Twelve Angry Men Film

BUS201 Organizational Behavior - 12 Angry Men Analysis

The 1957 film 12 Angry Men is about a group of twelve jurors who are brought together to decide the fate of a minority teenage boy accused of stabbing his father to death. It is a hot day in New York City which adds to the tension that builds up between the jurors in the small deliberation room. The jurors are all male, mostly middle-aged, white, and middle class. The film examines the jurors own experiences and views as they expose themselves, which ultimately plays a role in how they vote in the case. We see why people make the decisions that they do and what in their life drives them to make certain judgments. Each juror had his own personal prejudices and biases, weaknesses, cultural differences, ignorance and fears that impaired their decision making skills and cause them to ignore the real issues of the case.

Each juror played a role in the final verdict. Juror No. 1 is the appointed foreman of the group who attempts to keep the deliberation orderly and procedural. Unfortunately, he is not a good leader and is outdone by Henry Fonda's character, Juror No. 8. Juror No. 2 is the timid bank teller who is easily persuaded and influenced during tense moments. He tries hard to keep the peace within the group. Eventually, he speaks up about some evidence that bothered him. Juror No. 3 is the loud-mouth bully of the group who later reveals to have an unhappy relationship with his own teenage son. The strained relationship causes him to feel angry toward all young people, thereby influencing his vote. Juror No. 4 is the well-dressed stockbroker who comes off as conceited and unemotional. He does not treat the case as a life or death situation for the defendant. Juror No. 5 comes from the same slum as the defendant and does not react well to others prejudice. Juror No. 6 is a typical working class person who is respectful of the older juror in the room. At the same time, he is ready to physically fight another juror during an argument. Juror No. 7 is more concerned with catching the ballgame than the fate of the teenage boy and eventually votes with the majority just to get the whole process over with. Juror No. 8 is the architect and initially the only juror that is not ready to pass a guilty vote. He believes the group should engage in a deeper discussion regarding the case. He gradually gets the other jurors thinking about a not guilty vote. Juror No. 9, the eldest man in the group initially voted with the majority but is perceptive to reconsidering the case and quickly changes his mind. He also can relate to the older witness and is able to bring some insight to his testimony. Juror No. 10, the angry racist used words like Ð''us' and Ð''them' when speaking about minorities. He felt the boy was guilty right off the bat just because he was one of Ð''those' people. Juror No. 11 spoke with a heavy accent and respected the justice system. Juror No. 12 is the smooth talking business man who liked to talk about this job more than the seriousness of the case.

Juror No. 8 shows us the importance of transactional leaders. He guided and motivated the other jurors to consider the case more carefully.