Essay On 12 Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men is a 1957 American movie that is a good demonstration of many aspects of organizational behavior. In the movie, a jury of twelve men with different personalities and backgrounds must arrive at a unanimous verdict which will decide the future of a young boy who is accused of murdering his father. All evidence presented in the court is against the young boy. And a guilty verdict means a mandatory death sentence. Throughout the decision making process, we can clearly see the five stages of team development, which are forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. In addition, the movie also highlights many techniques of decision-making, personality differences and effects of emotions and moods.
In the forming stage of …show more content…
And the storming stage began. When each juror stated his point of view, it is obvious to see the difference in their personality and their decision-making methods. Even though Juror #4 listed some evidence that seemed rational, his statement of “Slums are breeding grounds for criminals” demonstrated his decision-making problem of stereotype. He assumed that kids from a broken family in the slums were more likely to commit a crime. Hearing the stereotype comment by Juror #4, Juror #5, who had lived in the slum, felt offended and started to consider about the reasoning of Juror #8. As the discussion went further, Juror #8 strengthened his rational decision-making by pointing out several alternatives that might prove the innocence of the boy. For example, the switchable knife was not unique and could only be used in a certain way that was against the evidence; the witnesses might have made mistakes about what they saw and heard. After considering Juror #8’s statements, Juror #9 converted his vote to “not guilty” in the second vote, which also represented the start of the norming
In the forming stage of …show more content…
And the storming stage began. When each juror stated his point of view, it is obvious to see the difference in their personality and their decision-making methods. Even though Juror #4 listed some evidence that seemed rational, his statement of “Slums are breeding grounds for criminals” demonstrated his decision-making problem of stereotype. He assumed that kids from a broken family in the slums were more likely to commit a crime. Hearing the stereotype comment by Juror #4, Juror #5, who had lived in the slum, felt offended and started to consider about the reasoning of Juror #8. As the discussion went further, Juror #8 strengthened his rational decision-making by pointing out several alternatives that might prove the innocence of the boy. For example, the switchable knife was not unique and could only be used in a certain way that was against the evidence; the witnesses might have made mistakes about what they saw and heard. After considering Juror #8’s statements, Juror #9 converted his vote to “not guilty” in the second vote, which also represented the start of the norming