decsion management

Running Head: GROUP DYNAMICS OF THEATRICAL FILM 12 ANGRY MEN 1

Group Dynamics of Theatrical Film 12 Angry Men

April Hord, Joanne Huebner, Laura Morgan and Eunjin Yoo

Virginia Commonwealth University

GROUP DYNAMICS OF THEATRICAL FILM 12 ANGRY MEN 2

Introduction

In Greek mythology, there are the twelve Olympians who are the principal

gods of the Pantheon and the apostles of Jesus were twelve. In Oriental phi-

losophy, one of twelve animals is assigned to everyone depending on the

year when they are born. The animal represents their personality and

propensity which affect their fortune and destiny. The Zodiac signs are also

twelve in Western astrology. The viewer can see twelve different personali-

ties or characteristics in the jury in the film 12 Angry Men. Each characteristic

emerges over the course of the movie rather than being evident from the beginning, and each ju-

ror affected the team activities in his own way.

A team is defined as “structured groups of people working on defined

common goals that require coordinated interactions to accomplish certain

tasks” (Forsyth, 1999). The goal of the twelve men was a consensus about

whether a defendant was guilty or not guilty. In order to produce the out-

come, the men interacted with each another. Schwarz, Davidson, Carlson, &

McKinney (2005) state that the factors contributing to group effectiveness can

be measured on a continuum and are a function of three factors: group

process, group structure, and group context. This paper will describe how the

theatrical film, 12 Angry Men, illustrates member roles in teams, literature

concepts of teams, team development, alternative models of group develop-

ment.

Illustration of Group Member Roles


The roles of each team member, for successful team performance, are to contribute to the

goal of the team and interact with other team members. Bradley and Herbert (1997) stated that

the ideal team should have diversity of talents and knowledge as well as maintain open and non-

threatening communication. Although there were no assigned member roles, the roles of con-

tributing to the goal and maintaining open communication in 12 Angry Men emerged over time

as he jurors’ task and social roles developed.

There are four critical factors of productive teams; leadership, communication, cohesion,

and heterogeneity (Bradley & Herbert, 1997). A leader must not only be knowledgeable and pos-

itive but also the type of the person who leads people from different functional fields and levels

of management. Intra-communication is a crucial action of every team to develop the team’s suc-

cess. In a four-person group, two people talk more than 70% of the time while in a six-person

group, three people do more than 85% of the communication of the team (Levi 2007).

According to Benne and Sheats (1948), an effective and mature team has multi-leadership.

They explain team roles and team leadership with new perspectives. Even though individual

roles are divided at first, as the team develops, team members will share the leadership and come

to be responsible with for the team’s performance together. The leadership in 12 Angry Men is

shared by Henry Fonda and Martin Balsam. Martin Balsam, the jury foreman, led the jury as a

facilitator, while the practical leader who guided the way was Henry Fonda, a fellow juror. While

Henry Fonda and Martine Balsam seem extroverted, they were better communicators as listeners

than talkers. When Henry Fonda did not agree with those who thought the defendant was guilty,

he wanted to listen more than he wanted to talk or persuade them.


Benne and Sheats (1948) also divide team roles into two categories; task related and so-

cially-related roles. Task related roles include initiator-contributor, information giver, informa-

tion seeker, opinion giver, opinion seeker, coordinator, energizer, and evaluator/critic.

Task related roles are illustrated throughout the film 12 Angry Men. An initiator/contribu-

tor is a person who proposes new ideas or new ways for the group to act. Henry Fonda’s charac-

ter was the only person who was not sure if the defendant was guilty at first even though every-

one thought that he was guilty. He expressed his thoughts carefully and ultimately led the team

to change their verdict. The role of information giver is to provide data and facts to aid in deci-

sion making. Joseph Sweeney talked about the possibility that an old man’s testimony as a wit-

ness could be false and also suggested that a woman who had given an eyewitness testimony had

poor eyesight. Jack Klugman knew how to use knives because he was from a slum so he gave the

information about an angle of the knife in team communication. Henry Fonda’s character also

plays the role of an information seeker by requesting more information about the case before

reaching a decision about the defendant’s guilt. He asked for each team member to provide his

reasoning for voting guilty to aid him in understanding and drawing his own conclusion. E. G.

Marshall was also an information seeker. He was rational and focused on the facts and informa-

tion which he could see rather than different opinions of the crime.

Opinion giver is a person who provides opinions, values, and feelings. Lee J. Cobb and Ed

Begley gave their opinions and even their prejudices about the defendant based on his youth and

immigrant background. Lee J. Cobb and Ed Begley talked a lot but their communication with

others did not work well and ultimately nobody listened to their opinions. Jack Warden was also

an opinion giver. He insisted that the defendant was guilty without further consideration to get

out of the room as soon as possible. On the other hand, Martin Balsam as the jury foreman


served as an opinion seeker by asking for the opinions of the twelve men before making a deci-

sion.

The coordinator shows relationships of ideas to organize the discussion. George Voskovec

and Henry Fonda organized the information which the team members found and made connec-

tions. This method helped other team members to think more reasonably. An energizer is a per-

son who stimulates the group to continue working. Evaluators/critics question the group’s ideas

and procedures. Henry Fonda made other members consider the facts and the other perspectives

about the crime throughout the movie by asking reasonable questions. Henry Fonda was both an

energizer and an evaluator in the jury.

The socially related roles in the movie are a good example of how personality type in

teams can affect team performance. Bradley and Hebert (1997) used a psychometrics instru-

ment, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to measure personality types. MBTI was made

by Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers Briggs which was based on Jung’s theory of psychological

type theory.

The team member’s personality affects how much he participates socially in a team discus-

sion within the communication climate. Group cohesion is required for social interactions of

teams with good communication. Cohesion is related with the emotion of togetherness so it af-

fects resolution of conflicts among members and develops good social relationships. Heterogene-

ity is inconsistent for the effect of teams but it is beneficial in creative and judgmental tasks

(Levi, 2007). Diversity of abilities, perspectives, and knowledge with a balance of personality

types makes teams more effective, and it works for solving complicated problems.

According to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, individuals have one of two preferences or

alternatives of their behaviors:


(1) how a person is energized – designated by extrovert (E) versus introvert (I),

(2) what information a person perceives – designated by sensing (S) versus intuition (N),

(3) how a person decides – thinking (T) versus feeling (F), and

(4) the life-style a person adopts – judging (J) versus perceiving (P) (Bradley 1997).

The four kinds of preferences make 16 different types of personality in their various com-

binations. Life’s natural leaders are the ENTJs and administrators are the ESTJs. The type of

ENTJs is more creative so ENTJs are preferred for solving complex problems and ESTJs can be

better in practical performance. However, it could be different depending on the situation or job.

When the team has structured problems and does not need creativity, the sensing leader works

well while the intuitive leader functions better to solve complex problems or to approach new

methods to team performance.

Extroverts communicate with others more than the introverts, the sensing more than the in-

tuitive, and the thinking more than the feeling personality types. When there are many extroverts

within teams, it is hard to communicate with each other and it disturbs successful communica-

tion. Sensing types focus on the facts so they arrange the information for communication and it

helps other members to understand while intuitive people make communication hard because

they try to focus and advance sophisticated ideas. Thinking types make quick a decision or judg-

ment and speak their thoughts but feeling types tend not to talk about their opinions if their opin-

ion may hurt others’ feelings. A team should have enough extroverts and sensing types for effec-

tive communication.

E.G. Marshall and George Voskovec are portrayed as sensing types. They stressed the

facts which others could ignore and helped to arrange the information. Henry Fonda and Joseph

Sweeney seem intuitive. They tried to show other possibilities and implications behind the infor-


mation in team performance. An intuitive orientation prefers to improve alternative ideas rather

than deal with facts and solutions to problems.

Thinking and feeling types are more closely related to cohesion than other types. While

feeling types try to create harmony, thinking types may distress feeling types when they make an

immediate judgment. Teams with cohesion still have conflict, but the conflict is a part of the

team’s performance development process. A cohesive team uses conflict as a method for syner-

gizing the team’s product.

Lee J. Cobb and Ed Begley are feeling individuals. They made decisions based on their

personal values. Their decision making was not based on logic but was founded on their preju-

dices and subjective ideas. A thinking orientation does not consider personal factors in making

judgments but focuses on logical and analytical methods for rational judgment and decisions.

Henry Fonda, E.G. Marshall, Joseph Sweeney, and George Voskovec were thinking styles. They

made judgments built on truth and rationality.

Leadership, task and social roles emerged over the jury’s time together. Attributes of the

jurors’ personalities, rather than formally assigned roles, contributed to the team’s performance

by merit of their own advantages and perspectives. Heterogeneous teams are prone to produce

fewer problems than a team with psychological homogeneity. The heterogeneous makeup of the

individuals on this team is what makes a fair and impartial jury. Homogeneous teams, as they

may have been considered at the beginning of the film, may make a decision quickly with con-

sensus but not consider different perspectives, and it does not work for creative approach.

Socialization

As asserted in the discussion on team roles, “the potential for teamwork lies in the fact

that a whole is greater than the sum of its parts; the collective work of a group of people is more


than its individuals could accomplish separately” (Levi, 2007, p. 58). Teamwork should both

contribute to the growth of the individual and accomplish a task for which they are mutually ac-

countable. In order to accomplish more than he can accomplish on his own, each person in the

team has to be motivated to work, individually and collectively, toward the goal. This occurs as

the 12 Angry Men jury move through the socialization process.

Group socialization is a process, the process by which a person becomes a member of a

group (team). Social identification, social representation, and motivation to participate are so-

cial behaviors that emerge as part of that process. “Social behaviors are important for building

trust in communication, encouraging the team to operate smoothly, providing social support, and

rewarding participation” (Levi, 2007, p. 68).

This jury did not spend time needed in the beginning of their relationship to develop a so-

cial identity, a cohesive feeling that binds a group together separately from others. They began

their time together intrinsically motivated toward a quick and easy verdict for various individual

reasons. Some of the jurors may not have been as sure about a guilty verdict, but could justify it

as the result of the evidence they had heard prior to the group socialization process.

As the men began interacting, they became more of a social entity and more extrinsically

motivated by the building synergy of identifying with the others as a group with a common pur-

pose. Through this process, they were developing social identification. Subgroups of the men

who voted guilty vs. those who voted not guilty shifted throughout the movie. There was a feel-

ing of ‘we’ know better than ‘they’ do whether it be ‘we’ know he is guilty or ‘we’ know there is

reason to doubt he is guilty.

Individually, the men each had a strong social identification with a group outside of the

jury, whether it was ‘older men’ or ‘a man from the slums’ or a ‘foreigner’ or an ‘architect.’


These individual perspectives made it difficult to quickly develop a sense of social identification

with the new group because there were not many commonalities; however, as stated earlier, they

contributed to each member’s role within the team.

Although the men had a difficult time developing social identification, they discovered

over time that they had elements of social representation, shared values and beliefs. Each man

believed in his civic duty as a member of a jury. As such, they agreed in the importance of ‘be-

yond a reasonable doubt.’ When they began to discover this commonality of the group – beliefs

and values rather than identification – they came together, shared their perspectives and knowl-

edge and made a well-informed decision about the defendant’s guilt.

One individual that had difficulty both with social identification and social representation

of the group was Ed Begley’s character, the bigot. Because of his inability to identify with the

group, his motivation to contribute to the group was diminished as they moved in thought from

his ‘guilty’ frame of mind, and he became a social loafer. Latane, Williams & Harkins state “one

of the biggest motivation problems for teams is social loafing, which is the reduction of individ-

ual contributions when people work in groups rather than alone (Levi, 2007, p. 58).” Social loaf-

ing is difficult to identify in this group. While some of the members contributed more to the dis-

cussions than others, contributions were given when requested and some may have simply been

more thoughtful in listening, not lacking in motivation to participate.

12 Angry Men illustrates Argyris and Schon’s models of unilateral control and mutual

learning in the jury team’s group socialization process that emerged over time (Schwarz et al.,

2005). Lee Cobb’s character, a bullying, opinionated, intolerant, hostile and angry man, classi-

cally demonstrates the unilateral control model. In the Unilateral Control Model, core values and

assumptions include “achieving my goal through unilateral control, win don’t lose, those who


see the situation differently don’t understand it like I do, I am right those who disagree are wrong

and my feelings are justified “(p.36). Lee Cobb opens the deliberation process by proclaiming

that it is ‘an open and shut case’ and advocating his position to others before discussion even be-

gins. His unilateral control strategies included advocating his position and keeping his reasoning

private until the end of the film when he admits his experience with his own son is the root cause

of his opinion. The consequences emerge in unproductive conflict, defensiveness, mistrust and

reduced effectiveness as further probing finds him contradicting his own statements, which chal-

lenges his credibility and social identity with the group.

Henry Fonda’s character, on the other hand, classically portrays the Mutual Learning

Model. He operates from the core values and assumptions that “I had some information and oth-

ers have other information, each of us may see things the others do not, differences are opportu-

nities for learning, and everyone has free and informed choice” (Schwartz et al., p.36). His char-

acter instigates a thoughtful reconsideration of the case, using sound reasoning and shared infor-

mation and other mutual learning strategies such as testing assumptions and inferences, explain-

ing reasoning and intent, and jointly designing the approach. As a result, he demonstrates the

positive consequences of this model when the increased understanding and learning results in the

reconsideration of their original stated verdict by the majority of the jury members.

The emerging social supports of the twelve angry men, emotional, informational, task

and belonging (Levi, 2007, p. 69) throughout the group socialization process developed their so-

cial identity and revealed their social representation. This resulted in twelve agreeable men.

Applying Tuckman’s Model

In Twelve Angry Men, there is no classic uni-directional movement of the jury through

Tuckman’s stages of group development but a cycle of the stages that reoccurred throughout the


process while some stages occur simultaneously. The focus of Tuckman’s theory is the develop-

ment of internal relations among members of the team. Tuckman proposes that group develop-

ment begins with the forming stage where a few measurable accomplishments occur but it is pri-

marily a time of getting to know one another (Levi, 2007). The initial forming stage in the film is

demonstrated when the men are making casual conversation about sports, new, weather, busi-

ness, etc. while trying to cool the room with a fan that doesn’t seem to function and waiting for

one team member to rejoin them from the men’s room. In this stage the men do make the deci-

sion to hold an initial vote on the defendant’s guilt. Some of the group members appear some-

what tentative in relating their vote by a show of hands but oblige the jury foreman in this man-

ner of the initial vote. At this stage, group members often feel uncomfortable with other group

members and are uncertain of how to act but want to be polite and appear compliant.

Following this initial orientation, a stage of conflict tends to develop which Tuckman

deems the storming stage. In this stage group members feel more open to disagree over proce-

dures and may become polarized into subgroups as different perspectives are shared which lead

to a deeper understanding of the members’ positions (Levi, 2007). In the film, the first act of the

storming stage is the sole not guilty vote offered by Fonda. In order to convict the defendant, the

vote must be unanimous. Henry Fonda’s character must know that conflict will arise when he

makes the decision to disagree with the other eleven jurors who voted guilty. At this point the

storming stage begins to overlap with a stage of norming. In the norming stage the group begins

to organize itself, sets some ground rules, and the level of trust among members increases (Levi,

2007). With Fonda’s suggestion that they discuss the case for at least an hour rather than make a

hasty decision and Webber’s recommendation that they listen as each juror attempts to “con-

vince” Fonda of the defendant’s guilt, the ground rules are set. There is respectful disagreement


at first with some of the jurors presenting their reasoning for voting guilty. Then Juror #10,

played by Ed Begley, jumps in out of turn and disrupts the agreed upon method of listening to

each man in turn. The jurors then attempt to return to the process of going around the table in or-

der but Jack Klugman’s character refuses to discuss his reasoning and “passes.” With increasing

discussions of the jurors’ reasoning there seems to be trust-building occurring. Lee J. Cobb and

Jack Klugman open up about their own personal experiences. The group slowly divides into sub-

groups of men voting guilty and men voting not guilty as subsequent votes are completed.

Performing is the stage at which the group focuses on the task at hand, cooperates to

make a decision and completes the task (Levi, 2007). The jurors tend to be very focused on the

task from the beginning. The group as a whole is anxious to take a vote and get the task com-

pleted so that they can move on with their lives. They start off the meeting with a vote by a show

of hands. Once an agreement has been made to discuss each juror’s thought process by his vote,

a debate over the evidence presented at trial ensues. As each piece of evidence or testimony is

considered the men focus on testing its legitimacy to incorporate it into their decision-making.

The men perform a vote by secret ballot after some deliberations of the evidence presented and

discussion among the men. We see the stages of forming, storming, norming, and performing re-

peat through the process of each vote. The stages are not always in this particular order and often

occur at the same time. The men continue to get to know each other through their interactions in

the men’s room, closing the windows when the rain begins, and discussions about their personal

thoughts and feelings on the verdict. There is conflict present between each vote as we see men

defending their positions of either a vote of guilty or a vote of not guilty. The men also argue

over the credibility of eye witness testimony, the aptitude of the defense lawyer, and the defen-

dant’s alibi. The method of the murder is also debated, complete with a re-enactment.


Tuckman proposes that conflict not only helps to clarify the group’s goals but its resolu-

tion can also lead to greater cohesiveness among the group and development of group identity

(Levi, 2007). The greatest representation of the development of cohesion in the group comes af-

ter the vote of 3 to 9 when eleven of the men literally turn their backs on Ed Begley, who is criti-

cizing minorities and his personal racist attitude. The juror played by E. G. Marshall silences him

by telling him to, ‘sit down and don’t open your mouth again.’ The group does maintain norms

of how the votes will be cast, although the method changes from a show of hands to a secret bal-

lot and ultimately a verbal poll, there is always agreement among the men before the voting pro-

ceeds. Each vote is a performance of the task for which the men are responsible. This process re-

peats itself until a total of seven votes have been solicited and a unanimous verdict is agreed

upon.

The adjourning stage of completing the task and disbanding is done very quickly once the

unanimous vote has been reached (Levi, 2007). The men in the film do not seem particularly

anxious about adjourning as there is no indication that a particularly strong bond or connection

has developed in their time together. The only men who even introduce themselves to each other

are Henry Fonda and Joseph Sweeney, immediately before they go their separate ways. Because

of the nature of the task of the jury, there was never an expectation of continued relationships

once the decision was reached.

Other Models of Group Development

As was described in the previous section, the jury members in the movie 12 Angry Men

did not perfectly fit Tuckman’s model of group development. Pieces of the model could be illus-

trated, but not in the linear fashion which Tuckman illustrates. Marks et al (2001) describe how

‘the realization that process plays a pivotal role in team performance has led to a proliferation of


team studies … in the past twenty years.’ From these team studies a multitude of alternative

models of group development have been proposed. Marks et al posit that most models are based

on an input-process-outcome framework. They state that these frameworks do not take into ac-

count the time factor in most teams. Instead they propose a model called the recurring phase

model that outlines the time factors in team development and how these factors influence team

functioning. The authors state that team tasks are not performed in a vacuum. In looking at the

movie 12 Angry Men the effect that time constraints has on how the team functions, especially at

the beginning, can be observed. Although the time constraints of the jury are mostly imposed by

individual members of the jury, they nonetheless exist and place a strain on team function.

Marks et al (2001) recurring phase model consists of the same input-process-outcome

framework as other models, but these steps occur in cycles. They suggest that teams perform ac-

tivities in temporal cycles, which are termed episodes. Episodes are described as ‘distinguish-

able periods of time over which performance accrues and feedback is available.’ This frame-

work seems to fit the jury in 12 Angry Men because of how the group performed. It was de-

scribed earlier that Tuckman’s model of group development fit our jury, but in a cyclic rather

than linear fashion. Tuckman’s model is an example of an input-process-outcome framework

and if looked at only linearly the model does not fit the jury because the middle two steps of

storming and norming occur multiple times throughout the movie. The recurring phase model

accounts for this cyclic nature of development. The jury moves through steps toward their goal,

but not in a linear fashion.

Another model which explains more in-depth what the group members are experiencing

during group development is described by Bennis and Shepard (1956). It is interesting that this

theory of group development was written during the same era as the movie, Twelve Angry Men.


The authors refer to members of groups throughout the article using the male pronoun only.

Their model does not describe the cyclic nature of the group process, but it does provide insight

into the various phases of group development in great detail. They begin by describing the two

main phases of the theory; phase 1 is dependence – power relations and phase 2 is interdepen-

dence – personal relations. There exists three sub phases in each phase. Within phase 1, sub

phase 1 is dependence-submission. In this sub phase roles are established and members ex-

change non-threatening personal information in order to get to know each other. In the movie

this happened mainly before the first vote. Sub phase 2 is counter dependence or the fight sub

phase. There is fighting and distrust among members. This started for the jury after the first

vote was taken and Henry Fonda’s character entered a not guilty vote. Sub phase 3 is resolution.

This sub phase is when pairings begin to occur and tasks are approached by the team. This sub

phase seems to repeat multiple times throughout the jury process. At first the pairing is just

Henry Fonda and Joseph Sweeny against the rest of the group. Both sides are working toward

the goal, but with different results.

Phase 2 is the interdependence – personal relations phase and also consists of three sub

phases. Sub phase 4 is enchantment. This is where solidarity begins to form. General distribu-

tion of participation is seen. In the 12 Angry Men jury this occurs as many of the jurors start to

consider reasonable doubt. Sub phase may be present. Sub phase 5 is disenchantment. This

phase is occurring at intervals throughout the deliberation process but can be seen whenever the

guilty voters make personal comments against Henry Fonda and the defendant. This sub phase

can be seen even up to the point of Lee J. Cobb’s tirade and subsequent breakdown. Sub phase 6

is consensual validation. This sub phase is one of acceptance. The group comes together and ac-

cepts the decision and agrees upon the outcome. The jury members all see the reasonable doubt


and accept that the defendant may not have committed the crime. This model is not only illustra-

tive of the process of group development; it also helps to understand the dynamics of group so-

cialization (Bennis and Shepard, 1956).

Group or Team?

The movie Twelve Angry Men represented the evolution of the development of a team. The

men were a self-managing team with both task and social roles, and demonstrated the implica-

tions of team development in a classic sense. Being a team did matter because, as a jury, their

tasks ultimately were to result in a verdict, one in which a person’s life was a stake.

McGrath organizes teams into three categories based on where they get

their power, who their leader is, their decision making process, and on the in-

terdependency of activities or tasks they perform (Levi, 2007). According to

McGrath, the Jury could be considered a self-managed team. Their power

was linked to an organization’s hierarchy (the judicial system) and they had

autonomy in completing their task. The ‘leader’ or facilitator was the fore-

man. In today’s juries this role might be selected by the team; however, in

this case he was Juror #1. The jury had to make their decision by consensus

because the decision must be unanimous. The men were highly interdepen-

dent in their tasks, which included reviewing the evidence and instructions,

identifying their verdict preferences and assessing their progress toward

consensus. These tasks were coordinated by team members.

Most definitions of teams focus on the team as ‘a group of people that are working together

on a common project for which they are all accountable’ (Levi, 2007, p. 5). The term ‘jury’ is

almost defined with these exact words. A jury must work together to review evidence and deter-


mine a verdict which must be unanimous. In fact, Wheelan states that effective work

teams spend about 80% of time on task (Levi, 2007). The Twelve Angry Men,

by consequence of being a member of a jury, had a task that was highly in-

terdependent. As they worked through some of their more difficult social

tasks, they were able to interact more effectively toward their common goal

of determining a verdict. While each member of the jury was not put on the

team specifically because of his specialized knowledge and skills, the movie

illustrates these specific insights that contribute to the ability to come to a

consensus decision. Jack Klugman’s character brought special insight re-

garding the neighborhood the defendant came from and its potential influ-

ence on his behavior – even as far as the way a switchblade would be used.

Henry Fonda’s character as an architect brought his skills of spatial analysis

to the description of the floor plan and the time it would take to move

through the floor plan for an aging individual.

It may be tempting to conclude that this jury was not a team on the

basis of its negative behavior. However, teams classically do not always get along. Levi

(2007) states that ‘a team’s life is often a roller-coaster of successes and failures.’ He continues

with these points:

· Emotional highs and lows are a normal part of group development.

· Developing the group is important. Time must be spent developing so-

cial relations and socializing new members, establishing goals and

norms, and defining the project.


· The group may go through periods of lower task performance as it tries

to resolve conflicts over relationship and task issues; this is a normal

part of group development as well (p.43).

The jury in Twelve Angry Men is a team by all definitions and analysis.

They did complete a task; however they did not develop good social relations

as a whole. It is difficult to determine whether they were working toward

promoting personal and professional development of the individuals (al-

though it might be assumed each did develop as a result of the process).

They may not have realized it, but they did have complementary skills, they

definitely needed to interact directly, and the task they had to perform re-

quired them to be interdependent. We believe there was a psychological

need for most of the men that they not convict a man who could potentially

be innocent of the crime.

Conclusion


Groups become teams in a number of ways. There are formal and informal groups,

planned groups and spur of the moment groups, work groups and fun groups. A jury is a group

that must learn how to perform as a team in a very short period of time. By definition they are a

team because a verdict requires interdependency as they work toward a verdict. It is through their

emerging roles, socialization process, and development process that the jury in Twelve Angry

Men becomes a team. These three components of team building do not happen in a vacuum, but

are actually interdependent and co-dependent in nature as illustrated in the chart below.

Hord, Huebner, Morgan, Yoo (2010)

References

Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues,


2, 41-46.

Bennis, W.G. & Shepard, H.A. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Relations. 9,

415.

Bradley, J. and Hebert, F. (1997) The Effect of Personality Type on Team Performance. Journal

of Management Development, 16, 337-53.

Forsyth, D. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson.

Levi, D. (2007). Group dynamics for teams. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., & Zaccaro, S.J. (2001). A temporally based framework and

taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management, 26, 356-376.

Schwarz, R., Davidson, A., Carlson, P. & McKinney, S. (2005). The skilled facilitator

fieldbook: Tips, tools, and tested methods of for consultants, facilitators, managers,

trainers, and coaches. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.

decsion management

Documents

Transcript of decsion management