What does a WWII movie made in 1957 have to do with leadership challenges today? Grab the DVD and a few friends, and discover (or more probably re-discover) the amazing lessons of this paradoxical drama, based on historical events, that shine through time and cross many boundaries of conventional thought.
If you haven’t seen the movie the basic premise is a British outfit is captured and taken to a Japanese prison camp in southern Burma. Their fearless leader, the British Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guiness) is pitted against Japanese Camp Commander, Colonel Saito. The movie opens with the captured men marching into camp whistling the Colonel Bogey march. The tune has come to be synonymous with courage and esprit de corps and if you were at a pops concert this past July 4th (as was I) you probably whistled it.
From the first encounter, Colonel Nicholson and Colonel Saito face off in a clash of culture. Colonel Saito views the other Commander as a coward for allowing his troops to surrender, but he quickly learns he underestimated the mental toughness of his opposition when the British commander refuses the order for his officers to engage in manual work alongside the other men in a bridge construction project.
Colonel Nicholson cites the Geneva Convention rules and refuses to compromise even at great risk to his own life and that of his officers. When Colonel Saito capitulates in toto, Colonel Nicholson embarks on an ingenious plan to motivate his men by employing his officers to direct his men in building the finest bridge their Japanese counterparts could possibly imagine.
First lesson; the Geneva Convention rules were created to set boundaries for ethical behavior in war time situations. They gave Colonel Nicholson credibility and authority and established him as a leader while the ignorance or disregard for the rules diminished the leadership capacity of Colonel Saito. What relevance do these rules have today given recent events in Guantanamo and can analogies be made to other global concerns where ethical guidelines are absent?
Second lesson; Colonel Nicholson began with a clear mission and vision for his troops, but also conveyed strong values to undergird his leadership. As the project unfolded, he became over identified with the project to the point that he lost sight of strategic advantages or disadvantages of the bridge in a wartime operation. In essence, like a lover, he fell so in love with his project, he lost his head, the consequences of which define the ending of the movie. What were the signs that he lost his way and how might this development have had different outcomes?
Third lesson: Colonel Saito portrays a ruthless commander at the outset, but when he relinquishes power to his opposition, in order to get his bridge completed, he falls under a spell of malaise fueled with jealousy of his opponent’s success and especially the loyalty and respect he receives from his men. Did Colonel Saito demonstrate leadership in a) relinquishing power and b) bolstering Colonel Nicholson’s efforts? What cultural differences in understanding about leadership existed between the men?
This movie is littered with great characters and insights into human nature which can be discussed and debated from numerous perspectives.
What lessons and insights can be added to this list?
Twitter