"Set in the sweltering summer of 1957, Reginald Rose bases his play “12 Angry Men” on the notion that personal experience has the capacity to influence and sway our decisions. *Rose specifically amplifies this ideology as throughout the play, as a myriad of contrasting backstories are seen to be the foundation of the characters judgments. Set amongst a court case apropos to a 16 year old boy convicted of killing his father, the “reasonable doubt” underlying his conviction is explicitly supported by one Juror 8 amidst 11 others. Demonstrating the diversity of the Jurors, Rose illustrates the “2 America’s” that can be observed in the different Jurors identities. In addition the jurisprudence of America enshrines the belief that “the multitude
However, he also realized that he alone could not drive these results, but that the team must come together and lead themselves to victory since “leadership is a team effort” (Kouzes & Posner, 2008). Drucker says an effective leader with “good human relations” is more than just having a “talent for people,” but rather is more a focus on the contribution on one’s own work and in one’s relationships with others (2006). Coach Dale focused a great deal of energy on his coaching strategies, but also his relationships with his team players and external supporters such as Shooter. Therefore, according to Drucker’s definition of “good human relations,” Coach Dale embodies another critical aspect of leadership. Collins also states that “good-to-great” organizations choose the “who” first and then focus on the “what” secondary (2001).
HRMG 6200 / Section 6 August 26, 2012 Week 2 – Interpersonal Behavior Interpersonal Communications: “12 Angry Men” (1957) In the film 12 Angry Men a group of twelve white male jurors are tasked to provide a verdict of guilty or not guilty in a case judging an 18-year-old minority (Puerto Rican) boy of murdering his father. All 12 jurors come from a different walk of life and although all members are Caucasian, the group is extremely diverse. As a result, several personality conflicts emerge and highlight the many differences these twelve strangers have (cultural/value based/assumptions). These individual differences and previously formed biases play a major role in each juror’s opinion, which have an affect on the overall decision-making process and ultimately the final verdict of the jury. This analysis and study of group dynamics will concentrate on the importance of interpersonal as well as intergroup communication.
Matt Alley Personal Law 11/4/08 Hour 7 12 Angry Men The Juror that thought the boy was not guilty was Juror #8 or indentified as David at the end of the film. I thought this juror was the best one of the group. I belief he was the best because he kept and open mind the whole time. He listened to what others had to say, and he didn’t let his emotions take over and was on time for the case. The only mistake I noticed that Juror #8 made was when he went an investigated the case on his own.
The old man who first changed his vote acknowledged this admirable transformational leadership quality when he commented: “it is not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others. He gambled for support and I gave it to him”. A transformational leader is a role model: • He powerfully modeled having a thoughtful, investigative and inquiring mind to the rest of the jury members by re-examining the key evidences of the prosecutor and the 2 witnesses. Other members of the jury soon followed his example and started raising “reasonable doubts” which led to a unanimous “Not guilty” verdict. • He Frequently reinforces that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that if there is reasonable doubt, then they should acquit the kid • This character has a very clear idea of what the goal is here.
The film presents the story so that Juror 8 would have to persuade the rest of the jurors to choose not guilty. But I believe what happened in the room is that each of the jurors persuaded each other but it was through Juror 8 that they were able to exercise their critical thinking skills. The jury was convinced that the defendant was guilty based on solid evidence that was resented. They took the case at face value and did not bother to question the time frame and events that happened were plausible. The other jurors neglected the details in the story and that is what made Juror 8 stand out from the rest.
The film “Twelve Angry Men” is a very interesting and captivating one. This film features twelve jurors who are middle-aged men. A young boy is on trial for the murder of his father and these jurors are faced with the responsibility of deciding whether or not he is guilty. However, the room that they deliberate in is very uncomfortable and hot. As they deliberate they are weighing the facts to ensure that they come up with a unanimous decision.
For instance, in the motion picture, Twelve Angry Men (1957), juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, was both effective and appropriate in his communication style because he did not set himself apart from the group’s objective which was to go over the evidence piece by piece and give the defendant a fair trial. He did not approach the matter as though he was right and the others were wrong, instead he raised the question, “did the evidence produce by the prosecuting attorney rise to level beyond a reasonable doubt?” Although he was the only juror at the beginning of the deliberation to vote not guilty, he remain open minded, competent, and raised some very grave inconsistencies that inevitably helped the other jurors arrive at the facts of the case objectively. According to Rothwell (2013), ”we cannot determine what is appropriate and effective without knowing the rules operating in a given situation”. The rules in this situation were that every juror was entitled to their own opinion and able to express it without an onslaught by the group. Juror 8, Henry Fonda, and juror 9, Joseph
Juror #1 is the Foreman of the jury. He is serious about his role and tries to run the proceedings in an orderly fashion, reminding the jurors “Just let’s remember we’ve got a first degree murder charge here. If we vote guilty, we send the accused to the electric chair.” Juror #2 is timid, quiet and unsure of himself, finding it hard to maintain an independent opinion until he finds the courage to point out an important question about how the murder was actually committed. Juror #3 is the antagonist. He is a forceful, intolerant bully who sees the case as simple and believes the accused is absolutely guilty.
What success looks like and how to achieve it. But it’s not enough to have a vision; leaders must also share it and act upon it. Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric Co., said, "Good business leaders create a vision, articulate the vision, passionately own the vision and relentlessly drive it to completion." A common definition of Leadership is "the relationship in which one person influences others to work together willingly on related tasks to attain that level which he desires." So, if there is no follower, there is no leader.