Organizational Behaviour 12 Angry Men 1997 Philosophy Essay

The personality of this juror is very simply which is he looks agreeable and conscientious. He acts as a leader or foreman where we can see at the first, he wants to start the discussion another five minutes more. Besides that, he is able to handle everything in the room. An example, he listened all opinions from jurors carefully. It is make he has other personality is agreeable. He is listened and then he tried gave his own opinion without any arguments.

The value that we can see in the 1st jury was collectivism. It can be proved when he asked every juror to involve the discussion and do not be alone without say anything. Attitude and emotion that we can see on he is cool which is he is very stable emotion during the discussion. He didn’t angry or too emotion if he is disagree something with them. He told slowly and makes all understand about the situation until the end of the discussion. For example, when first voted had only one jury voted for not guilty, even he voted for guilty but he just keep it as challenge and solve it well. He also controls the situation well. But he is too emotion where he do not want to be foreman and he asked 10th juror to replace his place.

Personality, attitude and values of someone can influence the decision making. How all these can affected, we can see in this situation when 1st juror controls all the situations perfectly even sometimes it is not. He tried to be fair and his attitude makes at the end of the decision making became easily and consistency. Stable emotion makes he decided slowly and not too follow angry mood. He is tried be the best attitude during the discussion and ii considered as success because he can controls 11angry men at one time.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

Barriers also can affected decision making when emotions, attitude and personality can’t controlled consistent. An example when 1st juror be mad to 10th juror and situation automatically the whole room became disturbance. It is not good attitudes for foremen in organized all the jurors. It can be role to be foremen or handle something big.

Juror #2: Ossie Davis

This juror is more silent and easily persuaded by the opinion of others. We can see when majority of jurors raise their hand for guilty, he also voted for guilty because of majority. But when 1st jury asked him to explain why he thought like that, he didn’t know how to explain it. He just said that. ‘it is the weakness of the man’. He had no explanation to defend his statement perfectly.

From the beginning until the ending of the discussion, the juror #2 didn’t give too many opinions and just heard everything from the others. We can say that the emotion of this jury is passive and sometimes he looks blur where do not know what actually they are talking about. An example, when 7th juror had a knife, situation became disturbance and he looks not really interested. One of the reasons why this juror became passive is because of he never be a juror ever his life. So, this is the first time experience and it is makes he felt fear also he more like to listen everything compare to talk active.

All these factors can affected decision making because it related with our thinking. When we are thinking, automatically it will be affected our action that goes to our attitude and moods. Therefore, when the juror became passive, he decision making would be followed by others. The decision making is based on majority of voted. So have no quality on making decision. It can be proved when the first voted, he looks didn’t know everything but he just voted based on majority. we also can see that he can’t explain properly why he voted that, its proved he is not sure what he did. So, personality, attitude and emotion are the most important to make decision.

This juror has more barriers compare to 1st juror. This is because the he has more bad things compared the positive things. The decision also not tough enough because of the case is about murder and not talking about the simple case. Therefore, this juror can’t make his own decision and this is can be big mistake when he just voted for the wrong one.

Juror #3: George C. Scott

Emotions and mood are also displayed clearly visible and important to the film. Each juror is in a somewhat bad mood due to the heat and lack of air conditioning in the room. This adds to the conflicts. At various moments in the film, the juror seems to emote their feelings when someone says something they do not agree with.

George C. Scott has a bad emotion and he also in high negative effect of emotional stage. His anger we find the fact his son, who he feels is a coward. He also mourned the distance that has grown between him and his son. Scott believes that his son should respect him the same way he honors his father, and raised with an iron first. He never questioned that maybe so should see the relationship with his son from another point of view.

In many ways, he is the antagonist to the constantly calm Juror #8. Juror #3 is immediately vocal about the supposed simplicity of the case, and the obvious guilt of the defendant. He is quick to lose his temper, and often infuriated when Juror #8 and other members disagree with his opinions. He believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty, until the very end of the play. During Act Three, Juror #3’s emotional baggage is revealed. His poor relationship with his own son may have biased his views.

George C. Scott is very emotional and that emotion affected his decision making. The painful memory of his own inspires his decision and as a result he voted for guilty. His anger grows as the play progresses and several times he makes reference to his own son. Perhaps it is for this very reason that Scott is so determined to vote not guilty no matter how convincing facts were. He remained stubborn to the very end until 8th jury reminded him that the defendant was not his son. By the past experience prevented him from making logical decision.

Other barrier that will affect the decision making process by Scott character is selfish, over confident and think that he is always at the right way. Because of his attitude, other cannot communicate smoothly with him.

Juror #4: Armin Mueller-Stahl

A stockbroker; he is very eloquent and looks at the case more coherently than the other jurors through facts and not bias. It seems that this role is a character that attention getter. He is steadfast in the belief that based on the fact that the defendant is “guilty”, but he did not try to persuade others to change their minds forcibly. In contrast, when given the opportunity he has expressed his opinion Mueller-Stahl’s character will repeat information already known intellectually. He will take a little longer to quote facts right time and statistics to show that he is an expert.

The ability to remain independent proves to be the most important character trait 4th jury. Throughout the film characters Mueller-Stahl is able to think independently, and never let personal bias or peer-pressure affect his decision-making. When the 4th jury finally changed his vote not guilty, this in itself is enough to put the mind at ease about the other person their own indecisiveness. He is one of the few characters in the story that does not take sides, make alliances, or look for approval right off the bat. It is clear that he was there to seek the truth, and everybody will listen twice to make sure he has done just that. However, to think independently and without prejudice is not the only asset Mueller-Stahl.

He is a businessman who is rational and reasonable, which allows him to look the case with an open mind. Unlike 3th jury, George C. Scott, Mueller-Stahl is able to communicate the ideas and thinking he was such a professional and do so in an organized fashion. He analyzed every piece of evidence carefully and uses logic to guide his vote. It is important to note that he was the second last jury to change their vote to not guilty. He tried his best to make a good decision making and finally he choose to vote not guilty for defendant.

The barrier that will affect the 5th jury decision making process is the environment at the jury room and he has to deal with the other jury’s attitude before make a good decision. It is not easy to settle the case because everyone has a different view and different personality.

Juror #5: Dorian Horewood

Health care worker (possibly an EMT); he is from the Harlem slums; he connects with the man at trial and is disgusted at the bigotry of Juror Ten. Initiating Horewood’s character was a follower of the group. He voted “guilty” during the first vote, and then showed reluctance to discuss the case. He contributed to group by demonstrating how to use the knife during a fight, and spoke up to Mykelti Williamson and George C. Scott characters.

This vital information juror gave concerning the use of a knife which helped the jurors to better understand the concept of how the fatal wound was inflicted. Horewood’s character used his own experiences as a guide to find a connection with the topic at hand for the jurors. He seemed to compare the case to his own life experiences, giving everyone a different point of view.

Dorian Horewood experience makes him doubtful slum boy’s guiltiness. His upbringing in the slums assisted him in thinking the other jurors of the innocent defendant. It is for this reason that he was able to explain how to tell a switchblade knife. Perhaps with the knowledge he had accumulated by living in a slum gives the upper hand throughout much jury because he can relate to it. Naturally background jury five assists him in making a wise decision.

Experience will make good decision making. But, not all of the experience can apply in the dependant case. That is the barrier was happening to this character. He has to find other information and take others view as advantage to make a right decision.

Juror #6: James Gandolfini

A house painter, a respectful person who sometimes display well professionalism and patient act.

Personality- He is showing a stable emotional stability which sometimes he can control his emotion in dealing with numerous and various behavior inside the jury room. At the beginning of the story he among the lesser contributor (less participate) to the group decision making process. He gives a quit good argument by looking at “motive perception” but this fact has been argued as weak motive.

At first he voted guilty. But when asked for clarification, he simply answered his evaluation is based on the motive that he holds since the beginning of the discussion. He made the decision based on his feeling and intuition. What I found is he is making confirmation bias, where every decision should be considered to all relevant and dependable factors and not confirmed factor per se, which exactly came from testimonies.

He showed inconsistency in making decision where finally towards the end of the movie he switched his verdict to not guilty .It happened after he listened up to some useful and acceptable facts raised by all related jurors. The uncertainty avoidance is so high where environmental factors such as peer pressure really influence in his decision making.

Juror #7: Tony Danza

A salesman. He less concerned and less committed in this premeditated homicide case. His participation is merely to say his stands and how his personal judgments toward the deliberation process. He is mostly concerned of his baseball tickets and sometimes ignores what is happening. Instead of yelling nonsense and unreliable facts just to express his stands, he is frequently argued to anyone that tries to give point of view. He always rising up irrelevant and non-concrete arguments and sometimes his emotions of anger and disgust, influence his decision making. His personalities display his actual behavior, thus influences his decision making. For instance, he is impatient, hot tempered, some extend of irrationality, rude especially to those jurors older than him.

Next, he frequently used shortcuts in judging the case. For instance, from halo effect, he did mention the kid had bad history since the kid was small and the kid had committed some serious cases before murdered case. It is indeed part of error in making decision where he supposes to consider other factor as well. His mental ability means the way he is solving any issue arises not showing a jury ethical and professionalism at all. For instance, he cannot accepts any opinions plus he simply leaved the chair while juror 9 giving an arguments. It had shown how selfishness he was. Through the end of the movie, after a concrete and acceptable arguments delivered by ‘non-guilty’ juror, he is finally changing his verdict towards to not- guilty.

Now, his assumption depends on his institution where I believe it’s due to a lesser number of ‘non-guilty’ voters. In addition, it shows inconsistency (dissonance) and overconfidence bias as part of his verdict. These attributes has contributed to a very fundamental decision making of him.

.

Juror #8: Jack Lemmon

An architect: He is indeed the main protagonist of the film. At the very first minute and stage of the movie, he is the only juror who voted not guilty. He always equipped himself with strong views (when dealing with different arguments) and holds his concrete philosophy of being positive and protagonist. He showed his seriousness to deliberate thoughtfully and honestly. For instance when he says “I just don’t find it easy to raise hand and send a boy to prison for life”. He is always being attacked with “dangerous bullets” from those jurors who voted differently, but has shown an ethical and acceptable feedback. His emotional intelligence has successfully closed the barrier of differentiation. Such determination (non-guilty decision) has brought to an issue of re-deliberation of the case.

At the middle of the film, his character is ready to acquiesce and will only switch his verdict, if other jurors believe guilty would be the best decision to be imposed. The presence of juror 9 just make the movie became more interesting where he suddenly change his mind to vote not guilty. This show the power of influence contributes to change in perception and behavior of individual. He found reasonable doubt about the case and it has astonished juror no 8 who obviously thankful with the decision. Then, It keeps the debate alive till the end.

He has proactive personality where he always identifies opportunities, show initiatives, take action and preserve until meaningful change occurs until meaningful change occurs, compared to most jurors who passively react to situations. For instance, he tries to demonstrate the actual action (probably the time of murdered) in a jury room .Even though it looks cynical, but it gives a biggest wakeup call ever in history or case deliberation process. Other than that, he succeeded to raise reasonable doubt to the cases and manage to answer those jurors’ arguments accordingly to the principal of law and rational- thinking based judgment. He has good emotional stability, where even though he has been accused to deliver sanctimonious talk, not behaving like reasonable man , loves to make up wild stories. He believes, he needs to be more persuasive, rational decision making to ensure that right decision is to be executed.

Jury’s #9: Hume Cronyn

Mc Ardle was acted by Hume Cronyn is the real name for his character. He is a wise old man who firstly decides that the kid was guilty. But later on when he heard some logical thinking explanation from jury’s number 8, his sides turn into not guilty. Lastly he becoming friends with jury’s number 8, that he think might be a good and wise guy. In this movie, the personality that we can see in Jury’s number 9 is he such an openness guy, he have kindness personality as a grandfather who is the older in the jury’s meeting; he also curious to know more about the case. For example we can see when he suddenly change is mind into not guilty as he want to know.

He also has an agreeableness personality which he state his sympathize to the old man who attend as a witness for that case. We also can say that he is conscientiousness as he always pays attention to all the detail. He saw how the dress up of that old man and he saw the marks of spectacles in the woman eyes. The value for jury’s number 9 that it shows is the honesty in giving opinion and professionalism as being a 12 jury’s. As a personality and value that is show, the jury’s number 9 attitudes and behavior is mostly based on his personality. He always be a professional, by talking and behave in manner. He tried to explain in good manner without hurting everyone with a soft voice.

Jury’s number 9 also show his emotion which is anger by raising his voice when one of the jury’s ignore and leave the meeting because he fed-up with his opinion. We can say most of the time he had a low negative effect mood which is calm, relaxed in this meeting. All the personality, values, attitudes, emotions and mood, which is show by this jury’s, is that it does not give the bad impact in decision making. But it might smooth the process of decision making. Because all the personality, values, attitude, emotions

and mood that being mention is positive. The jury’s help to solving the problem, he gives the idea and he also gives all the explanation for every situation in detail. Other barriers that might be affected in decision making is, fear to be failure. Every person have fear, because sometime people start to rejecting a good idea just because it shows that the result might be 100% failure, although its only come from their thought, but because of fear to taking the risk, they tend to avoid the idea that might bring into successful. Most of the reason that they try to reject risk is because they cannot handle when someone’s telling them “I told you so, don’t do this, don’t do that.”

Jury’s #10: Mykelti Williamson

Ultimately shunned by the others, because of his loudmouth, narrow-minded bigot, extremely rude and often interrupt people. Someone who feels that there will be no good outcome, this is a type of man he is. Lastly he was ordered by jury’s 4 to “sit down” and to “not open his loudmouth again.” He is jury’s number 10 the owner of carwash shop acted by Mykelti Williamson.

Most of the personality within jury’s 10 is reversed, first he score low on openness to experience. He do not have a good in imagination, that he cannot imagine and cannot understand easily what the others think, he tend to think that he is the only one who are right, he cannot except his mistake and tend to stick with his answers.

Other than that, he also score low in agreeableness when always insulting others and disrespect the elders. He tends to show that he not interested with others people problem and also with a filthy mouth he talk recklessly about everything. For example he says that kid should be destroying because they always give trouble to other people and that is why he sticks to say guilty.

He also a neurotics’ type that irritated person and always get stressed easily, we can see every time everyone changes their vote. In value perspective, jury’s number 10 is unprofessionalism; he does not know how to control his emotion. Most of the attitudes that he shows is negative, he have a rude attitude, which does not have manner when talking to someone and also disrespect to someone older than him. In case of emotion, it is obvious that he such an anger person. He always raising his voice and scold everyone when his opinion is rejected. He always has a tense mood that can give high negative affect into the atmosphere.

In term of this influenced decision making, yes it really influences the decision making. This will cause unsmooth in the decision making process. Because it’s hard to find the solution when a person cannot listen and accept others opinion and always think that he the only one who is right. It might also lead to a fight or unspoken with each other because of this behavior. For example in this movie, we can see everyone hate jury’s 10 because of his bad in all the values, personality, attitudes and mood.

Bad idea, this is also one of the factors that create the barriers into decision making. We can see that some of the people cannot generate a good idea at the certain time; they might get their idea when they are watching television, or listening to the music. That is why there is always bad idea in every decision making, because their mind is not there. They not even helping when they try to produce the idea that we know it are not rational, but because they want to look idea provider, they tend to keep producing bad idea, when there is too many answer in the decision making, it is hard for leaders to make the decision.

Jury’s #11: Edward James Olmos

Jury’s number 11 acted by Edward James Olmos, who work as watch maker most of the time is doing an observant in this movie; He is an immigrant based on his essence, possibly from Europe country. He believe and hopes that America can give a justice and he want to see how it done. We can see for Jury’s 11 that jury’s 11 have conscientiousness personality, he always pay intention in every detail, for example when he asking the question ‘why that kid go back home after 3 o’clock’ it shows that he listened very well from jury’s 8 opinion and theories. In addition he also introverts person because most of the time in the meeting, he just being quiet. He is not an integrity person, which he cannot decide where he stands with, weather with guilty or not guilty side; this is the answer for his value.

For attitudes, we can say that jury’s 11 is not confidence in what he do, we can see when he looks hesitate to give his opinion, because most of the time he do the observation, but lastly he also try to give his opinion and give a question for everyone to think. He does not really shows his emotion in this movie, but only a fatigue mood that is low positive affect.

How this factor affect decision making? It also affect the smoothness of producing idea, because most of the time, the person cannot generate a good idea that can support the decision making. It also does not help because not participate in the process of decision making, as it look that this person are not there.

Not enough in information is always happen in decision making, decision cannot be make when there is no information towards the thing. For example we cannot compare to buy Ferrari car instead of BMW, because we lack of information, we doesn’t know which one is better that can give high satisfaction to us. Decision making is always with full information; we tend to buy Ferrari when we know that the features aspect in that car is better than BWM car.

Juror #12: William Pettersen

This is the only juror that didn’t really interesting about the case. This is because he just busy about his own life compared to joined discussion on the table. He is marketing agency and so arrogant. His personality would be narcissisms where is he like to makes people looking at him not for the quality of the job. An example when he talked to 11th juror, he told that he is marketing agency and trying to find everything that related to it. This personality always thinking that he is very good compared to others. He tried to tell everyone about himself but not about the case. He also didn’t focus at all during the discussion because he is not really interesting. He just want get back his career and social life.

When we know about his personality, we already mentioned early that this person arrogant. This attitude makes his mood in the discussion distracted from the case. It can be proved that his attitude is not good and like selfish because just think about him but not think about the case that really heavy to make decision.

When the personality and attitudes are bad, so the mood in the room also the decision making from him can be affected badly. It is mean he decision is have no quality. He decided from what he heard from the other jurors not tried to find out what the case about. He always busy with his career without care about the case. When he arrived there, he just gave his logic opinions to ensure he participated but actually he just came to fulfill the condition. When his attitude like this, his decision making didn’t quality and persons didn’t respect his decision.

Barrier also can be affected decision making. An example for this juror when he has bad attitude, the decision that his decided not considered as professional decision. It is just makes the condition is perfect. This can make innocent person get punishment to something that he or she do not do.

Conclusion.

Film 12 Angry Men displayed strong, clear example of a group that formed to meet the tasks / purposes and subsequent issues involved in completing a given task. 12 members of the jury experience through the process of being formed, attack, norm, performing and postpone. Although short lived, cohesiveness takes several different aspects. First, it is shown by 11 members initially voted guilty. Then, the progressive group dynamics change throughout the film as the jury began to question their initial decision of guilt and, one by one, began to agree with those voting not guilty.

As a member of the group communication, strengthen cohesion as the whole of the opinion the jury. In addition, members of the jury have focused more on the task-oriented behavior of social behavior, which might have blocked a lot of arguments. This group was formed for a specific purpose, a time, so to build and strengthen the relationship is not a priority for the dissolution occurs when the issue decision. Although challenged by the dynamics of the group itself, it was finally able to perform a given task and postpone.

However, despite the short life of this group, we see an excellent example of the process of the formation of groups and group dynamics. Each of the 12 jurors plays different but important roles throughout the film. We see the power of informal leadership, the cycle of the changing role of leadership, and great effort it takes to change a random collection of individuals into a winning team.

We consider this to be a successful group because the task has been completed, social relationships have been developed to maintain the group and help them work together, and we see evidence that the individual jurors find satisfying personal experience. At the end of the film, we believe that each member reflects on developments since the initial vote and leave the court with a new vision and a feeling of satisfaction that was released a fair decision