Scott Morneault
12 Angry Men
“12 Angry Men,” was a great movie when it comes to describing group interactions. The
movie does a great job of showing what happens when people bring personal bias and prejudice
into a non-biased analytical situation. The main struggle in the movie was the attempt to get a
group of very diverse people come together to make a decision on a difficult topic. From the
article Making Diverse Team’s Click we find out that “Diverse teams are prone to dysfunction
because the very differences that feed creativity and high performance can also create
communication barriers.” Communication barriers and performance barriers are exactly what we
saw in this film. These barriers and the reason why the case took so long was due to the
difference each group member had.
The movie starts with all of the jurors entering the jury room. The job of the jury was to
decide if a young boy was guilty or not guilty of killing his father. There was a designated
facilitator of the group that sat at the head of the table, but soon we find out that the other jury
members, more or less, steal the show. We learn in the Team Creativity Handout that “in
leading teams it is important to understand the different approached that people have to creativity
and expressing this creativity.” This facilitator had a difficult time dealing with all of the
different backgrounds of his fellow jurors, so the discussion was taken out of his hands.
Once all eleven of the jurors have settled in the jury room, it is first decided that they
should take an initial vote. The vote comes back showing 11 to 1 in favor of guilty.
Immediately this causes conflict within the group. However, we learn in the Working With
Group Conflict article that “Conflict happens in groups, and as elsewhere, it isn’t always bad. In
many cases, conflict can lead to a better understanding of issues and other people, as well as
creative ways to solve problems or take advantage of opportunities.” Unfortunately the jurors in
Scott Morneault
this case were not happy that there was conflict. One juror was just upset that he wasn’t going to
be able to make his baseball game. After the conflicting decision was made, the group thought it
would be a good idea to go around the table and discuss why they believed what they believed.
We learn a lot about the case from those jurors who believe the defendant to be guilty. There
was an old man who heard the fight upstairs, the boy claimed to be at the movies of the time of
his fathers death, a woman testified that she saw the boy kill his father from across the street, and
the boy had an argument with his father that night where he got hit twice to name a few. This
barrage of facts from the guilty jurors, for a moment, makes it seem that they have the potential
of working as a team and not only a group against juror number 8. We learn from the Groups
Versus Teams Handout that “ a team is a small number of people with complementary skills
who are committed to a common purpose,” and for a moment their common purpose was
convincing juror number 8. For a little while it seemed like they were doing well at it.
The rest of the movie involved the guilty jurors presenting pieces of evidence one at a
time and juror number 8 shattering their claims. The first piece of evidence was the so called
“one of a kind,” knife the boy had that was also found to be the murder weapon. However, juror
number 8 quickly refuted this fact by pulling out an identical knife he had just bought. Soon after
juror number 8 decides that their should be another vote and if no one else agrees with him he
will concede. Once the vote was in there was another person found to have changed his vote. At
this moment we really start to see some of the negative group psycologies of members. In the
article Psychology of Meetings we learned about barkers and biters. Barkers and biters are
those who think “I’m never going to agree with this proposal. You are all stupid and wrong, and
we are not leaving this meeting until you see it my way and change your mind. they throw
temper tantrums to get their way, and trample on other people’s opinions.” A few of the jurors
Scott Morneault
immediately jumped on juror number 5 without even knowing if it really was him or not who
had changed his vote. We soon find out however that it was juror number 9 who changed his
mind.
The next two pieces of evidence that were discussed were the statements made of the old
man downstairs and the question of why the boy would return home after killing his father.
After more elaboration from juror number 8 and some heated argument another vote is taken and
this time the vote ends up 8 - 4 for guilty. At this point in the movie you can really see juror
number 5‘s ability to analyze problems. We learn in Discipline of Teams Handout that “Teams
must be able to identify the problems and opportunities they face, evaluate the options they have
for moving forward, and then make necessary trade-offs and decisions about how to proceed.”
At this point in the movie the not guilty group is doing a much better job of this when compared
to the guilty group.
The next scene takes into question the old mans ability to walk to his front door in 15
seconds to find the boy running down the stairs. This causes an elaborate reenactment to take
place in order to prove that the old man wouldn’t be able to make it in time. This demonstration
causes a large outburst from juror number 3 which causes the group to have a small break. Juror
number 8 is doing a great job at this point of persuading others to join his cause. He knows the
importance of having numbers on your side. In the article Practical Tips to Foster Creativity
we find out that “many leaders try to solve challenging problems alone, but teams can do much
better than individuals in coming up with creative solutions to difficult problems.” Without the
support of at least one other group member, juror number 8 would have just given up, however
as he gained support he was able to more easily refute the guilty parties claims.
Scott Morneault
When the group comes back together the vote is now 6 to 6. The next two pieces of
evidence called into question were the boys inability to remember the movies he saw, and the
angle the stab wound was created. After all of this evidence is discussed another vote is taken
and again there was a shift in opinions. The vote was now 9 - 3 in favor of not guilty. The group
is slowly getting closer and closer to reaching a group consensus on the issue at hand. Juror
number 8 up to this point in the movie has been doing a great job of facilitating the group
towards consensus. We learn in the Organizing Team Decision Making Reaching Consensus
article that “There's a limit to how much information any one individual can process, and a limit
on how many perspectives one person can see. Many decisions need full group participation to
explore the situation, provide input, and make a final choice.” Juror number 8 would have never
been able to compile all of the information that he did up to this point without the help of the
other jurors, and it is finally starting to pay off.
The movie turns a little awkward in the next scene when juror number 10 goes off on a
racist rant about everyone from the slums being scum. After the rant he instantly changes his
opinion leaving just 2 for guilty. It must have been very difficult for the jurors to keep good
communication skills while this rant was going on. In the article Communication Skills we
learn that not being judgemental is very important. However, when someone is being blatently
racist that is a difficult thing to do.
Finally, the eye sight of the woman across the street was called into question. Once it
was found that there was no way the woman could have put her glasses on in time to see the boy
kill his father, another juror changed his mind. The final juror was found to have a grudge
against his own son which was why he was so adamant for guilty. Once he realized how much
of a fool he had been he too decided to vote guilty and the case was over.
Scott Morneault
In Stages of Team Development we learn all about Tuckmans Theory. The group in this
movie clearly went through most of the stages of this theory. The group formed by coming
together at first, but then spent most of their time storming throughout the movie. The group was
only truly able to perform at the end of the movie when they reached a final verdict. Then
finally, the group adjourned at the end where we find out juror number 8’s name was Davis.
Also we learn in the Resolving Team Conflicts article that “Conflict can be pretty much
inevitable when you work with others. People have different viewpoints and under the right set
of circumstances, those differences escalate to conflict” However, conflicts can lead to better
resolutions, and because juror number 8 caused an initial conflict, the group was able to come to
a more thought out and analytical decision.
Throughout this movie, two real facilitators arose out of the group of 12. The initial
facilitator took a back seat once juror number 8 stood up to stand for not guilty and juror number
stood up for guilty. Each of the facilitators had clear and distinct styles. Juror 8 was much more
analytical and kept his outside ideas and preferences out of the jury room. Juror 3 was a ball of
emotion and based his decision almost purely on his past experiences.
Juror number 8 was able to calmly and analytically look at problems. He was a strong
facilitator because he was able to stand up to an entire group of people and stand firm to his
beliefs. If juror number 8 had wavered from his beliefs for a second the movie would have only
been 5 minutes long. Also juror number 8 was able to use his fellow jurors and elaborate on
their opinions. When juror number 9 mentioned that he saw eye glass indentations on the
woman's nose, juror number 8 was able to elaborate on the idea and persuade another guilty
juror. If juror number 8 was close minded and judgmental he wouldn’t have been able to realize
the valuable opinions of his group members. Based on all of these facts I would say that juror
Scott Morneault
number 8 followed a supporting leadership style. He was able to voice his opinion while at the
same time sit back and let his fellow group members have their moments as well.
Juror number 3, the leader of the guilty voters was a much different leader. He stuck to
himself and only got my vote as a leader because he voiced his opinion the loudest. Unlike juror
number 8 who was un-emotional and analytical, juror number 3 spoke with pure emotion and
often lost control. One of the reasons why his side lost was because he lost control and wasn’t
able to support his guilty claims. If juror number 3 was able to calm himself down, eliminate
bias, and support his claims, he might have been able to win this juror over.
Overall “12 Angry Men,” was a great representation of group interactions. The movie
ran the gambit of cool and collected individuals, to quiet hiders, and all the way to emotional
outbursters. I feel like I have learned a lot from this movie and would recommend it highly to
any future group facilitator.