Introduction
Saito and Nicholson are two different leaders from different communities with Saito being a British and Nicholson being a Japanese colonel. Even though the two men are similar in many ways like being loving, having pride and being dedicated to what they do, the two colonels are from different cultures which encompass different leadership styles.
Saito
He is a Japanese colonel who believes in commanding people to work despite their ranks. Saito is a transactional leader because he had personal interests in pushing even the officers to work. He knew if the bridge will not be completed in time, he was to kill himself because he was bound by the Samurai code. Saito was a dictator whose aim was to use the prisoners to accomplish his mission so as he preserves his life. Saito was motivated by self preservation and this made him to punish and torture Nicholson and his men because he wanted to control Nicholson, his men, the soldiers and the officers and since he was not able, his cruelty led him to lock them in an oven.
Nicholson
Nicholson was a British colonel who was a transformational leader that understood the strengths and the weaknesses of his men even though he wanted the best from them. He was a strong leader who worked together with his men for he knew they had the potential to do it. Additionally, he was a committed leader whose focus was to complete the task ahead of him without personal interests despite the torture they underwent in the hands of Saito. His motivation was for the love of the country and he instilled motivational values in his men and their hard work motivated him more. Nicholson’s leadership style is the leader member exchange theory for he worked hand in hand with his men in applying his skills and his men’s skills to complete the bridge.
The two leaders shared some personality traits and leadership qualities like believing that they can build and complete the bridge without each others support. The leaders were both devoted to honor their people and their countries. Saito and Nicholson considered the men they led as troops and never saw them as normal human beings like others. They also both used command in dealing with their men. Lastly, they were both bound by a caste system that explains their past and how their future could be after the construction of the bridge was complete. They did not share the same flaw for everyone had his own short comings.
Their values were formed on different factors and their ethics was driven by terminal values for they both wanted to achieve a certain goal which was building and completing the bridge. Nicholson was bound by the duty to honor God, his king and his crown as a colonel. Nicholson belied in idealism and in a strong sense of justice and he was ready to do anything to save his men from Saito’s threats of shooting them with a machine gun. His strength was depicted when he confronted Saito that officers are not allowed to do hard work under the Geneva Convention. Conversely, Saito was bound to an inflexible Samurai code and he was willing even to kill for the soldiers to build the bridge for his life to be saved. He had a debt of fulfilling what his people and king expected of him and the thought that he was to kill himself if the bridge is not completed on time made him crueler to Nicholson and his people.
Both men were determined to accomplish the task ahead of them for their cultures demanded them to do so or else they were to face the consequences. Their cultural differences forced them to make their men work very hard to finish building the bridge. The cultural similarities in the two communities where they came from were that each of them had to perform the task of building and completing the bridge successfully in order to honor their people and country.
