12 ANGRY MEN

Institute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad

Name

Roll Number

Sr No.
KRISHNA MOHAN SINGH

1403001009

PRATEEK JHA

1403001015

SHWETA SINGH

1403001019

VAIBHAV PRAKASH

1403001022

YOGESH SAINI

1403001025

1
2
3
4
5

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 reduce
opposite 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 most
creative 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 the
other 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 saw
rather than different opinions of the members.

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 as
the 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. Group
togetherness 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.

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.

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." With
expanding examinations of the members of the jury's thinking there is by all accounts trustbuilding 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 their
choice 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 of
either 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?

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 the
discussion.
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.
4th Juror
4th 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.

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.
10th Juror
He 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
trial was handled and wants them to discuss the evidence in greater detail. Met with
much opposition, he continues to advocate for the boy. He doesn't seem blinded by
personal bias, prejudice or the need to be relieved of his jury duties. The 8th juror
questions the police handling of the case as well as the court system's handling of
the evidence. When a discussion about the murder weapon, which was identified as
the knife purchased by the defendant, a one-of-a-kind knife, begins, 8th Juror
surprises the others by presenting an identical knife he had purchased in a pawn
shop two blocks from where the boy lived a few nights prior, shattering the claim
that the knife was so unique and identifiable.

5. Describe your key learning as leaders- What is leadership?

leader? What are the qualities of a strong leader?

Who makes a good

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

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

do this.

Leadership involves

establishing a clear vision

sharing that vision with others so that they will follow willingly,

providing the information, knowledge and methods to realize that vision

coordinating and balancing the conflicting interests of all members and

stakeholders

A leader steps up in times of crisis, and is able to think and act creatively in
difficult situations. Unlike management, leadership cannot be taught, although
it may be learned and enhanced through coaching or mentoring. Someone with
great leadership skills today is Bill Gates who, despite early failures, with
continued passion and innovation has driven Microsoft and the software
industry to success.

The act of inspiring 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 community that was established among the
jurors in 12 Angry Men, we can draw from the film examples of how leadership can
minimize rivalries, constructively integrate opposing views, and contribute to
developing effective coalitions. The first positive step that Fondas character took
toward constructively integrating opposing views was his overall approach to the
situation. The opposing views of the jurors were utilized in order to understand
differing perspectives. The underlying theme that seemed to be presented in the film
was that the addition of multiple perspectives would provide different points of view
that would eventually lead to the best solution.
In order to minimize rivalries and integrate opposing views, it is important to view
diversity as an opportunity as opposed to a threat to progress. The presence of
varying perspectives, if handled effectively, provides the benefit of greater
understanding. Creative and innovative members of a community are more likely to

consider a more wide range of ideas in an effort to develop the most effective
solution that will be accepted by the widest range of individuals.
Unfortunately, the incorporation of diversity can be wrought with challenges. One
such challenge can be that people have a tendency to value their own contributions
more than those of others. This proves to be a challenge as members of a group
want to be appreciated and feel as though their point of view is valued as part of the
greater conversation. Beyond being valued and respected, it is important to
understand what each member of the group can contribute to the overall process.
One way to help members feel appreciated and understand how all the viewpoints
can fit together, as mentioned in the first section, is through greater listening skills.
Beyond simply listening, it is important to be sensitive to the needs of others. It is
through this process of sincere listening that members of differing worldviews can
begin to build personal relationships that are important during community dialogue
This is an especially important skill for leaders to possess and within the film Fonda
models this behaviour for the others within their small community. Moreover,
through a leaders sensitivity to the needs of others, he or she can recognize their
needs and offer ways to fill them. Fonda exhibits this skill as he works, through
effective dialogue, to understand the background, needs, and feelings of the other
jurors. Specifically, it is the allowance for understanding that eventually leads to
the sharing of the 3rd Juror and his estranged relationship with his son. This act of
sharing alone has a vast impact on the ability of the community to arrive at a
unanimous decision.
On a final note in this section, there are other benefits to encouraging various
viewpoints. Needless to say, 12 jurors responsible for whether or not a young boy
will receive the death penalty can be considered a stressful situation. In addition,
the hot conditions of the room as well as the time pressures presented from 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
allowing the jurors to share the stress with each other. Thus, leading to a greater
community.