Twelve Angry Men: Factors in Decision - Movie Review Example

Twelve Angry Men: Factors in Decision Skills in leadership are applicable to many aspects. In a certain group, it is natural for one to stand out asa leader, but not necessarily to lead. Many people are mistaken by defining leadership as only a position and not seeing the importance that the result effective leadership could create. Leadership can be effectively defined simply as influence (Maxwell 1993). A person in a certain position may have a good idea, yet if he doesn't have the skill to influence others to believe those ideas he has, he cannot be called a leader. In the case of the jury, every juror has to have its own conviction regarding the case to be tried. It is the trait of an effective leader that is needed to be able to come up with a credible decision among the jury. Jury is referred to as a group of randomly-selected citizens who have been invited for the hearing of a case in their own area. Their function is to study the case and make a decision with regards to the evidences gathered, guided by the rules of the law (Legal Explanation 2007). In the critically acclaimed 1957 movie, Twelve Angry Men, the life of the accused, an 18-year-old male who allegedly stabbed his father, greatly relies upon the decision of the jury. The movie implies that if Juror number 8 hadn't shown leadership skill, the boy will most likely be sentenced to death in just one trial. Poor juristical performance is seen among the rest of eleven jurors as they just decided with their prejudices and the desire to leave the court's humid atmosphere brought by the summer season. Juror number 8, played by Henry Fonda, is the only one who voted not guilty as the rest of the jurors voted guilty, and wanted the accused to be sentenced to death penalty. Juror number 8 insinuated that it is not wise to decide immediately without considering even the smallest amount of reasonable doubt that the accused may not be guilty all along, even how strong the evidences may seem to point to the accused of the crime. He also implies that it will be unfair to have this case lose another life while there's a small possibility that they could save the life of an innocent. This principle eventually in the movie further influenced other jurors to reconsider their decision and agreed upon Juror number 8's decision. The Jury approached the case with the Socratic Method combined with "influence" principle displayed by Juror number 8. Socrates is said to famously instruct his students through a series of carefully constructed questions designed to force self-examination and lead them to a conclusion. This resulted both in the teacher and student being better able to order their thoughts and arguments into a stronger, more coherent theory toughened by relentless hammering in the workings of debate (Tucker 2007). Through the Socratic Method, Juror number 8 indirectly challenged the rest of eleven jurors who were eager to have the case be decided promptly, but eventually resulted in having them reconsider it. This was influenced by Juror number 8's consideration of reasonable doubt. The jury is also a team. This is justifiably depicted in the movie. The team inevitably deals with factors like task, maintenance, and self-centered roles (Lechner 2003). For example, the task of the team in the film is to come up with the proper decision if the accused is to be acquitted or to be sentenced to death. The vote of eleven jurors of guilty and a juror of not guilty, was interrupted but due to acceptable reason. Changes set in when a leader wanted to achieve the justifiable task given to them. It is expected that in a team, there is always a challenge for team work if it is to consider the individual behavior of the team players. Self-centered roles can be seen by the character of Juror number 3, played by Lee J. Cobb. His quick-to-convict and defiant nature made him difficult to go with the team decision, and it is the challenge that the team had to overcome. Through encouragement and the influence approach of the Juror number 8 along with the convinced ones, they had come up with the resolution to carry on the task. The climate of communication is obviously suggested by the very title of the film. The "anger" that the title posed is the climatic reaction when a leader emerged among them. To avoid stereotyping, the term simply refers to most of the jurors but not all, as Juror number 8 is always calm and patient in nature, and also Juror number 2 is a meek and easily-persuaded man (Dirks 2007). The kind of climatic condition of the team's communication, however, could affect greatly decision-making. Some may resort or just rely on their emotion or personal conviction, and the threat is to come up with partition and not unity. Upon the skills of leadership of Juror number 8 that encompassed even this climate factor, they came up with a major vote of not guilty for the acquittal of the accused. With the Five-Factor Model for analyzing each juror's personality and the factors for their conviction and attitude toward changes, there is expected openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and even neuroticism ("Five-Factor Model" 2001). Juror number 8 obviously displayed conscientiousness for his being objective in considering the life of the accused. Dirks (2007) gives his evaluation of each personality as follows: Juror number 11 is considered democratic, Juror number 6 has great respect for other jurors, Juror number 9 is fair-minded, Juror number 5 is a supporter, and Juror number 4 treats the case like a puzzle to be solved rather than falling for his prejudices. There are all classified under Extraversion. Agreeableness is evident in the personality of Juror number 2 for being easily persuaded and choosing to go along with the majority (Dirks 2007), as well as Juror number 7 for being the first one to agree with Juror number 8 as he just wanted to have the conversation to get dismissed, and Juror number 12 for being easily-swayed with the occurrence. Neuroticism is apparent in Juror number 3 for applying his own personal dilemma towards his son in this juristical conviction, along with Juror number 1 for not easily acknowledging the leadership of Juror number 8 as he always considers his own achievements (Dirks 2007). Finally, effective argumentation to stir critical-thinking and call for favorable decision can be seen in the very conversation of the jurors. Examples are these: Juror number 3 stated that "the kid's a dangerous killer, you could see it...He stabbed his own father, four inches into the chest. They proved it a dozen different ways in court, would you like me to list them for ya" Meanwhile, Juror number 8 admits that he doesn't necessarily believe the boy's story, but he feels that the accused is entitled to a thoughtful weighing of the facts, followed by his reason that "it's not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first. We're talking about somebody's life here. We can't decide in five minutes, supposing we're wrong" (Dirks 2007), Through proper administration or leadership skills from a certain individual in a group who is sensible enough to have a vision of justice, and influential enough like Juror number 8, a case can have a fair trial and decision. It is safer to know that a possible innocent man can be acquitted rather than be sentenced to a death penalty which he doesn't deserve. Works Cited "Five-Factor Model". Great Ideas in Personality. 2001 Jan. 26 Aug. 2007. "Legal Resources in Plain English." Legal Explanation.Com. 27 Aug. 2007. Dirks, Tim. 12 Angry Men (1957). 26 Aug. 2007. Lechner, Ana T. Stern School of Business Managing High Performance Teams. 2003 Spring. New York University. 27 Aug. 2007. Maxwell, John. Developing the Leader Within You. 1993. Thomas Nelson Publisher, Nashville. Tucker, Aaron. Leadership by the Socratic Method. 01 Jun. 2007. 25 Aug. 2007. Read More