Leadership Within the 12 Angry Men Essay

Throughout the film, on that point is plainly more than one leader passim the jury as gibe to Nicks definition of a leader being that on that point were multiple influences and instances that persuaded the decisions of others. Initiall(a)y the situation is composed of a biased and opinionative jury that is almost unanimously convinced the defendant is guilty. Throughout the scene, there is a slow but sure change of mind throughout the jury as the protagonist, juror 8, successfully persuades the other jurors who initially voted the son guilty of murder to further investigate and examine the fact which ultimately leads to the confirmation and agreement of reasonable doubt among the jury. Juror 8s effective followership was best represented by his consistent approach and resolve to the infringe that initially had nobody even listening.Juror 8 knew what he was standing up for, proper justice, even in the face of stroke as he was challenged by everyone in the room and his willi ngness and courage to outwear the responsibility and challenge the assumed (198). He is also seen as a leader of the group through the honesty and integrity he displayed by acting in accordance with solid moral principles (41) as substantially as a drive to reach an honest verdict by convincing the group to look at all the possibilities despite the overt and assumed. Juror 3 would best be classified as an lost follower as his prejudice against the defendant clouds his judgment, placing a bias on why he thinks the boy is guilty.As it turns out, his own son that he hasnt seen for 2 years had grown up challenging his way and rejecting his morals providing the basis for the anger that is displayed so stubbornly until the very venomous end. As alienated followers are capable, they focus exclusively on the shortcomings and have experienced setbacks and obstacles (195) as did Juror 3 when initially, he had convincingly and mindlessly persuaded the others of the defendants guiltiness a s a consequence of the anger he felt from the bitter relationship he had with his son.Juror 10 could most definitely be classified as conformist follower as his stubborn belief in the defendants guiltiness was supported by a mindless and intolerant transmission line supported by his racist, bigoted comments. Initially Juror 10 volitionally participated in the heated yet convinced discussion as there was little doubt about the defendants guilt and conflict was at a minimum. As the tables turned and tension rose, Juror 10 found himself concerned with avoiding conflict (195) and became less of a contributor to the conversation.As with Juror 8, in any situation in which there is an incredulity or doubt present, especially regarding a decision with such study implications such as the one presented to the Twelve Angry Men, I find it highly necessary to further investigate and take all things into consideration before coming to a decision. The suspicion of shady, questionable behavi our of the CEO is to be examined and reviewed in the same manner that Juror 8 went about questioning the assumed facts and looked at all the possibilities.