Cody Ross
HLTH 365
Dr. McDiarmid
12 Angry Men Analysis Paper
Part 1
In the film 12 angry men a group of jurors are given the task of deciding a
verdict for an 18-year old boy who is accused of murdering his father. At first look
the case is an open and shut case. There is one juror, juror number 8, who is not
convinced that the boy is guilty. The rest of the group tries to prove juror number 8
wrong. As the movie progresses it becomes more of a study of the juror’s complex
personalities and through all the deliberation they find the defendant not guilty.
The group of jurors each takes on their own role and together experience many of
the aspects of group dynamics we have discussed and learned in class.
As the jurors enter the deliberation room they experience the forming stage
of Tuckman’s 5 Stages of Group Development. The jurors started to converse with
each other talking about some unrelated things and some things related to the case.
This was the start of their group. They now had a task to complete, so they started to
get to know each other. One of the characteristics of the forming stage from the
Stages of Team Development handout is, “discussions about what information needs
to be gathered”. The group did this when they all went around and gave their
reasoning of why they said the boy was guilty. Much of the juror’s personality came
out during this point in the movie. Juror number 7 established him self as the
tension reliever, a role from the Functional Roles of Group Members Handout. He
used humor throughout the movie to lighten up the mood or to help make his point.
Sometimes it was helpful, but most times it was unhelpful.
In William Worsmorth’s article When Does a Group Look Like a Group he
states “…all groups require a modicum of cohesiveness; else the group would
disintegrate and cease to exist as a group”. Juror number 1 took the role of the group
coordinator. He made sure the group was staying on task and getting along enough
to stay on task. I think he did not do the best job as a coordinator; there were many
times when the group was off task and he failed to retain the focus. Juror number 9,
the older gentleman, started off the movie filling the role of the follower, he talked
when he needed to but mostly went along with the flow of the group. Towards the
end of the movie he found his voice and became a very active member of the group.
In this movie the group quickly found conflict. Juror number 7 was the
protagonist of the group. He disagreed with everyone else and through his
disagreement took over the group. All attention was on him the rest of the group
had a task to convince him that the boy was guilty. At this point in the movie the
group moved into the storming stage. There was a lot of irritation caused and much
disagreement going on. The group spent awhile in the storming stage. They at times
would move up to the norming stage but never stay for to long. “Conflict arises from
differences between people…” this quote came from the Resolving Team Conflict
handout. This group of jurors is very different from one another. They go through
much conflict during the movie. Different personalities clashed during the movie
and differences of opinion created animosity between group members. Many of the
conflicts were resolved using the “venting” method. This method as described in the
Working with Group Conflict article as, prodding the parties with questions to get
them to explain themselves and in turn resolving the conflict between jurors. There
were a couple of the jurors who helped to resolve conflicts between other jurors
throughout the movie.
When juror number 8 had the group help him to demonstrate old man
getting out if his bed and walking to his door to see the boy run out of the building,
the group reached the performing stage. Regardless of they demonstration was
done. The group completed a task. This was a pivotal point in the movie. The group
became very divided. There were still come jurors who were convinced the boy was
guilty, but more and more people where convinced that the evidence is not good
enough. Now there were almost two groups. They were arguing with each other for
who had the best way to complete the task, to come up with a verdict. There was
some defiant separation within the group. Following the experiment the vote
became in favor of not guilty. At this point the group returned to the norming stage.
The jurors started to accept each other’s viewpoints they listened to each other. This
is a characteristic of the norming stage.
Juror number 8 solidified himself as the leader at this point in the movie. The
jury was around 8-4 in favor of not guilty. He addressed another aspect of the
evidence and proved it was not good enough evidence to convict the boy. He then
went around the room and asked the individuals who were still in favor of a guilty
verdict what they thought. All but one changed their vote to not guilty. This was a
big turning point for the group. They suddenly were all on the same page but one.
There was no more arguing, or bickering back and forth. The only juror who was
talking was the juror who was still in favor of a guilty verdict. The majority of the
group was all on the same page, they all agreed with each other and together looked
at the last juror.
At this point I believe they reached the performing stage again. They were
working towards the task of changing one jurors mind. They had overcome the
diversity of the group; they had all gotten to know each other. They had gotten
through the forming, norming and storming stages of Tuckman’s 5 Stages of Group
Development. After the final juror had changed his vote to not guilty the group
turned in their decision and reached the final stage, adjourning. The group had
reached consensus on the verdict. No one changed their vote just go get out of the
room. Everyone on their own had changed their vote from guilty to not guilty. They
reached consensus through the “voting for consensus method described in the
Organizing Team Decision Making Reaching consensus for better decisions handout.
This group was not the most functional but I believe when they all left the room they
still believed that the boy was not guilty.
The group of jurors did not choose to be apart of the group. They had been
chosen to be apart of the group. The frustration came out early in the film as the
went through the forming stage. Then after the got to know each other and began
their deliberation they moved through the norming and storming stages, sometimes
getting into the performing stage for short periods of time. But in the end of the
movie they performed their task and adjourned as a group. They reached consensus
on the verdict and all went their separate ways. This movie was a great example of a
group full of diversity and conflicting personalities, but they were able to come
together and complete the task at hand.
Part 2
The two leaders in this movie were the foreman and juror number 8. The
foreman was the leader by default. He was given he role of facilitating the
conversation and keeping the group on task. He did this throughout the movie in a
fairly passive manner. He did not receive the most respect from the group but he did
a good job of facilitating the group and helping to guide them to their ultimate
decision. I believe the true leader of the group was juror number 8. He was who the
whole group looked to throughout the movie. It was very evident at the end of the
movie. He took the role of asking the jurors what their vote was, and asking them to
explain why. The foreman stepped down and juror number 8 took over. At the very
end of the movie when the last juror was making his decision they all looked to juror
number 8 to convince him. He was the one asking the last juror why he thought the
boy was guilty and proves it to the rest of the juror. Juror number 8 was not
appointed a leader, but took the role of the leader by they way he carried himself. He
listened to everyone’s opinions with respect and prodded the jurors to explain their
thoughts and made sure everyone was addressed. He was the true leader of the
group, without him the jury would have made the quick decision to send the boy off
to die without discussing the case.
References
Tuckman’s 5 Stages of Group Development- Powerpoint
Stages of Team Development- Article
Functional Roles of Group Members- Handout
When Does a Group Look Like a Group- Article by William Wordsworth
Resolving Team Conflict- Article
Working with Group Conflict- Article
Organizing Team Decision Making Reaching consensus for better decisions- Article