Twelve Angry Men: Negotiation Techniques Employed - Term Paper Example

? Twelve Angry Men: Negotiation Techniques Employed Twelve Angry Men: Negotiation Techniques Employed Character Listing Juror is played by Martin Balsam. He is the foreman of the jury, and is extremely even-tempered and willing to listen to the evidence. He is also very polite. Juror #2 is played by John Fiedler. The best description for this man is nebbish. He seems very bookish and is very meek. Juror #3 is played by Lee Cobb. He is arguably the second most important character, behind Juror #8. He is hot-tempered and loud, and his temper is also extremely quick. He is very angry. He is, more than any of the jurors, driven by pure emotion. Juror #4 is played by EG Marshall. He is very fact driven, and not ruled by emotion. Juror #5 is played by Jack Klugman. A man who grew up on the streets, he sympathizes with the boy on trial. Juror #6 is played by Edward Binns. He is a house painter and a regular guy. He stands up for Juror #9, and is willing to listen to arguments. Juror # 7 is played by Jack Warden. Couldn't care less about the proceedings, he just wants to get out and see a baseball game. Juror #8 is played by Henry Fonda. The lone brave voice at first, he simply wants the jurors to talk about the case before finding the boy guilty. Juror #9 is played by Joseph Sweeney. An elderly man, and extremely observant about small things. Will not be pushed around. Juror #10 is played by Ed Begley. A loud-mouthed bigot who thinks that all kids from the slums grow up to be criminals. Juror #11 is played by George Voskovec. An immigrant and probably the one most driven by morality out of all of them. Juror #12 is played by Robert Webber. An advertising exec who doesn't take the process seriously. List of major case issues that are instrumental in deciding the jury conclusion The facts seem damning at first. The boy on trial got into a fight with his father around 8 PM, and his father slapped him and he ran out. He went to a shop to buy a knife that very evening, saw some friends around 8:45 PM, came home around 10 PM, then left again to see a movie. The boy didn't return until around 3 AM, when he was arrested for murder. This is the boy's story. The knife that he bought was somewhat unique, although it turns out that it wasn't that unique, as Juror #8 found another knife just like it. The boy also claimed that his knife fell through his pocket and he didn't know where it was. The boy couldn't remember the movie that he saw that night, and could not remember who was in it. However, Juror #8 pointed out that, under emotional duress, with his father's body in the next room, the boy probably wasn't thinking very clearly when he was interviewed. There was one eyewitness, a lady who lived about 60 feet away in another apartment. She allegedly saw the murder through her window, through a passing elevated train. She was tossing and turning in her bed, when she casually looked out the window and saw the murder. It was speculated, however, that she wore eyeglasses, because she had indentations on her nose, and because of the way that she rubbed her nose. Since she didn't wear eyeglasses to bed, she probably didn't have them on when she allegedly saw the killer, so couldn't possibly identify him from so far away without her glasses. Another witness was an old man who lived downstairs. He said that he heard the boy yell at the father that he was going to kill him, and also claimed that he saw the boy running down the stairs after the murder. However, it was proved that he couldn't possibly have been able to get to his front door in the amount of time that he claimed, because he had a stroke and walked very slowly. Juror #8 staged a re-enactment of the man going to his door, and it was shown that the man probably would have taken about 42 seconds to get to his door and unlock it, when he claimed on the stand that he took only 15 seconds to do so. Character Analysis - Juror #8 What Was the Primary Premise of His Negotiations Approach? His primary premise, when he voted not guilty, was not that he actually thought the kid was not guilty. He admitted that the evidence did seem damning. His primary premise was that everybody need to discuss the situation. That is all that he wanted at first was to discuss the case. How Did He Elicit Such? He was able to initially get what he wanted because he essentially had a captive audience. They could not leave the room as long as there was one juror who voted for acquittal, so they had to discuss the issue. This, in an of itself, is a negotiation technique, according to Babitsky & Mangraviti (2011). They state that if a party is willing to stay in a room with the negotiator, or, in the case of the jurors, is forced to stay in the room with the negotiator, then that party has a high investment in closing the deal. At that point, the negotiator is in a good position to push to get the deal done, because the other party cannot leave without a deal. In the case of the jurors in this film, they cannot leave until a deal is reached, or the jury is deadlocked, so this gives them incentive to at least consider the arguments, which is all Juror #8 wants at first. What Negotiation Techniques Did He Utilize? Juror #8, although he primarily just wanted a discussion on the facts, soon turned to using persuasive techniques to convince each juror of the innocence of the man. He used different negotiation techniques for different people and for different facts. His initial argument was an appeal to sympathy. He stated that he kid was from a very hard-scrabble background and had never gotten a break in his life. His father beat him, and had been beating him since he was only 5 years old. This is an argument that he comes back to, time and again – appeal to sympathy. Bill Adler, Jr, author of How to Negotiate Like a Child, says that winning through sympathy is one way to negotiate to a win. He states that, when negotiating in business, it is sometimes effective to let the other party know about misfortunes, if these misfortunes would “elicit genuine nods of understanding” (p. 109). While this technique would not be effective with every juror, it would work for at least two of the jurors - Juror #5, who was also from the mean streets, so knows what the kid is going through; and Juror #2, who was a small and nebbish man, who probably was picked on all his life, because he is not the kind to fight back. These two would be the most persuadable by the argument that the kid had a hard life, because they would be the most likely to nod in understanding. Another argument was the the lawyer for the kid was incompetent. This, too, was an argument that Juror #8 returned to, again and again. This was the argument that was made when Juror #8 did the demonstration about the old man, and how the old man could never have gotten to the door in just 15 seconds – the other jurors protested, saying that Juror #8 was essentially re-trying the case, and the argument that Juror #8 made was that this was important, because the kid had an incompetent lawyer who did not properly bring out the facts of the case. This argument appeared to be persuasive with Juror #2, who stated that he changed his vote to acquittal because new facts were coming to light, implying that the kid's attorney didn't bring these facts out in trial. This argument was an appeal to facts, as were most of Juror #8 other arguments - for instance, when he argued that the old man in the apartment below couldn't have heard what he claimed he heard because of the passing train, this was an appeal to facts. When he argued that the old man could not have gotten to the door in fifteen seconds, this was another appeal to facts and logic. When he showed that he was able to purchase a similar knife to the one used in the killing, this was also an appeal to facts. Same when he brought out that people under emotional duress might forget pertinent details. These arguments might be known as evaluating the situation (Dell, 2009). Juror #8 knew that these particular arguments would work with a number of the jurors, at least the ones who were reasonable and not ruled by emotion. He sized up the parties in the room, and discovered that most of them were reasonable men who were willing to listen to logical arguments. An appeal to reason would work with every juror but jurors 3 (is ruled by emotion), 7 (couldn't care less about the arguments, just wanted to get out of there); 10 (ruled by bigotry and prejudice); and 12 (like juror 7, he wasn't taking the proceedings seriously). Every other juror in there was thoughtful and wanted to hear rational arguments. Bringing in these facts would sway the jurors who were there to listen to logical arguments. Juror #8 knew this, so this is why he was using these particular arguments. At one point, however, Juror #8 did not make a rational appeal to facts, and that was when he confronted Juror #3 by calling him a “sadist.” This wasn't really a negotiating technique, so much as it was said out of frustration, but it turned out to be effective, because it brought out that people will say things that they do not mean in the heat of the moment. This is because Juror #3 told Juror #8 in the heat of the moment that he wanted to kill him – to which Juror #8 said mildly that Juror #3 didn't really mean that, just like the boy in the case didn't really mean what he was saying when he told his father that he wanted to kill him. What Compromises Did He Make? There was one compromise that he made, and this was at the start of the negotiation process. He told the other jurors that he was willing to change his vote to guilty if the other jurors took a secret ballot, and if, and only if, all the other 11 jurors still voted guilty, then he would be willing to go along with the others. This was a risk, but it turned out fine, because he was able to uncover an ally. This is the key to negotiating from a point of weakness, according to Shapiro & Jankowski (1998). And negotiating from weakness is where he began, in that he was one man against all the others. However, he was able to locate an ally, thus adding to his team, with the older juror #9, and Juror #9 proved an invaluable ally, as the analysis of his character, below, shows. Why Was He Successful? The main reason for his success was that he understood his audience, and he was able to play to each of them. As noted above, he realized that most of the men were thoughtful and willing to listen to logic, so this is how he concentrated his arguments. The two men who were not willing to listen to rational arguments, Jurors #3 and 10, were handled differently. With Juror #3, who was the last hold-out, the negotiation technique was to point out that he, Juror #3, was now all alone. This elicited an emotional reaction, wherein the true issue came out – that juror was grieving over his son more than anything else, which was at the root cause of his anger. With Juror #10, he convinced himself of the boy's innocent, as each juror essentially held up a mirror to his prejudice and he realized why he was the way he was. Devastated about this truth, he changed his vote. Another reason why he was successful is because he was able to gain allies along the way, and was able to use these allies to his best advantage. Locating allies is one way that negotiators are successful, according to Shapiro & Jankowski (1998). One of the ways to do this is to locate people who are similarly situated. There are people who are in the same situation, and banding together is a powerful way of winning. In this case, Juror #8's main ally was Juror #9, played by Joseph Sweeney. Juror #9 was able to make arguments that Juror #8 didn't, because Juror #8 did not have the perception or the attention to details that Juror #9 had. Together, they made a great team. Juror #8 employed the logical arguments, while Juror #9 employed the logical arguments combined with background, experience, and meticulous attention to details. Other allies who played less of role, but, nonetheless were still crucial, were Jurors #5 and 2. Juror #8 was also successful because he was able to handle anger well. Steinberg (1998 ) states that the ability to handle anger is crucial in negotiations, because, often, people are outraged, and respond in loud voices, coarse language and physical intimidation. These people are bullies. The effective negotiator must be impervious to these emotional tactics. This means that the negotiator cannot react with fear and show that he is intimidated. Once the negotiator shows that he has no fear, he may calmly ask what is wrong with the proposition, and ask the person to react in a way that is logical, not emotional. And this is exactly what Juror #8 did with Juror #3. When Juror #3 was the last holdout, he erupted in anger. Juror #8 never got angry back, instead chose to calmly ask Juror #3 why he was the lone holdout. This was effective, because he was able to get at the root of Juror #3's prejudices and root cause of the anger, and this, in turn, was what finally broke him, the lone holdout, down. Juror #4 - Character Played by EG Marshall. How Would You Describe This Individual's Thought Process? Perhaps more than any other juror, this man is driven by logic and facts. The other juror could be persuaded by emotional appeals, to a certain extent, some more than others, but not this man. He is a walking encyclopedia of facts and figures, which comes in handy, as he is a stockbroker. He was able to rattle off the facts of the case, and he evaluated them all very dispassionately. He was effective, mainly because he kept his cool. Because he was so governed by coolness and facts, he was able to put some people in their place. For instance, a memorable line is when Juror #3 complained that he was goaded when Juror #8 said that he was sadistic. To this, Juror #4 replied that “it certainly was effective.” When Juror #10 went on his racist and bigoted tirade towards the end of the film, after every other man had left the table and literally turned his back on Juror #10, Juror #4 was the only other man at the table besides Juror #10 and Juror #7 (the guy who just wanted to go home), and Juror #4 told Juror #10 that he needed to sit down and not say one more word. All through the proceedings, it was obvious that he was disgusted by the behavior of some of the other jurors, mainly the ones who either lost their cool, or couldn't care less. His body language told the story – he never smiled, and he kept to himself, not engaging with the other jurors, especially the ones that he did not like. It was obvious that, in addition to the fact that he was driven by the facts, that he also did not suffer fools gladly. At the same time, he was persuadable. Because he did not rely upon emotion, only facts, if there were facts that were logical and contradicted his version of the facts, then he was willing to listen. While he was one of the only holdouts towards to end of the proceedings, this was because he still had such a firm grip on the facts, not because he was prejudiced like the others who were holdouts towards the end. The best way to persuade him was to appeal to his logic, and that is exactly what ended up happening in the end, as he changed his vote. What Was the Basis of His “Guilty” Analysis? The facts of the case. As he described them, the facts did seem very damning. He was able to rattle off exactly where the boy claimed he was on the night of the murder, and what the prosecution claimed about the boy's whereabouts. He was very convinced by the eyewitness across the way, and that the boy could not remember what movie he had attended that night. He was very convinced by the argument that the knife was a one of a kind. When it was brought to the attention that there was a scream, therefore the boy had to have known that somebody had seen the murder, therefore the boy would not come back to the home, Juror #4 stated that perhaps the boy didn't connect the scream to being seen, because people scream in this neighborhood often. What Negotiations Approach Does He Elicit? Because he was so fact-driven, more than any other juror, this juror elicited approaches to facts and reason. One by one, Juror #8 was able to poke holes into the facts that this juror knew to be true. This is a negotiation technique known as concentrating on the issues (Dawson, 2011). That means that Juror #8, and, later, Juror #9, concentrated only on presenting counterfacts to the facts that were on the table, ignoring everything else around them to do so. They ignored the conflicts of others when talking to this man. They were not thrown off by other people who were interjecting hot arguments into the situation, in that these arguments were motivated by emotion and prejudice. They concentrated on the issues. For instance, when Juror #4 argued that the kid probably was not at the movies, because he was unable to remember the movie he saw that night, Juror #8 meticulously asked him to remember what he was doing last night, the night before that, and the night before that. When Juror #4 stated that two nights before he saw a movie, yet couldn't remember who was in it, couldn't remember the real name of the movie, and couldn't remember other details, the point was made. The point was that people's memories are imperfect. When Juror #4 stated that he was convinced that the boy's knife was used in the slaying, because the knife was unique, Juror #8 made a great production in showing an identical knife. When he talked about how the old man in the apartment below heard the fight, there was the counterargument that it wasn't necessarily possible, because a train was going through at the same time that the slaying happened. What Negotiation Techniques Were Employed by Whom to Change His Mind? In the end, the person who changed the mind of Juror #4 was not Juror #8, but, rather, Juror #9. This juror simply used the technique that involves learning what you can about the other party, and persuading him in the way that he can be persuaded. Steinberg (1998) talks about this in terms of sports executives. A sports agent, Steingberg (1998) understood that different sports executives were motivated by different things. It all depends upon their value system and whether or not sports is their life, or they made their money doing something else. If you can identify a person's values, philosophies, problems and needs, then this is the key to successful negotiation. In the case of Juror #4, then, the man is clearly motivated by a need to be right about the facts. Those are really his only value system that is on display. Juror #8 had chipped away at Juror #4's initial resistance, meticulously poking holes at each and every one of the facts, because Juror #8 also know that Juror #4 had a philosophy that only the facts matter. What finally put the proverbial nail in the coffin, however, was the fact that the eyewitness to the murder wore eyeglasses. Because she wore eyeglasses, she probably couldn't see 60 feet across the way, to see who it was who murdered the victim in question. This made sense to Juror #4, and it also appealed to him because he was able to identify with this particular fact because he, himself, wore eyeglasses and knew how little he was able to see with them. So, this is another way that knowing the party came in handy. Juror #9 instinctively knew, as did Juror #8, that this fact would be persuasive because of the fact that he wore eyeglasses. In the end, Juror #4 was persuaded because he was able to find out, to his own satisfaction, that the facts of the case were not necessarily airtight. Because he had reasonable doubt, and was not driven by emotions, these appeals to his reason were very effective. Juror #9 – Character Played by Joseph Sweeney What Specific Contributions Did This Jury Member Make That Were Significant? This juror was significant for a number of reasons. The first reason why he was significant is because, if it were not for him, Juror #8 would have been forced to concede to the other jurors. This is because Juror #8 stated that he would go along with the guilty verdict if there were eleven jurors, by secret ballot, who stated that the boy was guilty. At this point, there were only ten people stating that the kid was guilty, and Juror #9 was the only other one who voted not guilty. And, the reason that he gave in this was sound - he said that Juror #8 was sticking his neck out, and standing alone against the rest. As it was not easy for Juror #8 to do this, Juror #9 felt that he should lend support. Like Juror #8, Juror #9 was not convinced of the boy's innocence, but wanted to discuss it a little further. He was also significant in that he stood up to the bullies. Specifically, Juror #3 attempted to bully him when it was discovered that he was the one who switched his vote, which means that the deliberations would have to go forward. As Juror #3 was one of the ones who came into the jury room convinced that the kid was guilty, this infuriated him, because he obviously felt that all eleven jurors would vote for guilt, and they could all go home. However, Juror #9 would not be pushed around, and not only stood up to Juror #3, but pushed back and gave as good as he got. He also was the person who coolly was able to reflect upon the facts, and, when there was somebody who was out of line and trying to decide the case on emotion, he was able to put that person in his place. He relied upon facts, just like Juror #4, but, unlike Juror #4 who didn't always push back when there was bullying going on, although he sometimes did, Juror #9 did not let any bullying go on without him calling him on it. Because of this, he cleared the way for Juror #8 to make his points to his fellow jurors, with less bullying and high emotion. What Ability Did He Employ to Make These Contributions. There were three major abilities that he employed that made him one of the most effective negotiators in this room. One, he was hyperobservant. Two, he was empathetic. Three, he was able to make deductions out of small details. About the first trait, that he was hyper-observant – this was shown in several different instances, and the main two were regarding the glasses incident, and the old man who stated that he heard the scuffle and saw the kid running from the house. With the old man, who was considered to be a key witness to the crime, Juror #9 was able to not only bring in a detail that perhaps went unnoticed by the others, he was able to put this detail in context and ascribe motive to the old man eyewitness. What Juror #9 did was state that the old man eyewitness had on a jacket that was torn. He saw the old man, and saw himself in the old man's eyes – that the old man eyewitness was a man who nobody noticed, who nobody cared about, who never made anything of himself. Therefore, he felt important when he talked to the police about what happened, and felt important on the stand. He stated that the old man eyewitness probably didn't lie deliberately, but convinced himself of facts that were not necessarily so. This is where his empathy and deductive skills also came into handy. Because he was able to empathize with the old man witness, he was able to ascribe motive for the old man to tell a story. Because he was able to make deductions out of small things, he was able to understand that the old man is somebody who might need attention. He used similar abilities with the eyeglasses, which was also explained above. He was able to be hyper-observant about the indentations on the woman's nose, that showed that she wore eyeglasses. From there, he was able to make a deduction that the eyewitness wore glasses, and probably was not wearing them at the time that she “saw” what happened across the way. This was crucial in convincing Juror #4 of the need for acquittal. What Negotiation Delivery Skills Did He Employ? His main delivery skills was a calm demeanor. He patiently, and meticulously, explained all of his arguments, and he never let anybody ruffle him. Because he was able to calmly, and step by step, explain everything, he was able to get his point across very clearly. Because he was able to articulate his point in such a calm and clear manner, he was very effective in his delivery. Conclusion In the movie 12 Angry Men, which was really a misnomer, as there were really only two angry men (Jurors 3 and 10), there was a stellar examination of negotiation. One man had to convince 11 others to look at the evidence in a different way. Henry Fonda's character initially was the one against the many, but, along the way, he picked up allies, most notably Joseph Sweeney's character, who used negotiation techniques of his own. Throughout the film, these two men were really the only ones who used negotiation techniques on all the others. Yet, it was clearly effective. They appealed to reason, and, when necessary, appealed to emotion. This movie shows how effective negotiation techniques can be when properly employed. That said, most of the men who were being persuaded were capable of being persuaded in their own way. This was crucial to getting at the heart of why these men were able to change their minds. Juror #1 was a very reasonable man, and, as the foreman, had a unique responsibility to listen to the facts, while keeping order. He was willing to listen to the facts and make evaluations based upon them. Juror #2 was also persuadable because he, too, listened to the facts and made decisions based upon them. That said, he also was persuadable in appeals to emotion. He was a meek man who was probably bullied his whole life, therefore the appeals regarding how hard of a life the defendant had probably appealed to him. He would be inclined to root for the underdog. Juror #3 was a tougher nut to crack, in that he was a bully and very angry. Even he, however, was able to be persuaded, once his own prejudices were made known to him. Juror #4 was persuadable by cool facts, and nothing but. Juror #5 was a bit like Juror #2 – had lived a hard life, and knew what it was like to be abused and picked on. So he, too, was susceptible to appeals to emotion and by the boy's story. Juror #6 was just a regular Joe. He thought the kid was guilty, but was able to listen to reason. Juror #7 was motivated by one thing – getting out of that room. If changing his vote meant that he could get out of there sooner, than that is what he would do. Juror #9 was not only susceptible to appeals to his intellect, but he was able to look at the facts in a different way himself. Juror #10 has the same problem as Juror #3, and, like Juror #3, all it takes is shining a light on his bigotry, and this is what can be used to persuade him. Juror #11 was, above all, a supporter of rules and morality, so an appeal to him would be targeted to this. Juror #12 turned out to be somebody who really didn't have a mind of his own, so he was persuadable by the pack mentality- if everybody is voting a certain way, he would too. In other words, it was not just the negotiation techniques that were used that was important in this film. Just as important, if not moreso, is the fact that each man had a different motivation for changing his vote to not guilty. The trick was to find what motivates each of the men, and what appeal would work best on each one. Juror #8 and Juror #9 were able to find what would motivate each man and change each mind. In this way, since the film portrays both sides of the negotiation so well, this film is not only a classic, but should be mandatory viewing for anybody learning how to negotiate. References Adler, B. (2006) How to Negotiate Like a Child. New York: American Management Association. Babitsky, S. & Mangraviti, J. (2011) Never Lose Again. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. Dawson, R. (2011) Secrets of Power Negotiating. Pompton Plains, NJ: Career Press. Dell, D. (2009) Never Make the First Offer. New York: Penguin Group. Shapiro, R. & Jankowski, M. (1998) The Power of Nice. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Steinberg, L. (1998) Winning With Integrity. New York: Villard. Twelve Angry Men. (1957) Dir. Sidney Lumet. Perf. Henry Fonda, Martin Balsam, Lee Cobb, Jack Klugman and Joseph Sweeney. Los Angeles: Warner Brothers. DVD. Read More