Leadership In 12 Angry Men

Leadership and Group Effectiveness

The dynamics of group decision making is the central focus in the film 12 Angry Men. The leaders of the group are defined by two separate characteristics; those that are appointed as the leader and those with no special title that emerge as influential. In the movie you can recognize several concepts covered by Kinicki and Kreitner in their book Organizational Dynamics and Human Behavior (second edition). I will be discussing the concepts of task identity, emotional intelligence, leadership styles, group think, and motivation.
12 Angry men is about a group of jurors attempting to render a unanimous verdict in the murder trial of a teenage boy. This boy happens to be Hispanic and poor. The room is
(888888) A leader’s style of leadership is often based on the leader’s own beliefs, personality, experiences and working environment. A Situational Theory suggests that different situations require different styles of leadership. That is, to be effective in leadership requires the ability to adapt or adjust one’s style to the circumstances of the situation. A Transformational Theory states that leadership is the process by which a person engages with others and is able to create a connection that results in increased motivation and morality in both followers and leaders. The key in transformational leadership is for the leader to be attentative to the needs and motives of followers in an attempt to help them reach their maximum potential. A Consultative Leader seeks the counsel of the whole team before making a decision on what the team should do. He is task oriented, but he seeks the opinion of his followers as well. The participative leader puts himself as a member of the team and discusses possible decisions with the team. He seeks consensus before coming to a decision and everyone is supposed to take ownership in the final decision. A Democratic leader seeks a consensus on the direction of the group. He outwardly expressed no adherence to either position of guilty or non-guilty. He instead encouraged his fellow jurors to simply discuss the case in an open-minded manner. “I don’t know if I believe (the boy’s story) or not, maybe I don’t” (Brown, 2000, 94; Film, 12:40). This non-committal position serves to shield Fonda from much of the hatred typically directed at lone dissenters. Studies have shown that such acquiescences gives subsequent legitimacy (Hollander, 1958, 113) and lends credit to his emergence as a