Making connection activity4 - Essay Example

Section/# Group Roles and the Means of Decision Making in the Film “12 Angry Men” Although one might be tempted tounderstand the representations of decision-making in the movie “12 Angry Men” is merely a plot device, the fact of the matter is that it is indicative for many of the flawed means by which individuals integrate with information and make decisions on a daily basis. As a function of seeking to determine these faulty decision-making mechanisms, the following analysis will seek to provide evidence of four biases and errors in decision-making.

Secondly an analysis and discussion into the presence of groupthink, group shift, transformational leadership, transactional leadership, maintenance roles, and task roles will be defined and elaborated upon. Firstly with regards to the four errors were biases in decision-making that are represented throughout the course of the film, these can be understood as indicated by the presence of racism, anger, stereotypes, and a faulty understanding of past action indicating future likelihood. Due to the fact that one of the jurors made several disparaging comments with regards to the fact that the child was a product of “a slum”, the viewer comes to the understanding that this environmental factor plays a large role in the means by which this individual, and further members of the group, integrate with the overall level of guilt.

Moreover a secondary faulty means by which decision-making is attributed is noted in the presence of anger with regards to another juror’s view of how modern society and culture is inherently flawed. Rather than focusing on the determinant parts of the case that meant the most, this individual seems to have something of a hang up with regards to morality in the current society and youth in general. Ultimately the presence of anger does not give such a stakeholder a clear understanding of the determinant sees of the case; rather, it helps to form a flawed understanding of motivation.

Naturally, stereotyping plays a major and defining role with regards to the means by which the jurors come to an understanding of guilt within the case in question. This stereotyping has been related later in this analysis due to the fact that it is influenced both by anger and racism which is been presented and discussed previously. Lastly, they focus upon external attributions, i.e. a flawed understanding of the case and point in question, seeks to diverge focus from the key issue of guilt and place it upon the realities of identity formation that have no bearing within the case in question.

One of the most important aspects that any particular jury must integrate with his understanding of how groupthink affects the means by which others within the group come to an understanding of both the case and the verdict that is ultimately reached. With regards to film in question, groupthink forms a powerful determinant with regards to how the jurors integrate with one another’s points of view as well as the determinate evidence that has been presented. Rather than making a decision based upon what information has been provided, the jurors find themselves dogged by the phenomenon of groupthink.

Evidence of this can be seen in the fact that the majority of the shareholders exhibit a great number of symptoms with regards to the fact of the moral correctness of their decision to punish a “bad person”. This is of course born out of many of the determinant factors of flawed decision-making that of the spark been presented. Surprisingly, in the case of this particular film groupthink is not able to prevail due to the fact that the minority of staunchly opinion individuals overrides the majority and is able to return a verdict of not guilty.

Evidence of group shift, on the other hand, can be seen in two separate incidents during the course of the film. The first of these is with regards to how the seemingly homogenous group quickly differentiates based upon their understandings of the requisite information presented to them (Garfinkle, 2011). The second group shift that is evidenced takes place within the context of how even though the majority believes that the individual in question should be punished for the crime, the minority is able to derail the process and provide a not guilty verdict.

This particular representation of group shift is due not only to the fact that the minority of the individuals had a more powerful rationale for their decision, but due to the fact of how the criminal justice system in United States ultimately works. With regards to transformational leadership, juror number eight, is the most helpful representation of this unique concept within the scope of this particular film. Due to the fact that juror number eight has somewhat of a position of authority within the group, his leadership is integral with regards to ultimately returning a verdict of not guilty and integrating this understanding with both sides of the jury.

This transformational leadership is accomplished not only did the fact that the individual in question has a leadership position and exudes a level of authority, but also due to the fact that this transformational leadership is born partly from his ability to mask his underlying beliefs with regards to the case; until such a time but the ultimate decision is necessitated. Transactional leadership on the other hand is evidenced by juror number three. This transactional level of leadership is realized in the fact that this individual is instrumental in integrating the beliefs and understandings of both sides with all of the shareholders in question.

Without a degree of transactional leadership, or the give-and-take that is oftentimes part of the decision-making process, it is impossible to assume that any level of cooperation or understanding with ever been able to been achieved. With regards to maintenance roles, these are most aptly described within the interaction that juror number 11 has with the rest of the stakeholders. This maintenance role is perfectly displayed when juror number 11, formerly quiet, integrates with the group and states the fact that he is previously merely been listening and taking notes; however, his maintenance role is triggered to become an active role when he no longer can sit politely and interjects, “I bet you pardon”.

Ultimately, the film is able to exhibit to the viewer the different means by which decisions are made and formulated within a group. Although the outcome is good within this particular case, given a different set of individuals were more prominent leadership within the opposing camps, a different decision entirely would likely have been gleaned. As a means of understanding to a further degree the level to which decisions are made within such groups, the viewer comes to the appreciation of all of the determinants that had herein been discussed.

References Garfinkle, E. (2011). PSYCHIC BARRIERS TO TRUTH IN TWELVE ANGRY MEN. Canadian Journal Of Psychoanalysis, 19(1), 169-184.