12angrymen Answers analysis

8/10/2019 12angrymen Answers analysis

1/9

Institute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad

Sr No.

Name Roll Number

1

KRISHNA MOHAN SINGH 1403001009

2

PRATEEK JHA 1403001015

3

SHWETA SINGH 1403001019

4

VAIBHAV PRAKASH 1403001022

5

YOGESH SAINI 1403001025

12ANGRY MEN
http://matthewashton.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/12angrymen.jpghttp://matthewashton.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/12angrymen.jpg


2/9

1. Describe and evaluate how membershipthe people in the teamaffect dynamics

within the team.

From the movie 12 Angry Men, we can we can learn that how leadership can reduceopposite opinions, and align them together to come to a single conclusion.

The first positive move that Fondas character made towards integrating opposing views

was his overall approach to the current situation. The opposing opinions of the jury

members were used to understand differing viewpoints. The basic idea presented in the

film was that the having multiple opinions would eventually lead to the best possible

solution.

In order to minimize difference of opinions, it is essential to understand that diversity in

opinion is chance to come to the best possible solution. If we can handle the different

opinions in a right way then we can have a better understanding of the situation. The mostcreative people in the group probably have the most diverse ideas which will eventually to

the best possible solution that which will appeal to most of the individuals.

Indeed diversity has its own challenges. This is because people consider their opinions

better than others. This becomes a problem because every group member wants his

opinions to have weightage in the conversation. One way to make people with varied

viewpoints comfortable and appreciated in the group is by listening to their viewpoints

properly. It is because of this process of active listening, that group members with different

viewpoints can really develop personal relationships which are really important in a group

conversation. This is a mandatory skill for leaders to have and in this movie Fonda uses this

behavior. Fonda shows this skill by effective conversation, to understand the feelings of theother jury members.

Needless to say, 12 jury members responsible for life or death of a young boy can be

considered a difficult situation as well as the time pressures presented from some members

created even more pressure. As a way of reduce this stress, Fonda was clear of his

intentions to simply talk about it. This dialogue had a way of allowing the jury members

to share the stress among each other.

How did the personalities, backgrounds, and styles of the jury members affect

the internal team dynamics for each of Juror?

The only person in the movie who did not truly believe the boy was culprit even though

everyone was against him. He expressed his opinions in such a way that everyone in the

group has to change its opinion as per him. The importance of information provider is to

present facts in order to help in decision making. Joseph Sweeney discussed about the

chances that an old man could be false as a witness and also that a woman who had could

have a poor eyesight. Jack Klugman had an idea about the usage of knives as he came from

a slum background so he provided the information about the angle of the knife. Henry

Fondas character also plays the role of an information seeker by requesting more

information about the case before reaching to a final conclusion. E. G. Marshall was also an

information seeker. He was logical and focused on the facts and information which he sawrather than different opinions of the members.


3/9

J. Cobb and Ed Begley presented their opinions and even their assumptions about the

culprit based on his young age and background as an immigrant. Lee J. Cobb and Ed Begley

talked a lot but their communication with others which did not work well and ultimately

nobody listened to their views. Jack Warden was also an opinion giver. He insisted that the

culprit was guilty without any more consideration. On the other hand, Martin Balsam asthe jury foreman was an opinion seeker by asking for the opinions of the other members

before making a decision.

George Voskovec and Henry Fonda provided the information which the team members

found and made connections. This approach helped other group members to think more

logically. An energizer is responsible for stimulating the group to continue working. Henry

Fonda made other members focus on the facts and the other standpoints about the crime

throughout the movie by asking related questions. Henry Fonda was both an energizer and

an evaluator in the jury.

How personality type in groups can affect the groups performance is shown by the socially

related roles in the movie. The group members personality affects how much he

participates socially in a team discussion within the communication climate. Grouptogetherness is required for social interactions of teams with good skills of communication.

Cohesion is correlated with the emotion of togetherness so it affects resolution of conflicts

among members and develops good social relationships. Diversity of capabilities,

perspectives, and information with a balance of personality types makes teams more

effective & efficient, and it works for solving insolvable problems.

How are the unique expertise and skills that each member brings to the team

utilized? Consider the different levels of commitment each team member

brings to the goal and the task of the team. How are these differences

reconciled?

As the film progresses the individual personalities of the jurors become apparent and many

issues affect the guilty decision chosen by the majority of the jurors. As the case unfolds

ahead, we come to learn more about each juror individually. The personalities range from

loud mouth to a straight- faced accountant. As the movie progresses much more is learned

of the characters that exposes the intricacy of human nature and people's different

personality traits.

The plot of the film revolves around their difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict, mainly

due to the jurors' personal perceptions. An initial vote is taken and eleven of the jurors vote

"guilty". Juror 8 is the one whose opposes the verdict of initial vote & says Not guilty,

stating that the evidence presented is circumstantial and the boy deserves a fair trial, upon

which he starts questioning the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses to the

murder.

Juror #1 (The Foreman): A high-school assistant head coach doggedly concerned to keep

the proceedings formal and maintain authority; easily frustrated and sensitive when

someone objects to his control; inadequate for the job as foreman, not a natural leader and

over-shadowed by Juror # 8's natural leadership.

Juror #2: A wimpy, balding bank clerk/teller, easily persuaded, meek, hesitant, goes along

with the majority, eagerly offers cough drops to other men during tense times of argument.


4/9

Juror #3: A bullying, rude and husky man, extremely opinionated and biased, completely

intolerant, forceful and loud-mouthed, temperamental and vengeful; estrangement from

his own teenaged son causes him to be hateful and hostile toward all young people.

Juror #4: Well-educated, smug and conceited, well-dressed stockbroker, presumably

wealthy; studious, methodical, possesses an incredible recall and grasp of the facts of the

case.

Juror #5: Naive, insecure, frightened, reserved; grew up in a poor neighborhood and the

case resurrected in his mind that slum-dwelling upbringing.

Juror #6: Typical working man, dull-witted, experiences difficulties in making up his own

mind, a follower; probably a manual labourer or painter; respectful of older juror and

willing to back up his words with fists.

Juror #7: Clownish, impatient salesman, a fashionable dresser, chewing gum, obsessed

baseball fan who wants to leave as soon as possible to attend evening game; throws

wadded up paper balls at the fan; uses baseball metaphors and references throughout all

his statements.

Juror #8: An architect, instigates a thoughtful reconsideration of the case against the

accused; symbolically clad in white; who uses soft-spoken, calm logical reasoning

Juror #9: Eldest man in group, white-haired, thin, retiring and resigned to death but has a

resurgence of life during deliberations; soft-spoken but perceptive, fair-minded.

Juror #10: A garage owner, who simmers with anger, bitterness, racist bigotry; nasty,repellent, intolerant.

Juror #11: A watchmaker speaks with a heavy accent, of German-European descent, a

recent refugee and immigrant; expresses reverence and respect for American democracy.

The introductory structuring stage in the film is exhibited when the men are making easy

discussions about games, new, climate, business, and so on while attempting to cool the

room with a fan that doesn't appear to capacity and holding up for one colleague to rejoin

them from the men's room. In this stage the men do settle on the choice to hold a

beginning vote on the respondent's blame. A percentage of the gathering parts show up to

some of degree provisional in relating their vote by a show of hands yet oblige the jury

foreman in this way of the starting vote.

At this stage, bunch parts regularly feel uncomfortable with other gathering parts and are

dubious of how to act yet need to be amiable and seem agreeable. Emulating this starting

introduction, a phase of clash has a tendency to create. In the film, the first demonstration

of the storming stage is the sole not liable vote offered by Fonda. Keeping in mind the end

goal to convict the respondent, the vote must be consistent. Henry Fonda's character

realizes that clash will emerge when he settles on the choice to can't help contradicting the

other eleven hearers who voted liable. Right now the storming stage starts to cover with a

phase of norming. With Fonda's recommendation that they examine the case for 60

minutes instead of settle on a rushed choice and Webber's proposal that they listen as

every hearer endeavors to "persuade" Fonda of the litigant's blame, the guidelines are

situated.


5/9

There is conscious differences from the get go with a portion of the members of the jury

exhibiting their thinking for voting liable. At that point Juror #10, played by Ed Begley, hops

in out of turn and disturbs the settled upon strategy for listening to each one man thus. The

legal hearers then endeavor to come back to the methodology of going around the table in

place yet Jack Klugman's character declines to examine his thinking and "passes." Withexpanding examinations of the members of the jury's thinking there is by all accounts trust-

building happening. Lee J. Cobb and Jack Klugman open up about their own particular

individual encounters.

The gathering gradually partitions into subgroups of men voting blameworthy and men

voting not liable as ensuing votes are finished. The gathering as an issue is restless to take

a vote and get the errand finished with the goal that they can proceed onward with their

lives. They begin off the gathering with a vote by a show of hands. Once an assention has

been made to examine each member of the jury's point of view by his vote, a level headed

discussion over the proof introduced at trial results. As each one bit of confirmation or

affirmation is viewed as the men concentrate on testing its authenticity to fuse it into theirchoice making.

The men perform a vote by mystery ticket after a few thoughts of the proof displayed and

talk among the men. We see the phases of shaping, storming, norming, and performing

rehash through the procedure of each one vote. The stages are not generally in this specific

request and frequently happen in the meantime. The men keep on getting to know one

another through their collaborations in the men's room, shutting the windows when the

downpour starts, and dialogs about their individual contemplations and sentiments on the

decision.

There is clash exhibit between each one vote as we see men shielding their positions ofeither a vote of liable or a vote of not blameworthy. The men additionally contend over the

validity of observer affirmation, the fitness of the safeguard legal advisor, and the

respondent's justification. The technique for the homicide is additionally discussed,

complete with a re-order. The best representation of the advancement of union in the

gathering comes after the vote of 3 to 9 when eleven of the men actually play Judas on Ed

Begley, who is scrutinizing minorities and his individual bigot mentality.

The hearer played by E. G. Marshall hushes him by letting him know to, 'take a seat and

don't open your mouth once more.' The gathering does keep up standards of how the votes

will be thrown, despite the fact that the technique transforms from a show of hands to a

mystery vote and eventually a verbal survey, there is dependably assertion among the men

before the voting returns. Each one vote is an execution of the errand for which the men

are dependable. This methodology rehashes itself until an aggregate of seven votes have

been requested and a consistent decision is settled upon.

The main men who even acquaint themselves with one another are Henry Fonda and

Joseph Sweeney, instantly before they go their different ways. On account of the way of

the assignment of the jury, there was never a desire of proceeded with connections once

the choice was arrived at.

2. Describe all the 12 people and their leadership style taking any leadership model?

Why you say so?


6/9

Juror 3- angry, loud opinionated

Juror 4- opinionated, nervous motion (he tends to pace the room), serious, logical

Juror 5- reasonable, uses his own experiences to make his arguments.

Juror 9- would be seen as the mediator, the man who brings harmony to the process. He is

older, retired, and he stands up for what he believes in without flinching.Jurors 12 and 7 are the followers of the group. They simply go along with whoever is

talking at the moment.

Juror 2- calm, shy, quiet

Juror 10- angry, loud

1st

Juror

He is responsible for keeping the jury organized, which is his main focus in the play. He is an

assistant football coach outside of the jury room.

2nd

Juror

A shy bank clerk who takes time to feel comfortable enough to participate in thediscussion.

3rd

Juror

3rd Juror is a small business owner. He proudly says that he started his business from

scratch and now employs thirty-four workers. We learn early on that he has a bad

relationship with his own son, with whom he is no longer speaking. We are led to believe

that this is a contributing factor to his prejudice against the defendant, accused of stabbing

his own father. 3rd Juror is the last to be convinced and only changes his mind once he

realizes that he is only projecting his feelings about his own son onto the defendant.

4

th

Juror4th Juror is a stock broker. He wears glasses and seems to handle himself with a very

serious air. He deals with the facts of the case logically and concretely.

5th

Juror

5th Juror works in a Harlem hospital and says that he himself has lived in the slums his

entire life. This gives him insight into such details as the use of a switchblade.

6th

Juror

A house painter, he is happy that the case continues as it means he doesnt have to work,

but is hesitant to put a potential killer back on the streets. He sticks up for 9th Juror, an old

man, and seems to be a respectful man.

7th Juror

7th Jurors main concern in the case is whether or not it will end before his ball game, for

which he has tickets. He sells marmalade and is generally indifferent to the case. He

changes his vote to not guilty simply because the tide of opinion switches, and he wants

the deliberations to be over.

8th

Juror

He is the only juror who votes not guilty at the first vote. He is discontent with the way

the trial was handled and wants them to discuss the evidence in greater detail. Met with

much opposition, he continues to advocate for the boy. We learn that he is an architect, by

trade.


7/9

9th

Juror

9th Juror is an old man. He respects 8th Juror's passion and sense of justice and quickly

comes to his aid and becomes and advocate for the defendant.

10

th

JurorHe is one of the most fervent attackers of the defendant. Tactless and fairly bigoted, he

condemns the defendant as one of them right from the start.

11th Juror

11th Juror is a German immigrant watchmaker. He is very patriotic and talks about how

much he loves the American justice system.

12th

Juror

12th Juror works for a marketing agency, to which job he refers to often. He seems

constantly distracted from the case.

3. Not counting juror #8, who did you think was the best juror? Why was he the best?

3rd Juror

3rd Juror is a small business owner. He proudly says that he started his business from

scratch and now employs thirty-four workers. We learn early on that he has a bad

relationship with his own son, with whom he is no longer speaking. We are led to believe

that this is a contributing factor to his prejudice against the defendant, accused of stabbing

his own father. 3rd Juror is the last to be convinced and only changes his mind once he

realizes that he is only projecting his feelings about his own son onto the defendant.

4. What qualities did Juror #8 have that made him such a strong leader?

The 8th juror votes not guilty at the first vote. He is discontent with the way the

tr ial was handled and wants them to discuss the evidence in greater detail . Met wi th

much opposition, he conti nues to advocate for the boy. He doesn' t seem blinded by

personal bias, prejudice or the need to be reli eved of h is ju ry duties. The 8th juror

questions the poli ce handli ng of the case as well as the cour t system's handling of

the evidence. When a discussion about the murder weapon, which was ident if ied as

the kni fe purchased by the defendant, a one-of-a-kind knife, begins, 8th Juror

surpri ses the others by presenti ng an identical kn if e he had purchased in a pawn

shop two blocks fr om where the boy li ved a few nigh ts pri or, shatter ing the claim

that the knif e was so unique and identi f iable.

5. Describe your key learning as leaders- What is leadership? Who makes a good

leader? What are the qualities of a strong leader?


8/9

The individuals who are the leaders in an organization, regarded coll ectively.

The activity of leading a group of people or an organization or the abil ity to

do this.

Leadershi p involves

establi shi ng a clear vision

shari ng that vision wi th others so that they will foll ow will ingly,

providing the in formation, knowledge and methods to reali ze that vision

coordinating and balancing the confl icting interests of all members and

stakeholders

A l eader steps up in times of cr isis, and is able to think and act creatively in

dif fi cul t si tuations. Unli ke management, leadership cannot be taught, although

it may be learned and enhanced through coaching or mentor ing. Someone with

great leadership skills today is Bill Gates who, despite early failures, with

continued passion and innovation has dri ven M icrosoft and the software

industr y to success.

The act of i nspir ing subordinates to perform and engage in achieving a goal.

6. What other areas of organizational behaviour theories/ learning you may relate the

film?

Discuss with specific incidences from the movie.

Beyond the example of a cooperative communi ty that was establi shed among the

jurors in 12 Angry Men, we can draw from the fi lm examples of how leadership canminimize rivalr ies, constructively integrate opposing views, and contr ibute to

developing effective coali tions. The fi rst positive stepthat Fondas character took

toward constructively integrating opposing views was hi s overall approach to the

situation. The opposing views of the ju rors were uti li zed in order to understand

dif fer ing perspectives. The underlying theme that seemed to be presented in the fi lm

was that the addition of mul tiple perspectives would provide dif ferent poin ts of view

that would eventuall y lead to the best solu tion.

I n order to minimize rivalr ies and in tegrate opposing views, it is impor tant to view

diversity as an opportuni ty as opposed to a threat to progress. The presence of

varying perspectives, if handled effectively, provides the benefi t of greaterunderstanding. Creative and innovative members of a communi ty are more likely to


9/9

consider a more wide range of ideas in an effort to develop the most effective

solu tion that wil l be accepted by the widest range of individuals.

Un for tunately, the incorporati on of diversity can be wrought with chal lenges. One

such challenge can be that people have a tendency to value their own contr ibuti onsmore than those of others.Th is proves to be a challenge as members of a group

want to be appreciated and f eel as though their poin t of view is valued as part of the

greater conversation. Beyond being valued and respected, it is impor tant to

understand what each member of the group can contr ibu te to the overall process.

One way to help members feel appreciated and understand how all the viewpoin ts

can fi t together, as mentioned in the fi rst section, is thr ough greater li stening skil ls.

Beyond simply listening, it is important to be sensitive to the needs of others.I t is

thr ough th is process of sincere li stening that members of di f feri ng wor ldviews can

begin to buil d personal relationships that are important dur ing communi ty dialogue

This is an especial ly importan t ski ll for leaders to possess and within the fi lm Fondamodels this behaviour for the others withi n their small communi ty. Moreover,

through a leaders sensitivity to the needs of others, he or she can recognize their

needs and offer ways to f i ll them.Fonda exhibi ts thi s ski l l as he works, thr ough

eff ective dialogue, to understand the background, needs, and feel ings of the other

jurors. Specif ically, i t is the al lowance for understanding that eventual ly leads to

the shar ing of the 3rd Juror and his estranged relati onship with h is son. Th is act of

shar ing alone has a vast impact on the abil ity of the communi ty to arri ve at a

unanimous decision.

On a f inal note in th is section, there are other benefi ts to encour aging var ious

viewpoin ts. Needless to say, 12 jurors responsible for whether or not a young boy

wil l r eceive the death penal ty can be considered a stressfu l situation. In additi on,

the hot conditions of the room as well as the time pressur es presented fr om some

members created even more stress. As a way of defusing some of this stress, Fonda

was clear in his intentions to simply talk about it.This dialogue had a way of

all owing the jurors to share the stress with each other. Thus, leading to a greater

community.

12angrymen Answers analysis

Documents

Transcript of 12angrymen Answers analysis