Group Formation In Twelve Angry Men

The 1957 film version of 12 Angry Men depicts the nature of a small group setting. Within this film, we can see the group as a system, the development of group climate, and the different roles portrayed in a group. Eleven out of the twelve jurors voted the boy on trial guilty when they were initially asked their vote. Later throughout the movie, the group went into detail on the trail, thanks to Juror 8, and eventually changed their vote. If it weren't for the call for communication on the topic, the boy who was being tried would have been sentenced to death.

The forming and orientation stage of the group is the initial step of getting the group started. Gladding (2012) outlines seven steps that make up the forming stage of group development. First, one must develop a basis for the group.

Whether groups are formed for social or task oriented purposes, the ability to produce and maintain a sense of affiliation, peer support and collaboration is important for overall group functioning. The cohesion of a social group is produced through the establishment of a set of group norms, which are later defined as a guide for conduct accepted within a group of individuals. However, in order for a group to perform and produce results, the team leader should guide his/her team through the proper stages of group development, which includes the following steps: forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. Although teams should follow all these stages of group development, the forming and the norming stages are the most important,

In the film 12 Angry Men, a group of twelve jurors are deciding the fate of a young boy accused of murdering his father. Throughout the juries dilleration, one man exhibits all of the qualities of leadership. This man is juror number 8 played by Henry Fonda. Fonda not only exhibits the the 10 qualities of a leader but he uses these qualities to lead the entire jury to a vote of not guilty (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).

The jurors are transformed by the process of deliberating. Eleven men voted guilty because of their prejudices, fears, laziness and insecurities, but they are eventually persuaded by reason to give up these limiting beliefs, to see the potential in the facts, and to find justice. The critical turning points in the jury votes occur, not when there is passion and anger, but when there is reasoned discussion, as the rational Juror 8 triumphs over the prejudices of his fellow jurors. The facts of the case do not change, but the jurors come to see the facts differently, and change by the process they go through. Despite the hostility and tension created in this process, the twelve men end up reconciled, and justice is done.

The film “12 Angry Men” gives the audience insight as to how jury deliberations work. The film follows 12 jurors throughout the process of finding the defendant’s sentencing. The jury is overseeing a case surrounding a young boy who is charged with the murder of his father. It was interesting to see the process of this paired with the way each character’s vote had an effect on each of the other juror’s decisions. The film “12 Angry Men” portrays a realistic fluctuation of stances in a room of jurors as a whole and individually based upon the prior experiences and ethics of each juror.

The film “Twelve Angry Men” directed by Sidney Lumet illustrates many social psychological principles. The tense, gripping storyline that takes place in the 1950s features a group of jurors who must decide unanimously whether a young man is guilty or innocent in the murder of his father. At the beginning, eleven of the twelve jurors voted guilty. Gradually, through some heated discussion, the jurors are swayed to a not-guilty verdict. Upon examination, the film highlights social psychology theories in areas of conformity and group influence.

12 Angry Men is a film that plays on the psychological mind, and highlights many features of Organizational Behavior. As the jury of 12 men convene in a locked room to decide the future, or lack thereof, of a young boy accused of murdering his father, they illustrate movement through the four stages of Bruce Tuckman’s Group Development Model of Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. Along with this model, the movie portrays the difficulties and cohesiveness that 12 different men experience as they must come together to make one single unanimous decision. In an attempt to make this decision, several examples of influential behavior are highlighted throughout the film, as the members of the Jury experience using reason, assertiveness,

In the 1957 classic 12 Angry Men, group dynamics are portrayed through a jury deliberation. Group dynamics is concerned with the structure and functioning of groups as well as the different types of roles each character plays. In the film, twelve men are brought together in a room to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. The personality conflicts, the joint effort and the functioning of several minds together to search for the truth are just a few characteristics of group dynamics at work. The whole spectrum of humanity is represented in this movie, from the bigotry of Juror No.10 to the coldly analytical No.4. Whether they brought good or bad qualities to the jury room, they all affected the outcome.

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

In this film, the numerous functional and dysfunctional properties of the 12-jury men play a big role in analysing and evaluating the main purpose at hand, namely identifying the young man guilty or innocent for the murder of his father.

The storming stage began with conflicting opinions being stated. Tense conversation ensued regarding Juror No. 8’s “Not Guilty” vote and Juror No. 10’s discriminatory remarks. The norming stage showed Juror No. 1, the jury foreman, keeping Jurors No, 11 and 12 on topic to create a productive discussion. In addition, Juror No. 12 suggests discussing views one person at a time. Personally, I do not believe there was a true performing stage in the film. Although they achieved some cohesion during the norming stage, they were still confrontational and were not unified. The adjourning stage showed the characters finally coming to an agreement on a “Not Guilty” verdict, giving that verdict to the bailiff, and all leaving separately.

Tuckman proposes that groups develop via five stages; forming, storming, norming, performing and finally adjourning (Archee, Gurney, & Mohan, 2013a). The first stage, known as forming, involves clarifying the task and purpose of the group, and identifying boundaries of both the task and interpersonal behaviour (Archee et al., 2013a). For the presentation task we were randomly allocated into groups. This worried me greatly as I have struggled in the past with group members who do not contribute equally or see the task as important as other group members. To avoid this problem, the group collectively determined and agreed upon a number of ground rules. For example, we decided that all group members were expected to contribute equally to the presentation, all group members were expected to attend and contribute at all group meetings, and all group members would adhere to agreed upon deadlines. Having failed to do this in previous group assignments, this clarification stage

The science of team building is an art. The uncontrollable variables are people. Just putting a group of talented individuals together for the sole purpose of goal achievement can be met with disastrous results. It can leave individuals left feeling unfulfilled and lead to costly mistakes in the long run. While team building can be considered an art, there are some methods and approaches that can assist with successful builds. While no approach is full proof, taking time to acclimate oneself with human