An Analysis of 12 Angry Men by Reginald Rose

The 12 Angry Men provides examples to show 4 stages of team dynamics. First stage of Group Dynamics is forming. In this phase, members do not have clear concept as well as are unsure regarding their duty and also duties. When 12 participants of jury got in the area to vote, they were unclear about their duties. Several of them intended to elect guilty, someone wished to discuss while some were actually not troubled as well as wished to leave as soon as possible. Team members did not know each other's viewpoints & reasons and also required instructions. One Juror took charge and asked others to elect on the issue. This was the developing stage.

As they began to vote, some members simply elected as they did not intend to go against others. Juror 8 voted against various other 11 individuals. During secret vote, someone changed his ballot. This led all the participants to suggest and staff member began fighting. Some members obtained individual as well as accused each other. There was lot of diversion as a result of individual commitments, psychological issues, and so on. This was the storming phase.

Juror 8 helped to focus on facts and also described the seriousness of the issue. Additionally, Juror 9 helps to bring some vital monitorings in the picture. This aids other members to review their reasoning and also people begin providing second thoughts to their ballot. Ultimately, more members understood the point of view of Juror 8 as well as group earned clear direction to get here as well as continue at consensus. This was the norming phase.

In the later stage, lots of people shared numerous point of views to assess the details for testaments as well as various other proofs. Nearly all the staff member were entirely focused regarding the situation and also group was determined to make a sensible choice. This was performing stage.

Impact of assumption on decision-making:

I could see many instances of Perception in this movie. For instance, Juror 3 was having tough time with his son. (His kid was young of similar age group as that of the accused kid.) So, he had an assumption that young generation, including the charged, did not regard elders. For this reason, Juror 3 was certain that the accused young boy had killed his daddy. Also, Juror 10 had perception that all people from slums can not be trusted as well as they might kill others extremely easily. I can see some instances of discerning perception too. Some members directed that the charged did not remember names of actors from the film but did not take into consideration the ambience where he was questioned after murder of his daddy. Additionally, some members repeatedly indicated the testament of old guy however overlooked his physical problem. Very same applies for the witness lady whose testimony was thought about extremely essential but truths regarding her social condition as well as eye-sight were ignored comfortably.

Decision-making traps:

I really feel decision trap is rational problem that can result in incorrect decision-making. Among the most vital decision catches was not to think about that there could be opposite to the story. 11 participants of the jury did not consider this as well as were ready with their decisions. As this was a team decision, 11 members were just ready to vote based on majority and leave quickly. As the employee were

held responsible as the group, people agreed to take exactly extreme stand simply to be with majority. I also really feel bulk of the employee did not recognize effect of their judgment failing and resulting right into fatality of an innocent male. I feel this problem arised from the truth that individuals were not going to get penalized individually in case their judgment would have been wrong. So, in case of quick yet incorrect decision, they were mosting likely to leave quickly without penalty. Yet, to make logical choice, they needed to review as well as invest more time and this sensible decision did not supply any kind of benefit.

Individuals were not prepared to believe the tale of the accused child, but they conveniently approved the stories of old male and also girl witness with no concerns. Individuals easily presumed that the child bought one one-of-a-kind rare blade as well as it was used for the murder. They did not consider that similar blade was offered on the market.

Also, some members repetitively mentioned that charged intimidated to eliminate his daddy, but they did rule out that it might have been an action taken in the fit of rage.

Influence of individual degree habits impacting group decision-making:

There are numerous instances of private actions affecting team decision-making. I feel Juror 8 was one of the most prominent team member. He was honest, logical and also committed to his duty as a jury participant. He risked to take different stand and stood against 11 members originally. He described his viewpoint effectively as well as encouraged other participant to change their decisions based upon facts. He possessed good leadership qualities as he did not buckle under pressure and also was self- encouraged. He comprehended repercussions of his actions quite possibly and saw the opportunity that the implicated might have been innocent. He took initiatives to look for the special blade and also offered it to support his debate. Juror 8 did not shed his mood and encouraged his group to remain concentrated. I feel Juror 8 presented several high qualities of an Inspired Leader such as principles, concern as well as mindfulness.

I really feel behavior of Juror 9 likewise created positive influence on team decision-making. He altered his mind in the secret voting as he agreed with the thinking of Juror 8. This changed track of the occasions and helped Juror 8 to offer his views. Juror 9 was additionally observant and pointed out realities about the witness girl which verified that she was not able to see the murder with accuracy. I also really feel willingness of Juror 5 to share his experiences regarding fights with knife helped the team to understand more of concerning relationship in between possible use of blade, elevation of assailant as well as injury on the upper body of dead man.

Actions of Juror 3 developed a solid negative influence on the team decision-making. He was behaving like a sadist and consistently obstructed the conversation. He was influenced by his personal connection with his boy and it blinded his activities, which in turn influenced team decision-making. He did not show regard towards disagreement as well as obtained terrible occasionally. I likewise feel Juror 7 had actually bought tickets to a video game as well as was in rush to leave the court to enjoy the video game. He constantly interrupted others and did not think practically. He did not recognize the extent of his actions.

Most of the jurors were willing to approve the logical arguments made by Juror 8 as well as therefore changed their opinions from "Guilty" to "Not Guilty". So, by changing their point of views, they aided the team to make the best decision inevitably.

Honest predicaments:

I really feel the largest moral problem was understood by Juror 8. The problem was whether to state the accused as Guilty without taking into consideration the opportunity that he could be innocent. Clearly concurring with various other court participants and also stating the charged as guilty presented a serious risk of penalizing an innocent with death penalty. This was the ethical dilemma which inspired Juror 8 to consider other aspects of the situation (not reviewed in the court earlier) as well as he convinced other jury participants to focus on unexpected truths as well as rational analysis. Juror 8 recognized the genuine significance of Jury's decision influencing life of a human being. Inevitably he handled to change their ballots from "Guilty" to "Not Guilty".

I saw two other principles of SOIL: empathy and mindfulness. Juror 8 was thoughtful in the direction of others. Juror 8 comprehended different elements involved in training of the accused. Additionally, Juror 8 was caring in the direction of other jury participants. He understood genuine problem of Juror 3. At the end, he aided Juror 3 to get his coat as he understood genuine pain of Juror 3. I additionally feel Juror 8 was mindful as he confirmed his factor that an individual can threaten to eliminates somebody in the fit of craze without in fact meaning it truly. Also, his mindfulness was presented as he looked for blade to verify his point. Juror 9 was additionally mindful as he very closely observed the witness woman within short time and made logical final thoughts.

In conclusion, this flick assisted me to understand several principles of Organizational Behavior in real life situation. Film's tag line claimed: "Life in their hands ... Death in their minds.!" Choice taken under flawed assumption, peer pressure as well as personal prejudice can cost life of an innocent. For this reason, choices ought to be taken by preventing such decision traps.

Cite this page