Download now
Twelve Angry Men depicts different types of command, communication, and group dynamics. The film revolves around the jurisdiction of any homicide trial with a jury that nearly unanimously votes the defendant guilty, with only one rival voter. This man, Juror #8, gives his decision through suggestions of reasonable doubt that spiral into a majority election of not-guilty.
So , how can a group of twelve men completely shift their particular point of view from guilty to not-guilty? The power of effective management and connection. Juror #8 was able to effectively communicate with the boys to think of different scenarios that prove the defendant not-guilty through democratic styled command.
He did not necessarily think the defendant was not guilt ridden. However , he was not confident the boy was accountable and would not want to make a decision without completely confidence. Consequently , he disseminated his look at by encouraging the jury to examine the reality in a fresh light and opening a discussion amongst the jurors. The re-analyzation of the information arose fresh questions about the verity of the information, allowing some, and eventually most, of the jurors to query their initial declaration of guilty.
Insufficient leadership and communication through the majority are also factors in the change of decision. The group of eleven men did not have a good leader to carry together their very own original decision. In the beginning, juror #1 was your apparent innovator of the group. This individual stated the jury techniques and asked each man’s vote.
Once opposition via juror #8 arose, he attempted to get the group to dismiss the theory. Eventually, this individual loses interest in caring and steps again as the leader. A disinterest by other jurors was also found when a lot of were doing offers. It was as well evident that some jurors only went with the majority depending on hidden agendas such as wanting the trial to be above or personal opinions of individuals such as bias.
In addition , Juror #3 is definitely the prime opposer to the inquiries presented simply by juror #8. He is expressive about his confidence in the decision towards defendant. However , his command style was of an autocratic nature, which usually worked to his disadvantage. People are more likely to follow a kind leader than someone who belittles and scares.
Therefore , Juror #8 got effective connection to make an impression on the calm jurors who were first too intimidated to question almost all. He focused the discussion and lead with powerful factors that remaining the jurors thinking. This individual created a discussion.
This lead to jurors asking valid questions around the verity from the facts presented. Turning items came each time a witness’ account was wondered due to their poor vision demonstrated through spectacles marks on her behalf nose, the angel of the man’s wound from the stab, presenting a knife that was claimed to be original, and the real time that wold consider for the witness to view what happened once they heard the scream. The film also shows how leadership gows best with the addition of fans. Without followers one cannot be declared an innovator. If juror #8 explained and indicated reasons for his view with no others followed, the decision may have been in the majority’s favor and juror #8 might have just recently been a man with an opinion.
Rather, he was able to first encourage juror #9, which immediately gave his opinion credibility. Once juror #9 changed sides, it absolutely was evident that everyone else re-examined their opinion and did start to formulate valid questions. Juror #9 surely could break the hold of group think, allowing others to actually voice all their thoughts. This kind of especially pertains to the silent jurors who were originally too intimidated to question the majority. These jurors were at this point actually able to consider for themselves and were available to communicate juror #8’s parts of reasonable question.
Twelve Angry Men is usually an interesting interpretation of group dynamics. In a group, decision-making can be impeded due to vast majority process. Each time a majority exists, it is simple for others to participate. This was displayed in the beginning with the film.
There have been a couple to quickly impose the defendant as guilt ridden and others used, although some came out hesitant. They will only made a decision once they saw the different opinions. This is a common injury in a group establishing. It is too much effort to be the odd guy out. Therefore , the less busy and more timid people adapt to the majority for an easy solution.
Juror #8 intelligently understood this group dynamic and intelligently centered his awareness of the peaceful members. This individual asked that another political election be taken by secret ballots. This is an ideal way of voting that allowed for better conversation, allowing the quieter jurors to submit their very own vote in private.
This kind of proved effective when the vote switched coming from 11-1 to 10-2. This lead to an open discussion amidst many in the group, drawing valuable tips and views that they might not have offered otherwise. Juror #8 created a establishing for group discussion exactly where everyone did start to work together as a team to determine the verdict of the case.
As a team, the jury unanimously altered their have your vote to not-guilty; an excellent demo on the power of effective conversation and command.
