The 1957 Sidney Lumet directed traditional 12 Angry Guys, the movie adaptation of a phase drama from a couple of years prior, is centered logistically and physically around an uncomfortably varied set of guys with a common objective of attaining a jury decision in a murder trial. Representing the greatest of organizational difficulties, the plot forces these 12 intuitively contrasting personalities into the suffocating quarters of a shrinking jury consideration room.
The setting is taken in by a wilting pressure, as the guys are isolated together on a sweltering summer day with the difficult task of evaluating the terrible accusation at hand.
Lumet’s movie is, on the one hand, an excellent discourse on morality and task among a variety of caricatures. To another degree though, the work is a research study on organizational behavior, producing a setting in which undefined roles are gradually filled by a mix of requirement and private instinct.
Amongst the guys jointly appointed to the task, many organizational roles start to form and move, with leaders, followers, thinkers and bullies occupying different positions throughout. Though all are moved to resolve the same problem, each perceives it according to a perspective tied to his own experiences. The task of reaching a decision on the basis of evidence would require cooperation, but these bias and characters difference render this a continually evasive objective.
It ends up being clear quite immediately that leaders and fans are not strictly defined by their determination to exercise power, however maybe more by their differing senses of task. This is embodied by the story’s lead character, who reveals himself to be naturally imbued with a commitment to the propriety of the cause. The eventual development of Juror # 8, played to due intricacy by Henry Fonda, highlights that management is a capability which features reason, communication and focus. This is an unique characterization from the starting of leadership in aggressiveness or self-important authority.
With regard to the organizational behavior evident in this difference, the important audience is inclined to consider the interesting pressure which is put upon such a leader as Juror # 8, who must attempt to impose a minority impact over a group of people mainly inclined by the desire to go house to cast their votes with relative unanimity. In the face of eleven guilty votes, # 8 felt that he had no option however to enter an innocent vote, remembering the singular responsibility of the jury. It was his contention that the primary objective here was not, as some had actually plainly seen it, to end this case with expediency, but rather to figure out whether the offender was guilty ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’
This language represents the objective declaration of the organization formed by the 12 guy jury. Juror # 8 was the only person to administrate the pursuit of this objective and, in a style that is reflective of the difficulties possibly common to any working environment, was forced to do so in the face of hostile opposition, oppressive external situations and various educational obstacles. Instead of seeking to render each of these obstacles to obscurity or enabling them to hinder the organization from achieving its defined objective, Jury # 8 highlights a valuable managerial talent in inspiring numerous members therein to consider their function in reaching said goal.
It is through this plot movement that Lumet thoroughly extracts the process of ascension to group cohesion. Undoubtedly, this is no easy job, as Juror # 8 should none-too-gently navigate the apprehension of some, the distortion of perspective in others and the outright illogical defiance of still others in order to steward the organization to a recognition of itself as a single working system. This is an useful point to consider, as we evaluate the numerous challenges related to workers which would separately be required to the surface area by the lead character’s determined instigation of crucial idea.
After provoking some consternation for voicing his ‘affordable doubt,’ Juror # 8 pragmatically deconstructs the case, explaining that the main witness was an elderly woman who was not using her glasses at the time of the murder in question. Furthermore, the murder weapon, a switchblade knife which a shop clerk declared he offered to the defendant, was illustrated to be among a possible infinitive of knives which looked almost similar to the exhibition A knife.
And maybe most importantly, the victim of the murder was the offender’s dad and the close association and bad relationship between the 2 provoked a wealth of circumstantial evidence against the defendant. From an organizational perspective, these are factors which can be considered as unpredictable variables upon which critical examination need be used. However, the lightweight nature of these variables is typically obscured by the perseverance of a group conflict that is founded upon the diverse strands of character that make up the jury.
Juror # 8 skillfully weaves the primary objective of finding a proper decision through the fabric of these case realities, attracting what he senses is an experientially biased viewpoint in each juror, in order to conjure up factor to consider of all these prospects. It is thus that he comes across numerous phenomena of group dynamic which detectably play a part in obstructing the instant achievement of desired objectives.
One impact in particular is that of conformity, which would play a considerable part in promoting some of the meeker jurors to presume the defendant’s guilt on the basis of popular consensus. For many jurors falling under this category, the influence of a number of the more singing jurors would serve to intimidate or cloud specific point of views, triggering the minority perspective taken by Juror # 8 to encounter specifically steadfast opposition. The meeker men would retain a strength in numbers that would allow them to conceal from organizational responsibility.
For Juror # 8, the situation of organizational unanimity without crucial speculation would be in and of itself problematic. We are not even particular as the audience that the juror is responding to a belief that the accused was always innocent. Instead, there is a clear sense of issue over the propriety in performing the proper duty of the court. For that reason, we see that the character was entrusted just the option of initiating dispute as a means to invoking the critical argument which would have otherwise been problematically absent from the procedures.
We might think about that the juror may have looked for another method than dealing with jointly and separately the obstructions to the deliberation of justice. For one, a possible alternative for action in this circumstance may have been the call for a termination of specific jurors. In particular, Juror # 3, played by Lee J. Cobb, is driven by the harmed relationship he shares with his son and Juror # 7, played by Jack Warden, is transferred to action by his deep-seeded hatred for foreigners.
In the self-appointed function of group leader, the protagonist should attempt to draw these individuals away from these distorting point of views in order to comprehend the case on its own benefits. These truths of prejudicial viewpoint may have been treated as grounds for termination from the company provided the legal consideration surrounding such intentions and the intrinsic contrariness which such motives postured to the objective of carrying out justice. Such an alternative might have effectively conserved the organization the bottle neck to fulfilling its objective produced by the resistance of badly oriented personnel.
Ultimately, however, Juror # 8’s techniques, while painstaking, were perhaps the most ideal, carrying out as they did a careful method of communicative and useful organizational unity in spite of an apparently irreconcilable spectrum of ideologies, personalities and objectives. In the resolution of this distinct movie, the audience never does learn if the defendant is guilty of murder, but viewers are jointly transferred to better understand the recognizable characteristics which constitute organizational obligation.