12 Angry Men Organizational Behavior
When a leader walks into a room, the passion of truth should enter with them. Authentic leadership does not emerge out of a vacuum. Convictions are beliefs that hold us in our grip. The movie 12 Angry Men portrays the conviction (not guilty) of juror 8 and his use of visual influencing tactics to impact the unanimous decision of “guilty” of the remaining 11 jurors’.
The 1957 film is set in a jury room with 12 jurors who have different traits, behaviours and view points, and are responsible to decide the fate of an 18-year-old boy who stabbed his father in the chest. The initial part of the movie does not disclose detailed information about the case except for the fact that it was a murder in the first degree, in which case, the death sentence is mandatory. The jurors have heard the facts, the testimonies and the law that applies to this case. Now the jurors must figure out if there is any reasonable doubt to charge the accused as not guilty and if no reasonable doubt, then in good conscience find the accused guilty of his actions. An important aspect of this movie is the use of argumentative theory by juror 8 who uses reasoning to evaluate the sequence of events of the crime to convince the other jurors to revaluate their arguments.
A leader plays and important role in the leadership process. A leader should demonstrate trust, a compelling vision, empathy, determination, consistency & integrity, and should have the potential to influence their followers’ behaviours and attitudes. This paper will illustrate the behaviours and traits demonstrated by the jurors including the rational persuasion of juror 8 that helps the group in arriving at a moral decision.
Juror 1
Juror 1 (foreman) reveals a laidback democratic leadership style where in he conducted the discussions in an orderly manner, for example in scenes where he ensured that each juror had the opportunity to present their opinion, he steered the discussions back from distraction and controlling the voting. However, he displayed emotions of frustration and gave up on controlling the group dynamics when juror 9 questions his ability to control the discussion.
Juror 2
Juror 2 displays an introvert personality. He is compliant and considers information before speaking or giving his opinion. He is portrayed as an anxious character and is seen who gets bullied by juror 3, for example when juror 2 points out that there are others who needs to share their opinion, juror 3 asks him to be quiet. The introverted personality type is only a preference and merely a set of unchangeable behaviours rules. This change of personality is noted when juror 2 steps up and voices out details about how the stab wound would have been made by the accused if the accused was shorter (5 feet 7 inches) than the victim (6 feet 2 inches).
Juror 3
Juror 3 is the lead opponent who displays anger and aggression, He is prejudiced and stereotypes the accused as it reminded him of his son who left home because they got into an argument and was hit by his won son. He demonstrates expert power based on the amount of facts he has on the case, but his interpersonal effects of anger on negotiation behaviour dominates the emotional state of his own behaviour. There is use of intimidation shows signs of disrespect, irritability and loss of concentration. For example, when juror 9 tries to explain the reasons why the old man’s testimony could be for reasons that he wanted to be known and quoted, juror 3 shows his irritation and indicates the old man could be confused in his facts. There was display of self-fulfilling prophecy triggered by prejudice and ruthlessness of juror 2.
Juror 4
Juror 4 uses sound arguments based on the facts available to establish his initial verdict of the accused being guilty. However, through the movie, it is noted that he keeps an open mind to understand the opinion of others and reanalyzes the evidence and witnesses. For example, when juror 9 brings up details of the female witness, who possibly wore glasses, and saw the accused stabbing his father. Logical points outlined by juror 8 about the female witness not wearing her glasses when she sleeps and the possibility that she only saw a blur of a man stabbing the father made juror 4 consider his verdict to not guilty. The discussions between juror 4 and 8 are part of a shared leadership situation where influence is exerted to achieve successful outcomes .
Juror 5
Juror 5 is a very quiet participant and is sensitive to personal maters, especially when juror 9 shows his preconception of slum raised children being violent. Nonetheless, juror 5 speaks up when required and raises a valid point about how the knife is used through his experience witnessing knife-fights. He is seen as one of the jurors who focussed on the facts of the trial.
Juror 6
Juror 6 was having difficulty to make up his mind on the verdict. He looks for a motive, which can prove the accused was guilty. However, he couldn’t explain the motive to the other members of the jury. In one instance, juror 6 demonstrates a strong personality by defending juror 9 when juror 3 shows disrespect.
Juror 7
Juror 7 is impatient, rude disrespectful and tries to steer away from further discussions in the case as he felt that all the facts were clearly presented. His focus is on the baseball game which seemed more important than justice. He displays a weak personality by being unassertive, uncooperative and stubborn especially when he states that juror 8 could not change his mind even if he kept talking more about the case. Juror 7 lacked self-insight and made poor choices in dealing with the situation.
Juror 8
Juror 8 is seen as an effective leader that extends beyond managerial authority, relying on influence through personal interactions and positive relations, empathizing and making others feel confident and comfortable. Its not easy to stand alone and have a conviction without knowing if you truly believe in it and this is where juror 8 stands at the start of the movie. Juror 8 transformed in a leader linking virtue and moral character as represented by Socratic and Confucian typologies. For example, juror 8 did not the answer to where the accused was guilty of not, but he put forward his thought in the form of another question asking if everyone was willing to send an 18-year old to the electric chair. He felt that the lawyer of the defendant should have probed more questions and that the cross-examination with the witnesses was not enough. He listened to the opinions of others even though he didn’t agree with them and provided them the opportunity to speak their mind. Juror 8 was open to experience, more imaginative (example: visual re-enactment of the old man from the bed to the man door) and strategic in his approach when evaluating the exhibits of the crime . Exhibiting awareness to one’s right, fair treatment (example: when juror 8 encourages juror 3 to provide his opinion), social consciousness and procedural justice forces the compelling need for ethical conduct in leaders. There is also display of democratic leadership style by juror 8 where he considered involving all members to vote multiple times during the discussions in order to ascertain the stance taken by the other jurors.
Juror 9
By empowering followers, leaders encourage and aid individuals to cope with uncertainty, beyond their own limits. Juror 9 is a quiet and cautious character who saw logic and empathy in juror 8’s approach. That encouraged him to provide the support to juror 8 and be the second person to vote not guilty.
Juror 10
Juror 10 displays is an example of a poor team player. He keeps interrupting the discussions and disrupting the thought flow and course of discussion which annoy all the jurors. Automatic categorization of an individual as a member of a social group can unconsciously trigger stereotyping and prejudice to that group even if these reactions are denied (Stone & Moskowitz, 2011). With prejudice obscuring the truth and facts, juror 10 displays ignorance and arrogance in dealing with the situation.
Juror 11
Juror 11 was very analytical about the case before changing his verdict. He points out minor details of the investigation that were missed, for example, wouldn’t the accused be afraid to come back to collect the knife, if he really killed his father. Diagnosing and addressing situations of inequity and injustice is a collaborative reasoning and learning experience. This is an example when juror 11 tries to explain “reasonable doubt’ to juror 7 and the importance for him and his fellow jurors to have the opportunity to make the best possible decision in a democratic country.
Juror 12
Juror 12 was the only character that could be easily swayed between the verdicts. He shows very little interest and is distracted during the discussions. He displays various personality traits and does not have strong decision-making abilities. He is influenced by the majority.
Conclusion
Given that the jury was had different backgrounds, there was a lot of conflict in their views. 11 jurors came into the room with a pre-determined notions and decision except for juror 8 who explores and debates the facts and evidence that helped the other jurors change their vote to “not guilty”. This is a case of verdict-driven debate that changed into an evidence-driven debate that took 96 minutes to reach group consensus only because one man demonstrated analytical intelligence and empathy towards the case and the accused.