Week 6-12Angry Men - Week 6-12Angry Men PDF

Preview

Summary

Week 6-12Angry Men...

Description

Week 6: 12 Angry Men Assignment

Reflecting on the Jurors in the film “12 Angry Men,” only 2 out of the 12 jurors possessed legitimate power, expert power and referent power. Others seemed to have no knowledge of the jury and were simply supposed to be labeled as followers. Legitimate power is defined as the power one derives from their formal position or office held in an organizational hierarchy of authority. This type of power can be seen in Juror number eight who is also known as Henry Fonda. An architect, who instigates a thoughtful reconsideration of the case against the accused. In the movie, we see Davis (Juror #8) as an ideal leader as he attempts to promote different ideas of the case to prove possibility of innocence in the convicted boy. After all the twelve jurors had taken their vote, juror number eight was the only one who voted not guilty contrary to the other 11 jurors in the room, when asked why, he responded “It’s not so easy for me to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first” (Fonda).

I see a situation where Juror 8 equipped with all the autonomy and wisdom of an ideal leader, who mostly appeals using logos persuasive style in an attempt to promote the consideration of an idea. As Juror Eight leads his associates to consider the uncertainty of the case, we see an important skill in leadership: the ability to recognize disparity in individual cognition. Juror Eight appeals to this variance in thought patterns by guiding his peers through a journey of personal evaluation – allowing them to reach conclusions on their own, rather than explicitly dropping their minds into the terminal of his own logic.

In this movie, Juror 8 emerged as a leader because he gains respect by other jurors. At the beginning of the movie, he is the only one to vote "not guilty" during the jury's first vote. It is because he is convinced that there is a reasonable doubt. He wanted to talk about seriousness of

Week 6: 12 Angry Men Assignment

the case without emotionally pre-judging the 18-year-old boy. He showed empathy by asking other jurors to imagine themselves in the boy's shoes awaiting death sentence, physically abuse by his father, growing up in the poor society. Juror 8 convince the other jurors that the boy isn't guilty by persuading them in a calm manner. He stayed calm and talked over the evidence presented by the prosecution and finding flaws in it. Juror 8 analyzed every details of the evidence with the other jurors. He was presenting calm and used logical theories about why he has doubt that the boy didn't kill his father. As Juror 8 always stay calm, polite and respectful, many of the other jurors are persuaded easier and prefer to side with him rather than juror 3 and 10. He persuaded almost half of the jurors to vote not guilty towards the middle of the movie. He elaborated what every juror was trying to say and making suggestions to keep the group focus even thought it was a long and tedious process.

Juror 8 focus on task oriented approach. He does not seek status or ego enhancement. In this movie, he used a lot of questioning skill and able to lead other juror to analyze the evidence in a concrete manner. He encourages the jurors to think in bigger picture: defendant's background, witness's credibility, and defending attorney's motives. He asked jurors to put aside their personal biases, and stressing the importance of resuming their responsibility seriously. He aims for group success. As time passes, other jurors adopt his strategies. Together, they find flaws in the trial's evidence and reached informed conclusions eventually.

Juror 8's interpersonal style is classified as open receptive and objective. This leadership trait is extremely effective in questioning other jurors' motives and their views. It helped bring out an efficient jury in this case. Throughout the movie, he openly admitted that he did not know if the

Week 6: 12 Angry Men Assignment

boy indeed killed his father. Instead, he solicited feedback from other jurors in order to make an accurate decision. He encouraged others to discuss their doubt on the case and he was ready to receive feedback. He guided other jurors to make decision based on facts and conscience, and not using rush judgment and personal prejudice.

References: Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, John Fiedler. Retrieved April 22, 2018 from Twelve Angry Men

The Leadership Institute at Harvard College. Retrieved April 22, 2018 from Harvard Leadership: https://harvardleadership.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/12-angry-men-and-asking/...