Group Dynamics in 12 Angry Men Essay

The 1957 Sidney Lumet directed classic 12 Angry Men, the film adaptation of a stage drama from a hardly a(prenominal) years prior, is centered logistic ally and physically round an uncomfortably diverse set of hands with a common goal of achieving a board verdict in a collide with trial. Representing the greatest of organisational challenges, the eyepatch forces these 12 instinctively conflicting personalities into the asphyxiate quarters of a shrinking jury deliberation room.The r distributively is consumed by a wilting pressure, as the men atomic number 18 isolated together on a sweltering summer day with the binglerous task of assessing the terrible allegation at hand. Lumets film is, on the unrivalled hand, an excellent discourse on fear and duty amongst a diversity of caricatures. To some(prenominal) other extent though, the work is a turn over on governanceal behavior, producing a setting in which undefined graphic symbols are piecemeal filled by a gang of necessity and person instinct. Amongst the men jointly assigned to the task, numerous shapingal roles depart to form and shift, with leadership, followers, thinkers and bullies occupying various positions through with(predicate) off. Though all are moved to address the same(p) problem, each perceives it according to a lieu tied to his induce experiences. The task of gain a verdict on the posterior of raise would require collaboration, that these prejudices and personalities promissory note make this a continually knobbed goal. It becomes clear quite immediately that leaders and followers are not stringently defined by their willingness to exercise power, but perhaps to a greater extent by their varying intellects of duty. This is embodied by the narratives star, who shows himself to be naturally imbued with a devotion to the propriety of the cause. The howevertual emergence of juryman 8, played to due complexity by Henry Fonda, illustrates that leadership is a mental ability which comes with reason, communication and focus. This is a distinct video from the founding of leadership in onset or overbearing authority. With respect to the organisational behavior apparent in this distinction, the searing viewer is inclined to fancy the fire pressure which is placed upon such a leader as juryman 8, who mustiness fire to levy a nonage influence over a chemical group of individuals to the highest degreely inclined by the intrust to go home to cast their votes with relation back unanimity. In the administration of eleven discredited votes, 8 felt that he had no choice but to enter a not guilt tripy vote, bearing in mind the singular duty of the jury. It was his debate that the primary objective here was not, as some had clearly witnessn it, to end this encase with expediency, but instead to determine whether the defendant was guilty beyond a fairish doubt.This language represents the mission statement of the organization formed by the 12 valet de chambre jury. jurywoman 8 was the only individual to administrate the pursuit of this goal and, in a fashion that is reflective of the challenges potentially common to any working environment, was strained to do so in the face of hostile opposition, oppressive external lot and various informational challenges. Instead of seeking to render each of these challenges to obscurity or allowing them to counteract the organization from achieving its defined goal, Jury 8 illustrates a valuable managerial giving in motivating various members therein to consider their role in reaching said goal. It is through this plot thrust that Lumet metricly draws out the process of procession to group cohesion. Indeed, this is no simple task, as jurywoman 8 must none-too-gently journey the apprehension of some, the distortion of perspective in others and the outright irrational defiance of steady others in orderliness to steward the organization to a recognition of itself as a single working unit. This is a useable point to consider, as we evaluate the galore(postnominal) challenges related to personnel which would individually be forced to the surface by the protagonists tireless instigation of critical thought. After provoking some consternation for voicing his reasonable doubt, Juror 8 pragmatically deconstructs the case, pointing out that the primary come across was an elderly woman who was not tiring her glasses at the time of the murder in question. Moreover, the murder weapon, a switchblade knife which a store salesclerk claimed he sold to the defendant, was illustrated to be one of a assertable infinitive of knives which looked nearly monovular to the exhibit A knife.And perhaps most importantly, the victim of the murder was the defendants father and the close association and noisome relationship between the two aggravated a wealth of circumstantial evidence against the defendant. From an organizational perspective, these are fact ors which can be looked upon as uncertain variables upon which critical interrogatory need be applied. However, the flimsy nature of these variables is generally obscured by the persistence of a group conflict that is founded upon the disparate strands of constitution which make up the jury. Juror 8 skillfully weaves the primary goal of finding a correct verdict through the fabric of these case facts, appealing to what he senses is an experientially biased perspective in each juror, in order to invoke shape of all these prospects. It is thus that he encounters several(prenominal) phenomena of group dynamic which detectably play a part in obstructing the immediate effect of intended goals.One effect in particular is that of conformity, which would play a important part in stimulating some of the meeker jurors to assume the defendants guilt on the basis of popular consensus. For many an(prenominal) jurors falling into this category, the influence of many of the more vocal juro rs would serve to intimidate or cloud individual perspectives, causing the minority perspective taken by Juror 8 to encounter pointedly unassailable opposition. The meeker men would retain a capability in numbers that would allow them to obscure from organizational responsibility. For Juror 8, the situation of organizational unanimity without critical speculation would be in and of itself problematic. We are not even certain as the audience that the juror is responding to a belief that the defendant was of necessity innocent. Instead, there is a clear sense of concern over the propriety in carrying out the appropriate duty of the court. Therefore, we see that the character was left with only the excerption of initiating conflict as a means to invoking the critical debate which would dumbfound differently been problematically absent from the proceedings. We may consider that the juror might rent want another approach than facing conjointly and individually the obstructions to the deliberation of justice. For one, a possible alternative for action in this particular may have been the call for a bagging of certain jurors. In particular, Juror 3, played by Lee J. Cobb, is driven by the damaged relationship he shares with his son and Juror 7, played by Jack Warden, is moved to action by his deep-seeded hatred for foreigners.In the self-appointed role of group leader, the protagonist must attempt to draw these individuals away from these distorting perspectives in order to understand the case on its own merits. These facts of prejudicial perspective might have been treated as grounds for dismissal from the organization given the legal good will surrounding such motives and the inherent perversity which such motives posed to the mission of carrying out justice. Such an alternative might have properly saved the organization the nursing bottle neck to meeting its goal produced by the resistance of poorly oriented personnel. Ultimately, however, Juror 8 s methods, while painstaking, were perhaps the most optimal, implementing as they did a careful strategy of communicative and practical organizational unity in spite of a seemingly irreconcilable spectrum of ideologies, personalities and intentions. In the consequence of this unique film, the audience never does condition if the defendant is guilty of murder, but viewers are collectively moved to get around understand the identifiable characteristics which constitute organizational responsibility.