Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of leaders in a society
Persuade with power
Defining the role of leadership
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Role of leaders in a society
Twelve Angry Men is a classic movie depicting how one determined leader can alter an entire crowd. Through dedication, curiosity, and the pursuit for the truth he is able to persuade a group of twelve to second guess even themselves. Within this heterogynous group are a dozen different personalities - some of which were leaders and most of which were not.
The strongest leader in this movie by far is the Architect in the White Suit. Right off from the beginning at the original vote the Architect stated clearly his position in the matter. Against the rest of the group he strongly held his ground and fought for what he believed. Most people in his position would have changed their opinion immediately after realizing that he was completely outnumbered. However he continued to argue his points and reiterate the reasons why “evidence” needed to be questioned. His mind was simply brilliant. As he sat there listening to the other jurors reasoning he always found a way to prove them wrong or make them question themselves. Whether it was through logic, mathematical reasoning, or questioning of evidence he seemed to always wow the other jurors. His strength as a leader is that he is a natural born one. He wasn’t trying to look smart or impress anyone. He simply was doing what he was born to do.
He used both pushing and pulling tactics to influence his peers. His strongest tactic was the usage of rational persuasion. While other jurors were able to dismiss facts without consideration, he immediately noted a potential fault. Through the analysis of facts he was able to convince others to reconsider. One of the most notable discrepancies he proved was that of the witness across the street. Through common noises, known train speeds, and common knowledge he proved that the witness was anything but one.
The architect also uses inspirational appeal to convince his colleagues. He makes the other jurors consider the humanity of the situation. A mans life is at stake and he realizes the impact that his decision as well the rest of theirs will have on the man. The importance of values is portrayed. Likewise he keeps his own position non-emotional stating that he will concur with the group about the guilt, but only if they can convince him that he should.
Addi...
... middle of paper ...
...vie and it completely altered the fate of the trial and the boys life.
The other leader of the film was the assistant football coach who was also the Foreman of the jury. As the film played on it became clear why he was the assistant coach and not the head one. His leadership skills were minimal. Despite his good intentions on running a smooth discussion he couldn’t do so himself. He asked for direction several times, or was told by the others what they should do. He certainly is not a leader, but was forced to pretend to be one for the duration of the trial.
Despite their differences all five leaders were critical to the case at hand. The Angry father and the Architect were essential to represent each opinion group. The Salesman was necessary to serve as head of the rest of the bored people as well as to regulate the comfortability. The Foreman was necessary in theory to control the meeting. And the Old Man was the saving grace in the entire trial. Their vastly unique leadership styles each had its own place in the movie and certainly represented the true reality of the necessity of different leaders in our environment.
This essay will compare and contrast the protagonist/antagonist's relationship with each other and the other jurors in the play and in the movie versions of Reginald Rose's 12 Angry Men. There aren't any changes made to the key part of the story but yet the minor changes made in making the movie adaptation produce a different picture than what one imagines when reading the drama in the form of a play.
The leadership in this movie was provided primarily by Gordie. He didn’t melt in times of pressure. The group liked him and looked up to him. In the movie Gordie had to deal mainly with two types of difficult group members. Vern was a backseat driver and Teddy had trouble controlling his behavior. Gordie would be considered a leader because he is more likely to direct other group members (de Souza). Gordie’s efforts were combined with the group’s to show that when working cooperatively, they achieve goals more often, and more effectively (de Souza).
I think there was a weak group dynamic. This is because I believe the choices made were not made by themselves and they just agreed or disagreed just to get it over with. This is shown in the movie at about the halfway mark where juror 12 said not guilty but when asked by juror 11 why he said so juror 11 had no response. This proves he had a weak group dynamic because he was only listening to what to other people said and didn’t think of an opinion
Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was
 The purpose of this paper is to identify and contrast the different styles of leadership exhibited by two characters found in the 1949 movie Twelve O’Clock High starring Gregory Peck as General Savage, Army Air Forces general. Based on a true story, Twelve O’Clock High is a inspirational account of the highly dangerous precision daylight bombing missions carried out by US Army Air Force’s 918th Bomber Group in England during the last part of World War II. In the beginning of the movie the squadron is commanded by general Davenport. It is very clear that General Davenport’s main concern is the wellbeing of his men. He obviously had developed close interpersonal relationships. The men of the squadron were completely devoted towards Davenport and they trusted any decision that he would make. General Davenport’s affection for his men comes to interfere with his ability to lead them. The squadron suffers heavy losses to planes and heavier losses to soldiers. One instance that clearly demonstrates Davenport’s incapability to uphold his responsibilities as the leader is when he jeopardizes the well being of the entire squadron by ignoring protocol and flying out of formation in the attempt to save one plane. When it becomes apparent to Davenport’s superiors that his emotional feelings have become an obstacle to his effectively leading the squadron they relieve him. General Savage who is ordered to take over the underachieving bomber group experiencing heavy losses because of poor technique and lack of focus. Savage takes a kind of tough love approach, holding his men to the highest standards. Savage makes the point that the ultimate objection of the squadron is to successfully complete the assigned missions. Throughout the movie Savage constantly makes it absolutely clear to the squadron that no one individual’s wellbeing will be placed ahead of the entire team and the success of the team. Initially the changing of the preceding General dispirits the squadron. They felt that General Savage was uncompassionate considering the men as nothing more then numbers that were dispensable at his convenience. After several missions that were marked by a remarkable turnaround in success the man eventually come...
Nobody would think that a single speech or persuasion would be able to turn the tables and none of us thought that the power of persuasion could be that powerful. However, these two speeches in the play verified the influence of persuasion using numerous persuasion techniques simple flattery to well-chosen fact. In the story, persuasion was the main factor from the start of the conspiracy to the end of it and the result of persuasion was powerful.
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
Juror #3: In many ways, he is the opponent to the basically composed Juror #8. Juror #3 talks about the simplicity of the case and the obvious guilt of the defendant as soon as he enters the jury room. He loses his temper easily and flies off the handle when Juror #8 and other jurors disagree with his opinions. He believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty until the conclusion of the movie. His poor relationship with his own son may have been a factor in his resistance to the reasonable doubt issues that were brought up. During his last outburst of the movie, he throws his notebook on the table and a picture of he and his son falls out. Extremely distressed, he begins to cry and tears the photo to pieces. Only when he comes to terms with this burden can he finally admit to reasonable doubt and vote not guilty.
Following the federal legalization of cannabis, the United States economy will strengthen and America’s crime rate will decrease because of the legal, taxed distribution of the drug. Lawful marijuana use in the United States will increase our medical and environmental resources, our economy as well as decrease the national crime rate. Overall, the legalization and regulation of marijuana will improve the lives of Americans nationally by a decreased crime rate, a boost in the economy, as well as local dispensaries. Soon it won’t be drug dealers on your street corners, but rather proud business owners.
First of all, legalization marijuana has enormous tax revenue. This will save us taxpayers millions also if marijuana is decriminalized by reducing the amount of money we pay to maintain prisoners incarcerated for marijuana related afflictions. Research Miron reports “that marijuana legalization would reduce government expenditures by roughly $8 billion annually. Approximately $5.5 billion of this would come from decreased state and local expenditures and approximately $2.5 billion from decreased federal expenditures. At the state and local levels, the reduced expenditures would consist of $1.8 billion less spent on police, $3.2 less on prosecutions, and $0.5 billion less on incarceration.” (At the federal level, a detailed breakdown is not readily available.”) (Miron, 2006).
...roducts” (“What is Hemp” 2). With this incredible proficiency in mind, the unemployment rate in the U.S. would decrease as every industry and market will want to jump at the cultivation of hemp. Marijuana, as a recreational drug, would also strengthen our economy if taxed. Its taxation would generate “$6.2 billion annually in revenue” without any of the overwhelming costs that alcohol and tobacco carry (Moffatt 1). It’s most dramatic effect on the economy would be its decriminalization. Its decriminalization would save $8.7 billion annually, “$1 billion on the incarcerations of marijuana delinquents” and another “$7.7 billion” in prohibition expenditures (Moffatt 1.) Ultimately, marijuana should be legalized because its effects on the economy would steadily lower the U.S. national debt and unemployment through its creation of jobs, taxation, and decriminalization.
In many formal and informal settings, we have often heard the word “leadership”. Although this term is found in many textbooks, writings, news clippings, college level courses and papers, leadership is a concept that is consistently evolving. Leadership isn’t an attribute that individuals are born with. Although individuals are born with certain characteristics and traits of a leader, those traits are honed throughout the course of a lifetime.
Finally, LTC Moore’s bravery is one to marvel at in the movie but his leadership character is an excellent example of how a leader should conduct his/herself. This character can also be applied in the business world also. Assessment, preparation, and research should always be analyzed to see how a leader could better improve a firm. Honesty and flexibility allow for mistakes to easily identified and corrected. Company leaders could get some real situational value from implying LTC Moore’s example of leadership to their management of employees.
Leaders lead. They lead by example, by demonstrating and living out organizational values, and by being seen. A good leader will never ask a teammate to do something they are not willing to do. Leaders also clearly understand the central purpose of their organization and ensure it is crystal clear to every member of the team...and they are relentless in pursuing it.
Initially, when we read James Madison we learn the nature of factions. Factions play an important role in human nature because they are vessels of opinions. The opinion of one individual is not enough to cause change. Factions solve this by uniting people with similar opinions and allowing them to urge for change. Madison realized the unrelenting force of a faction left to grow without restraint. They were dangerous because they were often violent and disruptive often being called the “weakness of popular government”. At worst, they lead to civil war and at the least the inhibited the execution of public policy. While he acknowledge that the easiest way to remove a faction was to destroy their liberties, he knew that this would mean to declare a war on human nature. He also understood that removing their liberty would mean removing the liberty of others, which he did not want. Instead, he suggested controlling the effects of majority faction...