Inquiry vs. Advocacy Mindsets: Lessons from JFK

Dec 11

TL;DR: Inquiry mindset often leads to better decisions by fostering collaboration and critical thinking, but advocacy mindset has its place in urgent or well-defined situations.

Previously: Making Better Decisions: Myths, Mindset, and Method

Intro

Decision-making is one of the most challenging skills to master. It’s easy to fall into familiar patterns, especially when working in high-stakes environments. Recently, I came across a concept in a Harvard executive education course that deeply resonated with me: the distinction between advocacy and inquiry. These two approaches to decision-making can lead to dramatically different outcomes, especially in group settings.

Advocacy involves arguing for a position, often defending it at all costs. Inquiry, by contrast, seeks to explore, question, and refine ideas collaboratively. Both approaches have their place, but too often, organizations default to advocacy. The results can be disastrous—or, in some cases, incredibly effective.

To understand these dynamics, let’s examine two historical moments involving President John F. Kennedy: the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis. These events illustrate when advocacy falls short, when inquiry prevails, and when advocacy can also shine.

Advocacy: The Bay of Pigs Fiasco

In 1961, President Kennedy and his advisors faced a decision about whether to approve a CIA-led invasion of Cuba to overthrow Fidel Castro. The operation, later known as the Bay of Pigs, ended in failure. The Cuban population didn’t rise up as expected, and the U.S. was left humiliated on the world stage.

Why did such a flawed plan proceed? The group’s decision-making process was dominated by advocacy. Advisors who supported the invasion focused on persuading others rather than critically evaluating the plan. Key weaknesses, such as the lack of local support in Cuba and the logistical challenges of the operation, were downplayed or ignored.

Opposing viewpoints were silenced, as dissenting advisors feared appearing disloyal or out of step with the administration. Instead of fostering rigorous debate, the group prioritized consensus, creating an echo chamber where flawed assumptions went unchallenged.

For JFK, the Bay of Pigs was a turning point. Reflecting on the disaster, he later admitted, “I took advice from experts...and none of them were right.” The experience taught him the dangers of advocacy-dominated decision-making and pushed him to rethink how he approached critical decisions.

Inquiry: Navigating the Cuban Missile Crisis

Just a year later, JFK faced an even graver challenge: the Cuban Missile Crisis. In October 1962, U.S. reconnaissance planes discovered Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. The stakes couldn’t have been higher—any misstep could escalate into nuclear war.

This time, JFK approached the crisis differently. Drawing on the lessons of the Bay of Pigs, he fostered a decision-making environment rooted in inquiry. He assembled a group of advisors, known as the Executive Committee (ExComm), and encouraged open debate and critical thinking.

The group rigorously tested assumptions, explored multiple options, and valued dissenting opinions. Some advisors advocated for an immediate military strike, while others proposed a naval blockade or diplomatic negotiations. Crucially, minority viewpoints were not dismissed—they were actively discussed, helping the group weigh the risks and benefits of each approach.

JFK himself played a pivotal role in modeling inquiry. Rather than dictating decisions, he asked questions, sought out diverse perspectives, and ensured that all ideas were thoroughly vetted. The result was a balanced and thoughtful response: the U.S. implemented a naval blockade and pursued backchannel negotiations with the Soviet Union, ultimately resolving the crisis peacefully.

When Advocacy Works: The Right Scenarios

While the Bay of Pigs highlights the pitfalls of advocacy, it’s important to note that advocacy has its place—when applied in the right context. In some situations, a strong advocacy approach can drive decisive action and clarity.

Crisis Response with Limited Time
Advocacy is well-suited for emergencies where swift, decisive action is critical. For instance, during natural disasters or immediate operational crises, decision-makers may need to argue for a single course of action and rally support quickly. Debate and inquiry might delay action when every second counts.
Well-Understood Problems
When a situation is familiar, advocacy can streamline decision-making. For example, in a corporate setting, if a marketing team knows that a specific type of campaign consistently delivers results, advocating for a proven approach may be more efficient than revisiting every assumption through inquiry.
Advancing a Bold Vision
Advocacy is powerful when inspiring others to follow a visionary goal. Leaders often need to champion new initiatives, such as launching a transformative product or driving organizational change. In these cases, a persuasive, unwavering stance can galvanize a team and overcome resistance.

Advocacy vs. Inquiry: The Framework

The contrast between these approaches can be summarized in a simple framework:

  
      Aspect
      Advocacy
      Inquiry
    

  
      View of decision-making
      A contest
      Collaborative
problem-solving
    

      Purpose of discussion
      Persuasion
and lobbying
      Testing
and evaluating
assumptions
    

      Participants’ roles
      Spokespeople
defending positions
      Critical thinkers
presenting balanced
arguments
    

      Patterns of behavior
      Downplaying
weaknesses,
striving to persuade
      Remaining open
to alternatives,
accepting constructive
criticism
    

      Minority views
      Discouraged
or dismissed
      Cultivated
and valued
    

      Outcome
      Winners
and losers
      Collective ownership
of decision
    

Both advocacy and inquiry are tools in a leader’s toolbox. The key is knowing when to use each. While advocacy can be effective for driving action and building alignment, inquiry is indispensable for solving complex problems, challenging assumptions, and fostering innovation.

Lessons from JFK for Today’s Leaders

JFK’s leadership during the Cuban Missile Crisis exemplifies how inquiry can transform decision-making. But his experience with the Bay of Pigs also shows how advocacy, unchecked, can derail even the most well-intentioned plans. Together, these events offer valuable insights for modern leaders:

Match the approach to the situation. Use inquiry for complex, high-stakes decisions with many unknowns. Rely on advocacy for well-understood problems or situations requiring urgent action.
Encourage dissent and critical thinking. Even in advocacy-driven contexts, make space for alternative viewpoints to avoid blind spots.
Separate egos from ideas. Whether advocating or inquiring, focus on the quality of the decision, not personal wins.

The Harvard course emphasized that leadership isn’t about always being right—it’s about fostering the conditions for better decision-making. JFK’s ability to adapt his approach from the Bay of Pigs to the Cuban Missile Crisis illustrates this principle perfectly.

Final Thoughts

In decision-making, advocacy seeks to persuade, while inquiry seeks to understand. Advocacy thrives in urgency, clarity, and vision. Inquiry excels in complexity, ambiguity, and collaboration. The challenge for leaders is to recognize which approach the moment calls for—and to wield it wisely.

As JFK’s story reminds us, the right approach can change not only the outcome of a decision but the course of history itself.