12 Angry Men

1444 Words6 Pages
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.

... 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.
Open Document