12 Angry Men: Group Development Stages
Group development is an essential aspect of any group setting and consists of six stages: stage one– forming, stage two– storming, phase three– norming, phase 4– performing, and stage five– adjourning (or deforming). In the movie 12 Angry Men, the 12 jury members go through these phases at numerous points of the consideration; this paper will serve to check out how and when the jury went through the phases of team advancement.
The movie begins with our group already been formed, as they were selected to be part of the jury; they actually begin the team development process at the start of the consideration, as the jury members all sit down and define what their objectives and obligations are, stating that if the defendant is condemned, they should send him to the electrical chair. The forming phase continues as jury members start falling into their particular functions; the members learn that juror 3 and juror 10 are alpha type males, that juror 8 takes his civic responsibility seriously, but has some biased views (he is just a youth, how could he devote such a criminal offense?), and basic intros from members of the group.
The storming stage follows the forming stage, and starts after the jury’s first round of guilty/not guilty voting; the storming phase is triggered by juror 8’s not guilty vote, which is the very first and just difference amongst the group at the time. The storming phase is furthered by the jury member’s perception of civic task, and ignited to another level when juror 8 is attempting to make a case, while some of his fellow jury members are playing video games and goofing off. In the storming phase the alpha males of the group attempt to place and impose their brand name of “management” through verbal force and intimidation, such as Juror 3 cutting off other jurors during the preliminary consideration, informing the group that they are going to skip the set speaking rotation. This battle of power, juror 3’s intimidation strategy versus juror 8’s sensible argument method, continues throughout the story.
The norming stage starts when juror 8 starts making his arguments for a not guilty verdict, while encouraging others to his side; it is likewise the stage that lasts the longest throughout the consideration and occurs in non-connected stages. Once there are a few jurors on the innocent side of the decision, open conversation ends up being much freer streaming and direct; the jury members begin having an actual dispute about the realities of the case and whether they could be disputed. The conversation, and norming stage, truly takes off when juror 8 knocks the similar knife into the table; prior to this the conversation was relatively blocked, with most of the other jury members stating that there was no chance the kid was not guilty.
The performing stage gradually takes over from the norming phase as more solid arguments are made in favor of the defendant being not guilty. Juror by juror understands that they may have certainly been so near sending out a possibly innocent person to jail, and feel additional obligated to explore the realities in order to render a reasonable verdict. Jury members put together their specific experiences and knowledge in order to help each other concerned a not guilty decision, such as Juror 8 trying to recreate the witness who needed to walk to his door with a limp, or questioning Juror 4 about his week in order to develop that memory can be fuzzy. The last sense of civic commitment come when Juror 9 notices Juror 4 rubbing his nose, making the final argument about among the witnesses not utilizing her glasses regularly.
The adjourning stage is the stage where the group examines its procedures and efficiency, dissolving on either a short-term or irreversible basis; the jury members do not dissolve on a momentary process, and any breaks are represented as short breathers, for that reason the focus will be on the disbanding of the jury upon rendering a not guilty decision. The film does not enter into too much detail about the after-effects of the team’s decision, but the audience could tell through the interactions of Juror 8 with Jurors 3 and 9 that the process took place in the manner it must have, and that the group mored than happy with their procedure and performance.