12 Angry Men Case Study

1. The jury consists people from different background. For example, in this jury, they have coach (juror#1), broker (#4), marketing person (#6) architect (#8) and watchmaker (#11); they have senior person (#9 & #10) and middle-aged person, they have serious person (most of them) and casual person (#7). Generally speaking I think the diversity do help the functioning as a team, because some people can see something the other cannot see. For example, one jury often see people fight with knives when he was a child, so he was familiar with how to use a knife to hurt others; one jury wore glasses so another jury concluded that the woman cannot see the boy killed his father clearly. But in this jury, a man (#3) who have had an experience which his
The watchmaker (Juror #11) stood out and said “Everyone should know his responsibility. That’s why our country is strong.” Then group formation came to norming.
Performing: This stage begins with juror #10’s bias opinion which made everyone feel sick about it.

4. Ostracism 1: Juror #7 was ostracized. He changed his opinion to “not guilty” just for ending the discussion quickly so he could go to watch his baseball game. Juror #11 chided him and told him “you can only change your idea unless you have enough evidence, you cannot play jokes on a person’s life. He was ostracized because he was not responsible.
Ostracism 2: Juror #10 was ostracized. He said “the boy can kill people without any reason. His life is cheap. Almost everyone stood up and did not want to hear him anymore. He was ostracized because of his bias view towards the people in slums.

5. Yes. In the beginning, the vote result was 11 vs. 1, the other people tried to persuade juror #8 though they had no decisive evidence. I think some people just want to reach a consensus decision without making sure what it
Three norms exist in the jury. The first one is we should make decision based on the testimony. Some people believed that the old witness and the woman’s testimony is totally right. The second one is the minority should be subordinate to the majority. Only juror #7 adopted this norm. But most people believed that only the decisive evidence could send the boy to the electronic chair. If the reasonable doubt exists, you cannot say “he is guilty”.

8. Positional leader: Juror #1. He was the host and made sure the discussion going on smoothly.
Influential leader: Juror #8. He thought you cannot send a boy to the electronic chair without discussing, and then he persuaded everyone successfully.
Task leader: Juror #1. To make the jury achieve a consensus, he did a lot.
Maintenance leader: Juror #2. He distributed lozenges to the others.
Self-oriented leader: Juror #3. He persisted that “the boy is guilty” due to his own son’s bad behavior.

9. Juror #1 Standard setter. He was the host.
Juror #2 Compromiser. I think he found something wrong in the beginning but he dare not to follow juror #8 at that time.
Juror #3 Blocker. He was the last one who still believed the boy is guilty. He ignored the