12 Angry Guys: an Illustration of Principles of Organisational Behaviour
12 Angry Men: An Illustration of Principles of Organisational Behaviour Intro In 1957 Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Guys was published (Lumet, 1957). Now, 55 years later on, the film’s teachings still hold most of their truths. The events displayed in the motion picture can be clinically explained using principles of organisational behaviour. Although some of these principles did not even exist by the time the film was made, the movie still is an exceptional case to study and illustrate them. The reason for this is the isolation of the motion picture’s characters. All events in the film are set off by the characters only.
There are no external impacts nor exists the possibility for the characters to leave the scene. This essay will use principles of organizational behaviour to events of the movie. Specific attention will be paid to the concepts of understanding, attribution biases, choice making, management and group dynamics. In order to do so, the essay will move along the plot of the motion picture and apply principles where there are fit. None the less for the function of referencing a quick intro to the motion picture and its characters is given here: The plot of 12 Angry Guys explains the events that happen as a jury has concerned a consentaneous decision.
The defendant is implicated of homicide. If the jury chooses a verdict of ‘guilty’ the judge will undoubtedly sentence the accused to death penalty. In the beginning all jurors however juror no. 8 are willing to decision ‘guilty’ without disputing. Nevertheless juror no. 8 states he will verdict ‘not guilty’. The group is then forced to discuss and reassess. In the end of the film juror no. 8 has the ability to get all other jurors to decision ‘not guilty’. His primary antagonist is juror no. 3. Analysis Group Structure and Advancement At the beginning of the motion picture the group of jurors is homogenous in every element.
It consists of mainly mid age white males. Juror no. 1 is the jury foremen and the officially selected leader. The rest of the group members nevertheless have no official functions. Besides the presence of foremen there is no observable hierarchy. At the same time a stage of group forming starts. Group members speak to each other individually to fix their personal identities too discovering the other jurors attitudes and backgrounds (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 297). By doing so, some very first distinctions in social status (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 316) become apparent. Juror no. 2 and juror no. 1 for example have a lower social status in the group since of having an uninteresting and dislikeable task as a bank clerk and being an immigrant. Likewise some characters develop functions (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 328) such as recognition candidate, playboy, observer/commentator and procedural professional; nevertheless these are not really constant. Essentially the group never ever really leaves the stage of group storming (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 298) given that the entire time there is a dispute in between juror no. 8 and juror no. 3 on going. Only in the very end of the story as resistance from juror no. is stopped, the group leaves this phase. It can be argued that juror no. 8 and his fans form a subgroup that reaches the level of a reliable team earlier on. Bounded Rationality After this stage of group forming the foreman wants to evaluate preliminary viewpoints. As he is an extremely weak leader he suggests possible methods of doing so. The group then decides to do it by showing hands. A number of group members reveal their hands right after the foreman asks who decisions ‘guilty’. By doing so they would allow the implicated to be sentenced to capital punishment without even going over the case.
Although this is a really extreme example this can be described with the Herbert Simons principle of bounded rationality. Instead of searching for the very best possible solution to the issue, in this case discovering the fact, these jurors just satisfice (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 738). The search for and examination of details is seen as to sumptuous by them, so they concur upon a solution that is not ideal however satisfying to them. Social Impact on Decision Making As the very first jurors verdict guilty a bandwagon effect takes place and the rest of the group rapidly follows their lead and decisions ‘guilty’ also.
The bandwagon effect is described as a cause of social influence by Solomon Asch (Asch, 1952, pp. 450– 501). In his conformity experiment he studied the” […] conditions that cause individuals to stay independent or to yield to group pressure when these contrast truth.” (Asch, 1952, p. 451). In Asch’s experiment no topics neglected group judgments (Asch, 1952, p. 461) and 33. 2% of the topics accepted group pressure (Asch, 1952, p. 457). In the movie 12 Angry Guys everyone but juror no. 8 yields to group pressure.
The factor for bigger portion of yielding people may be that in Asch’s experiment the subjects were asked to make a very obvious judgment. The concern which is to be fixed from the jurors is much more complex. The factor for juror no. 8 not yielding to group pressure may be that he has enough confidence about himself to be able” […] to acknowledge [his] […] drawback without loss of self-respect […] (Asch, 1952, p. 498). Certainly juror no. 8 is a fascinating character as he becomes a brand-new informal leader. Management and Power The sociologist Max Weber recognized three kinds of authority (Weber, 1948, pp. 8– 79). These are charming domination, traditional supremacy and legal domination. Juror no. 8 can not administrate legal dominance since he is not an officially designated leader. He plainly has not the capability to control on the basis of custom given that the members of the group are complete strangers that have not fulfilled each other prior to. Juror no. 8 can for that reason just put in charismatic supremacy. Given that Weber describes political domination, in organizational behavior other concepts of management are applied. One of the more current models of leadership however again stresses the value of charm.
This model is called transformational management and has been coined by McGregor Burns (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 718). It worries the value of charming leadership which is referred to as” […] a leader– follower relationship in which leaders develop a strong individual bond with fans.” (Caldwell et al., 2012, p. 177) This bond is created since the followers think that the leader has an extraordinary character (Caldwell et al., 2012, p. 177). He frequently exceeds merely making important, result options and likewise makes normative worth based options and highly worths moral (Caldwell et al. 2012, p. 176). By doing so he produces a typical vision for his fans. He motivates them to work towards accomplishing the vision and putting this prior to their self-interest. Brass and Avolio (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 718) state in their model of transformational management likewise the leaders capability to encourage others to see things from various, new viewpoints in addition to the capability to establish people to higher levels. Juror no. 8 has all qualities of a transformational leader. He emerges by requiring a second anonymous vote.
If not a single other person will verdict ‘innocent’, he assures to quit resistance and decision ‘guilty’ also. By doing so he exposes himself to terrific personal risk. This is one feature of transformational leaders. It is a preferable characteristic which can lead others to follow him. Due to the fact that of this and because of the confidential vote which removes Nasch’s social influence he is getting support from another group member who is likewise decisions ‘innocent’. After juror no. 8 development as a brand-new leader he has the ability to get support for his cause from all other members of the group one by one.
In doing so he reveals behavior characteristic for a transformative leader. For example he shows genuine issue (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 718) by accepting a cough drop by juror no. 2. Juror no. 2 is neglected by everyone else. By accepting the cough drop juror no. 8 gives him the preferred attention. He is able to establish group members so that they are can surpass their initial ability (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 718). This is the case with juror no. 2, juror no. 9 and juror no. 11. He likewise encourages all group members to take a look at different elements of the case which they have jointly overlooked prior to.
This also is a characteristic of a transformational leader (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 718). His management style can be identified as very relationship oriented. His statements about the question at hand are generally limited to “I do not understand” (Lumet, 1957). He raises concerns however lets his group member find their own responses. By doing this he does not risk other group member rejecting his leadership. Juror no. 1 is the foreman and hence the formal designated leader. Nevertheless he acts more as a manager than a leader. Attribution Biases One of the accomplishments of juror no. was, as pointed out before, to get the other group members to look at the matter at hand from a various point of view. While at first the jurors tended to think the accused just has a flawed character, juror no. 8 indicated all other situations that could have led to the murder. By this he possibly conserved his group from making the essential attribution error. Because we can not take note of everything, we use selective attention (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 211). Typically when making judgments about others we” […] exaggerate the personality and character of the individual rather than the context […” (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 226). Likewise some of the jurors use perceptual sets such as stereotypes (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 222). Post Choice Lock In Once the majority of the jurors signed up with juror no. 8 the remainder of the jurors, especially juror no. 3, are getting significantly inhibited to quit resistance and verdict innocent too. They take part in face saving and are close to a post choice lock in. The sociologist Erving Goffman mentions that every person when being in face to face contact with other individuals acts out at line or face which he describes as” [… a pattern of spoken and nonverbal acts by which he expresses his view of the circumstance and through this his examination of the participants, especially himself.” (Goffman, 2003, p. 7) Once he engaged a line/face he will do whatever do to protect it. In order to do so he can for example state his behavior as a synthetic pas that does not represent his face (Goffman, 2003, p. 8). Nevertheless this technique can not work anymore for juror no. 3 considering that he has invested greatly in his position on the matter at hand. His approval of the decision ‘not guilty’ causes the complete loss of face and a worried breakdown.
Conclusion 12 Angry Men is excellently fit for showing principles of organisational behaviour. The setting leaves out external aspects that could influence the characters behaviour. It is therefore ageless. Also the characters regularly utilize a behaviour that fits many fairly modern principles such as transformative management. If the movie had actually happened in a corporate setting this principle of leadership could most likely not be used due to the fact that leaders would be selected officially and have significant coercive and benefit power.
Next to all the micro observations, if taken a look at the whole decision process occurred in the motion picture from a macro perspective it can be considered as trash bin decision making (Cohen et al., 1972). This is of significance due to the fact that of the increasing speed at which worldwide trade, industries and organisations today modification, organisations are more frequently faced with” […] uncertain objectives, unclear technology, and fluid participants […] (Cohen et al., 1972, p. 11). The garbage can model today therefore uses more often.
Concluding it can be stated that the motion picture 12 Angry Men did not lose any however in fact gained further applications with the advance of economic truths and science. Referrals Asch, S. E. (1952 ), Social Psychology, Prentice Hall Inc., Engelwood Cliffs. Caldwell, C., Dixon, R. D., Floyd, L. A., Chaudoin, J., Post, J. and Cheokas, G. (2012 ), “Transformative Management: Achieving Unparalleled Quality”, Journal of Organisation Ethics, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 175– 187. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1972 ), “A Garbage Can Design of Organizational Choice”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1– 25. Goffman, E. (2003 ), “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Routine Elements in Social Interaction. From Interaction Routine by Erving Goffman 1967”, Reflections, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 7– 13. Huczynski, A. and Buchanan, D. A. (2007 ), Organizational behaviour: An introductory text, 6th ed., Pearson Education Limited, Harlow. Lumet, S. (1957 ), 12 Angry Men. Weber, M. (1948 ), “Politics as a Vocation. Originally released 1919”, in Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W. (Eds. ), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Routledge & & Kegan Paul LTD, London, pp. 77– 128.