12 Angry Men Essay

In 12 angry men there are many themes that are present one of the major themes that is found was present is, one determined and skilled individual can wield a lot of influence. Juror number eight is a â€Å"quiet, thoughtful, gentle man† he seesall points of the argument and wants to find the truth. On the other hand juror number three is â€Å"a very strong, very forceful, extremely opinionated man† his opinion is all that matters and if other people don’t agree with it they are automatically wrong. All of the characters in this story help develop the theme but in my opinion jurors number three and eight play a very large role in it. Juror three is a very outward with his opinion from the beginning. He lets everyone know what he thinks and that no one will be able to change his mind. In his mind his opinion is the most important thing and no one can say anything against it. When others try to look at all the facts and have a discussion he finds that it is pointl ess and a waste of his time because he will not change his vote from guilty and that means everyone else must be the ones to agree with him. See more: Satirical elements in the adventure of Huckleberry Finn essay This juror is a man who is very â€Å"easily excitable† as the say in the book many times. He will snap at any moment when someone else is trying to share their opinion just because they say something that doesn’t support what he thinks. His anger plays a large part in developing him as a character. There are many jurors that don’t want to deal with him and are scared to speak up to say what they think because there is no telling the next time number three will start to yell at them. The other characters see him as an angry man who is too stubborn to listen to what anyone else has to say. In this book juror three often explodes into extremely loud yelling while everyone else is trying to keep calm and decide on a fair verdict on the case. At one point during the story juror number eight is trying to calmly explain the facts and evidence that proves juror threes opinion wrong and instead of calmly listening like everyone else he tries to attack juror eight; having to be held back by three of the oher men. This shows a lot about his character as a man. He is a loud man set in his ways that has lived with one opinion on the situation nd isnt willing to change it. The boy who is being charged with allegedly killing his father is black and that causes a lot of mixed opinions within the jury room. Juror three doesn’t seem to like anyone who is black or from a certain area of town which is not the best. There is a larhe amount of prejudice in this book not only from juror three,  and it seems to alter a lot of the thoughts of some of the jurors. The way that he tries to influence people to be on his side is not very effective at all, no one wants to listen to him because all he does is yell and scream at them without backing up what hes saying with any facts. Juror number eight also has a set opinion from the beginning of the story but he has a completely different way of approaching things. He is very quiet and keeps his thoughts to himself at the beginning. When it gets to talking about facts and evidence he has a lot to say but doesn’t try and force the other jurors to agree with him. He only wants to fully discuss all of the information that has been presented to try and determine what the fair verdict should be. At first I don’t think he was even 100% sure that he wanted to vote not guilty he did it mostly because a boys life is at atake and he couldn’t let that go without talking about it. Juror eight is a calm man who is very nice and tries his best to state what he thinks is right but not do it in a forceful way. He isnt saying that there is only his opinion on the case but he also doesn’t say that what anyone else thinks is wrong. This man wanted only to try and come to find the truth instead of just saying that the boy is guilty without full examining everything. Juror eight took the time to look at the facts and put personal opinions aside which is the compete opposite of what juror number three did. The way that he stayed very calm even when everyone else was yelling at each other is one thing that I think really helped influence othe r jurors to change their vote. Even after jjuror wight said only a few things they tooka asecond vote and he already had convinced someone to agree with his view on the case. The way he could calmly debate what everyone else was gettinginto large arguments about without changing from the very calm and not outspoken person that he is was a large factor in amking other people change their vote. He brought up very valid points that no one else would have thought twice about without him. By keeping his personal feelings on the boys race etc he was able to come up with a better end result than that of everyone else. He is a very influencial man who was really only looking for the truth in a case that is made up of a lot of lies and exxagerations. Juror eight and juror three might seem like complete opposites who could never be thought of as having some things alike. This though is not completely true. Yes, they have very different personalities and ways of going about explaining their  opinions but there is some similarity. They both have aclear stance on whether or not they think the boy is guilty. Also they both want to convince the rest of the jury that their opinion is right. Even through all the arguments and yelling that was done they do have a couple of things that are similar between them. The way that everyone in this book especially juror eight debated his point shows how someone who is determined and who knows what they are saying can convince many to believe their side. Juror eight in the end got everyone to vote not guilty because of the way he went about explaining his point. He didn’t yell and just say that his opinion was right just because he thought so, there was evidence to back it up that no one else would have seen if it weren’t for him. 12 Angry Men Essay 12 Angry Men (1957) is a gripping and an engrossing examination of 12 jurors who are deciding the fate of a young Puerto Rican boy in a murder trial. It is phenomenal that a movie with a running time of just 96 minutes and shot in just one room could be so impactful and so intellectually stimulating that it could be a source of immense learning for generations to come in the field of psychology, social psychology, Organizational Behavior anddecision making. In this paper, we will be exploring 3 wide dimensions/theories in the field of OB and their application in the movie by citing specific examples from the film. We will start off by exploring the phenomenon of Perception and Individual Decision Making where we would be exploring the decision making process at an individual level, explaining the underlying theories and biases involved in individual decision making and try to map those to specific instances in the film. This will be followed by a discussion on the phenomenon of Group Behavior with particular emphasis on group formation, group decision making and Groupthink. Finally, we will explore how Personality influences the decision making environment. Perception and Individual Decision Making One of the theories that were seen at play was Attribution Theory. Attribution theory is a phenomenon that is characterized by individuals observing behavior followed by an attempt to gauge whether the event was externally or internally caused where internal causes under the person’s control while external causes are not. For example, the architect made more external attributions to the boy’s behavior, citing that the boy had been slapped around all his life and was of the view that external attributions could not provoke something as grave as murder. On the contrary, the angry juror who ran the messenger service and was a distraught father made internal attributions about the boy’s behavior, reflecting that kids these days don’t respect their adults and have lost their sense of morality. Furthermore, the old loud mouthed bigot stubbornly advocated a guilty verdict just because the young boy was from a slum and hence his reasoning that all slum kids are inherently rotten; a classic case of stereotyping whereby judgments are made about the person just because he belongs to a particular group. One of the most startling observations in the film was the manifestation of fundamental attribution error. Fundamental attribution error refers to the tendency to underestimate the influence of external factors and overestimate the influence of internal factors when making judgments about the behavior of others. In simple words, we blame people first, not the situation. For example, the distraught father cited the boy’s shout â€Å"I’m gonna kill ya† as an indication of the boy’s murderous rage. However, when he was enticed by the architect later in a discussion after being called a sadist, he too shouts, â€Å"I’m gonna kill ya† but he does not really mean it. It was just the situation that elicited such a response. Similarly, the stock broker assumed that the boy’s inability to recall the movies he went to meant that he was lying and not that he may have not been able to recall it due to the situation, trauma and mental stress. The realization came, when he himself was not able to recall the movies he went to just a few days back even when he was not under any stress. A confirmation bias in decision making is referred to as selecting and using only facts that support our expectation and ignoring disconcerting facts. Since all but one of the jurors had an expectation of a guiltyverdict, they all confirmed their biases by continuously reiterating those same twisted facts that confirmed their expectations and nobody but one stopped to question. As a result of this bias, they genuinely overlooked certain pieces of information that would have caused confusion and chaos in their minds. For example, they did not realize that the old man was walking with a limp and thus he could not have reached the door in a mere 15 seconds. Secondly, they failed to see the marks on the old woman’s eyes who testified to have seen the killing. Thirdly, that the knife that was used for the killing was not all that unusual and finally, that it would have been impossible for anybody to hear, â€Å"I’m gonna kill ya† at the same time as a noisy L train was passing by. Group Behavior It is interesting to note that the five stages of Group Development Model can be quite clearly captured in this film. In the first stage that is of forming members feel much uncertainty. This uncertainty was evident up until the first vote when all the jurors were trying to get to know each other and trying to ascertain how the others felt about the case. For example, the angry man who ran a messenger service had first interacted with the timid bank clerk and had expressed his frustration over how the lawyers would keep on talking and talking on an â€Å"open and sure case like this†. There was an air of uncertainty even when Mr.  Foreman was ascertaining a seating arrangement and the loud mouthed bigot questioned as to what difference it made. In the second stage that is storming, there are lots of conflicts between group members. This was seen from the first vote which resulted in an 11:1 in favor of guilty to a 10:2 vote after which the other members started to shrug of the environment of forced conformity and genuinely were interested in discussing further. During the storming stage, many conflicts arose such as the argument between the loud mouthed garage owner and the guy from the slum and then Mr.  Foreman getting upset how irreverent the garage owner was in his effort to try and keep things organized. In the norming stage, members have developed close relationships and cohesiveness. This was seen from the 10:2 vote to a 6:6 vote when members chose to identify themselves closely with the members who were supporting their decision. It started when the architect gambled for support by calling for a vote through secret ballot. In the performing stage, the group becomes fully functional. This was seen from a 6:6 vote all the way till a unanimous â€Å"not guilty† verdict. This period was characterized by clear argumentation from both sides, save a few instances such as the unreasonable change of vote by the baseball fan and the ridiculous shouting by the garage owner. The architect was making clear and consistent arguments and casting a clear doubt in the testimonies of each of the witnesses and being supported by others who favored a â€Å"not guilty† verdict such as the old man who very astutely identified the marks on the woman’s nose who testified to have seen the actual killing. One of the most important aspects of group behavior that is depicted in this film is the idea of Groupthink and Groupshift. Groupthink is depicted in situations where group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority and unpopular views. When the initial vote was taken public, several jurors, who later expressed the uncertainty over a guilty verdict, chose to comply with the group in an effort to confirm to the majority and the architect was the lone man standing. For example, it seemed as if the guy from the slum was unsure and he did not say much but just went with the majority at the beginning. Furthermore, the old man also initially confirmed with the group but switched when the vote was private and finally the baseball fan very blatantly went along with the majority or the dominating group which was seen when he changed his vote to â€Å"not guilty† just to break the deadlock and because the â€Å"not guilty† group was gradually getting stronger. Groupshiftoccurs when discussing a given set of alternatives and arriving at a solution, group members tend to exaggerate the initial positions that they hold. This causes a shift to a more conservative or a more risky behavior. This was seen when the angry, distraught father brought in his prejudices about teenagers in general which was followed by seemingly vindicating facts highlighted by the astute stock broker further pushed the group towards a risky â€Å"guilty† verdict. Even the architect came under pressure and agreed to comply if everyone voted â€Å"guilty† by a secret ballot. Personality The personality of the architect is particularly of interest. One of the attributes that he demonstrated was consistency which encompasses loyalty to a particular idea. Throughout the film, he always remained consistent in his opposition to the majority which essentially made other question their judgment. For example, the old man changed his vote simply because he felt that if someone is defending his vote with such conviction, then he may have some important points to make. He also scored high on agreeableness because he was good-natured, cooperative and trusting and did not appear rigid. For example, he pointed that he didn’t necessarily think that the majority was wrong. He just wanted to talk more about it which showed that he was consistent, yet open minded. He also scored high in emotional stability because he was calm, self-confident and secure under stress. It is difficult to remain calm and cool under a stress offered by personalities like the astute stock broker, the loud mouthed garage owner and the angry man who ran a messenger service. His counterpart and the antagonist scored relatively low on emotional stability simply because he lost his temper on a lot of occasions which swayed the group against him. For example, in his emotionally unstable state, he wrongly accused the guy from the slum for hanging after a â€Å"golden voice starts preaching†. Moreover, he started to bring his own downfall when he said things in an emotional burst such as when he himself concedes that the witness was an old man and couldn’t have been positive about anything. And then when he was enticed by the architect himself, he shouted, â€Å"I’m gonna kill ya† and hence disproved his own arguments about how this very statement could actually lead to murder. The architect also scored high on conscientiousness because he was responsible, dependent, persistent and organized. He would look at each testimony and very make a conscious effort to investigate the little details for any evidence of inconsistency that would lead others to have a reasonable doubt in their minds. For example, he ordered the blueprint of the old man’s house and emulated his limping walk to the door the exact distance so see if the old man could really reach the front door in 15 seconds. The application of the following three areas of organizational behavior helps us to give an academic bent to the film and helps us appreciate the true genius behind a 1957 drama film. 12 Angry Men Essay In the movie, 12 Angry Men, an 18 year old boy from a slum is charged with murder. He is put on trial for being accused of stabbing his father in the chest with a knife. Some of the first ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are shown in this movie such as the fifth and sixth amendments. According to the Fifth Amendment when there is a jury trial all 12 jurors must make a unanimous vote on whether or not the defendant is innocent or guilty. 12 Angry men shows how one man votes the 18 year old boy is innocent while all the others are hung up on believing he is guilty. The one innocent voting man then does his best and gradually over a few hours begins convincing more and more of the 12 men that he is innocent. Also in the Fifth Amendment it states that people have the right to be a witness or to not be a witness against themselves. In the movie a lady and an old man are on stand as witnesses to try and prove the defendant is guilty. The lady who lives across the street claims to have seen through the window and a passing train in the middle of the night that the boy stabbed his father. The old man claims to have heard the boy yell â€Å"I’m going to kill you†. Both witnesses’ stories have some faults to them. For instance, the lady wears glasses and in order for her to see the whole incident she would have had to wear her glasses to bed the night it happened. The old man lives by the lady and it would be hard to hear the boy shout â€Å"I’m going to kill you† over the roar of a passing train. The Sixth amendment allows a speedy and public trial to take place. A speedy trial doesn’t mean that it the trial only takes an hour until it’s solved. Time depends on how long due process takes or how many people are ahead waiting for trial. Also a speedy trial says the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The 18 year old boy is said to be innocent for the accusations of murdering his father. Impartial jury plays an important role while on trial. The term impartial jury means that the people that make up the jury have no prior knowledge of the defendant’s guilt or innocence. This allows the defendant to get a fair trial. The men on the jury do not know the boy personally. In the movie one man claims that he was also from a slum so he can understand a little more about the boy’s life. This could help the juror to think more about the guilt or innocence. Also a juror has seen a knife fight before and knows that most people do not stab downwards into the chest area if they are shorter than the person being stabbed. This also breaks down the facts to help determine if the defendant in the movie is innocent or guilty. Without the first ten amendments of the Bill Of Rights there would be chaos. 12 Angry men demonstrate how the Fifth and Sixth Amendments help a lot when it comes to trial. If there were none of these important Amendments people would get accused and have an unfair trial leaving a bad result for the person and others around them. 12 angry men Essay 12 Angry Men Submitted by: Pam McDonald E-mail: Pam_McDonald@nifc.blm.gov Phone: 208-387-5318 Audience Rating: Not Rated Released: 1957 Studio: United Artists/MGM Genre: Drama Runtime: 95 minutes Materials: VCR or DVD, television or projection system, Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles handouts (single-sided), notepad, writing utensil Objective: Students will identify Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles illustrated within 12 Angry Men and discuss leadership lessons learned with group members or mentors. Basic Plot: The jury of twelve ‘angry men,’ entrusted with the power to send an uneducated, teenaged Puerto Rican, tenement-dwelling boy to the electric chair for killing his father with a switchblade knife, are literally locked into a small, claustrophobic rectangular room on a stifling hot summer day until they come up with a unanimous decision – either guilty or not guilty. The compelling, provocative film examines the twelve men’s deep-seated personal prejudices, perceptual biases and weaknesses, indifference, anger, personalities, unreliable judgments, cultural differences, ignorance and fears, that threaten to taint their decision-making abilities, cause them to ignore the real issues in the case, and potentially lead them to a miscarriage of justice. (http://www.filmsite.org/twelve.html) Cast of Main Characters: Martin BalsamJuror 1 (Foreman; coach) John FiedlerJuror 2 (Bank clerk; inexperienced juror) Lee J. CobbJuror 3 (Angry gentleman with photo of son) E. G. MarshallJuror 4 (Stock Broker) Jack KlugmanJuror 5 (Grew up in the slums) Edward BinnsJuror 6 (Painter) Jack WardenJuror 7 (Sports fan) Henry FondaJuror 8 (Architect; Man who doesn’t know) Joseph SweeneyJuror 9 (Nice older gentleman) Ed BegleyJuror 10 (Prejudiced older gentleman with cold) George VoskovecJuror 11 (Foreign watchmaker) Robert WebberJuror 12 (Advertising Executive; doodler) Facilitation Options: 12 Angry Men illustrates an abundance of leadership values and principles—especially an emphasis on teamwork, the decision making process, and Socratic leadership. Students should have few problems identifying those that correspond to the Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles. The objective is not to identify every leadership principle but to promote thought and discussion. Students should be less concerned with how many principles they view within the film and more concerned with how the principles they do recognize can be used to develop themselves as a leader. Obtain copies of the Crew Cohesion Assessment Tool, developed by Mission-Centered Solutions, from the Wildland Fire Leadership Development website (http://www.fireleadership.gov/toolbox/documents/Crew_Cohesion_Assessment.pdf) for use with Guided Discussion, #1. If you have not used this tool, this might be an excellent opportunity to do so. The film can be viewed in its entirety or by clip selection, depending on facilitator intent and time schedules. Another method is to have the employee(s) view the film on his/her own and then hold the discussion session. Full-film Facilitation Suggestion: When opting for the full-film method, the facilitator should determine a good breaking point near the middle of the film. 1.Review the Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles with students. 2.Advise students to document instances within the film that illustrate/violate the Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles on the handout provided. 3.Break students into small discussion groups. 4.Show students 12 Angry Men. 5.Break. (Suggestion: When the jury takes their break.) 6.Begin the guided discussion. 7.Provide a short synopsis with some â€Å"ticklers† to pay attention before beginning the rest of the film. 8.Resume the film. 9.Have students discuss their findings and how they will apply leadership lessons learned to their role in wildland fire suppression. Facilitate discussion in groups that have difficulty. 10.Wrap up the session and encourage students to apply leadership lessons learned in their personal and work lives. Clip Facilitation Suggestion: 1.Review the Wildland Fire Leadership Value or Principle targeted for discussion. (May be given or ask students to identify the value or principle being illustrated after viewing the clip.) 2.Show the clip. 3.Facilitate discussion regarding the selected clip and corresponding value and/or principle. 4.Break students into small discussion groups. 5.Have students discuss their findings and how they will apply leadership lessons learned to their role in wildland fire suppression. Facilitate discussion in groups that may have difficulty. 6.Wrap up the session and encourage students to apply leadership lessons learned in their personal and work lives. Mentor Suggestion: Use either method presented above. The mentor should be available to the student to discuss lessons learned from the film as well as incorporating them to the student’s leadership self-development plan. Encouraging individuals to keep a leadership journal is an excellent way to document leadership values and principles that are practiced. Suggest other wildland fire leadership toolbox items that will contribute to the overall leadership development of the student. Other References: Advanced Knowledge. Twelve Angry Men: Teams That Don’t Quit. Facilitator Guide. 1998. (Goes with the Targeted Learning Corporation reference below.) http://advancedknowledge.com/twelve.pdf Clemens, John K. and Wolff, Melora. Movies to Manage By. Chapter 6 – â€Å"Socratic Leadership—12 Angry Men,† pp. 117-137. 1999. Kouzes, James and Posner, Barry. The Leadership Challenge. Third Edition. 2002. www.theleadershipchallenge.com Patnode, Major Norman H (USAF). Program Management and Leadership. The Socratic Method – Leveraging Questions to Increase Performance. November-December 2002. Targeted Learning Corporation. Twelve Angry Men – Teams That Don’t Quit http://www.targetlearn.com/documentation/TWEL000.pdf University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, Managerial Psychology. Summary of Class Discussion on â€Å"Twelve Angry Men,† with connections toâ€Å"Six Principles of Group Decision Making.† 2005. http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/joshua.klayman/teaching/ManagerialPsych-05B/3-12%20angry%20handout-2005B.doc. Hyperlinks have been included to facilitate the use of the Wildland Fire Leadership Development Program website. Encourage students of leadership to visit the website at http://www.fireleadership.gov. Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles Duty Be proficient in your job, both technically and as a leader. Take charge when in charge. Adhere to professional standard operating procedures. Develop a plan to accomplish given objectives. Make sound and timely decisions. Maintain situation awareness in order to anticipate needed actions. Develop contingencies and consider consequences. Improvise within the commander’s intent to handle a rapidly changing environment. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised and accomplished. Issue clear instructions. Observe and assess actions in progress without micro-managing. Use positive feedback to modify duties, tasks and assignments when appropriate. Develop your subordinates for the future. Clearly state expectations. Delegate those tasks that you are not required to do personally. Consider individual skill levels and development needs when assigning tasks. Respect  Know your subordinates and look out for their well being. Put the safety of your subordinates above all other objectives. Take care of your subordinate’s needs. Resolve conflicts between individuals on the team. Keep your subordinates informed. Provide accurate and timely briefings. Give the reason (intent) for assignments and tasks. Make yourself available to answer questions at appropriate times. Build the team. Conduct frequent debriefings with the team to identify lessons learned. Recognize individual and team accomplishments and reward them appropriately. Apply disciplinary measures equally. Employ your subordinates in accordance with their capabilities. Observe human behavior as well as fire behavior. Provide early warning to subordinates of tasks they will be responsible for. Consider team experience, fatigue and physical limitations when accepting assignments. Integrity  Know yourself and seek improvement. Know the strengths/weaknesses in your character and skill level. Ask questions of peers and superiors. Actively listen to feedback from subordinates. Seek responsibility and accept responsibility for your actions. Accept full responsibility for and correct poor team performance. Credit subordinates for good performance. Keep your superiors informed of your actions. Set the example. Share the hazards and hardships with your subordinates. Don’t show discouragement when facing set backs. Choose the difficult right over the easy wrong. 12 Angry Men 1.Document film clips illustrating the Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles. 2.Discuss leadership lessons learned from the film with group members or mentor. Duty Be proficient in your job, both technically and as a leader. Make sound and timely decisions. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised and accomplished. Develop your subordinates for the future. Respect Know your subordinates and look out for their well being. Keep your subordinates informed. Build the team. Employ your subordinates in accordance with their capabilities. Integrity Know yourself and seek improvement. Seek responsibility and accept responsibility for your actions. Set the example. 12 Angry Men Guided Discussion 1.Using the Mission-Centered Solutions Crew Cohesion Assessment that your facilitator has provided, identify scenes in the movie that relate to the behaviors listed on the assessment. 2.Identify at least three positive behaviors or actions that you saw in the movie that can make your team more effective? 3.Which of the characters in the movie appear to be leaders? How effective are they? 4.One of the promotional posters for the movie stated â€Å"Life is in their hands – Death is on their minds. It explodes like 12 sticks of dynamite!† What does this statement imply about the situation and how does this relate to life on the fireline? 5.How does the decision-making environment of the movie parallel that of the wildland fire service? What lessons will you take from the movie to make your team stronger? 6.Juror #3 has sat on many cases and has a negative view of lawyers. He seemed to have determined guilt even prior to hearing the case. How does complacency affect decision-making and team effectiveness within the wildland fire community? Discuss instances of complacency that you have experienced. How did you handle those situations? 7.Juror #10 questions the Foreman’s ability to lead stating the Foreman is a â€Å"kid.† This in turn leads to the Foreman questioning his leadership skills. Discuss instances when you witnessed a supervisor disregarding suggestions from a subordinate because the supervisor felt the subordinate lacked the knowledge/experience to make such a suggestion. Was the supervisor’s concern warranted? How did you handle the situation? 8.Juror #7 changes his vote from guilty to not guilty in order to bring about consensus even though he believes the defendant is guilty. What Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles does the character compromise? 9.Individual jurors allowed personal feelings (age, ethnicity, class, prior relationships, etc.) to play a major role in determining their verdict of the defendant. How would you handle a crew/team member who allowed his/her personal feelings to compromise the group’s mission? 12 Angry Men The following clips illustrate the Wildland Leadership Values and Principles. These are only guidelines and may be interpreted differently by other views; they are presented as a guide for facilitation. Duty The judge gives the jury final instructions. (Issue clear instructions and clearly state expectations.) Juror #4 explains that is customary to take a preliminary vote. (Adhere to professional operating procedures.) Juror #8 does not intend to change anyone’s verdict; he just wants to talk. (Clearly state expectations.) A time limit is set on how long the jury will deliberate before declaring themselves a hung jury. (Develop a plan to accomplish objectives.) The Foreman of the jury had a responsibility to lead the group; he gives up. (Be proficient in your jub, both technically and as a leader.) Respect Juror #8 asks the right questions to invoke responses and action from Juror #3. (Observe human behavior as well as fire behavior.) Juror #6 defends Juror #9 when Juror #3 attacks the older gentleman. (Put the safety of your subordinates above all other objectives.) Each juror gives his reasoning for verdict. (Give the reason for assignments and tasks.) The Foreman gets Juror #8 the exhibits he wants even though he pretty much gives up his leadership role. (Take care of your subordinate’s needs.) Juror #8 agrees to give his reasoning although the goal of the group was to change his verdict. (Make yourself available to answer questions at appropriate times.) Integrity Juror #8 declares a non-guilty verdict. (Choose the difficult right over the easy wrong.) Juror #8 doesn’t know if the defendant is guilty or innocent; just wants to talk. (Ask questions of peers and superiors.) The foreman loses his composure as a leader. (Don’t show discouragement when facing set backs.) Jurors change their verdicts after listening to others. (Actively listen to feedback from superiors.) Jurors #3 and 10 realize personal issues have clouded their judgment. (Accept full responsibility for and correct poor team performance) 12 Angry Men Guided Discussion – Possible Answers 1.Using the Mission-Centered Solutions Crew Cohesion Assessment that your facilitator has provided, identify scenes in the movie that relate to the behaviors listed on the assessment. Answers will vary, but may include: Judge debriefs the jury and provides final instructions—commander’s intent. (Learning and Communication) Conflict occurs many times between jury members—some are addressed. (Conflict) Jury members begin to feel the  environment change and trust is built. (Trust) Juror #8 discusses the need to uphold the U.S. Constitution—historic implications. (Teamwork) The jury is able to transition between high-stress and low-stress conditions. (Effectiveness) The jury comes to consensus. (Leadership) 2.Identify at least three positive behaviors or actions that you saw in the movie that can make your team more effective? Answers will vary, but may include: Not rushing to conclusions. Taking time to discuss a situation or topic. Talk openly and honestly. Promote team member equality. Learn more about one another—address diversity. 3.Which of the characters in the movie appear to be leaders? How effective are they? Answers will vary. Students should identify two prominent leaders—Jurors #1 and #8. Many instances exist when individuals assume a leadership role. 4.One of the promotional posters for the movie stated â€Å"Life is in their hands – Death is on their minds. It explodes like 12 sticks of dynamite!† What does this statement imply about the situation and how does this relate to life on the fireline? Viewers notice a very explosive environment—hot and humid day, lock down, diversity and age differences—even before deliberations begin. A control for leadership is waged at the beginning when members attack and overrule the foreman’s idea of a secret ballot. Once the vote is taken, an all-out war is waged against the one dissenter. These same situations are found in the wildland fire community. Firefighters are faced with explosive situations daily. Being able to handle decision-making under stress is critical to completing the mission in a safe and efficient manner. 5.How does the decision-making environment of the movie parallel that of the wildland fire service? What lessons will you take from the movie to make your team stronger? Answers will vary, but may include: Wildland firefighters must make decisions that can ultimately affect the lives of others. Rushes to judgment/action can result in the loss of life. Individuals may not let their concerns be known for various reasons—not tough enough, administrative concerns, politics. Wildland firefighters owe a duty to one another to talk about questions and concerns they have. 6.Juror #3 has sat on many juries and has a negative view of lawyers. He seemed to have determined guilt even prior to hearing the case. How does complacency affect decision-making and team effectiveness within the wildland fire community? Discuss instances of complacency that you have experienced. How did you handle those situations? Answers will vary, but may include: A rush to judgment. Increased safety risks. Breakdown in crew cohesion. 7.Juror #10 questions the Foreman’s ability to lead stating the Foreman is a â€Å"kid.† This in turn leads to the Foreman questioning his leadership skills. Discuss instances when you witnessed a supervisor disregarding suggestions because he/she felt a subordinate lacked the knowledge/experience to make such a suggestion. Was the supervisor’s concern warranted? How did you handle the situation? Answers will vary. 8.Juror #7 changes his vote from guilty to not guilty in order to bring about consensus even though he believes the defendant is guilty. What Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles does the character compromise? Answers will vary, but may include: All three values are compromised in some manner. He has a duty to the defendant to obtain a fair trial and to address reasonable doubt issues. The other jurors deserve respect from him. He should be putting the needs of the defendant and the other jurors in front of his own needs to see the baseball game. He lacks the integrity to accept the responsibility of being a juror and upholding the structure of the U.S. Constitution and the legal process. Numerous principles with the values are also compromised. 9.Individual jurors allowed personal feelings (age, ethnicity, class, prior relationships, etc.) to play a major role in determining their verdict of the defendant. How would you handle a crew/team member who allowed his/her personal feelings to compromise the group’s mission? Answers will vary.