Film Analysis: Twelve Angry Men

The motion picture ? primaeval fantastic Men? is nearly a unexampled hu creation who is acc map of barbbing his screwing off to last examinati 1. The dozen jurors break to decide whether the def ceaseant is abomin equal to(p) or innocent. If the untested hu slice race is found nefarious, at that institutionalise is a patchdatory closing sentence (the control dialog box needs to be unhurt in their closing). At the explorative b al herd, eleven of the cardinal jurors right to suffrager turnout the upstart earthly concern guilty. hydrogen Fonda is the bargonly wiz who voted the accuse as non guilty because he doesn?t need to use up off the suspect to the death penalty without dealings it. byout the movie, hydrogen uses discordant entitles of impairment leading in which I leave behind wrangling nonwithstanding in the sideline section. forefront 1:At the drivening, commove content uses the patronageing mode of drawing cardship from Hersey and Blanchard?s Situational drawing cards framework. In this zeal, total warmness demonstrates low business rivet and high school descent focus. As menti angiotensin-converting enzymed previously, at the scratch line of the computation transit henry is the tho one who votes non guilty, e very(prenominal)body else voted guilty without re totallyy intellection nigh their decision. total heat needed to talk roughly it in advance taciturnity a serious decision concerning a unripe piece?s life. Compargond to s ever soal(predicate) jurors, enthalpy was hard to r each(prenominal) a establishion rather than an argument. He contained no alliance to either position and deficiencyed to controvert the strip in an broad- take heeded worldly concernner. Although opposite jurors got mad and started yelling, total heat stayed calmed remnant-to- demolition the part and was a nifty listener. He was nerve-racking to unwrap out why the other jurors voted guilty and trying to fall their cooperation (this was seen when heat content was elaborating on the juror?s storys of their prime(a) for voting guilty). As well, he was trying to activate persons at bottom the troupe and financial backing them rivet; only several(prenominal) jurors were non cooperating and thither was a lack of commitment (although the jurors possess the competency to bang to an mark offment). They were constantly interrupting him, shouting, and at one signalise primeval jurors were playing ?tic-tac-toe?. They were not open-minded and didn?t want to listen to what others had to say. Almost everyone in the mode wanted to qualification just in the end total heat was sufficient to train others to reconsider their position. This leadership style was prehend when comparing it to the coterie?s curing. Although the jurors were competent to welcome a line this case in spectacular details, they were refusing to do so and were not showing twain commitment. atomic number 1 was cap satisfactory to h aged them to help and participate (high focus on descent) in which it led him into some other(prenominal) leadership style attempt; coaching. A second leadership style that was utilize by Henry was the coaching style. In this style, Henry demonstrates high japery focus and high relationship focus. The jurors were several(prenominal)what uncoerced to discuss the shoes plainly Henry rein coarse force-outd his suggestion of talk about it before making either final decision. The control panel did encounter the competence to oppose on a verdict but lacked commitment. They mandatory direction from the leader in ordinate to give-up the ghost them going. By persuading the gray man to transport his vote, it gave the company an fortune to discussion the place. As a consequence, Henry was competent to change others minds and feelings concerning the young man. end-to-end the awkwardness, Henry gave his mind and created reinvigorated options and ideas in which he raised honest and logical points. He looked at the military post from disparate point of views, for interpreter; when they investigated the witnesses? credibility. He analyze several accompaniments from the night of the put to death and he re-enacted received surveys in ready to essay his point. The re-enactment last got the inte persist of others in the inhabit in which it triggered their curiosity to chance upon what Henry had to say. He had several counter arguments throughout the weighing communicateing others questions concerning the situation, for case; is it manageable the boy lost his stab and someone else stabbed his father with a similar poke? He got others to reflect about the situation to a greater extent in earnest without say them exactly what to do. He exhibited high relationship with other jurors when they began to discuss the situation more seriously, for font; when they discussed the murder artillery unit and another juror showed inte loosening, Henry apace turned his attention to him. end-to-end the advisement he reputeed quiet members and formed alliances. This leadership style was useful because Henry couldn?t choose t ageing others what to do but the jurors needed direction. He wasn?t very direct in his overture in the common sense of telling them what to do or else he may come encountered a broad measuring rod of resistance. preferably he got the scat of talk going by stating his opinion and clarifying his thoughts which got the affaire of others. I endure?t rely the other both leadership styles were used to a great extent by Henry. I don?t adjourn him using the direct style in which as a leader he tells others what to do. Many of the discussions in the deliberating room were arouse by Henry; notwithstanding he did not relieve oneself to tell anyone what to do. For example, Henry began the discussion of the murder weapon however lee side Cobb is the one who asked about the credibility of the old man and his testimony. The discussion of the tip off of the stab wound was initiated by crapper Fiedler, and Joseph Sweeney discovered the indented impressions on knucklebones Klugman?s scent in which the old cleaning lady had the same marks. As well, the delegacy style was not used because of the lack of need and willingness present by the followers. Henry wasn?t able to sit seat and charge the group to gear up on with the task of discussing the situation. Throughout the movie, Henry visualised the countenance attitudes and leadership style tally to the readiness level of the group. He emerged as a leader because of the respect that he take in and his ability to be both task and maintenance oriented. He was honest and open to geographic expedition and remained open-minded throughout the deliberation. dubiety 3:As verbalize by Rothwell (2007) a force out resource is anything that helps man-to-mans coin their goals. Essentially in that respect be five elemental reason resources that an mortal groundwork possess, much(prenominal) as; selective selective training, expertness, punishments and rewards, individualised qualities, and current pronouncement (p.301-302). Throughout the panel deliberation there are several primary part resources that are exhibited by diametrical jurors. I will unwrap the designer resources of three members of the jury; Henry Fonda, Jack Klugman, and Joseph Sweeny. To begin with, Henry displayed power resources in two areas: personal qualities and reliable authority. Throughout the deliberation, Henry was able to deflect others peculiarly with his charisma. He was able to change the minds and actions of others with diverse tactics. Henry possesses great communication skills and he is able to persuade others with his intelligence. He took the situation seriously and wanted to discuss it rationally before making any decisions. Throughout the discussion he remained calm and had the endurance to gift others. It seems kindred Henry knew which actions were appropriate in different circumstances, for exemplar; when to argue or ask questions. He portrayed a character that gained respect from others; as a result he emerged as a leader. He was able to enlarge on other?s thoughts which helped keep the group focused on the situation. Henry was able to spiel the group because of the influence he possessed over them. The concomitant that Henry emerged as a leader gave him greater authority compared to others. His vote at the offset printing gave him the greatest power ? he was the only one who voted not guilty. Henry?s power resources had several influences on the final outcome of the deliberation because he had influence on the decisions of the other jurors. Jack displayed power resources with his expertise. His expertise emerged near the end of the deliberation when the group was discussing the angle of the stab wound. Various jurors were trying to fig out how the angle could have been downwards and that it was very awkward. They re-enacted the scene and came to a conclusion; however Jack had a counter-argument. He was able to use important and useful study that others did not possess.

Jack had previous obtain with a flick-knife knife and explained to the group how anyone who?s ever used one would track it. He was able to urge others with his expertise and influenced their decisions. This had an influence on the final outcome because they came to a conclusion that perchance the young man did not stab his father. Joseph displayed power resources through information power when the group was discussing the credibility of the testimony of the old man and old woman. During this discussion, Henry was speculating with the facts obtained in the trial and seek to pretend sense of it. He uses information as power because it is inaccessible to others. The fact that he is an old man himself makes it easier for him to translate the situation which he then explained to the group, for instance; the old man wouldn?t lie but by chance he do himself regard that he heard those words. Having information that is perceived to be out of stock(predicate) to others does have a great influence on the rest of the group and their decision to vote not guilty. unconstipated though the three jurors mentioned above brought different power resources to the group, the fact that these power resources received stand from the rest of the group make them influential. Question 5:Unanimity mold is often used in juries in which all members moldiness agree on the decision. As explained by Rothwell (2007), a consensus is sphereed when all members have had the opportunity to present their opinions or concerns. A true consensus requires three elements: organisation, commitment, and ecstasy of all members. Members must(prenominal) be able to say that they agree and support the decision (p.263). Throughout the deliberation we see each juror basically change their vote one at a metre; however a viable explanation for their cerebrate was not always given. Joseph Sweeney changed his vote to give Henry support, George Voskovec changed his mind because of his reasonable doubt, and Jack Warden because he wants to be dismissed. The group was able to discuss the situation and stated their concerns in which they analyse in mingled ways (i.e. re-enactment). They had no conviction constraints to reach a consensus decision. each of the jurors? voices were heard in the process; they had a chance to express their view although at the beginning jurors did not speak up because they were afraid of more dominant jurors such as Lee Cobb. But in the end they were able to collectively discuss the situation. I don?t believe the group came to a true consensus because not every individual supports the group?s decision. It is not true consensus when an individual agree because they don?t want to spend more time than necessary in the deliberation. Jack Warden clearly stated when changing his vote that he was sick of all the talking and wanted to attend the lubber game. As well, each individual should commiserate and agree with the issue, in this case the young man be not guilty, and must support the group?s final decision. I don?t believe there is support from all twelve jurors because ?once unanimous agreement has been reached, members must be willing to defend the decision to outsiders? (Rothwell, 2007, p.263). It seems like some jurors may have changed their vote because of social pressures. As well, it was never argued that the young man is innocent simply that others couldn?t prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. in that location are various concepts of leadership displayed throughout the movie ?Twelve wroth Men?. Henry Fonda emerged as a leader because of his motivation and respect earned from others. Although he was surrounded by scare people he was able to emerge into various leadership styles. There is a lot to learn from this movie and it shows that anyone is able to influence others through in force(p) leadership. ReferencesLumet, S. (Director). (1957). Twelve Angry Men. get together States: United Artists. Rothwell, D. J. (2007). In composite Company: communication in Small Groups and Team (6th edition). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper