Bay of pigs failure

Bay of Pigs Failure
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Abstract
Cognitive bias occurs when a person makes an error in thinking which affects his or her judgment or a decision. This paper focuses on groupthink which is one of the many cognitive biases that researchers have established. Groupthink occurs in incidences when a group’s primary interest is to make decisions to maintain or restore harmony or coherence rather than conduct a critical evaluation of the decision. This paper discusses the Bay of Pigs invasion as an example of a faulty decision that was made in the US history as a result of groupthink. President Kennedy’s advisors allowed him to approve a defective plan due to fear of causing disharmony in the group. Groupthink was also as a result of cognitive consistency, unanimity, and over-optimism. The section of the paper identifies six ways groupthink could have been avoided which include the adoption of debates, the group having the confidence to stand for the truth, the elimination of cognitive consistency, the adoption of multiple approaches, consideration of alternative plans of actions, and the minimization of misperceptions in the team. The last section of the paper is a personal experience of groupthink and the various ways I could have avoided the mental floss.

Bay of Pigs Failure
Question A
The major cognitive bias present in the Bay of Pigs Failure was groupthink. Such a cognitive bias is one of the many challenges that face individuals who participate in the establishment and execution of policies.

Groupthink led to this disaster because President Kennedy’s key advisors were unable to question his bad ideas as they thought it would destabilize the group consensus within his administration. For instance, Arthur Schlesinger, one of the president’s top advisors, expressed his doubts to the president via a memorandum but never spoke up during group meetings (Wright, 2003). Schlesinger’s approach was similar to other advisors, who held the assumption that everyone supported the invasion plan. Schlesinger even later revealed that he felt terrible for staying silent during group meetings when he could have challenged some of the ideas and helped avoid this catastrophe (Wright, 2003). Therefore, due to groupthink, Schlesinger was one of the president’s advisors who welcomed the flawed plan, without criticizing it and chose to remain silent, when he could have spoken up.
Similarly, groupthink existed during this catastrophe because of cognitive consistency. Cognitive consistency was present in numerous red flags, which challenged the opinions of the president’s team of advisors. For example, some team members pointed out various inadequacies in the plan’s logistics, but they still ended up approving them (Beckner, 2012). In particular, the Joint Chiefs assessed and identified some flaws in the plan, but always gave it a clean bill of health. Further, cognitive consistency was present as the US administration ignored some valuable information, which could have helped avert the disaster. For instance, President Kennedy and his team failed to acknowledge the level of support Castro had in Cuba, the geographic constraints of the plan, as well as the fact that the US was yet to conduct a successful night raid (Beckner, 2012). The president’s team ignored all these red flags as they aimed to maintain some consistency in their minds. Consequently, there was no room for an individual and careful reassessment.
Groupthink was also evident in the Bay of Pigs disaster due to unanimity, particularly in the voting process to determine the invasion plan and the change of location of the plan. For example, President Kennedy’s advisors unanimously voted when he required them to choose either yes or no to support or oppose the invasion (Beckner, 2012). The president and his team’s voting approach discouraged any meaningful discussion from taking place, which might have prevented this disaster.
Another sign of groupthink was over-optimism within the team that organized this ruined invasion. This group was so optimistic that it had no contingency plan in case the attack failed when in a real sense, the project had a 50% probability of success. For example, after it became clear that the air strikes caused less damage than expected, the decision makers still chose to modify the plan and as a result, canceled additional air strikes (Beckner, 2012). This result indicated that the president’s team was overoptimistic, considering that the invasion depended on the destruction of Cuba’s air force before the troops could begin entering. Additionally, over-optimism was evident as the decision makers had never considered an escape plan. In other words, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) realized that the brigade in Cuba had no escape options after President Kennedy ordered their withdrawal (Beckner, 2012). This over-optimism led to the capture and death of the US brigade members.
Question B
Avoiding such a cognitive bias is difficult since it is not only pervasive but also detrimental to the US government’s decision-making as it is evident in the Bay of Pigs failure. However, the US administration could have employed some strategies to help eradicate it. Firstly, President Kennedy should have changed his group decision-making approach to create room for debate and dissent. For instance, the president could have included individuals of different backgrounds to minimize chances of groupthink or created a platform that gave members a voice to air their concerns (Beckner, 2012). Such a technique could have avoided this massive failure since it later helped the United States prevent a major nuclear war with Cuba and other nations (Wright, 2003). Furthermore, this approach would have avoided blind conformity and encouraged constructive discussions. Secondly, President Kennedy’s advisors should have stood for what they thought was right, irrespective of the implications (Wright, 2003). Case in point, Arthur Schlesinger, as one of the president’s advisors, should have expressed his thoughts in front of the president and his colleagues. By doing so, other advisors may have considered his ideas and most probably changed their approach. Moreover, the president’s team should have been more courageous and be committed to integrity to defeat the need for consensus, which encourages groupthink.
Thirdly, President Kennedy’s team should have focused on eliminating cognitive consistency, by carefully examining the red flags and developing mechanisms to avoid them. For example, President Kennedy’s administration could have employed systematic fact-finding and careful assessment, resulting in a positive outcome (Beckner, 2012). Fourthly, President Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs invasion plan could not have been a failure if the team had considered the adoption of multiple strategies as a way of finding a satisfactory course of action (Beckner, 2012). In this case, the primary interest of Kennedy’s advisors was to drive for consensus rather than evaluate the effectiveness of the invasion plan that had been put in place. It is for this reason that the team missed crucial information that they could have discussed and identified as a contingency plan. Hence, the invasion failure could have been avoided if the planning team had focused more on planning for the invasion rather than having the pressure to agree as a team. For instance, the president could have chosen several plans of actions to reduce the possible incidences of failure or complications.
Fifthly, decision-makers should have been wise enough to consider the adoption of alternative actions by brainstorming on the existence of other possibilities that could increase chances of succeeding in the invasion (Beckner, 2012). This strategy could have saved the President and his team a lot of embarrassments since individuals who make decisions quickly without evaluating other possible alternatives often register adverse outcomes. President Kennedy’s team had adequate time to think carefully about their main plan and assess the feasibility of different plans of actions, but they all believed the selected strategy was the best.
Lastly, the Bay of Pigs could have succeeded if only the team minimized misperceptions (Beckner, 2012). In this case, President Kennedy failed to communicate the expectations of each member in the group since he thought they were aware of their roles and responsibilities (Zelikow, 2000). It was also clear that the Central Intelligence Agency worked in isolation to keep the plan a secret. However, the group could have succeeded in its plan if it had sought the opinion of other states.
Question C
I remember a scene in my life where I made an irrational decision due to the groupthink effect. We had just finished high school, and I was very excited to experience some degree of freedom unlike in the past when was under the supervision of my parents. Having made several friends in high school, we formed a group of 5 individuals with the intention of touring some of the captivating sites in the country. As a group, we all agreed to set a target of the amount of money we perceived to be adequate for the trip. The first two target proposals were vehemently opposed by a majority of the group members because they were high yet we did not have a stable income. We were also against the idea of asking for money from our parents since it would show that we were still dependent yet we aimed to be independent. The subsequent proposals were accompanied with brief research not to get the actual figures but to support the common goal of touring the country. As time passed and our deadline approached, we decided to settle on a decision to contribute a much lesser amount of money than we had earlier on planned since we did not want any member to withdraw from the team. The money agreed upon was, therefore, based on the fact that every member was willing to contribute the amount and we also believed that it was enough for the three-day trip that we had planned. After getting my parent’s approval, I waited for the weekend to arrive and packed a few belongings that could be useful for the trip with a lot of excitement. When the much anticipated day came, we were excited to start our journey. Our first destination was New York where we had planned to visit the Statue of Liberty then afterward to Long Beach and wind up the weekend by attending at least two of our favorite concerts.
Unfortunately, our plans did not unfold as we expected due to money shortage. Everything was more costly than we had anticipated and we did not even manage to attend the concerts that we had been waiting for with a lot of enthusiasm. It was even more embarrassing for me since I had no other option but to ask transport from my parents whom I had assured that we were well prepared for the trip. All my friends could not understand what could have made the plan fail even after we had tried to ensure the money we had gathered was enough for the trip.
However, I now understand that our trip was not as successful as we had anticipated due to the groupthink phenomenon. The biggest mistake that I made was failing to include my parents in the plan. They would have advised my friends and I accordingly on how we should have budgeted the money we had contributed to the trip. They would also have given us an insight on the things that we should have avoided doing on our trip to avoid a financial shortage. The other mistake that I made was to agree with everyone’s decision for the sake of cohesion. It would have been unfair but a wise decision to stick to a higher target for our contribution without the fear of one of my friends being left out.
References
BIBLIOGRAPHY Beckner, L. R. (2012). Decision-Making during National Security Crisis: The Case of the JFK Administration. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Wright, R. (2003, May 27). JFK’s Legacy and Groupthink. Retrieved from Probe for answers: https://probe.org/jfk-and-groupthink-lessons-in-decision-making/
Zelikow, P. (2000). American Policy and Cuba, 1961-1963. Diplomatic History, 24(2), 317.