I was watching The Last Samurai last Sun with my younger brother, enjoying some bonding time with him. Truth be told, the movie is one of Tom Cruise’s best movies, not because of his acting skills but also because of the storyline:
“Set in Japan during the 1870s, The Last Samurai tells the story of Capt. Nathan Algren (Tom Cruise), a respected American military officer hired by the Emperor of Japan to train the country’s first army in the art of modern warfare. As the Emperor attempts to eradicate the ancient Imperial Samurai warriors in preparation for more Westernized and trade-friendly government policies, Algren finds himself unexpectedly impressed and influenced by his encounters with the Samurai, which places him at the center of a struggle between two eras and two worlds, with only his own sense of honor to guide him.”
The main takeaway from the Last Samurai was how the different groups of Japanese reacted to change, i.e. the ‘powers of the Westernised’ world). The way change was managed and perceived by the imperial Omura cabinet and opposed strongly by the traditionalist Samurai led by Katsumoto. The tussle was perfectly manifested in a scene whereby Katsumoto’s brother’s samurai knot was cruelly cut off and his samurai sword seized.
In forcing “Westernisation” into Japan, Omura was relentless and willing to kill thousands of highly-skilled samurais to pursue his aim. Katsumoto was just as relentless and willing to kill just as many Japanese soldiers trained by Western military advisors to pursue his aim. In retrospect, was there a huge difference between the two? Both were fighting for what both believed would make a better Japan. How could the imminent change been better managed by the Japanese, in this case, the Emperor?
With the natural inclination of people to resist change, how can the modern leader better manage change in his country/organisation/team? Dr Maxell describes the leader as the agent for change (“Developing the Leader Within you“). In his book, he explains the importance of creating a climate of change for the people/organisation. He goes on to describe the methods a leader can implement to smoothen change in his team., including making the people take ownership of the change. What struck me the most is that he makes the assumption that the change to be introduced must always be for the people and not the leader. How many times has change been implemented for the good of the few leaders in the organisation and not for the people? Some govt agencies will beg to differ, but if the majority of the changes implemented are for the top, I firmly believe, the organisation will start to see good pple and influencers leaving, feeling dejected and unmotivated.
If the Emperor had Dr Maxwell instead of Tom Cruise as his military advisor, events would have turned out very differently. Perhaps more innocent lives would have been spared and Japan’s modernisation could have been more robust. One can only speculate…..
