A Leader Of The Group

* The most influential individuals in the group were the juror who was very biased against the 18 year old boy, who’s trailed for murder. That juror discussed his thoughts in regards to a situation where

12 Angry Men are in a 1950’s courtroom, where 12 men from various backgrounds and different personalities, find themselves deciding the fate of a teenage boy accused of murdering his father. The vote must be unanimous, with a guilty verdict resulting in the death of the young man facing trial. Juror #8, (Fonda), was not the assigned jury leader, but emerged as the primary leader within minutes of the group sequester, when juror #8 was the only no vote. Fonda’s situation allowed his leadership traits to apply with success. Fonda’s leadership was due to his ethical need for a jury decision. Fonda’s character combines his goal of having a fair deliberation concerning the young man accused of murder (task Behavior). Fonda was trying to help the eleven other jurors to feel more comfortable with thinking critically and to examine the facts closely (relationship behavior). Now that I have discussed the behavior traits of the two movies, we will discuss the Trait approach in leadership.

As a group, we had many strengths. I believe one of our biggest strengths was our effective communication. When we met in person all the members of our group used therapeutic communication such as active listening, paraphrasing, and summarizing. We were all very respectful of each other and maintained eye contact and receptive nonverbal communication. There were several times during the movie that we paused the movie to discuss the jurors’ ages, professions, or the dynamics between the different jurors. Normally it wouldn’t be acceptable to repeatedly pause a movie for discussion, but it was widely accepted among our group and did not cause any conflicts. Another form of communication that our group used was the internet. It enabled us to receive papers via email attachment, and then download, print, edit, and return the changes at our own leisure. The only drawback with using the internet for communication is the lack of acknowledgement. In the future I will make sure that I ask the recipient to acknowledge that they have received my communication.

Juror one, the foreman helped to keep the group orderly and the arguments from escalating further. The tenth juror was an obnoxious man with and prejudice towards people from the slums.

Engleberg and Wynn (2012) state people who speak early and often in group settings tend to become leaders within the group. He does this in an autocratic way by having a strong position and not being open to hear and value other people’s opinions. This can hinder the group goals if an autocratic leader is allowed to become too destructive. Autocratic leaders can also positively impact the group as they eliminate groupthink and challenge individuals within the group to speak up, this is not always done though. Throughout the film viewers watch as Juror 3 becomes increasingly frustrated when people have different opinions as he believes his own opinion is the only option.

It was interesting to see the large differences in each juror’s lives. Every jury is eclectic because it is made up of very different people with very different family lives. For example, Juror #3 seems to be a well educated and well off man as he was wearing suspenders and a dress shirt. However, Juror #7 was a young man who seemed fairly uneducated and fairly poor because he dressed in a sweatsuit and used improper language. It was very interesting to see these different personalities clash. In the beginning when the men are all on the same page that the defendant is guilty except one, the men generally more relaxed (except for Juror #3).However, as more of the men start to explain their reasonings for seeing reasonable doubt, tension is prevalent in the room. The men who vote guilty are rallying up against the people who voted not guilty. The feeling of the room switches again as most jurors decide the defendant is guilty. That being said, Juror #3 creates a lot of tension in the room throughout the film due to the the fact that he yells at anyone who disagrees with him because he is unwilling to hear their opinions. For example, while one man is explaining why he thinks there is reasonable doubt, juror #3 decides to start a game of tic tac toe. This is very interesting because he is ready to send the defendant to his deathbed

Angry! Hostile!” This causes him to not listen to the other jurors opinions and block out any idea of the defendant being innocent. His prejudice is further understood when he says “this kid is guilty. He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror #3 is only able to see the young boy on trial as a symbol of his own son and is therefore unable to look past his own anger towards his son and see the case for what it really is. It is only through the help of juror #8 does juror #3 finally let go of his personal prejudice and sees the truth about the case and changes his vote to not guilty.

1. What do you think a peer leader does? What kind of qualities should a peer leader

Leader X is a church leader with a wife and children. He is concerned with his use of pornography; he believes it is affecting his relationship with his family. Leader X is also concerned that his use or pornography will lead to more problem.

All the men settle down, as the "forming stage" begins with a consensus that this case has been pre-decided as a guilty verdict. Most men in the room mutually agree into the group process of the "storming stage". During the dialogue, the jurors began to take roles as a unanimous vote must be completed before returning. Nearly all juror's opinion points towards a guilty verdict, this symptom is the first groupthink term known as "Illusion of unanimity". A contradiction to this assumed general idea occurred as juror eight votes not guilty. Juror number eight displays another groupthink theory; his opposing vote, is later based on; "Belief in inherent morality". This symptom is the belief in the righteousness above conformity despite the situation. Conflict arises as the "norming stage" unfolds, as the other eleven men attempt to persuade that the boy is without a doubt guilty. A scene develops that manifest the groupthink issue of, "Stereotyped

The first juror was the foreman. He was the task leader of the group, taking initiative to sit the people down, numbering them, and telling the jurors when they could go on breaks. This juror goes over the process and rules the men will be using, and sets up the first voting. He also tries to keep the jurors on task and organized. Juror 2 is anxious man. This juror was easily persuaded to change his opinion about the case and tended to have the same opinion of the person who spoke before him. He played the role of a tension releaser which was seen when he offered the men cough drops in tense situations. Juror 3 is temperamental, opinionated, strong, loud, biased, stubborn and intolerable man. This man does not want to hear the opinions of the other jurors and is sure that the boy is guilty. He plays the part of the central negative in the group. When he doesn’t like what other people are saying he begins to yell and challenges that person speaking. He began to be dominating and blocking towards the end. Even though he did not have a statement to backup his vote, he stood alone just because he didn’t want to be proved wrong. His own problems with his son abandoning him also

Taking other juror's characters into consideration, Jury number 2 and Jury number 12 are a complete contrast to Jury number 8. They both are hesitant in taking their stance. Especially Jury number 12 repeatedly changes his decision depending on what the aggressive members were wanting him to say. Jury number 3 was the most aggressive of all the 12 men. There was something not-so-appealing-yet-very-interesting about his personality. He was so single-minded that he not only disagreed to what others said, but was also willing to ask them to shut up and just say “guilty.” His aggressive behavior gives us a reason to think that he might have a bad relation with his son, which he actually had and reveals the story at the end. Jury number 7 has a completely different approach. He wants the discussions to end soon because he has got more important things to do in his life rather than having a look at the evidence's that could help to save someone's life. According to Benne and Sheats Functional Group Goals, Jury number 7 is an example of a deserter. Deserter is a person who withdraws from the group; appears “above it all” and bored or annoyed with the discussion; remains aloof or stops contributing ( Engleberg and Wynn 55). A deserter can also be called a self centered person. Jury number 8 seems an initiator-contributor, who proposes ideas and suggestions; provides direction for the group; gets the group

Juror three is a stubborn and short-tempered person. Juror three made solid sentiments in the beginning, which actively kept him involved in the discussion but he started losing control as the discussion continued. Because he disliked Juror eight, the argument between them strengthened the discussion. His loud and demanding personality made jurors go against his claim because his rage was intolerable by others. Later in the discussion, it was also revealed that he had a poor relationship with his own son, which led to believe that this was one of the causes to his intolerance against the suspect. When Juror three understood that he is only presenting an insight of his feelings regarding his own son onto the suspect, he changed his decision.

The movie Twelve Angry Men is about the twelve jurors that could adjust their influence in a decision-making process for conviction an eighteen years-old boy, whether the boy guilty or not guilty in murdering of his father. It represents a perfect example for applicable of a work group development framework. It also has examples of influence techniques among a group’s members. This paper is looking at those specific examples in the movie and focusing in analysis the reasons why Juror 8 is so much more effective than others in the meeting.

Mangus, thinking they were through for the day, walked over and reached for the door knob when Balthazar suddenly asked him to stay because he had something more to tell him. He began explaining about the two factions that existed within the Order of Vilgoth and indicated that there was some kind of disagreement on how they should have him regain his empire. He was the leader of one faction and Sara the other. He hinted, without really coming out and saying it, that his faction was the only side to trust with his future. He had no idea why Balthazar would warn him about Sara’s loyalty. After what they had been through getting to Sagera, Sara seemed more dependable and loyal than anyone else. He felt certain he could trust her with his life and already had. Puzzled by his malign insinuation, he headed back to his room deep in thought. He physically bumped into Captain Bishop in the corridor. He quickly offered his apology. Bishop politely asked him how his training went and he told him he had successfully knocked Balthazar off his feet. He thought his first day had went very well. Captain Bishop laughed at the thought of the o so proper Balthazar on his behind and encouraged him to keep up with his training. With time and patience, he would eventually master all of his skills. Unexpectedly, Bishop asked him if he would like to spar with him inside the barracks, and suddenly forgetting how tired he was, he replied. “Why not?” Walking through the courtyard