Words: 1013
12 angry men: BLDR Assignment 12 Angry Men: Intellect side of leadership shown in the movie 12 Angry Men is a movie about 12 jury members who meet to decide the fate of a boy accused for murder of his father. The jury members were invited by the court and were assembled in a room to make the decision. The movie starts with initial voting in which odds are in favour of boy being guilty by 11-1. One man among the whole jury thinks that there may be a chance that boy is really innocent and all the facts that were presented in court can just be misinterpretation of the situation.
He was not satisfied with the current evidences and wanted to have a relook before they make a final call. The way he put his thoughts in front of 11 other jury members shows the confidence he had on his thoughts. It takes a lot of courage for someone to make a statement which is against everyone present at that moment. This was also evident from his simple way of conveying his thoughts to others. Taking stand of our own thought is one of the most important aspects of leadership. We must be confident enough to make a point if we disagree with others and must have the logic to support our doubts.
Another important incident which shows a strong leadership quality is the way he persuaded others to support his thoughts. Like others in the movie he never screamed or showed his anxiety over others’ thoughts. Rather he used others words and thoughts to arrive at a conclusion which he were supporting. Persuasion is another important aspect of leadership because for an effective leadership you must be able to persuade others to match with your thinking or else you will never be able to drive the desired result out of your team.
Another leadership quality that was evident from the movie was the way some of the characters represented the facts and relate it with the established theories and norms. Be it be the way a switch knife can be used to stab someone or the issue of a limping man walking 50+ feet in 10 seconds. These incidents show the ability to connect facts with established theories which is very important for a leader to win the confidence of others. As a leader you must be able to justify your thoughts with theory or else with time people will know that you are just making a point out of nowhere.
Apart from this the hero used different ways of communication to convince different people. For someone he used mere silence (one who was continuously saying that people with slums background are bound to do these crimes), for some he let them completely make their points and then he questioned them in a logical manner. This differentiating approach to different characters shows the depth of his interpersonal skills which is a must for an effective leadership. As a leader you must understand the person you are dealing with and should deal in a language s/he is comfortable with.
This makes your job to convince others very easy and effective. The hero was able to create and manage the tension among the other characters. He created tension to get their attention towards the important issues he was raising and with time he himself managed it to make them comfortable and compel them to take is side in the discussion. The movie also showed that to influence someone you don’t need to know his name or title, rather you can do it by the way you deal with him.
The characters of the movie didn’t knew the names of their fellow jury during whole discussion. The emotional competencies exhibited by the lead character ranged from that of being calm minded to assertive through the length of the movie. In the beginning of the movie he puts up a show of strength by sticking to his decision of going with “Not Guilty” verdict. Later throughout the movie when he is faced with different situations where emotions are running high he maintains his composure very well.
There are a couple of situations for example, when one of the other jurors mentions he could making a mistake be probably helping to acquit someone who might have actually committed the murder, he does not disagree with him. Instead he also considers that to be a possibility. He is constantly questioned by the jurors as to why he is spending so much time discussing a supposedly “open and shut” case. He listens to each of their reasoning and calmly explains his own understanding of the various points put across by the prosecution against the defendant.
He shows great empathy while discussing the life of the dependent about what he might have gone through at the hands of the victim. He also understands that the defendant was not being given sufficient resources to defend himself. He takes it upon himself to look in to the finer details of the case, for example, when he goes looking for a similar knife that was used to kill the victim. This shows his need to go into details before arriving at any conclusions. Throughout the movie he encourages his fellow jury members to explain their view points about the case and is always willing to listen.
This shows another leadership quality of involving your team members and being willing to listen to others ideas. He shows that it is possible to work to against “Group Talk” if one possesses conviction about his beliefs. He uses his vote as a tool put across his view points. He is extremely objective throughout the discussion and usually never jumps to conclusions about the case facts. His constant support for those jurors who are put down by the more aggressive ones helps empower them to speak up and ultimately leads to the unanimous decision in favour of the defendant (the goal of the team).