The motion picture “Twelve Angry Guys” is a film about twelve jurors in a murder trial pondering the regret or acquittal of an offender on the basis of affordable doubt. All of the jurors originate from very different backgrounds and see things in extremely various perspectives. This essay will be analyzing the seminar that was dramatized in the movie. The problems that will be brought up in this essay are leadership, involvement, climate, conflict, and argumentation. One of the leadership theories that is utilized in this movie is the styles theory.
The Styles Theory of Leadership analyzes a collection of specific behaviors that make up 3 unique leadership styles: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. In the start of the motion picture all of the jurors were going to vote the offender guilty anticipate for Juror # 8. He was the only one of the jurors that wasn’t in a rush to go home and tackle their business. In his opinion they should not send out a male to prison without discussing it first.
This is an example of a laissez-faire leader. He was laid back and didn’t demand to be the leader or to manage anybody.
He simply asked that they share why they beilieed the accused was guilty. He then asked them to loisten to what he needed to say and if they still didn’t think that there was affordable doubt he would vote guilty so that they might all go house because that is what they desired. Although he is the “odd one out” it is clear to the audience that he is the leader of the jury not the Forman. By the end of the film he had encouraged all of the jurors to believe that there was sensible doubt and that the offender was innocent. Characteristic theory was another theoretical technique that was utilized in the film by Juror # 8.
Read Also: Good Analytical Essay Topics
He possessed a couple of leadership characteristics that encouraged some of the other jurors to listen to him. Juror # 8 was smart, respectful, open-minded, calm, and had excellent listening abilities. At the begioing of the movie everyone was yelling at him and telling him that he was crazy. He didn’t fight back or get angry he remained calm. He simply desired everybody to hear him out and have a conversation before acquitting a possibly innocent male. Juror # 8 listened to what everybody needed to state and raised various manner ins which the evidence might have been incorrect. He didn’t force or peer pressure anybody to alter thier vote, but he had such engaging arguments that everybody came to the realization that there was a possibility that the accused did not kill his father.