Informed i’s Weekly Business Insights
Extractive summaries and key takeaways from the articles carefully curated from TOP TEN BUSINESS MAGAZINES to promote informed business decision-making | Since 2017 | Week 422, covering October 10-16, 2025 | Archive
Why Lessons From 1962’s Cuban Missile Crisis Are Still Relevant Today
By Edward Segal | Forbes | October 15, 2025
Extractive Summary of the Article | Listen
3 key takeaways from the article
- The Cuban missile crisis remains one of history’s clearest lessons in crisis management. “Sixty-three years on, its relevance has hardly faded as an indicator of the danger of acting on implicit biases. Bluntly, the takeaways are don’t run off half cocked, question your assumptions, and really understand your opponent.
- More than six decades later, Kennedy’s response to the Cuban Missile Crisis is still a blueprint for managing uncertainty and risk. Whether in geopolitics or business, knowing when and how to question assumptions, verify intelligence, and act with restraint can mean the difference between escalating a crisis and resolving it. Today’s business and elected leaders who remember those lessons will be prepared for when—not if—the next crisis strikes.
- Business leaders who are responding to a crisis can learn as much from the nearly two-week tense confrontation as military strategists and politicians. “The dynamics of incomplete information, conflicting pressures, and the need to make high-stakes decisions under uncertainty apply just as much in boardrooms as in war rooms,” Tsuckerman pointed out.
(Copyright lies with the publisher)
Topics: Leadership, Negotiation Skills, Crisis Management
Click to see the extractive summary of the articleSixty-three years after the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, the lessons it offers about leadership, communication, and restraint are still essential for today’s business executives.
The 13-day confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union that began on October 16, 1962 is a masterclass in how to make decisions under extreme pressure when faced with incomplete and inaccurate information. The proliferation of nuclear weapons, combined with the rise of misinformation, disinformation, and AI, and underscores the continued and timely relevance of those lessons.
The crisis and the events that led to its conclusion underscore the risks of relying on incomplete, misleading, and unverified intelligence about crisis situations. “American officials initially overestimated Soviet capabilities and intentions, while Moscow miscalculated Washington’s threshold for risk. Both sides operated with blind spots, and their leaders were forced to act quickly on fragmentary information. The result was an escalation that neither side initially sought. The implication for modern policymakers is that intelligence failures are inevitable, but the ability to cross-check, question assumptions, and remain adaptable determines whether such failures lead to catastrophe or are contained.
What is now a moment in history posed at the time the potential for deadly and grave consequences. While few leaders will ever face the threat of nuclear war, all leaders can learn important lessons from this crisis.
President John F. Kennedy knew how to act and communicate during the crisis, according to Bell. He demonstrated “an exceptional ability to communicate clearly, calmly, and morally. Most importantly, he relied on a framework for moral decision-making. The model is based on these four factors:
- Constraints. “Do considerations of dignity, respect, rights, or justice require us to act in a certain way? JFK grounded his decisions in the facts provided by intelligence, while respecting the rights and dignity of both U.S. citizens and the people of Cuba. Humanity remained at the center of his considerations.”
- Consequences. “What course of action will lead to the best outcome for everyone? [Kennedy] weighed both the short- and long-term consequences of action and inaction, evaluating who would be affected, how they would be affected, and the likelihood of each potential outcome.”
- Special Obligations. “Does this situation place you under an obligation others might not have? As leader of the free world, Kennedy bore a unique obligation to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution, USA’s citizens, and the principles of freedom itself.”
- Character. “How will your intended action shape your character—and that of those you lead? JFK considered not only how his decision would reflect his own character but also how it would define the moral character of USA as a nation.”
The episode also underscored the importance of carefully measured and calculated restraint, and resisting the temptation to lash out and act impulsively. “The U.S. imposed a naval blockade rather than [conduct] an immediate military strike, which allowed time for negotiation and avoided an irreversible escalation. That choice reflected an appreciation of proportionality and of leaving adversaries a path to retreat without humiliation. Modern conflicts often lack that patience, with rapid escalation framed as deterrence. Yet the Cuban case shows that proportional measures, combined with visible readiness to escalate further, create the balance needed to compel concessions without triggering uncontrollable war.
show less
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.