Twelve Angry Men depicts different types of leadership, communication, and group dynamics. The film revolves around the jurisdiction of a homicide trial with a jury that almost unanimously votes the defendant guilty, with only one opposing voter. This man, Juror #8, presents his decision through ideas of reasonable doubt that spiral into a majority vote of not-guilty.
So, how does a group of twelve men completely shift their point of view from guilty to not-guilty? The power of effective leadership and communication. Juror #8 was able to effectively communicate with the men to think of other scenarios that prove the defendant not-guilty through democratic styled leadership. He did not necessarily think the defendant was not guilty. However, he was not positive the boy was guilty and did not want to make a decision without 100% confidence. Therefore, he communicated his view by encouraging the jury to examine the facts in a new light and opening a discussion amongst the jurors. The re-analyzation of the facts arose new questions about the verity of the facts, allowing some, and eventually all, of the jurors to question their original declaration of guilty.
Lack of leadership and communication from the majority are also factors in the change of decision. The group of 11 men did not have a solid leader to hold together their original verdict. In the beginning, juror #1 was the apparent leader of the group. He stated the jury procedures and inquired each man’s vote. When opposition from juror #8 arose, he attempted to get the group to dismiss the idea. Eventually, he loses interest in caring and steps back as the leader. A disinterest by other jurors was also seen when some were playing games. It was also evident that some jurors only went with the majority based on hidden agendas such as wanting the trial to be over or personal opinions of people such as prejudices. In addition, Juror #3 is the prime opposer to the questions presented by juror...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document