I will upvote clearn answer. Thanks Objective: Students will identify various as
ID: 360802 • Letter: I
Question
I will upvote clearn answer. Thanks
Objective: Students will identify various aspects of management illustrated within 12 Angry Men and discuss lessons learned in an individual report. The report should be 2 pages single space, Times New Roman, Font size 12.
Basic Plot: The jury of twelve 'angry men,' entrusted with the power to send an uneducated, teenaged Puerto Rican, tenement-dwelling boy to the electric chair for killing his father with a switchblade knife, are literally locked into a small, claustrophobic rectangular room on a stifling hot summer day until they come up with a unanimous decision - either guilty or not guilty. The compelling, provocative film examines the twelve men's deep-seated personal prejudices, perceptual biases and weaknesses, indifference, anger, personalities, unreliable judgments, cultural differences, ignorance and fears, that threaten to taint their decision-making abilities, cause them to ignore the real issues in the case, and potentially lead them to a miscarriage of justice. (http://www.filmsite.org/twelve.html)
Cast of Main Characters:
Martin Balsam.................................................................. Juror 1 (Foreman; coach)
John Fiedler.............................................. Juror 2 (Bank clerk; inexperienced juror)
Lee J. Cobb....................................... Juror 3 (Angry gentleman with photo of son)
E. G. Marshall....................................................................... Juror 4 (Stock Broker)
Jack Klugman.......................................................... Juror 5 (Grew up in the slums)
Edward Binns................................................................................. Juror 6 (Painter)
Jack Warden.............................................................................. Juror 7 (Sports fan)
Henry Fonda...................................... Juror 8 (Architect; Man who doesn’t know)
Joseph Sweeney....................................................... Juror 9 (Nice older gentleman)
Ed Begley...................................... Juror 10 (Prejudiced older gentleman with cold)
George Voskovec..................................................... Juror 11 (Foreign watchmaker)
Robert Webber........................................ Juror 12 (Advertising Executive; doodler)
The film emphasizes:
Leadership
Decision-Making
Equality
Conflict
Diversity
Working in groups/Teams
Effective meetings
As you watch it, pay special attention to Juror No. 8's ability to discern the behavioral signals of people—their often subtle but very real concerns, needs, orientation, and disposition. This is what we mean by empathy. Researchers have found a positive correlation between this cognitive “sixth sense” and effective leadership.
Please answer the following questions:
1. Are the jurors a team or a group? Briefly explain.
2. Identify at least three positive behaviors that you saw in the movie that can make your group/team more effective?
3. What did you notice about the styles of communication among the jurors? Which styles were most effective? Least effective?
4. How would you describe Juror No. 8's leadership style?
5. In addition to Juror No. 8, who showed leadership credibility and how? Who didn’t?
6. Who showed respect, honor, and trust for others? Who didn’t? Did it weaken or strengthen leadership? What were its benefits? Its costs?
7. Who showed empathy? Did it weaken or strengthen leadership? What were its benefits? Its costs?
8. What assumptions did some of the jurors make? In what ways did these assumptions demonstrate the presence or lack of respect, honor, and trust? Did you notice any stereotypes?
9. How does group conformity apply in this case?
10. What can people that lead meetings learn from this movie?
11. Would this be a successful group/team if they were part of a large multinational?
12. Briefly describe what other management lessons you learned from this movie.
Explanation / Answer
Since there are multiple questions in this post, I shall answer the maximum possible questions given the time constraint.
1. Are the jurors a team or a group? Briefly explain.
I would consider Jurors as a group of people rather than a team. While the jurors do have a common purpose like a team, but unlike a team, they do not need to work in committment towards one another. Here the accountability is more on an individual level to share an honest,fair and evidence backed judgement rather than a group level. The common goal of the group is to deliver a unanimous judgement, but unlike a team, this group of jurors is more independent of each other's perspective.
2. Identify at least three positive behaviors that you saw in the movie that can make your group/team more effective?
The three positive behaviors were shown by the following jury members:
Juror 4: who pitches that logic should be above all bias
Juror 9: who believes in supporting and giving equal opportunity to all members to keep their viewpoint
Juror 8: Who shows the ability to stand alone for something he believes to be right.
Thus the ability to reason, keep away all bias, listen actively, provide equal opportunity to all team members to share their viewpoints and also keep an individual viewpoint in a team are some positive behaviors that can make a group more effective.
3. What did you notice about the styles of communication among the jurors? Which styles were most effective? Least effective?
Martin Balsam.................................................................. Juror 1 (Foreman; coach): Soft-spoken, tries to ensure harmony in the group and does effective facilitation. His communication style is assertive (MOST EFFECTIVE)
John Fiedler.............................................. Juror 2 (Bank clerk; inexperienced juror): very low on confidence, doesn’t have a strong opinion on the matter of his own and is rather influenced by others. His communication style is submissive. (INEFFECTIVE)
Lee J. Cobb....................................... Juror 3 (Angry gentleman with photo of son): he tries to dominate the discussion and influence weak members of the group. He behaved as if he had more rights than others. His communication style was aggressive (INEFFECTIVE/LEAST EFFECTIVE)
E. G. Marshall....................................................................... Juror 4 (Stock Broker) strongly believes in reasoning but is least emotional at the same time. His style was more passive-aggressive in nature(INEFFECTIVE)
Jack Klugman.......................................................... Juror 5 (Grew up in the slums) is fairly young and is nervous around other jurors. He however, maintains his objectivity in the situation. His communication style was a combination of assertiveness as well as passiveness.
Edward Binns................................................................................. Juror 6 (Painter) is a good listener but doesn’t have a strong opinion on the matter. His style was passive(ineffective)
Jack Warden.............................................................................. Juror 7 (Sports fan) comes out as disinterested in the discussion and more concerned about his baseball game. He lacks the sense of responsibility and appears to be selfish. His style is also passive.
Henry Fonda...................................... Juror 8 (Architect; Man who doesn’t know) is the only one who takes a stand for himself and suggests the group to at least consider an opportunity to discuss. His style is highly assertive and polite. (most effective)
Joseph Sweeney....................................................... Juror 9 (Nice older gentleman), supports Jury 8 for a discussion during secret ballot. He is logical and is a patient listener. His style of communication is assertive and participative (MOST EFFECTIVE)
Ed Begley...................................... Juror 10 (Prejudiced older gentleman with cold) has preconceived notions and is biased against slum dwellers. His style of communication is highly aggressive (LEAST EFFECTIVE)
George Voskovec..................................................... Juror 11 (Foreign watchmaker) is different from others but is polite and is considerate about justice. His style of communication was slightly assertive but he lacked enough confidence. (less effective)
Robert Webber........................................ Juror 12 (Advertising Executive; doodler) doesn’t contribute much to the discussion and lacks an opinion of his own. His style was somewhat submissive however, he doesn’t seem to please anyone with his words. He appears quite confused. (less effective)
4. How would you describe Juror No. 8's leadership style?
Juror no 8 style had elements of both democratic as well as transformational leadership. Juror 8 encourages everyone to discuss on the matter, keep their individual viewpoint and stresses on the importance of justice
5. In addition to Juror No. 8, who showed leadership credibility and how? Who didn’t?
I think Juror 1 also showed leadership credibility in the capacity of group foreman, facilitator and coach. He tries to ensure that the group doesn’t deviate from its agenda, actively listens and coordinates the group activities and provides an opportunity to every member to speak. Juror 10 was the least effective and didn’t show any leadership credibility. He was authoritative and aggressive in nature and believed that his thought process is the most appropriate
6. Who showed respect, honor, and trust for others? Who didn’t? Did it weaken or strengthen leadership? What were its benefits? Its costs?
Juror 1, Juror 8, Juror 9, Juror 11 show respect, honor and trust for others. Juror 3 and Juror 10 didn’t show any respect towards others. Showing respect, honor and trust always strengthens leadership. As reflected in the movie too, Juror 1 with his polite and humble attitude, single handedly turns all other members to vote not guilty in the matter. The cost of showing respect was that Juror 4 and Juror 9 had faced severe opposition from almost all the other members and some were even furious.
7. Who showed empathy? Did it weaken or strengthen leadership? What were its benefits? Its costs?
Juror 8 showed empathy towards the teenager accused for murder. It strengthened his leadership as it helped other members to reflect upon the facts of the case keeping aside their own prejudices. The benefit of empathy was that everyone else is the room could understand the situation of the young boy better and could come to a logical and unanimous decision based on facts. It pushed the group towards delivering justice. There were no major costs of empathy except for opposition from certain members in the group.
8. What assumptions did some of the jurors make? In what ways did these assumptions demonstrate the presence or lack of respect, honor, and trust? Did you notice any stereotypes?
Juror 3, 10 made the following assumptions:
There was little respect for everyone else’ opinion in the room as well as the judicial system. They had no trust in any other member and were confident and aggressive about their opinions. There were strong stereotypes around race, background, age and temperament of the teenager boy.
9. How does group conformity apply in this case?
Group conformity applies in the attitude of juror 2 who is fairly low on confidence and doesn’t have an opinion of his own. He conforms with the group norms and opinions. Similar to juror 2, juror 12 who just agrees to what the majority says and doesn’t have a stand of his own.
10. What can people that lead meetings learn from this movie?
11. Would this be a successful group/team if they were part of a large multinational?
12. Briefly describe what other management lessons you learned from this movie.