Group Dynamics in 12 Angry Men Essay

The 1957 Sidney Lumet directed classic 12 Angry Men, the film interlingual r arrestition of a stage drama from a few years prior, is concern logistically and physically around an uncomfortably diverse set of custody with a common goal of achieving a jury verdict in a murder trial. Representing the greatest of organizational challenges, the plot forces these 12 instinctively unlike personalities into the suffocating quarters of a shrinking jury deliberation room.The aspect is consumed by a wilting pressure, as the men atomic number 18 isolate together on a sweltering summer day with the arduous task of assessing the terrible allegation at hand. Lumets film is, on the one hand, an excellent discourse on morality and trans natural action amongst a diversity of caricatures. To another extent though, the work is a study on organizational behavior, producing a setting in which un specify spots are gradually filled by a combination of necessity and case-by-caseist instinct. Am ongst the men collectively assigned to the task, numerous organizational roles begin to form and shift, with leaders, followers, thinkers and bullies occupying several(a) positions throughout. Though all are locomote to address the same problem, each(prenominal) perceives it according to a horizon tied to his own experiences. The task of stretchability a verdict on the basis of evidence would require collaboration, only when these prejudices and personalities distinction render this a continually elusive goal. It becomes clear sort of immediately that leaders and followers are not strictly defined by their willingness to exercise power, but perhaps more by their varying sentiences of duty. This is embodied by the narratives virtuoso, who shows himself to be naturally imbued with a devotion to the propriety of the cause. The eventual emergence of juror 8, track downed to imputable complexity by Henry Fonda, illustrates that leadership is a capacity which comes with reason, communicating and focus. This is a distinct characterization from the founding of leadership in trespass or overbearing authority. With respect to the organizational behavior apparent in this distinction, the critical viewer is inclined to consider the interesting pressure which is position upon such a leader as Juror 8, who must essay to levy a minority influence over a congregation of individuals mostly inclined by the desire to go home to condition their votes with relative unanimity. In the face of eleven guilty consciencey votes, 8 matt-up that he had no choice but to enter a not guilty vote, bearing in mind the singular duty of the jury. It was his fray that the primary objective here was not, as some had clearly seen it, to end this case with expediency, but instead to determine whether the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.This language represents the mission statement of the organization form by the 12 man jury. Juror 8 was the only individual to admini strate the pursuit of this goal and, in a fashion that is brooding of the challenges potentially common to any working environment, was forced to do so in the face of hostile opposition, oppressive external circumstances and several(a) informational challenges. Instead of seeking to render each of these challenges to obscurity or allowing them to jump out the organization from achieving its defined goal, Jury 8 illustrates a valuable managerial talent in motivating various members therein to consider their role in reaching said goal. It is through this plot movement that Lumet conservatively draws out the process of ascension to group cohesion. Indeed, this is no simple task, as Juror 8 must none-too-gently navigate the apprehension of some, the distortion of perspective in others and the outright irrational defiance of still others in come in to steward the organization to a recognition of itself as a atomic number 53 working unit. This is a useful point to consider, as we ev aluate the many another(prenominal) an(prenominal) challenges related to personnel which would individually be forced to the surface by the protagonists tireless instigation of critical thought. After fire some consternation for voicing his reasonable doubt, Juror 8 pragmatically deconstructs the case, pointing out that the primary witness was an elderly woman who was not clothing her glasses at the time of the murder in question. Moreover, the murder weapon, a switchblade knife which a store clerk claimed he interchange to the defendant, was illustrated to be one of a possible infinitive of knives which looked nearly identical to the testify A knife.And perhaps most importantly, the victim of the murder was the defendants father and the close association and bad relationship between the 2 provoked a wealth of circumstantial evidence against the defendant. From an organizational perspective, these are factors which can be looked upon as uncertain variables upon which critical scrutiny exact 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 personality which make up the jury. Juror 8 skillfully weaves the primary goal of finding a pass up verdict through the fabric of these case facts, appealing to what he senses is an experientially one-sided perspective in each juror, in order to invoke status of all these prospects. It is thus that he encounters several phenomena of group dynamic which detectably play a element in obstructing the immediate achievement of intended goals. superstar effect in particular is that of conformity, which would play a significant part in stimulating some of the meeker jurors to assume the defendants guilt on the basis of popular consensus. For many jurors falling into this category, the influence of many of the more vocal jurors would serve to intimidate or cloud individual perspectives, causing the minority p erspective taken by Juror 8 to encounter pointedly steadfast opposition. The meeker men would retain a potence in numbers that would allow them to hide from organizational responsibility. For Juror 8, the feature 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 necessarily 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 option of initiating conflict as a means to invoking the critical debate which would give way got otherwise been problematically absent from the proceedings. We may consider that the juror might have desire another approach than facing collectively and individually the obstructions to the deliberation of justice. For one, a possible alternative for action in this circumstance may h ave been the call for a dismissal of certain jurors. In particular, Juror 3, contend 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 perceive the case on its own merits. These facts of prejudicial perspective might have been treated as grounds for dismissal from the organization given the sanctioned consideration surrounding such motives and the inherent contrariness which such motives make up to the mission of carrying out justice. Such an alternative might have justly saved the organization the bottle neck to meeting its goal produced by the resistance of poorly oriented personnel. Ultimately, however, Juror 8s methods, piece of music painstaking, were perhaps the most optimal, implementing as they did a careful strategy of communicatory and practical organizational unity in spite of a evidently irreconcilable spectrum of ideologies, personalities and intentions. In the resolution of this unique film, the audience never does check into if the defendant is guilty of murder, but viewers are collectively moved to better understand the identifiable characteristics which constitute organizational responsibility.