W9bus321_document_12AngryMenReflection

.docx

School

Brigham Young University, Idaho *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

211

Subject

Management

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by BrigadierGalaxy8536

Report
12 Angry Men Reflection Answer the following questions: What principles of effective communication did you see in 12 Angry Men? One thing that stuck out to me most was the jury man who first disagreed never yelled or screamed to get his point across. His point of view seemed unreasonable to everyone else however because of how he presented himself and explained himself he never seemed unreasonable. The individuals who yelled and screamed seemed rash, unprofessional and unreasonable. It is far easier to follow a leader who is cool, collected and reasonable compared to a man that has to yell to get his point across. Why did almost all the jurors initially vote the defendant guilty? “The evidence was clear.” Some of the jurors had biases and this skewed their judgment other jurors took the evidence at face value and didn’t stop to consider the evidence that wasn’t there. Maybe some of them just voted guilty because everyone else voted that way so they thought they should to. If you were a juror, how would you have voted initially? Why? I mean it’s easy to say I would have voted not guilty because that the right thing to do in this movie however if I were a juror, I would have had to review the evidence presented and based off of that I would have had to vote to what I sincerely believed. If I did not feel there was enough evidence, I would have voted not guilty but if I felt that the evidence proved it beyond doubt, I would have voted guilty and I would have stuck to my guns unless I felt there was enough doubt to change my opinion. In this scenario if I originally voted guilty, I feel I would have quickly changed my vote because the old man’s testimony would not have added up to me. I work in mental health and I believe just because you have a rough past does not mean you a destined to have a rough future. In this case especially when it comes to life and death, I would have carefully considered all the evidence if I had any reasonable doubt I would have quickly voted not guilty. Why does it matter that Juror Eight requested for a recount, but didn't take part in the vote? Sometimes as a leader you need to consider where you stand with those you lead. He put the ball in the other jurors’ court. The whole point of him voting no was so that the rest of the team could take a second and really consider the severity of the decision they were making. One of the jurors was joking about baseball right before he voted to have the boy killed. As a leader you need to provide opportunities for those you work with to evaluate themselves and to think through the actions that are
taking place. If I were in that scenario, I feel I would have voted as the old man did. I would have voted not guilty even if I felt the boy was guilty at least for a moment so that we as a team could discuss anything that we felt necessary before the conviction took effect. Life is not something you take for granted so when sentencing someone to die I would want to be absolutely sure before I voted. There was power with juror 8 when he put the ball in the other jurors ‘court because he was saying “maybe I’m wrong, maybe I am crazy and if I am I will admit as much but isn’t their enough question to at least discuss it?” This forced the other jurors to take a moment and think deeper at least for a second. When the jurors did another vote, why did another juror vote Not Guilty? The juror that voted not guilty admitted he still thought the boy could potentially be guilty however he felt that talking about it further was a good idea. Sometimes we think we have the right answer and we might but it is always best to hear another person’s opinion. If their opinion has no effect on our own than great that’s fine at least we have a reason for the opinion we have but if their opinion has the power to change our own then sometimes that’s even better. How did that change the outcome of the discussion? When the 2 nd man voted not guilty it further made the other jurors pause and think deeper. It made the other jurors question their own opinions and evaluate if where they stood was right. Obviously there was a reason for the juror to change his mind so it made the other jurors question if they may had missed something. What principles can you apply to your leadership? Juror number 8 never yelled to get his point across. He never shared his personal beliefs and philosophies with the others. Rather when he made his points he asked questions and let the jurors answer for themselves. He used logic rather than emotion when proving a point. He never put anybody down in the room, he never made himself the biggest person in the room. He was quiet a lot of the time until someone asked his opinion. For me I think I could use all of these principles to improve my leadership.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help