Leadership Analysis “Twelve Angry Men” free essay sample

The movie â€Å"Twelve Angry Men† is about twelve male jurors, brought together in a deliberation room to decide whether a boy is guilty of killing his father. The deliberation starts with an 11-1 vote for guilty. As the movie progresses, the one man who had a reasonable doubt about the guilt or innocent of the young boy, convinces the other members of the jury to question the facts presented. This paper examines the application of leadership concepts in the characters of each juror. Throughout the movie several leaders evolved, the main one being Juror #8, the man who stood alone from the get go with a not-guilty verdict. There may be varying perspectives on the theories of leadership evident in the movie, but the underlying principle is the same: A leader is someone who moves a group of people toward a common goal by means of social influence. Henry Fonda (Juror #8) illustrates important principles of leadership and influence in which the right person can lead group members to achieve a common goal, yet go through positive individual changes. Leaders are defined by two separate characteristics; those who are appointed as the leader and those with no special title that emerge as influential. According to Peter G. Northouse in his book, Leadership: Theory and Practice†, leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. It also states that â€Å"Influence is the sine qua non of leadership; without influence, leadership does not exist† (3). Leadership is influence and Juror #8 is a perfect example. He was able to influence his fellow jurors to see as he saw and change the vote to not guilty even though it was a long and arduous process. In the movie, Juror #8 portrays a character that gains respect by others for emerging as a leader. He takes pride in the fact that he believes different than the other jurors, and does not let the fact that he is the â€Å"minority† inhibit him from trying to change the opinions of the other jurors. The movie opens with the jurors casting guilty votes to determine a thoughtless verdict. All eleven jurors, except one (Juror #8) voted guilty. As a viewer watching this movie, you have to give the character consideration since he decided to go against the norm and vote not guilty. This is a deviant trait, however, this deviant trait leads into an emerging leadership that the other characters respect. As a leader, Juror #8 stands out for various reasons. One of the most prominent is at the beginning of the movie. He begins to display task-oriented approach by offering up a new idea to the group. In this case, it was the idea of the boy being not guilty. Although the men were upset with him, the thought had crossed their mind long enough to realize he may be right. By offering up his opinion and a new suggestion, he opened the door for the other jurors. This then creates new options and processes for the group to explore. However, this also created tension and power struggles. Juror #8’s point was that he had no substantial evidence to prove that he knew the boy was not guilty, but he had enough doubt to make the claim. For example, juror #8 is constantly ridiculed by the smaller minded of the jurors: the bigot or the sports fan. Others, however, are more open-minded and are curious to hear what he has to say. The old man (Juror #9) displayed a supportive style. For example, the old man sitting next to Fonda seemed to be the most intrigued by Fonda, simply because he had the courage to be different. In the beginning, certain traits, such as his aggressiveness or persuasiveness, may have identified juror #8 as a leader. However, he begins to emerge as the leader by elaborating on what every juror was trying to say or making suggestions to keep the group focused. Toward the middle of the movie, he had persuaded almost half of the jury to vote not guilty. They even started to go up to him and ask him what he really thought about the case. All he could say was all of it could have â€Å"possibly† not happened. This holds that attaining appropriate leadership behaviors depends on the situation. He conveyed the appropriate attitudes and patience to go along with the readiness level of the other jurors to switch their votes. Juror #8 was also a good listener and this could have also earned him so much respect. For example, he really tried to understand the supported evidence that the stockbroker had to offer. Henry Fonda emerged as a very successful leader because he showed value in others, empathy, seriousness and integrity. For example, he votes not guilty and shows empathy not because he is sure of the boys innocence, but because he wishes to talk about the serious case without emotionally pre-judging the eighteen-year old boy because he saw value in others and life. He shows empathy because in scenes he asks the jurors to imagine themselves in the boy’s shoes awaiting death sentence, physical abuse and torment by father, growing up in the slums etc. He only asks that each member look deep within them, and be as honest with them selves as possible. Another quality is that of trust. He trusts that the team members will make the right vote. He emerged into a leadership position, all because of the respect he earned by others. They learned a lot from him, as others watching this movie surely did. Leadership is rooted in character. Transactional leadership is a two-way social exchange in which there is reciprocal and mutual influence between a leader and the group. Juror # 8 demonstrates transactional leadership traits such as setting clear group goals and assisting group members in achieving those goals. He leads the jury that is ready to convict through a series of stages in which groups ready to acquit or convict, and those undecided-develop and then disintegrate. As a majority to acquit develops (the vote to acquit or convict must be unanimous). We see the group dynamics shift until Juror #8’s lone voice is joined by 10 others. Psychodynamic theory is present in the scene in which the motivation behind the single-handed holdouts passion to convict becomes apparent. He has displaced his anger towards his estranged son onto the defendant, a no good, ungrateful kid like his son. Each character presents themselves in a different manner. To gain a deeper understanding of each man, we have listed them, and a few specific characteristics that stood out: Juror #1 (The Foreman): (Martin Balsam) A high-school assistant head coach, concerned about keeping the proceedings formal and maintain authority; easily frustrated and sensitive when someone objects to his control. (Dirks) Juror #2: (John Fiedler) A wimpy, balding bank clerk/teller, easily persuaded, meek, hesitant, goes along with the majority. (Dirks) Juror #3: (Lee J. Cobb) bullying, rude and husky man, extremely opinionated and biased, completely intolerant, forceful and loud-mouthed, temperamental and  vengeful; estrangement from his own teenaged son causes him to be hateful and hostile toward all young people. (Dirks) Juror #4: (E. G. Marshall). Well-educated, well-dressed stockbroker, presumably wealthy; studious, possesses an incredible recall and grasp of the facts of the case; cool-headed and rational, yet stuffy and prim; treats the case like a puzzle to be solved rather than as a case that may send the defendant to death. (Dirks) Juror #5: (Jack Klugman) Naive, insecure, frightened, reserved; has a slum-dwelling upbringing that the case resurrects in his mind; a guilty vote would distance him from his past. A typical working man, experiences difficulty in making up his own mind, a follower; respectful of older juror and willing to back up his words with fists. (Dirks) Juror #7: (Jack Warden) Clownish, impatient salesman, a flashy dresser, gum-chewing, obsessed baseball fan who wants to leave as soon as possible to attend evening game; extroverted; votes with the majority. (Dirks) Juror #8: (Henry Fonda) An architect, liberal-minded, patient truth-and-justice seeker; balanced, decent, courageous, well spoken and concerned. (Dirks) Juror #9: (Joseph Sweeney) Eldest man in group, white-haired, thin, retired. A garage owner, who simmers with anger, bitterness, racism; nasty, intolerant; needs the support of others to reinforce his angry outbursts. (Dirks) Juror #11: (George Voskovec) A watchmaker, speaks with a heavy accent, a recent refugee and immigrant; expresses reverence and respect for American democracy, its system of justice, and the infallibility of the Law. (Dirks) Juror #12: (Robert Webber) Well-dressed, easily swayed, smooth-talking business ad man with thick black glasses; uses advertising talk at one point: run this idea up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes it. Juror   is a high school football coach; his position in the jury room is a foreman. If it were not for Juror #1, there would not have been any order in the jury room. He acts as a mediator for all of the arguments that went on in the jury room. He controls and leads every discussion, speaking order, voting, and demonstration. He takes on the leading role and handles it well. He also brings organization into the jury room by organizing the jurors, the discussions, and the votes. With the leadership traits that Juror #1 brings into the jury room, he allows the trial to run smoothly and effectively. He keeps jurors on task and centered on the focus of arriving at either a guilty or not-guilty verdict. He emerged at the very beginning as a natural leader, because he stepped up to being the foreman, or the one who ran the deliberation. Juror #5 was very timid and passive. In the jury room, he acts with respect because he is very unsure about the case, and really does not know how he feels about things. So when it is his turn to talk he passes to hear the others before he makes the wrong assumption. With these actions he shows a lot of respect for not only the boy on trial, but also to the other jurors. However he seemed as if he needed someone to emerge as a leader for him to follow. He did not seem as if he was very confident in his own thoughts. Juror #6 is a salesman, who is impatient, opinionated, and rude. He shows little respect for anyone but himself. He shows that he is very impatient by not even thinking about the trial but rather the baseball tickets that he has for that night’s game. He just wants to get out of there as soon as he can. It was not until after he was sure the game was over, that he began to show any interest in the case. He is very opinionated and that definitely stands out in the jury room. He does not care what anyone has to say. He has his own beliefs and does not care or want to hear anyone else’s views. He is also known to be rude, because he shows no compassion or thought towards the boy on trial and he just wants to get it over with. He does not even stop to think that someone’s life is on the line, he is too concerned about his own. There were several leadership styles or approaches that were evident in specific jurors. Juror #1 appeared to be a natural leader. As described earlier, he took the initiative to get things in order, and keep the deliberation on task. According the book â€Å"Leadership: Theory and Practice,† there are five major leadership traits: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, sociability. The first, intelligence, does not insinuate that one must be book smart. â€Å"Intelligence is having strong verbal ability, perceptual ability, and reasoning†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (19). Your IQ does not necessarily reflect an effective leader. The second trait, self-confidence, â€Å"†¦is the ability to be certain about one’s competencies and skill. † (19) Juror #1 most definitely exhibits self-confidence. He does not hesitate to step up as the foreman, which is essentially the leader of the group. The third trait, determination is defined as having the desire to get the job done and includes characteristics such as initiative, persistence, dominance, and drive. All of these were displayed by juror #1, which helped them from declaring the case a miss-trail because a unanimous vote could not be reached. The other jurors were ready to end the fight, but juror #1 kept pushing them and eventually it paid off. The forth trait, integrity, is the quality of honesty and trustworthiness. This was the least displayed trait of all. However it was evident that the other jurors were comfortable with this juror being the foreman. The fifth and final trait, sociability, is the ability to seek out pleasant social relationships. Within the context of the movie, there were not many pleasant conversations. The conversations usually included jurors yelling at one another. Juror #1 did try to keep the arguments to a minimum, however, with 12 different viewpoints, there is bound to be an argument. The Psychodynamic Approach seemed to be the choice for juror #2. The Psychodynamic approach states that leaders are more effective when they have insight into their own psychological makeup (235). Juror seemed to think that it was nearly impossible for the boy to forget the movie he was supposedly at during the time his father was murdered. Juror #8 began to ask juror #2 when he went to the movie last, and what movie he had seen, and who had played in it. Juror #2 began to realize that he could not remember either, and he was not even under any emotional stress. After he realized it was possible to forget the movie, and who played in it, it raised a reasonable doubt in his own mind. We felt that Juror #6 displayed a Style Approach to leadership, particularly an Authority Compliance style. According to Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid, Juror #6 is very results driven. This was very evident in the fact that he simply wanted to find the boy guilty because he had baseball tickets for that night. He showed no concern for the other members’ opinions or the fact that he would be sentencing a boy to death. The authority compliance style is described as being task oriented and showing little or no concern for people. Juror #6 definitely exhibits this behavior. On the other hand Juror #8 displayed a Transformational Leadership style. He was very compassionate, and showed high regard for others as stated earlier. Northouse describes it as: â€Å"Transformational leadership is a process that changes and transforms individuals. It is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals, and includes assessing followers’ motives, satisfying their needs, and treating them as full human beings. Transformational leadership involves an exceptional form of influence that moves followers to accomplish more than what is usually expected of them. † (169) Juror #8 certainly displayed all the characteristics of transformational leadership. He was concerned about changing the opinions of the other jurors, and to raise a reasonable doubt in their minds to the guilt or innocence of the boy. He not only had to convince them he should be found not guilty, but also that what he was saying was true. He knew his facts and was able to present them in a way that related to each juror. He was confident in himself, and able to convey that to the others. He emerged as not only a transformational leader but as a natural leader. He was able to motivate his followers, or at the beginning his opponents to think and look deeper into their minds. The jurors had a huge decision to make, whether or not a boy would live or die based upon the findings presented by the prosecution. The jurors would have to live with their decision for the rest of their lives, a decision no one should take lightly. In all decisions, individuals should act ethically. Many however do not. The jurors took a very carefree approach in the beginning hoping to make the decision quickly and leave. They did not want to put forth any extra effort in making this decision. They thought they knew all they needed to know. When facts began to present in the jury room, many had forgotten very important ones. Even after these â€Å"new† facts were presented they still wanted to quickly decide. It took a long time, but a decision was made, not-guilty, one, which I think all the jurors would be able to live with. Many times several different leadership styles and approaches are frowned upon, however the differences could prove to be beneficial as they did in this situation. When you present your point of view, regardless of the initial support, you will be heard, and you may just be the voice another person needs to hear to speak out against the majority. Being the minority is not easy, but you must exert the confidence and determination and be bold.