BBA MBA INTEGERATED PROGRAM
2NDYEAR, SEMESTER 4
INTRODUCTION TO ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
12 Angry Men (1957)
Submitted to: Prof. BhajanLal Kardam
Submitted on: 12/03/2019
Submitted by: Rajat Nahata
Movie: 12 Angry Men
Director: Sidney Lumet
Release Date: 10th April, 1957
Length of the movie: 1 Hour 36 Minute
Theme: Justice, class and innocence.
12 Angry Men is a 1957 American court dramatization movie coordinated by Sidney Lumet, adapted from a teleplay of a similar name by Reginald Rose. This court show recounts the account of a jury of 12 men as they intentional the conviction or quittance of a litigant based on sensible uncertainty, driving the legal hearers to scrutinize their ethics and qualities. In the United States, a decision in most criminal preliminaries by jury must be consistent. The litigant is a 18-year-old male and the observers are the woman over the road and the elderly person.
Plot of the movie
We enter a court and see twelve men sitting in a jury box. The judge gives them directions to achieve a decision on a preliminary for first-degree murder. The blamed is a multi year-old child who’s been accused of killing his father, and the majority of the members of the jury appear to be really persuaded that he did it. It scarcely requires them any investment to vote in favor of Guilty when they go into the jury room. Be that as it may, one waits for a Not Guilty decision. In the U.S., juries more often than not have to achieve a consistent vote so as to choose a case, so it would seem that the members of the jury aren’t going anyplace until they can get Juror #8 (the naysayer) to make a move.
At first, Juror #8 says he simply needs to talk for some time about the decision. All things considered, they’re going to send a multi year-old child to the hot seat, and Juror #8 wouldn’t like to do that without having a discussion first. He raises certain subtleties of the case that have been irritating him, yet alternate members of the jury need him to quit slowing down so they can continue ahead with the Guilty decision. At long last, Juror #8 requests that the foreman take a second vote, which he (#8) will avoid. On the off chance that everybody votes in favor of Guilty once more, he’ll go along with them and end the entire thing.
In any case, beyond any doubt enough, one of alternate attendants cast a ballot Not Guilty, and the discussion proceeds.
One of the greatest bits of proof against the young fellow on preliminary is the one of a kind blade that was utilized to murder his dad. A storekeeper revealed pitching this equivalent sort of blade to the child prior in the night. Be that as it may, Juror #8 demonstrates that the blade isn’t special at all when he hauls out an accurate reproduction and hammers it down into the jury table. The others are stunned, and Juror #8 gets somewhat more help for his Not Guilty decision.
The more drawn out the exchange goes on, the more we understand that specific members of the jury (like #3 and #10) are simply extremely malignant fellows who need to send the child to the hot seat for negligible, individual reasons. In any case, Juror #8 proceeds with his strike on the proof by demonstrating that it was incomprehensible for one of the observers (an elderly person) to have been in the spot he was the point at which he supposedly observed the respondent escaping the homicide scene. All of a sudden (and by all of a sudden we mean after long, laborious discussion), there are similarly the same number of votes in favor of Not Guilty as there are for Guilty.
One of the last bits of proof that remains in Juror #8’s way is a lady who vouched for seeing the litigant execute his dad from over the road. Be that as it may, one of alternate members of the jury raises the way that the lady wore glasses and wouldn’t have had sufficient energy to put them on before watching out her window. Now, a couple of the final Guilty attendants surrender and change their decisions. One of the staying ones (#10) goes on a tirade about how they should slaughter the respondent in light of his race, yet the others rapidly quit tuning in to him, and he surrenders on the “Not Guilty” decision.
The majority of this abandons us with only one person obstructing a Not Guilty decision—the feared Juror #3. We know from prior in the motion picture that this person has it in for the litigant since he (#3) has issues with children not regarding their dads. He hasn’t seen his very own child in more than two years, and he wants to rebuff somebody for what’s occurred in his very own life. Also, that somebody is the child on preliminary.
In any case, after one final epic victory, even this person needs to relinquish his abhor and discover the child Not Guilty. The foreman brings in the bailiff, and the men give their decision.
Subsequent to leaving the town hall, Juror #8 keeps running into another of the attendants, and they trade their names. At that point #8 wanders off with a major grin all over, feeling pleased for having spared the life of a guiltless young fellow.
Analysis and Evaluation
The director truly succeeded in conveying his objective through the movie. He was able to show various aspects of human life and social norms which are hugely ignored in today’s world. Moreover, the movie is a great success from a management point of view, as it clearly shows that management is pervasive.
The acting in the movie was very sound, mature and powerful enough to convey the great message of empathy. In the end, when juror #3 was the only one in support of guilty, he breaks down and shared his life’s sad story. In this way he empathizes with the dead father of the accused boy.
Managers should also note that the movie shows the value of thinking out of the box or creativity. Juror #8 was creative enough to look at the problem from a different angle and then he had changed the opinion of the whole jury with his ability of leadership.
The music of the movie which came up time to time was also a great contribution towards keeping the audience interested in the movie.
The main strength of the movie was it’s idea and the actors in the movie. Had there been some other actors, they couldn’t have conveyed the meaning so well. The whole crux of the movie was very nicely communicated to the audience.
In my opinion, the movie was a great experience. It had many interesting twists and turns which compelled the audience to watch it till the end. There were many jaw-dropping scenes where significant revealing were made by juror #8 about the knife and the old man’s testimony. II strongly recommend it to others, especially to management students. It would be a great learning and a further step towards the development of young managers.
Organizational Behavior concepts used
1. A Cooperative Community Among Divergent Worldviews
In the movie of 12 Angry Men, we get a superb case of how helpful networks can be shaped among differing and dissimilar perspectives. It is imperative to frame such agreeable networks with an end goal to accomplish enormity inside gatherings just as associations. Promoting the significance of participation, “fundamentally more prominent quantities of administrators today feel that enhancements will require a general public with an agreeable esteem framework as opposed to components and frameworks overwhelmed by individualistic endeavors” framed a helpful network inside the tremendously extraordinary perspectives present in the thought procedure.
2. Positive Leadership and Group Practices
Past the case of an agreeable network that was built up among the members of the jury in 12 Angry Men, we can draw from the film instances of how authority can limit competitions, usefully coordinate contradicting perspectives, and add to creating powerful alliances. The primary positive advance that Fonda’s character took toward usefully coordinating contradicting sees was his general way to deal with the circumstance. The restricting perspectives on the legal hearers were used so as to comprehend varying points of view. The hidden topic that appeared to be introduced in the film was that the expansion of various viewpoints would give diverse perspectives that would in the end lead to the best arrangement
3. A Practical Application
More vital than the capacity to recognize instances of initiative and agreeable networks inside the film is my own capacity to apply those exercises in quest for my own helpful, gainful, and moral network. In particular, I can discover regions of utilization because of my enthusiasm for administration, the capability of mindless obedience, my job as an advertising specialist, and my social condition. Initial, 12 Angry Men and the job of Fonda exhibit the significance of got notification from other colleagues regardless of the your own dimension of contradiction. The most vital and helpful move that you can make, as a pioneer, is to build up a true exchange with which everybody can be heard.
4. Attitude, values and personality
12 Angry Men constitutes a treasure trove for the discussion of different attitudes and their components, different value systems and personalities as they are revealed in the jury room. For example Juror 10 is racially biased. This attitude is complemented by his view that they (slum-dwellers) are actual and/or potential criminals (cognitive components), hates them and hence dissociates him from them to the extent of easily voting ‘guilty’ because the defendant is one of them (behavioral component). In a parallel vein, the Jurors can be used to exemplify personality types per Myers-Briggs or per Big Five Model i.e. extraverted (juror 7, 12) vs. introverted (Juror 2, 5); sensing (Juror 4) vs., intuitive (Juror 6); thinking (Juror 8, 11)vs. feeling (Juror 3, 10); judging (Jurors 3, 7, 10) vs., perceiving (Juror 8); high agreeableness (Jurors 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11); low agreeableness (Jurors 3, 4, 10); high conscientiousness (Jurors 8, 9, 11); low conscientiousness (Juror 7); high emotional stability (Jurors 4, 6, 8, 9, 11); low emotional stability (Juror 2″,3″,12); high openness to experience (Juror 2); low openness to experience (Juror 6).
First of all, I learnt that whenever a number of people from different background, mind-set, and culture come together then conflicts are bound to happen. The scenario from the movie can be extrapolated to an organization where people from different backgrounds come together and are supposed to work in a coordinated manner, then due to difference in opinions and personality conflicts are sure to take place. Secondly, in similar circumstances the role of power and politics comes into play when people with a dominant personality try to influence others and make them think and do things according to them. So in such cases proper attention has to be taken so that the discussion takes place in an unbiased and non-influential way and everybody gets a fair chance to participate and express his/her opinion. As managers, we should always be dedicated and do a thorough analysis before taking an important decision. Whenever working in a team some points have to be kept in mind always, some of which are- Equal and fair chance to voice their opinions a welcoming and supporting environment. According to me I would rate this movie a ‘B’ as the movie is very interesting and makes the mass want more throughout the movie.