12 Angry Men Analysis

In analyzing 12 Angry Men the first theory that came to mind is the Universal Theory of Leadership. The theory is defined as the belief that certain personal characteristics and skills contribute to leadership effectiveness in many situations. This shows true with Juror #8. Juror #8 was the architect who emerged as a real effective leader. The architect showed self-confidence and assertiveness. He convinced the jury that once all thought the young man was guilty to believing he was innocent due to the lack of proof and questionable assumptions. He showed himself as respectable, knowledgeable, and authentic. The architect rose question as to whether or not the circumstances could be possible by re-enacting the situation. He challenged the process completely by doing this. He was also a leader of integrity because he was loyal to rational principles, practiced what he preached, and did this regardless of the social pressure from fellow jurors’. With these characteristic traits the architect proves to be an charismatic and effective leader. I think overall the conflict in 12 Angry Men was constructive. At first, I didn’t see how they were going to come up with a solution. Since the architect was the one vote for not guilty, he was the first to open up the important issue which led to the conflict. Conflict was constructive due to the fact of the results in solutions. The twelve men were able to eventually unanimously agree on not guilty. The further conflict went on the more increase of involvement of individuals in issues of importance to them came out and developed authentic communication. The conflict between these men also ended up helping Juror #3, the angry father. Conflict served as a release to pent up emotion, anxiety, and stress for the angry father. I believe the individuals a part of the jury grew personally from this experience. So, overall conflict between the jury in 12 Angry Men was constructive. Juror #1, The Foreman, was the first to act as a