Group 8

Name Roll No.

Archit Kumar Baisoya
(CEO) GM18CMM013
Saket Upadhyay GM18GL043
Sarat Siridhara GM18GL045
Nikita Agarwal GM18IT059
Karan Varma GM18CMM021

SBR 1
Q1)

Ans : -In the classic movie ’12 Angry Men’, a team of jurors is formed, consisting of randomly
appointed individuals set with the task of deciding upon the fate of a young individual accused of
killing his father.

The development stages:

Forming:

The characteristics of the team members vary but almost all of them are Caucasian, male and
middle-aged. Some members have pre-conceived notions about the accused in the case and want to
come to a decision quickly. All team members must be consensus for the decision to be finalized.
One other condition is that they must come to a decision before they can leave the room and the
environment is uncomfortable as well. This also plays a part in their decision-making process. There
were instances at the beginning where the jurors got acquainted with each other through small talk.

A foreman has been appointed who is responsible for communicating the decision of the group.

Storming:

This is a precarious and tough stage where many teams often fail to move beyond. Numerous
disputes occur as individuals establish their standpoints and a lot of convincing arguments need to
be forth in order to move the conversation forward. Like-minded people could connect and
subgroups may be formed.

Juror no.3 had a confliction opinion from the others at first, he respected other people’s opinions
but was confident about his own arguments. He displayed high emotional intelligence and this
spurred constructive conversations. Most of the incidents in the movie are in this stage and there
are 12 team members on an equal footing and everyone’s opinions must be heard. There were no
pre-assigned roles, including a leader; this made the process harder.

After the first ballot is done and only Juror no.3 votes not guilty, a heated debate takes place where
in Juror no. 3 has to make a strong case for his opinion and introduces the concept of reasonable
doubt.
Norming

Soon after comes the norming stage. This is a pivotal step as the team members begin recognizing
and respecting each other’s opinions. They begin to settle their differences and get to know another
better. Cooperating is enhanced. There is more sociable behavior towards each other and all this
helps in reaching their common goal faster.

In the movie, interpersonal relationships are mainly strengthened during the breaks and one-on-one
conversations.

Example:

-When Juror no. 10 shows a picture of his son and talks about his strained relationship with him.

- When Juror no. 10 lashed at the old person when talking and other jury members ask him to
respect the old man and let him give the time to talk.

Please note that there is a lot of back and forth between the storming and norming phase.

Performing:

This stage is where the team’s effectiveness is at it’s highest point. The team is a cohesive unit and
well organized. Obstacles and conflicts are dealt with in a constructive manner. The team is highly
focused on achieving the decided goals through a strategy.

Example:

There is one jury member who come up the idea that because the accused (son) was smaller than
the victim(father), the downward stab would not have been possible, to contradict this statement
juror no. 10 tries enacting and with difficulty was able to prove otherwise. But then another jury
member comes up with the idea that in case of flip swiss knife the downward stab would not been
there because that would require repositioning of the hand.

This illustrates that when a common objective is set, each member is contributing towards the goal
with their domain knowledge to get task done.

Adjournment:

This is the stage where the group finishes the task and disperses. At this point, it is vital for the team
members to gain a form of closure and recognition for the work they’ve accomplished.
Q2)
Ans : - Yes, members of the team differ in their maturity levels and the same is reflected as
under:

 Juror 1 – Foreman – He was the chosen leader in the movie 12 Angry Men. As per his
character he came across more as a diplomatic leader than that of a
multidimensional leader. As the movie progressed this character took a backseat and
others took over the jury. As per him there were no rationale to decision making and
was willing to do whatever the group felt. Also, after the 1st ballot he did not seem
very open to discuss the possibility of a not guilty verdict.
 Juror 2 – He come across as more of a follower than a leader. He was open to other’s
opinions and likely to adopt the opinion of the last person with whom he has spoken.
This made him someone who was easier to be manipulated.
 Juror 3 – He had a strong personality with the most anger of all jurors and had
personal problems of his own. He was someone who tried to enforce his opinions
and views on others. And during the movie we came across a screenplay where Juror
3 had a verbal fight with Juror 8 claiming that “Get out of my way, I’ll kill him”
 Juror 4 – He was someone who relied on facts and logical reasoning. This was
evident in a scene when it was main witness to the murderer was proven as not
wearing her glasses and standing quite far away from the event where it all
happened. This was enough evidence for him to rely on and change his decision.
 Juror 5 – He is a person with very little experience and comes across as a good
individual contributor. He knew techniques on how to use switchblades which was
used in the murder.
 Juror 6 – He was someone who took his time to understand people’s opinions and
make decisions. His role was miniscule in the overall scheme of things.
 Juror 7 – He is not actively involved in jury decision making process and wants the
decision to be done very fast. The screenplay after the ballot was casted and the
outcome was 6 guilty vs 6 not guilty he quoted that “well there you have it, it looks
like we are going into extra innings”. With all the above qualities he looks more like a
opportunist.
 Juror 8 – He comes across as a gentleman who looks at a holistic view of the problem
and systematically works on each aspect of the problem before taking any decision.
He was the only one who based his decision on facts rather than opinions. He
possessed strong leadership qualities and got the buy-in from all other jurors for his
proposed actions.
 Juror 9 – He was fairly logical, and detail oriented in his style and as the movie
progressed he got associated with Juror 8 and was overwhelmed with his opinions.
He was the one who highlighted the fact that the impression on the nose was due to
wearing of glasses. He had an eye for details.
 Juror 10 - The angry old man - he was not open to accepting other’s opinions. He
used to antagonize others with his opinion.
 Juror 11 – He was not for/against any opinion but wanted truth to prevail. He had
been in a similar situation in the past so he always wanted to do things right and
worked for it to happen.
  Juror 12 – He was the person who changed his decisions most often and was lacked
emotional intelligence to rise up towards becoming a persuasive leader. He lacked
understanding of human behaviour and relied on ballot voting results.

Q3)

Ans : - The story tells around 12 jury individuals who needed to give their decision about a murder
case. The decision ought to be consistently taken by the hearers.

The defining moment in different conduct phases of the jury individuals are talked
about beneath.

 Forming
The forming procedure started not long after the judge requested that the jury give
their decision. In any case, the guideline pivotal occasion was when Juror 1
requested to begin the methods from the listeners by saying, "ok men, let’s take our
seat now”." This was continued by Juror 7 uncovering to Juror 2 about his course of
action of his baseball facilitate. The last development occurred when Juror 1
requested that alternate hearers sit down according to Juror numbers and
assembled everybody to begin the conference. Past this point the group of hearers
begins examining on their errand.

 Forming to Storming
The defining moment from framing to raging stage can be characterized not long
after the primary voting was finished with respect to singular decisions of the
member of the jury and the outcome read 11:1 (Guilty: Not Guilty), and the legal
hearer 10 cited by saying, “Oh boy.., there is always one”. After this different
occasions in the film could be grabbed where warmed talks and trades had occurred
between the individuals from the jury.

 Storming to Norming
The move from storming to norming stage can be described after the examination of
the murder scene at the blamed's home by dismembering the house's plan and
finding out the time taken for the murder to be seen. The minute after this
characterized the move from storming and norming. The legal hearer 11 helps the
group to remember attendants of their duties regarding completing the decision.
This was trailed by voting with result perusing 6:6 (Guilty: Not Guilty). The legal
hearers after this point started to especially coexist with one another and begin to
move in the direction of their errand.

 Norming to Performing
The group of attendants at last end up synchronized and began performing when
Juror 8 gets into helpful contention about the charged's remarks about his memory
on the motion picture he viewed upon the arrival of the murder. After this point the
individuals from the jury are inside and out based on the consequence of the choice
and have distinctive sound talks concerning the murder.
Q4.
Ans : -
1) Saket Upadhaya -
 Having the right attitude in a team setting is of paramount importance
 It is necessary to have empathy when listening to other team members opinions
 Always make the right decision for the team even if it means taking additional time
and effort to discuss and come to a consensus.

2) Sarat Sridhara -
 Being assertive is much better than being aggressive in a team setting
 Have the guts to stand for your opinion even if others are against you.
 Respect views / points and ideas of all the team mates.
 Work towards common goal / objective.

3) Archit Kumar Baisoya -

 Being open and honest to the team in all the discussions. Transparency should be
maintained.
 Support risk taking and experimentation for the change, look on firm time mistakes
as opportunities for learning.
 Encourage differences in opinion; diverse team is its competitive advantage.
 Trust the team, this will boost the confidence of the team and they will thrive to do
well.

4) Karan -
Making sure that each individual’s work is recognised and appreciated. Coming up
with a system to record the performance of every member of the team, and this
record can be passed on to the upper level management without any manipulation
form the intermediary leads or managers.

5) Nikita -
 Introduce 360 degree feedback system in the team. The procedure to be such
as to ensure the feedback is done for every task completed.
 Feedback system would be transparent to the extent that no hard feeling or
sycophancy is done in the process.

References:
http://mattreidnu.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/2/4/14240106/12_angry_men_group_paper.docx

http://www.iowacitycommunitytheatre.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/12AngMn_2.pdf