More handpicked essays just for you.
Leadership style in 12 angry men
Leadership style in 12 angry men
Relationship between leadership and culture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Leadership style in 12 angry men
Every interview I have taken part in, the interviewer has always asked me, “do you see yourself as a leader?” or “in groups, what role do you normally take on?” Leadership in modern day culture has developed into being highly unattainable and as a community we hold leaders to a standard of changing the world. Even though leadership is held to such a high standard, college students are expected to have taken on leadership roles and be able to explain the change they have made in the world at only 21 years old. However, I believe everyone can be a leader and that everyday leadership is just as important as roles that change the world. You don’t have to be Steve Jobs and change the way the world uses phones or like Martin Luther King Jr. and change
People who practice everyday leadership are those who do not necessarily have formal authority. A good example of unofficial leadership is the film, 12 Angry Men based on the play by Reginald Rose and directed by Sidney Lumet. In the film juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, does not have any official authority beyond that of the other 11 jurors. However without any positional power Juror 8 is able to persuade the others to switch their votes from guilty to not guilty (12 Angry Men). John K. Clemens, professor and author on leadership observes, “What’s tricky about persuasion is discerning the difference between getting others to think as you do, an obnoxious and risky use of power, and getting others to investigate themselves to discover common truths and facts – truths that transcend preference, prejudice, fear, and competitive jockeying. The courtroom drama [in 12 Angry Men], as a result, is usually a loud wakeup call” (Lee). Juror 8 changes the opinions of all the other jurors not by asserting power but by appealing to their sense of logic and making them think beyond the black and white facts of the case. Fonda’s character encourages the others in the room to think for themselves as well rather than simply falling into
In the play, 12 Angry Men, written by the well-known writer and producer, Reginald Rose, sets the scene in a stuffy jury room on an extremely hot day where 12 jurors must deem whether a boy is guilty for the murder of his father. The jurors struggle to reach a unanimous decision, as tension between the jurors builds up. The author delivers several clear messages through his play such as standing up for what you believe in, and always pursuing the truth. Often times personal feelings, prejudices, and fear of voicing opinions prevent the truth from being exposed.
Once planted in the minds of individuals, ideas have a remarkable ability to grow with the strength and speed of the most powerful pathogens – possessing equal communicability as they spread to proximal centers of consciousness. How can this characteristic of ideas be utilized to benefit society? In the film Twelve Angry Men, we see a situation where Juror Eight – equipped with all the autonomy and wisdom of an ideal leader – appeals to logos in an attempt to promote the consideration of an idea, which he has planted in the minds of an otherwise unanimous jury; this idea being the mere possibility of innocence in the conviction of a boy charged with patricide. Ideally, leaders will possess an ability to transcend the allure of groupthink so prevalent in collective decision-making. However, when not coupled by the proper corresponding actions, such transcendental thoughts never become bigger than the brain-cells that they occupy. As Juror Eight leads his associates to consider the uncertainty of the case, we see an important skill in leadership: the ability to recognize disparity in individual cognition. Juror Eight appeals to this variance in thought patterns by guiding his peers through a journey of personal evaluation – allowing them to reach conclusions on their own, rather than explicitly dropping their minds into the terminal of his own logic.
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.
The term groupthink in this report is defined as, the social psychological phenomenon that results in groups during pressure situations. This social psychology theory is broken down into eight signs. Illusion of invulnerability, Collective rationalization, Belief in inherent morality, Stereotyped views of out-groups, Direct pressure on dissenters, Self-censorship, Illusion of unanimity, Self-appointed “mindguards”. According to research conducted by Irving Janis, there are three conditions to groupthink. The first, "high group cohesiveness" which is the direction for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal, or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members. Secondly, the structural faults such as insulation of the group, lack of norms and central leadership, in addition social background of group members. The third, situational context includes the circumstances of the groups meeting, social roles and expected behavior. This notion is exemplified during the movie, "12 Angry Men". The purpose of this essay is to examine the movie content to display the groupthink symptoms in place. Groupthink consists of eight major factors that occur during the film's scenes, as the twelve men debate a premeditated murder court case. All of the factors continue to rise as the jury discusses the young man's fate. During the film, a unanimous vote must be reached, despite this one man refuses to vote guilty. In 1957 the Orson Welles directed film opens as the judge explains the case and its severity. Soon after the group forms as the 12 men enter the jury discussion room. During these scene frames, the case evidence is explained. As the men talk they give details of an old man living beneath the boy testified, that he heard a fight, stat...
In the film 12 Angry Men, a group of twelve jurors are deciding the fate of a young boy accused of murdering his father. Throughout the juries dilleration, one man exhibits all of the qualities of leadership. This man is juror number 8 played by Henry Fonda. Fonda not only exhibits the the 10 qualities of a leader but he uses these qualities to lead the entire jury to a vote of not guilty (Fonda & Lumet, 1957).
12 Angry Men Essay During a hot day in New York City, twelve men from many different backgrounds are called upon for jury duty to decide the fate on an eighteen-year-old boy that is on trial or murdering his father. The decision may seem like an easy choice at first, but while watching, the 1957 MGM film titled Twelve Angry Men gradually shows how one man can change the opinions of every man in the room by fighting through facts, beliefs/cultural backgrounds, and bravery. One of the dumbest things ever said came from juror #3, Mr. Davis, played by Lee J. Cobb, the angry and quickly tempered father who couldn’t judge the young man on trial due to his own personal grudges with his son; said “who cares about the facts”. This is ignorant because court cases base everything off evidence, and evidence all come from facts.
Leaders do not just appear out of thin air and automatically start making great things happen in the world. A leader must learn from prior leaders or role models that they are surrounded by that they look up to. Not everyone can be a leader, only some people have the correct characteristics it takes to lead others in the right direction. Those who do great things, for example volunteering at a homeless shelter, are not leaders. Many people mistake a “great person” as being a leader, which is completely incorrect (Kouzes and Posner, p. 3). While playing an active role in your community is a positive thing it does not make someone a leader of that community. All leaders have a group of people they have inspiration too and that is a good way of determining who your personal leaders are. My mother, brother, and grandfather are my leaders because I have always looked up to them and tried to mimic some of the great things that I have seen them do. My mother has always been an independent women with goals and an action plan to accomplish those set goals. Stephen, my elder brother, is outgoing and tends to have a leveled head when it comes to evaluating stressful situations. My grandfather is the most caring person I know and he is amazing at keeping situations under control in order to please everyone. These are all the qualities I want to combine into my own leadership style. I know I am not a efficient leader of these actions yet, but I plan on growing into this as I more on into my career, fulfill my set goals, and adjust to the curve-balls that life throws at me.
The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he
Dictating a man's future would seem enough be a difficult task for anyone, for it is whether this man ends up with a lifetime in prison or he is given the privilege to walk the streets. Deciphering facts from fictitious tales, and putting everything up for questioning. Such an experience was only granted to men in the 1950’s. A time when race and gender were gradually beginning to not be definitive of an individual's social class. Although, it may seem like an incredibly undesirable task, sitting in hot New York courthouse with eleven other men is needed for justice to rightfully be served. 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.
In a sense, I am a leader. However, that does not necessarily mean that I am the person on the front line with everyone following behind me. I am more of a silent leader. I am a leader because of my actions. Rather than go down the path
Leadership is the action of leading a group of people or an organization. In this day and age we as a world need more leaders. Leaders can be innovators, entrepreneurs, workers, and just normal everyday people. A leader doesn 't have to be the president of an organization, but has to have the ability to motivate and lead people to be their best selves. Leaders always have great qualities and they love helping those in need.
Stop for a moment and think how many times have you said “I'll kill you” to a person and actually killed that person? Two times? Three times? We all know that the answer is never unless of course you're actually a killer. This is what might or might not have happened with the boy who was accused of killing his father in the movie 12 Angry Men. Firstly, let's consider on the title of the movie itself which says “12 Angry Men.” Twelve is indicating the number of group members, angry is indicating the state of their temper, and men indicating their gender. So the title of the movie strongly connects to the name of the class “Group Communication Studies” because both involve a group, a goal and communication among the group members in order to achieve a common goal. The 96 minute film is all about a group of jurors sitting in a room on a very hot day to decide the fate of an 18 year old boy. Each judge had to come up with a decision— either the boy is guilty or not guilty of killing his father with a switch blade knife. The entire movie theme revolves around the group and how it completes its task. The group is so much involved in the discussion and there are so many conflicts that the members even forget to introduce themselves, hence the audience has to remember them by numbers of the order of their seating arrangement. This movie is a perfect detailed and visual example of how a group forms and develops over time, and most importantly the personality and approach of Jury number 8 gives an idea about how important it is to participate, speak up, and take a stance even in the early stages of the group formation. Each member's involvement and contribution to the group goal is important as it can reshape and change the dimensions of o...
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.
I like the fact that the teacher pointed out that leadership can be found everywhere. Leaders don't necessarily exist only in a company where there are a lot of people following you. “Everyone has the potential and possibility to be a leader”. They could be the best at inspiring others, or best at solving problems or dealing with criticism. By and large we all have the necessities to lead and I find, during the group discussions, that the difference and uniqueness of us that give us our own perspective to view and do things. Leadership is also about understanding and combining many different talents and to make them work together to create the best result. There are many kinds of leaders out there, and so many leadership styles. Yet I think we shouldn’t categorised ourselves into one or identify our superiors into one. Why? Because I think it is crucial to be flexible and adapt to which way to lead according to the situations For example, the Democratic style maybe the most popular and most effective, yet it is proved to be counter-productive in urgent occasions requiring instant and firm decisions from one person only, and that is the
I believe a leader is an individual who inspires, motivates, and influence on someone who has an array of decisions to make. I am that leader.