1a. At the beginning of the film, when the jurors cast their initial votes, Juror 8 stands alone in voting not
guilty, which causes discomfort among many of the other jurors, particularly Juror 10. Rather than
engaging in arguments or attempting to sway the opinions of his fellow jurors, Juror 8 calmly expresses
his desire to discuss the matter further, citing the gravity of their decision. He openly admits his
uncertainty about his stance and strives to remain impartial. His approach fosters trust among the jurors as
he focuses on discussing the details of the case instead of persuading them to adopt his not-guilty vote.
This method promotes a continued, open deliberation process, as he refrains from confrontational debates
about being right.
In the same sequence, Juror 11 maintains a non-hostile demeanor towards the other jurors, keeping his
body language neutral and making deliberate eye contact. This ensures he is fully engaged when others
speak, showing he values their input and takes their words into serious consideration. Even when
confronted by Juror 7 about his quick voting, Juror 11 does not single anyone out or show disapproval.
Instead, he exhibits empathy, attentively listening to all viewpoints without direct disagreement, and
offers his own insights thoughtfully. His actions underline the significance of their decision, reminding
everyone involved that the outcome affects human life, thus preventing the trivialization of their
deliberations.
1b. Following a vote in which only three jurors decide the defendant is guilty, Juror 10 becomes visibly
upset and begins to aggressively confront the others. His agitation escalates into a racially charged tirade
aimed at persuading them of the boy's guilt. As a result, jurors gradually leave the table, moving to the
periphery of the room to distance themselves from his outburst. Ultimately, another juror who had also
initially voted guilty intervenes, urging him to cease speaking. Juror 8 remains silent until the very end
when he underscores the importance of excluding prejudice from their deliberations. By this time, the rest
of the jurors recognize that Juror 10’s judgment is clouded by his biases against the boy.
In the realm of management, it is not always advisable for managers to intervene directly in every team
conflict. Often, it may be more beneficial to allow team members to resolve their disagreements
independently. As noted by the Harvard Business Review, "Colleagues are more likely to own the
decision and follow through with it if they’re making it. If you dictate what they do, they will have
learned nothing about resolving conflict, but rather, have become more dependent on you to figure out
their disputes for them" (Brett, Goldberg, 2017). Allowing teams to handle their own conflicts empowers
them to take ownership and responsibility for their decisions. This approach not only makes employees
feel that their voices are valued and trusted but also decreases their dependency on management. Such
autonomy enhances team chemistry and cohesion by promoting a culture of professional growth and
mutual respect.
2. In "12 Angry Men," the best behaviors for conflict resolution that stand out are Juror 8's 'perspective
taking' and 'creating solutions.' He genuinely tries to see the case from others' viewpoints, asking
probing questions that make them reconsider their initial judgments. He also guides the discussion
towards collaborative problem-solving rather than mere debate. Conversely, some jurors exhibit the worst
behaviors like 'displaying anger' and 'demeaning the other party,' particularly evident in personal
attacks and raised voices, which only serve to entrench positions further and damage the group's ability to
reach a consensus.
To effectively resolve conflicts and lead teams successfully, incorporating the right conflict management
behaviors is essential (Griffin). Embracing the best behaviors such as perspective-taking, creating
solutions, expressing emotions, focusing on interests rather than positions, etc are critical in any team
setting, as they encourage open dialogue and innovative solutions (Delahoussaye). Proficient workplace
conflict resolution is vital for leaders and managers, facilitating better leadership, improved workplace
culture, higher retention rates, increased employee engagement, and greater productivity (King). Miami
University fosters a harmonious student community, promoting active leadership and robust
communication, though conflicts are bound to emerge. The average employee spends 2.8 hours each
week dealing with conflict in the workplace (Pollack, 2023), and 29% of employees experience constant
workplace conflict (Hayes, 2008). These statistics regarding workplace conflict highlight the pervasive
nature of this issue, with employees spending a significant amount of time dealing with conflicts each
week and a notable portion experiencing constant conflict. Equipping individuals with these conflict
resolution skills not only prepares them to navigate challenges in academic and professional environments
but also cultivates them to become more effective managers, leaders, colleagues, and employees.
3. In "12 Angry Men," a moment of distributive negotiation occurs when Juror 3 forcefully asserts the
defendant’s guilt, viewing the deliberation as a win-lose scenario where conceding to "not guilty" would
mean a loss for him. This is characteristic of distributive negotiation, where the gain of one is the loss of
another. In contrast, integrative negotiation skills emerge when Juror 8 proposes a re-enactment of the old
man walking to his door to witness the crime. This collaborative approach opens the door to new
solutions, aiming to satisfy the collective interest in finding the truth, rather than entrenching individual
positions. Understanding these types of negotiations enables someone to be flexible in their approach—
leveraging competitive tactics when necessary but striving for mutual gain to preserve relationships and
enhance collective outcomes.
“Successful negotiators require effective listening, communication, planning, persuasion, strategizing, and
cooperation skills, and these can be learned with practice” (Griffin). Distributive negotiation is about
dividing value under zero-sum conditions and often becomes competitive, which is useful in one-time
deals or when a fixed resource is at stake. Integrative negotiation, however, focuses on creating value and
finding win-win solutions, suitable for building long-term relationships when the negotiation involves
multiple interests (Wilson et al., 2024). Recognizing the distinction is essential as it empowers negotiators
to recognize and adjust to diverse situations. Distributive negotiation, centered on allocating finite
resources, demands a competitive approach aimed at maximizing personal advantages. This approach
should be employed when aiming to generate value, establish trust, and promote cooperation with the
other party, particularly when numerous issues, interests, and alternatives are at play (Wilson et al., 2024).
Conversely, integrative negotiation strives to generate value, prioritizing cooperative problem-solving for
shared advantages. It is best utilized when striving to capture value, advocate for one's stance, and
safeguard one's interests, particularly when dealing with a solitary issue, resource, or outcome in
negotiation (Wilson et al., 2024). Recognizing which approach is best suited to a given situation allows a
negotiator to employ the right tactics, fostering more effective communication, preserving relationships,
and achieving better outcomes. This understanding maximizes a negotiator's effectiveness by broadening
their toolkit to include both competitive and cooperative strategies. Typically, integrative bargaining
surpasses distributive bargaining since neither party typically perceives themselves as having lost once it
concludes. It fosters strong, enduring relationships and reduces lingering resentments. (Griffin)
Appendix
Table 10.4: De-Escalating Conflict:
Table 10.5Best and Worst Conflict Resolution Behaviors for Career Advancement
How managers deal with conflict can have a significant impact on their careers. There are both effective
and less effective approaches.
Best Conflict Resolution Behaviors:
●
●
●
●
●
Perspective taking: Try to put yourself in
the other person’s position and understand
that person’s point of view.
Focusing on interests rather than
positions: Interests could include betterserving clients or increasing the clarity of
work expectations. By focusing on the
outcome, the root cause of the conflict is
more likely to be addressed.
Creating solutions: Brainstorm with the
other person or group, ask questions, and
try to create solutions to the problem.
Expressing emotions: Talk honestly with
the other person and express your
thoughts and feelings.
Reaching out: Reach out to the other
party, make the first move, and try to
make amends.
Worst Conflict Resolution Behaviors:
●
●
●
●
Avoiding the conflict: Avoiding or
ignoring the conflict, hoping it will pass,
is rarely successful.
Winning at all costs: Arguing vigorously
for your own opinion, refusing to consider
changing your position, and trying to win
regardless of the interpersonal costs are
approaches that do not make for speedy or
satisfying conflict resolution.
Displaying anger: Expressing anger,
raising your voice, and using harsh, angry
words will make the other person
defensive and will slow down or prevent
any resolution of the conflict.
Demeaning the other party: Laughing at
the other person, ridiculing the other’s
ideas, and using sarcasm are both
●
●
●
Documenting: Document areas of
agreement and disagreement to ensure
common understanding and clear
communication.
Smoothing: Play down the differences
between the two sides while emphasizing
common interests.
Asking the parties involved in a conflict
to identify three or four specific actions
they would like the other party to take:
An example of this would be saying, “I
would like you to send me the report by
noon on Wednesday so that I can meet my
deadline of 10 A.M. Friday.”
●
●
disrespectful and not conducive to
resolving conflict.
Retaliating: Obstructing the other person,
retaliating against the other person, and
trying to get revenge are unprofessional
and disrespectful behaviors and will not
promote conflict resolution.
Meeting separately with the people in
conflict: Because the sole goal of each
employee involved in a conflict is to
convince you of the merits of their own
case, the parties are likely to become more
committed to their positions rather than
committed to resolving the conflict if you
talk to each party in private.
Works Cited
Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S. B. (2017, July 10). How to Handle a Disagreement on Your Team.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/07/how-to-handle-a-disagreement-on-your-team
Delahoussaye, M. (2002, June). Don’t Get Mad, Get Promoted. Training, 39, 20; Heathfield, S.
M. (2009).
Griffin, Ricky W., and Jean M. Phillips. Organizational Behavior: Managing People and
Organizations. Cengage, 2024.
Hayes, J. (2008, July). CPP Global Human Capital Report - EN25 - Eloqua. Workplace conflict
and how businesses can harness it to thrive. https://img.en25.com/Web/CPP/Conflict_report.pdf
King, S. (n.d.). Why conflict resolution is important for your business. Outsourced Back Office
for Service Businesses and Nonprofits. https://www.growthforce.com/blog/why-conflict-resolution-isimportant-for-your-business
Pollack, J. (2023, December 1). Workplace conflict statistics 2023: Pollack Peacebuilding.
Pollack Peacebuilding Systems. https://pollackpeacebuilding.com/workplace-conflict-statistics/
Shonk, K. (2024, April 19). What is conflict resolution, and how does it work?. PON.
https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/conflict-resolution/what-is-conflict-resolution-and-how-does-it-work/
Wilson, R., Belbase, B., Jones, R., & R., M. (2024, January 24). When to use integrative vs.
Distributive Tactics in negotiation?. Integrative vs. Distributive Tactics in Negotiation: A Guide.
https://www.linkedin.com/advice/3/when-use-integrative-vs-distributive-tactics-negotiation