Moral leadership and strategic blindness in The Bridge on the River Kwai

Moral Leadership in the Bridge on River Kwai Leadership is an important element that influences the success of organizations, teams, or groups of people. The effect felt depends on the style adopted by those in power and their relationship with their juniors. Various movies have been produced with the aim of depicting the different leadership approaches, characteristics, and styles as seen from the case of “The Bridge on the River Kwai” where moral leadership is emphasized. The 1957 British-American draws its ideas largely on Pierre Boulle’s eponymous novel written in 1952. The two main characters in these films Colonel Nicholson and Colonel Saïto can be easily contrasted. What Are the Issues and why is This Moral Agent Noteworthy? The most important moral leadership lesson that can be drawn from the movie is that the results will be catastrophic when a leader focuses on implementation rather than the strategy. Good leaders are never boastful or loud people; normally they are calm and swift talkers. Moreover, a good leader can deal with various pressures and has the courage and strength to make decisions and guide the team in crises (Bennis & Goldsmith, 2010). Moreover, a good leader motivates and influences his followers to deliver their best even during challenging times. Successful leaders have played the role of a manager, a strategist, an executor and a negotiator. They often try to maintain equilibrium between these varying roles. As Bennis and Goldsmith (2010) point out, a good leader should not hesitate to ask questions to his followers. Such questions may include where we are going ways of achieving what we want. In the movie, Colonel Nicholson is depicted as an organized, controlled, and results-oriented leader. However, the traits do not extend to the point when he jumps on the dynamite while seeking to rescue the bridge and his pride. He uses the head and hand coordination to perfection. In this case, the head symbolizes his intellectual capability while the hand represents the experienced gained through the years of leading the British Empire. He displays the unique leadership qualities by concentrating on his followers, influencing, inspiring and motivating them as well as creating a vision and setting the direction for his team (Bennis & Goldsmith, 2010). Colonel Nicholson was able to lead his team to complete the mammoth task of constructing the bridge within the scheduled period. However, he had too much pride, which made him oblivious to the outcome, and throughout the project, he forgot the primary goal of the project. He could not differentiate whether the project was intended for his achievement or the betterment of the wider society. On the one hand, by successfully building the bridge, he uplifted the mood of his team from the feeling of being prisoners. However, on the other hand, he strengthened the enemy’s supply chain and hence from a strategic perspective, he developed a catastrophic result. Applying Aristotle’s theory of wisdom to Nicholson’s character would generate some fascinating insights. The theory of wisdom can be classified as practical and theoretical wisdom. It is important for a leader to possess both practical and theoretical wisdom. As explained by Aristotle (1869), theoretical wisdom is all about the scientific knowledge of things. It focuses on an individual’s knowledge and assumes a great part in a leader’s success. Colonel Nicholson had a rich experience and was knowledgeable, and he could not be questioned about his ability to lead a project of such a magnitude under drastic circumstances and tremendous pressure. However, from an Aristotelian perspective, one would ask if the goal, which was attained, was just and if Nicholson’s leadership can be categorized as moral. We can apply the Explicit and Tacit knowledge theory to answer these questions. Certain leaders tend to depend on explicit knowledge because it is quantifiable and measurable (Aristotle, 1869). However, this approach is problematic because it does not allow such leaders to accept change. This approach holds the assumption that the world is independent of context and hence it seeks answers, which are predictive and universal. Nevertheless, each situation depends on a particular context, and it would be meaningless to analyze them unless one considers people’s interests, goals, and values together with the power relationships among them. At this point, Aristotle’s practical wisdom theory becomes highly relevant. As explained by Aristotle, practical wisdom refers to the reasoned and true state of capacity to act regarding the things, which are bad or good for humanity (Aristotle, 1869). While practical wisdom relies on theoretical wisdom to function because a person must possess sufficient knowledge of bad and good, it further adds the capacity to act on such knowledge. Although Colonel Nicholson was strong regarding the theoretical wisdom, he was weak on practical wisdom. His strategy for building the bridge for the enemy was miscalculated because pride and prejudice governed his reasons. Practical wisdom enables a leader to decide in a certain situation (Walt, 2005). It does not only call for one to understand the situation but also to act appropriately on it. The primary focus of practical wisdom is on three major insights. The first relates to the indulgence of moral virtue which is the quality of avoiding what is wrong and doing what is right (Bennis & Goldsmith, 2010). This is followed by an understanding of what is good or bad an later, the capacity to act depending on the prevailing circumstances. The concept of practical wisdom holds that cannot tell whether a kettle is cold or hot unless he/she touches it. In the same manner, it is impossible for one to be taught practical wisdom; it is only acquired through life experiences. Hollinger (2002) has discussed the concept of choosing the good. He specifically focuses on Christian ethics in a complex world. Hollinger highlights that goal obsession is one of the greatest moral challenges facing successful and smart leaders. I believe Colonel Nicholson demonstrated nearly all the qualities of an outstanding leader except one; he over-prioritized his goal of building the bridge over his mission of winning the war and exemplified his goal obsession. For instance, Colonel Nicholson was focused on proving that he was right that he forgot to listen and to learn (Hollinger, 2002). At the end of the movie, his final words were “what have I done.” This suggests that if leaders are not careful, they may become so obsessed with attaining their goals such even when they are on their death beds, they will be like “what have I done.” Therefore, the practical knowledge of what is right and what is wrong is the starting point of any successful moral leadership. Moral leadership is important for some reasons. Firstly, it empowers leaders with the knowledge to empower their juniors on realizing the seemingly unachievable goals (Lebacqz, 1986). Therefore, morality guides leaders to formulate strategies fostering the realization of the set goals while ensuring that everyone benefits. This would be the single greatest achievement of any moral leader. Secondly, moral leadership is noteworthy it allows leaders to afford their followers a sense of self-respect and pride (Franklin, 1990). This derives partly from the feeling of belonging as experienced by the followers. When people feel as if their leader is treating beneficially, they are likely to repay by making significant contributions and taking challenging tasks. Leaders can make their followers feel respected as human beings. They can be trusted as individuals or groups who can make the team to achieve the intended goals. Therefore, good leaders make their followers feel valued as people. However, the concept differs with general empowerment but empowerment at an individual level (Lebacqz, 1986). How Art or ‘Alternative Texts’ Illustrate and Highlight Moral Leadership The storyline centers on a bridge that was constructed by British war prisoners in 1942-1943. This bridge was made of steel pans on concrete pillars. This was the only steel bridge constructed by the Japanese in Thailand, and the materials were sourced from Java. The bridge gained massive fame because of the film. Drawing largely from Pierre Boulle’s French novel of 1952, the film features a British POW commander Captain Nicholson who prides himself in British technical expertise such that he collaborates with the Japanese commander Saito to construct a towering wooden bridge. At some point, an allied commando mission tries to sabotage the construction mission, but Captain Nicholson foils their attempt. Finally, there is a shootout between the commando and the Japanese where Captain Nicholson is wounded, and the bridge finally is destroyed. It collapses on top of the detonator and brings the train crossing it down, both crashing into the river. The bridge symbolizes moral leadership in numerous ways. First, it represents Captain Nicholson’s perseverance even during the most challenging times. He sticks to his principles and stops his officers from working. After being released, he is dedicated to building the best bridge possible. Finally, his hard work pays off when his men eventually finish constructing the bridge. Moreover, the bridge in the movie symbolizes the steel bridge at Kanchanaburi. In fact, during the Second World War, no bridges were constructed across the River Kwai. Due to its relevance to the steel bridge at Kanchanaburi, various tourists have been flocking to Thailand to search for the bridge. As such, in 1960, Kanchanaburi town changed the name of the Mae Klong River near the bridge to Kwae Yai, meaning greater tributary. In the movie, the POWs whistled a tune that is today played buskers on the bridge. During the Second World War, there was a second bridge located one hundred meters downstream. The wooden bridge carried light rail trucks ferrying building materials to the site where the bridge was being built. Today, the bridge has become a hub of intense commercial activity and a major tourist attraction. Locomotives and memorials to the war continue to sit amongst market stalls selling wartime photos, trivia, mementos, souvenirs, jewelry, and clothing. Tourists ride or take toy trains for a shorter ride across the bridge and back. As such, the war memory has become commodified. Every November, there is a main sound and light show to commemorate the bridge’s bombing in 1944-45. This symbolizes that the bridge has exploded again but in fireworks this time accompanied by a steam train crossing the bridge hooting in an electrifying manner into the night. The bridge’s bombing also represented in the graphic dioramas and murals in the Second World War and the JEATH museum located just next to the bridge. According to Press (2013), Hollywood has tried to use art or ‘alternative texts’ to illustrate and highlight moral leadership. Concerning the movie, Colonel Saito is portrayed as a clueless Japanese leader. Captain Nicholson realizes that he could lead a team to construct a bridge, which could last for at least 600 years. He is blinded by his goal of defeating the Japanese by obtaining notoriety through constructing the bridge and gaining some fame like McConnell/Boehner had done with capitulation to the Dems. In contrast, Shears (Cruz/Palin) is determined and bound to bring down the bridge block Japanese troop trains from progressing and taking over. As such, he battles to achieve his goal despite obstacles being thrown in his way. Finally, Shears reaches the bridge and sets the charges, which destroy the bridge together with the oncoming troop train. Although Captain Nicholson discovered the explosives, Shears confronts him and informs him about his mission. Later, Captain Nicholson realizes that his legacy will soon be taken away and he screams to Saito for assistance. What ensues is a fight that leads to the death of both Shears and Saito. Now, Captain Nicholson has an epiphany because he has just helped the enemy and thus he collapses on the plunger, which blows up the bridge and sends the troop train into the river, and the troop train symbolizes socialism. In the movie version, the Japanese were defeated. However, in the novel version, the bridge did not blow up. It would have been interesting to see a successful conclusion to stop the oncoming train of socialism. However, with traitors such as Boehner and McConnell interested only in their legacy, things become worse, and their legacy symbolizes Iraq’s Saddam Hussein statues. Overall, the Bridge on River Kwai epitomizes the role of moral leadership in shaping how those in authority can influence the juniors towards success. This can be seen from the traits shown by Colonel Nicholson as he strives to model his troops towards success by being part of the action from the start to finish. Although he was a god leader, he failed in some instances especially on strategizing but that did not make him lose hop in steering his battalion and the Japanese to success.