has not been met!
|
|
If you completed this exercise and received no Warning Symbols
then there is likely to be good communication, but remember that
as the strategy changes it will require communicating.
If you received Warning Symbols then consider these three
options:
Option 1: Change the communication
You need to decide whether the problem is just lack of communication
to the target groups or whether the Strategy is poorly articulated
and needs to be re-thought for people to understand it.
Option 2: No change in communication
Recognise that if you are not going to work to change people’s
understanding of strategy then you are going to have to micro-manage
them, because you are not giving them the context in which to make
decisions.
Option 3: Get into the Discussion
Perhaps you are not in the loop when strategy is being discussed
and you should be. Consider the risk the company runs by not keeping
you informed. Explain how an understanding of strategy would help
you increase your contribution to the business.
How should strategy be developed so that strategic risk
factors are better understood and communicated to those who need
to understand?
There are lots of ways to do this, but creating a small risk
committee of 5-6 reliable, knowledgeable people is a good way.
You have now finished Session 2 of the Strategy Module.
|
