Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Twelve angry men leadership
Leadership in 12 angry men
Leadership in 12 angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Twelve angry men leadership
Twelve Angry Men Leadership Types During the movie “Twelve Angry Men” they use many leadership skills to persuade each other to vote guilty or not guilty to reach a verdict. A few of the skills are pressure, rational persuasion, and personal appeal. After reflecting on all of these leadership skills, I have learned anyone can lead any group of people with different personalities, and a good leader not only cares on a personal level but also uses the personal appeal style of leadership. The jurors I chose to write about are juror numbers three, five, eight, and ten.
Number eight had the main leadership role, he also showed drive, cognitive ability, flexibility, and creativity. You later learn toward the end of the movie that he is an architect by trade and loves knowing the exact
…show more content…
His leadership skills were not very strong, he used rational persuasion as well as pressure persuasion, mostly by yelling at everyone a lot. This was a sensitive topic to him, due to the fact, he had a bad relationship with his son and no longer speaks to him. At the end of the movie you find out that he was voting guilty only because he did not want to feel any of the buried feelings he has toward his relationship with his son. Juror eight used a lot of rational persuasion to get juror three to change his mind, he also had to use a lot of intimidation skills because juror three was very upset about this case. For example, juror eight would stand up when talking to juror three and he would not back down when juror three got closer to him. Toward the end of the movie he is the only one left on the guilty side, this is where the he is pressured into changing his vote. As everyone leaves the room juror eight retrieves juror number three's jacket to show personal appeal and connect with him on a personal level. This shows that juror number three was an amazing leader as well as a good
There are quite a few specific factors that affect whether the minority can influence the majority’s opinion. For example, when Juror #9 becomes an ally of support for Juror #8 in his defection from the majority consensus. Although Juror #8 may have started with only one ally, gradually he gained support from other jury members. Another important factor in the power of minority influence (Myers, 298) is the consistency of the viewpoint. Juror #8 never ‘flip-flops’, proponents of the minority position must stand firm against the pressure to conform. Even when Juror #8 is taunted by his fellow jurors after voting not-guilty in the initial vote he stands firm on his position and resists the pressure to conform. Furthermore, high self-confidence and self-assurance improves the position of the minority. Juror #8 presented firm and forceful arguments without being overbearing. He justifies his not-guilty vote by saying, “I just think we owe him a few words, that's all.” In the film, there is also a point in the discussion where Juror #6 defends those who voted not-guilty from the bullying, shouting, and name-calling from the other jurors. Throughout the film, Juror #3 is a bully, a specific example of insulting nature it seen in the film when another not-guilty ballot is received and he attacks Juror #5. He shouts, “Brother, you really are somethin'. You sit here vote guilty like the rest of us, then some golden-voiced preacher starts tearing your poor heart out about some underprivileged kid, just couldn't help becoming a murderer, and you change your vote. Well, if that isn't the most sickening - *why don't you drop a quarter in his collection box?” his criticisms of the other jurors does not sway people to his side. In reality, when a minority gathers strength people feel freer to think outside the box without the fear
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
Despite knowing how angry the other men would be at him, the 8th juror stood up for the defendant and did what he could to make sure the boy had a fair trial. From the beginning, Juror eight was clearly confident in what he believed in and did not care about how foolish he looked. The confidence he showed brought the other jurors to rethink their vote. Juror nine was the first person to recognize the amount of courage it took for juror eight to stand up against the men. After being the first to change his vote nine explains “This gentleman chose to stand alone against us. That’s his right. It takes a great deal of courage to stand alone even if you believe in something very strongly. He left the verdict up to us. He gambled for support and I gave it to him. I want to hear more. The vote is ten to two.” The 9th juror agreed with the eight juror about wanting justice. By standing up for justice he gave nine the courage to stand up for the same reason. Juror eight continued to be consistent with what he believed in. Never did he
In America, every individual has the right to a fair trial, but how fair is the trial? When an individual is on trial, his or her life is on the line, which is decided by twelve strangers. However, who is to say that these individuals take their role seriously and are going to think critically about the case? Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor the true intentions of these individuals and what they feel or believe. In the movie, Twelve Angry Men, out of the twelve jurors’ only one was willing to make a stance against the others, even though the evidence seemed plausible against the defendant. Nevertheless, the justice system is crucial; however, it is needs be reformed.
This is why in the diagram at the top he is demonstrated as a rainbow. At the beginning of the movie, juror number eight is the only one who pleads not guilty. He says he wants to dig deeper in the facts. “Okay, let's get to the facts.” (12 Angry Men). He begins to persuade multiple people that the boy is innocent. With all the evidence gathered, juror number three is the only person who pleads guilty. Through the movie number eight tends to break down number three with each piece of real evidence even calling him a sadist. With everyone on his side most of them are now trying to convince number three he is wrong mainly number eight. This is why he is a rainbow, he gathers everyone together to make a bright rainbow. The reason the shape is larger is because he is such a big character. If he voted guilty the would be no plot to the whole
Twelve Angry Men is a depiction of twelve jurors who deliberate over the verdict of a young defendant accused of murder, highlighting many key communications concepts discussed throughout the semester. One of these concepts was the perspective of a true consensus, the complete satisfaction of a decision by all parties attributed. An array of inferences were illustrated in the movie (some spawning collective inferences) as well as defiance among the jurors. Each of these concepts play a role endorsing, or emphasizing the other. We can analyze the final verdict of the jurors and establish if there was a true consensus affecting their decision. In turn, we can analyze the inferences during the deliberation and directly link how they affect the consensus (or lack thereof). Defiance among the jurors was also directly
In the movie We Were Soldiers Mel Gibson plays Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Hal Moore during the Vietnam War era. He takes command of the infamous General Custard Battalion 1-7 Cavalry and adopts some very innovative tactics to apply during battle. He exudes various leadership traits to motivate his men to go into battle. This paper will discuss some of the traits portrayed in the movie and how it carries over into the business environment.
In the play “Twelve Angry men”, the story line presents a variety of perspectives and opinions between twelve very different men. Some are more likely to be pointed out as prejudice, and others are more focused on reaching fair justice. Clearly, it is quite difficult for different people to vote ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ in unity when coming to a fair decision. In all of the twelve jurors, I have chosen Juror 3 and Juror 8 for contrast and comparison. I believe that Juror number 3 is a very opinionated man, with more differences than similarities comparing with Juror number 8.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
...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.
Transformational leadership also integrates well with a biblical worldview because both advocate valuing followers as well as leaders, the importance of ethical behavior, the need to forgive and learn from mistakes, and the value of a high moral example. Kouzes and Posner advocate leaders having a “moral authority to lead” (2007, p. 41), practicing personal accountability and working to improve all aspects of their follower’s lives. This others-centered leadership approach fits well in the Christ centered atmosphere of a Christian school.
Yet, the justice system is inevitably susceptible to a flaw, as personal prejudices slip through the initial screening and become apparent in the jury room. In Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men the jury systems imperfections are addressed. He demonstrates the atmosphere of the jury room by introducing twelve characters with unique personalities. A particular character I believe to stand out from the rest would be juror ten. Upon first glance, he comes across as a bigot, but as the play continues he exhibits he is also impatient, arrogant, cantankerous and several other traits.
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.
The quietness and patience juror 8 displayed caused tension amongst the other jurors creating careful and adequate (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.453) deliberations. Juror 8 's circle of influence (Covey, 2013) directly influenced the other jurors’ circle of concern (Covey, 2013) when forcing them to question their thought process. Juror 8 chose a collaborative negotiation (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 63) method when deliberating with the other jurors immediately handing down guilty verdicts for the defendant. Furthermore, juror 8 used his ACES to help the other jurors cross the creek (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p.
This report is an analysis of Leadership in the movie Wall Street (1987), directed by Oliver Stone. This report explored the concept of leadership and how it depicted in the movie. The reports explain leader’s use of power and influence tactics. As the report proceeds it shows leader’s attributes and style and how it influences on movie character’s action and the environment in which they operates. In the end, it gives an analysis of the effectivness of the learder.