Eleven Angry Men and One Leader - Movie Review Example

Eleven Angry Men and One Leader The movie Twelve Angry Men represents a perfect scenario for how leaders can motivate and convince others to come to their viewpoint and change strongly held opinions simply by the act of leading others. As a cinematic work, there are several points to be made about the film since we do not get to know the names of any of the jurors except the leader Davis and the first of the jurors who support him, i.e. McCardle (Wikipedia, 2007). On a deeper analysis of the film, it becomes clear that the trait theory of leadership and the idea of building relationships with followers are both highly applicable in terms of how the leader manages to bring everyone else in the room to his viewpoint. The story itself begins when a murder case presentation is finished and the twelve men who form the jury must come back with a unanimous decision of guilty or not guilty. The main part of the action between them comes from the record of deliberations which the jury have but no one knows each other by their name and whatever information is shared between them is about the case or their personal experiences. The leader, Davis, is the first one to show his mind and independence of thought since he is the only one to vote not guilty while all others think that the accused is guilty. This certainly means that the relationship between the leader and the followers is a negative one to begin with since all of the other jurors become angry with him for dissenting and not seeing the nature of the case as a simple one (House, 2004). Some even say that Davis is a fool for trying to keep them in on a very hot day while they could be going on with their lives but Davis sticks to his guns and reminds the men of their duty to the accused and to the justice system where they have to honestly consider the case before sending a man off to death. The relationship between the leader and the followers becomes very tense when it seems that Davis is simply being stubborn and different because he wants to be different. However, Davis does have excellent communications skills and confirms that he has reasonable doubt and therefore he could not with good conscious return a guilty verdict. The idea of reasonable doubt is something which Davis certainly pushes on to the followers and it does manage to convince his first convert that there could be some doubt in how the accused could be innocent rather than guilty. Davis also seeks to create positive relationships with other followers and the few minutes he spends in the men’s room with another juror show that he believes in making connections with those whom he is leading in order to further his own objectives (Gardner, 1995). Similarly, he shows a lot of respect for the elderly juror who is the first to come to his side of considering the accused not guilty. As per the Vertical Dyad Linkage model, the leader’s relationship with those who are on his side becomes more positive than those who are against him. At the same time, Davis does not give up on convincing others with examples, logic, argument, motivation and even human emotional considerations because he himself has come to believe that there could be reasonable doubt in the case itself. As the movie progresses, we see good quality LMX situations where jurors who have come to agree with his viewpoint help him in demonstrations and convincing others while the rest do little to help him or even go against his ideas about the case. The ideas of mutual respect, trust and obligation are all present between the jurors but these dimensions change with time. For example, at one point Davis manages to make one of the jurors so angry that the juror screams that he would kill Davis. However, that juror was then told by Davis that he was only making a point about how screaming at someone with the threat of bodily harm does not actually mean that the intent of bodily harm is there. From the expressions of the juror it seemed clear that trust and respect were formed but the idea of being fully convinced to the viewpoint taken by Davis took a lot longer. As per the theory of relationship formation between leaders and followers, the film shows several phases of how the LMX process helps in creating relationships between Davis and other jurors (DePree, 1989). The initial phase is quite clearly there when the foreman of the jury wishes to take control of the process but is shut down by another juror who questions his motives for being the leader of the group. On the other hand, when the motives of Davis are questioned he simply states that he wishes to give the accused a fair trial and this is such an ethical and simple answer that no one else can oppose that. Davis does however ask others of their motives of why they wish to convict the accused so quickly and it becomes apparent that their motives are weak. For example, one juror wishes to get out of the room so he can get to the game while some others thought that the murder weapon was unique enough not to be found anywhere else in the shops around the house. After this initial phase, Davis manages to develop the relationship into the second phase of defined roles where some jurors start trusting each other and show loyalty towards the group when members from the opposite camp make threatening gestures. This takes them to the third phase and to the original goal of Davis of getting a thorough understanding of the case and a fair trial. In conclusion, the film has a very good depiction of how the LMX process can help in creating an environment where a good leader can convince others of coming to their viewpoint with effort and dedication. Of course Davis shows some very good traits which leaders have and shows a very high level of integrity which some of the other jurors do not possess but since he has excellent communication ability, he can quickly form his connections with them. Juror Comparison Fundamentally, the comparison between Juror number one (The Foreman of the Jury) and juror number eight (Davis) is a comparison of good leadership and bad leadership. The foreman has the ability to lead but the situation and the conditions of the men called for something more than the freestyle leadership which was shown by the foreman. For example, at the very beginning of the film he simply offered his own post to another juror and did not even show any will to fight for his right to lead. Additionally the foreman did not put up much of fight which lets the other jurors know that he had the integrity to lead the team of jurors to a decision. Of course, Davis was also plagued with indecision about the guilt of the man but he was willing to go ahead and give the man a chance by analyzing and evaluating the evidence which was presented. This shows that Davis was willing to take risks and learn about the situation while the other jurors simply wanted to condemn the man including the foreman. There can be positions where the independent, devil may care attitude of the foreman might be useful. For example, a case where everyone knows what they have to do and how they have to reach their objectives since then individuals can be trusted to do what they have to with little guidance. However, in a situation where there is doubt and uncertainty, the leadership must come as a guiding force which shows all those who are around that their duty to the purpose must be fulfilled with responsibility. This was done very well by Davis and not at all by the foreman. Works Cited DePree, M. 1989, Leadership Is an Art. Doubleday. Gardner, H. 1995, Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership. Basic. House, R. 2004, Culture, Leadership, and Organizations. Sage. Wikipedia. 2007, ‘12 Angry Men’, Wikipeida.org. [Online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_%281957%29 Read More