12 Angry Men: How Fonda Becomes an Effective Leader - Coursework Example

Task: 12 angry men 12 angry men is an excellent drama with a unique twist of events in a courtroom that requires utmost wisdom in decision-making. The 1957 highlights the relevance of building an efficient communication system in any organization. It also brings on board moral courage, critical thinking, value of human life and most importantly stereotypes in various occasions. The aspect of positive leadership also finds value in the movie where a defendant faces charges of stabbing his father to death. Evidently, the fact that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty plays an important role in the movie. Nevertheless, the paper focuses on juror number 8 (Henry Fonda), in his decision to vote against other jurors group decision. How Fonda becomes an effective leader Psychologically driven realism in the movie presents social conscious naturalism while at the same time bringing into light developments in leadership. Jurors in the story have development different personalities, prejudices, backgrounds and emotional tilts that judge how they make decisions on various cases. However, court scenes present situations that put the judges into different positions. Arguably, these conditions make jurors volatile and in many occasions, they can make irrational or immature decisions. Certainly, the movie short in real time gives a description of various judges with regards to their behaviours. For example, based on their judgments one can succinctly deduce what drives a given decision. Despite presenting social and racial equity challenges, the play also allows for sufficient changes as well as reasonable coherence in different scenes Fonda’s development into an effective leader starts with his deep understanding and analysis skills. In any court scene, cases come with dilemma situations that force each part allege innocence. In both cases, each party must present admissible evidence or witness testimonies with the ability to free the accused. Just as prosecutors and lawyers face challenging situations so does the judges. Arguably, it is not about the ability to interpret the constitutions but the capacity to compare and contrast the constitution against the existing situation. In as much as experts might view Fonda to be an aggressive individual rather than expert, his ability to decipher the existing evidence beyond face value afflicted his leadership qualities. In the court scene, there is a murder weapon (a switchblade knife) that is the centre of argument for conviction (Rose 13). An old man (witness) who allegedly saw the accused fleeing the scene after committing the crime is also part of the evidence. Contrary to other jurors who argue in favour of the existing statement, Fonda attempts to examine the evidence closely. For example, in the debate of the knife angle, Fonda attempts to imitate the shuffling steps of the old man when reaching the door during the incidence. The main intention is to evaluate the possibility of the accused reaching the door in time to witness the crime. He finds it contradictory forcing him to ask several doubting questions. For instance, was the crime solved adequately or is an in an innocent man going to jail. The balance in pieces of evidence; therefore, advances Fonda’s ability to provide efficient leadership qualities. Under normal circumstances, nobody should consent to or prohibit an event based on doubt. Contrary to other jurors, Fonda pokes holes into the existing evidence picturing contaminated evidence scenario. In this light, he says, “we cannot decide in five minutes. Supposing we are wrong.” (Rose 43) Other jurors have pre-conceived decisions based on their statements. For example, juror 10 (Ed Begley) says, “You know how these people lie.” From this perspective, the judgement is not about the existing evidence, but based on past or existing rumours about a given group. In this respect, Fonda becomes an effective leader by close analysis, systematic review, being confident, committed to justice and developing a positive attitude despite group movements. He is also gentle and thoughtful in the entire process. How dynamics of the decision-making process in the group affect Fonda’s choice of tactics Arguably, no evidence exists in the story to prove that the jurors knew each other. Therefore, arriving as a central decision is not questionable. Nonetheless, the dynamics of the decision-making range from background, emotion, group thinking, prejudice, and pre-conceived ideas on the subject. In 12 angry men, Fonda’s ability to make a rational choice is not only influenced, but also affected by different dynamics. Despite various arguments that Fonda is sympathetic towards the young man who is likely to meet a death sentence, it is evident that he championed for justice. Nevertheless, his intentions do not come easily. Fonda choice of tactics in the movie is rather random and not systematic. The different jurors in the case have diverse background, a factor that makes it easy to change their mind. Juror 5, for instance, is a young man who has witnessed knife fights in different areas. In as much as he is afraid of airing his opinion in front of the elderly people, he believes in Fonda when give a second chance. On the same note, juror 11 has witnessed a series of injustices hence conveying appreciation to America’s legal system. Juror 2 cannot trace the source of his descending opinions although he supports them contrary to juror six who finds it difficult to see goo in others. Juror 7 is an obnoxious sales representative in a hurry to remain in schedule sharing the same sentiments as juror 12 who is also impatient (Rose 53). In essence, each juror has either a motivating factor or inducement leading him to a wrong decision. These private factors greatly affect Fonda’s choice in persuasion of the group. Additionally, the informed decision by other jurors presents various arguments that attempt to raise the bar of integrity. He urges his counterparts to exercise patience while contemplating the details of the case before sending an innocent person to the electric chair. On the other hand, the peers are ready with the decision before the actual analysis. Certainly, the external forces attempt to hamper his ability to think rationally and arrive at good decisions. Even as he wants others to discuss the relevance of the witness testimonies, they do not exercise reasonable doubt. In as much as he succeeded in changing their perception of the defendant, it is apparent that the racist attitudes delude others. Nevertheless, the impacting ability to stand alone in ‘not guilty’ vote overcomes the dynamics. Leadership lessons The underlying truth that 12 angry men is not only an entertaining movie, but also educative is undisputable. As a result, different lessons can be applied to a real managerial setting with reference to the movie. Apparently, the qualities manifested by Fonda add value to the general management setup from different perspectives. Conceivably, it is important to be confident, flexible and thoughtful Being self-confident Arguably, the entire movie revolves around the ability to be confident in decisions. Fonda is among the 12 jurors responsible for making decisions that make or break other’s life. However, these decisions rely on the existing evidence. The ability to scrutinize, interpret and understand different situations depends on the confidence level of an individual. People without self-confidence easily make wrong decisions because of doubt. It is because of confidence that Fonda is able to analyse the available evidence and convince the rest of the jurors of the wrong turn taken with regards to interpretation. A person who is not confident often fall to the dynamics of decision-making hence allowing others to do the thinking. In a management set–up, self-confidence is imperative for streamlining sensitive decisions. For example, the decision to expand the operation in different markets may be opposed by different parties in a board of directors. However, a self-confident chief executive officer can allow the process after thoroughly scrutinizing the market for any eventuality. A self-confident executive officer like Steve Jobs, for example, made daring decisions catapulting Apple Inc. to the contemporary success. Flexibility The question of flexibility is tested and proven in the movie. Evidently, flexibility is about being able to change one’s position after carefully understanding other’s views. Undoubtedly, flexibility is a virtue in management that is disastrous when absent in any leader. Normative theories of recognition perceive flexibility as a component of formal logic that helps in different decisions. In the movie a major segment of the jurors, believe the accused is guilty as charged. However, only juror 10 has a contrary opinion. Nevertheless, all change their view after a second look into the evidence. Same to a court, flexibility is inevitable in any management set-up. A flexible manager always welcomes ideas from the peers before making the final and comprehensive decisions. On the other hand, turgid leaders give limited attention to others input hence always fail in steering different management roles. Thoughtful Information processing is very important for any individual. Being thoughtful is about analysis the existing situation based on evidence available. It is also about being considerate to other’s views while relieving potential factors that might affect the same decisions. Problems of prejudice, race and corruption currently plague different management systems. However, a thoughtful individual can evade such incidences. For instance, it is only Juror 10 who is thoughtful, to poke holes into the witness testimony and existing evidence. According to him, he witness could not have reached the door to see the accused flee the scene. Other jurors give little providence to their thinking ability agreeing with the existing evidence. A good manager must always think and scrutinize a plan or decision regarding an organization. Certainly, this guarantees success not only in the present but also future. Fonda’s tactics Undeniably, my journey to be a manager pas passed through internships and practice periods in different organizations. During this time, I have witnessed a series of conditions that require a direct application of Fonda’s tactics in providing a viable solution. Toyota is a reputable organization, which has dominated the market for several years. Even as other companies register massive loses, the company has continued to survive the tide considering the many branches and diversity in products offered. During my internship at the city branch, the company board of directors was faced with a challenge of judging their own based on misappropriation charges. According to reports, the executive director of sales at the branch allegedly transferred funds from the companies account to undisclosed locations. Conceivably, this was a breach of company policies and integrity. During the board meeting, all were convinced that he allegedly conducted the transaction; however, no evidence existed to support such allegations. The chief executive officer also failed to use his wits and personal judgements hence supporting views of the board. On a later investigation, it came into light that the funds transfer was an error of omission by the accountants who wrongly invoiced a transaction for the sales department. Notably, this problem came into light after external auditors accounted for the missing funds. In response, the chief executive officer was sorry for the entire problems and blamed himself for not analysing and calling for further investigation into the allegations. Additionally, it was also apparent that power play within the management level timidly put the sales executive in the line of fire from the opponents. Certainly, Fonda’s approach would have worked in the management dilemma, had the CEO been thoughtful, confident and flexible. Apparently, all the board members arrived at a common decision without contradicting opinions. Indeed this was a ground enough to question the eligibility of such findings. Listening to other’s opinion is important; however, acting on them relies on one’s ability to decipher the true intention. In the case of Fonda, he was able to listen to other jurors, but did not fall for group arguments. The CEO had the deliberate power to stop the process and call for a fresh investigation but did not adequately use the office to bestow equality and social justice. From this perspective, Fonda’s approach would have helped unveiled the financial error before making the wrong decision to fire a talented and hardworking sale executive. Additionally, Fonda’s approach would have helped in identifying the real people responsible for the problem in time instead of wasting resources. It is the ability of one man to initiate a divergent but beneficial opinion Works Cited Rose, Reginald. Twelve Angry Men. New York: Penguin Books, 2006. Internet resource. Read More