- Published: October 31, 2021
- Updated: October 31, 2021
- University / College: Queensland University of Technology (QUT)
- Level: Bachelor's Degree
- Language: English
- Downloads: 12
Team Case Study How did the two leaders negotiating style change/evolve as the film progressed? Two leaders, the colonel Saito and colonel Nicholsonwere changing their negotiation styles during the whole story. Their styles illustrated the evolution of the conflict in the context of the Stage III intentions, whereas “intentions intervene people’s perceptions and emotions and their overt behavior” (218). The stages of this evolution could be viewed from the perspective of Intentions and describes as following:
This was the initial stage of the two leaders at the beginning of the story, where both colonels were seeking “to satisfy their own interests regardless of the impact on their parties in the conflict” (219). The most prominent scenes where the episodes when the colonel Nicholson was ready to die and scarify the lives of the British officers to state his position about Geneva Convention, article 27 which stated that the officers shall not be forced to work. Even after his has been sent to the punishment cell, the colonel Nicholson was sure that only one person can win and he should not go for comprise even though the officers and soldiers would have better conditions.
The colonel Saito has managed to avoid a conflict when the colonel Nicholson offered a new plan of the bridge construction. By saying that the commands have been already given in response to Nicholson’s’ new plan, Saito has shown an intention to “ignore a conflict” (219).
The first bit of this stage took place when the colonel Saito invited Nicholson for a dinner in order to negotiate the way of cooperation so that he could achieve the goal set. This stage implies that “there is no clear winner or loser” (219). When both colonels understood that building of the bridge did have certain benefits to both parties, they have accepted the solution that “provided incomplete satisfaction of both parties’ concerns” (219). Both parties have lost something: the colonel Nicolson – his ideology and officer’s duty, where the colonel Seito – his leadership, authority, and control over the bridge construction process.
Collaborating stage took place on the moment when construction of the bridge was over and the colonel Nicholson has found a mine around the bridge. Both parties where interested in the final result – railroad path through the bridge as lots of efforts have been put to achieve this goal. Both Nicholson and Seito went together down to the river to find the problem and secure the bridge.
How did their leadership style, source of power, personality, or culture affect their approach to negotiating? (Integrative vs. distributive)
Based on the film scenes it is possible to state that both leaders Saito and Nicholson have absolutely different leadership and negotiation styles. While Saito had absolutely dictatorship style at the beginning of the story, due to his Japanese nationality and culture it has been revealed that his personality was different and weaker than the personality of Nicholson. The colonel Saito has demonstrated distributive approach whereas only one party could win. The colonel Nicolson, on the contrary, has shown integrative approach making both parties to win. He has managed to motivate soldiers to work very hard and has set the goal of building a railroad bridge not as a parricide, but as honor of the British officers, their knowledge and their skills.
Chapter 4: Conflicts and negotiations, pp. 219-225