The Bridge on the River Kwai - Essay Example

Teacher The Bridge on the River Kwai In addition to the horror of the war itself, the movie “River Kwai” best illustrate the different kind of leadership through the characters of Colonel Saito and Lt. Colonel Nicholson. Colonel Saito portrayed the typical Japanese officer while Lt. Colonel Nicholson typified the western military leader. These two characters contrasted with each that best illustrates the different kind of leadership. Saito and Nicholson’s leadership style can be typified as transactional and transformational.

Colonel Saito was transactional in his leadership because asserts his leadership through force and breaking of will of his followers and prisoners. Typical example of this is the manner where Colonel Saito addresses his troops that his to be on an elevated platform balking at his troops. Nicholson on the other hand is transformational leadership because he commands respect not through force (he also cannot do it being a POW) but by assertion and reason. The concrete example is his refusal to work in the prison camp citing the Geneva Convention that officers should not be subjected to force labor.

With regard to contingency theories discussed in the text, Saito used to the Leader member Exchange Theory because his leadership rest on his rank, position as somebody who is above its subordinates. He also commands respect by his unalterable code to get things done as exemplified in the case of the completion of River Kwai on the set deadline otherwise he will commit Seppuku for being shamed as a leader. Col. Nicholson on the other hand used the Fiedler Model which states that there is no correct leadership style for all circumstances but depends on the situation.

This is best exemplified when he did not bring his military authority in the camp being a POW and rather meekly asserted as an officer without being overbearing. The sources of power of these two leaders also varied. It is however important to note here that there is cultural differences between those two leaders that reflected on how they exercise their leadership. For example, Colonel Saito’s authoritative bearing which is typical among Asians be it in the military, business or even family (particularly in the case of Saito was a former Samurai) is contrasted with the more relax, egalitarian nature of the British and Americans.

Colonel Saito had to emphasize his rank, even his physical position (he has to be on somewhere elevated in addressing people) while Nicholson casually gives his first name when he is asked who he is. This is translated to source of power where Saito derives his authority from formal hierarchy while Nicholson derives his power from his amiable interpersonal skill of dealing with people. In short, Saito’s power comes from a formal structure while Nicholson becomes powerful because people like and respect him.

The values and ethics of these two leaders are driven by terminal and instrumental values. Saito’s values came from the code of Bushido which is unalterably terminal and is based on honor system. Nicholson on the other hand derives his values from military code and other governing bodies of the war evident when he cited the Geneva Convention to refuse labor.