Twelve Angry Men
Twelve Angry Men depicts different types of leadership, communication, and group dynamics. The film revolves around the jurisdiction of a homicide trial with a jury that almost unanimously votes the defendant guilty, with only one opposing voter. This man, Juror #8, presents his decision through ideas of reasonable doubt that spiral into a majority vote of not-guilty. So, how does a group of twelve men completely shift their point of view from guilty to not-guilty? The power of effective leadership and communication. Juror #8 was able to effectively communicate with the men to think of other scenarios that prove the defendant not-guilty through democratic styled leadership. He did not necessarily think the defendant was not guilty. However, he was not positive the boy was guilty and did not want to make a decision without 100% confidence. Therefore, he communicated his view by encouraging the jury to examine the facts in a new light and opening a discussion amongst the jurors. The re-analyzation of the facts arose new questions about the verity of the facts, allowing some, and
…show more content…
Without followers one cannot be declared a leader. If juror #8 stated and expressed reasons for his view and no others followed, the decision would have been in the majority’s favor and juror #8 would have just been a man with an opinion. Instead, he was able to first convince juror #9, which immediately gave his opinion credibility. Once juror #9 switched sides, it was evident that everyone else re-examined their opinion and started to formulate valid questions. Juror #9 was able to break the hold of group think, allowing others to actually voice their thoughts. This especially pertains to the quiet jurors who were originally too intimidated to question the majority. These jurors were now actually able to think for themselves and were open to communicate juror #8’s points of reasonable
Without followers one cannot be declared a leader. If juror #8 stated and expressed reasons for his view and no others followed, the decision would have been in the majority’s favor and juror #8 would have just been a man with an opinion. Instead, he was able to first convince juror #9, which immediately gave his opinion credibility. Once juror #9 switched sides, it was evident that everyone else re-examined their opinion and started to formulate valid questions. Juror #9 was able to break the hold of group think, allowing others to actually voice their thoughts. This especially pertains to the quiet jurors who were originally too intimidated to question the majority. These jurors were now actually able to think for themselves and were open to communicate juror #8’s points of reasonable