12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men illustrates the dynamic of a jury of strangers who found a way to turn the tables on a seemingly one-sided case. The jury moved from struggling to establish leadership and group influence to finding cohesion in group roles. The story explores how alternative leadership styles affect group communication and understanding. Through the elaboration of the minority opinion, the jury slowly experienced the domino effect leading to a unanimous verdict. This movie shows how an effective group can form from the most diverse of worldviews.
The jury members were a collection of men from distinct cultural backgrounds, moral values, and walks of life. While their differences made communication difficult, the diversity of opinions created more

As the appointed foreman, his task was to orchestrate the jury’s decision-making process. He also embodied the social maintenance role of gatekeeper when he encouraged positive communication. He accomplished this by suggesting first that each juror take a turn to speak around the table, then to take an anonymous vote to protect the privacy of the jurors. The 5th juror became the information provider when he offered his specialized knowledge on switchblade use and his life in the slums. Juror #8 is the questioner because he encouraged the other jurors to consider different views of the trial and to put themselves the boy’s situation. A major negative influence on the participation was self-centered roles. For example, Juror #7’s goal was to speed up the deliberation, so he could go to a baseball game. The 3rd juror also conveyed a self-centered role when he projected his prejudice of inner-city teenagers and issues with his son on his decisions. In the beginning of the session, members were talking over each other, but later they found a way for each juror to participate without being interrupted. With the guidance of the first juror, each m spoke in turn around the table, increasing positive member

When Juror #10 ranted against people from poor communities saying, “you know how these people lie, it’s born in them,” the other jurors literally turned their backs on him. After this incident, the group decided that cultural disrespect would no longer be tolerated, and they moved to the mentality that their diversity would help generate more solutions and ideas. While the diversity of the jury made it difficult for the members to relate to one another in the storming stage, the jurors were eventually able to use their individual experiences to make their decision instead of succumbing to