Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Leadership in 12 Angry Men
Transcript of Leadership in 12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
Why was Juror 8
Man With Slum Background
This factor allowed him to effectively influence a large group of varied personalities
"Socratic Leadership". Oberon Consultants. 2005. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
Where the teacher is also being taught
"embrace their own ignorance
understand their limitations
are comfortable not knowing all the answers"
Four Main Goals of Socratic Leadership
Provide an environment where people are comfortable and encouraged to contribute their thoughts and ideas
Juror 8 did not know the answer to many of the questions which the other Juror's threw at him. He was accepting of this fact, and often retaliated with questions of his own.
He allowed everyone to say what was on their mind, even if he disagreed with their thoughts.
He encouraged the more timid jurors (11, 5, 2) to participate by making them feel comfortable and by being open.
Enabled Others to Act
Actively encouraged timid jurors (Bank Clerk, Advertising Man, etc.) to participate by asking for their opinions
Encouraged The Heart
Made an effort to connect on a personal level with the other jurors. One way he did this was through subtle touches (grabbing the old mans arm, touching the working man's shoulder).
Constantly asking other jurors for their input; asked for a vote numerous times to see where everyone stood and to give the more timid people a chance to speak up.
Went out of his way to make personal connections with many of the jurors, tried to make everyone feel comfortable. He tried to settle disputes quickly when they came up (ex. He stops the old man when he is yelling after the bigot, trying to keep as much harmony as possible)
Listened to everyone's points, even if he did not agree with them.
Would not allow the announcement of a hung jury; insisted that they come to a conclusion
Juror 8 realized that each of the other jurors had different needs and reacted accordingly
* Physical contact and inclusive attitude towards the more timid people
* Take-charge attitude towards the more aggressive jurors (ex: Juror 8 stands up to address the angry man)
He went out of his way to make personal connections with people, and he is determined to have a conclusive jury because he genuinely cares about what happens to the boy on trial.
Juror 8 was able to think outside of the box, imagining different variations of the same situation in order to find the truth about the murder.
He also demonstrated: Drive, Cognitive Ability, Creativity, and Flexibility.
Direction vs. Prescription
Provide a sense of direction and purpose, but avoid micro managing
Accept the fact that there are things which you do not know of and new ideas which you will not be open to. Use this acceptance to grow as a leader and to benefit your team.
"Create a blame-free climate without compromising performance standards and discipline." (Socratic)
The Angry Man
Juror 12 begins the movie headstrong and dead set on the fact that the party in question in guilty. To combat this, Juror 8 relies mainly on rational persuasion. He uses logical arguments and factual evidence to start convincing Juror 12 that the boy may be innocent. As Juror 12 begins to change his mind, he becomes less confident in where he stands on this issue at hand, and Juror 8 begins to switch tactics. He turns to Consultation, specifically going out of his way to ask Juror 12 what he is thinking.
Juror 8 also uses Personal Appeal in an effort to connect with Juror 12 on a more intimate level.
Juror 10 was one of the last Jurors to change his vote to not guilty. This is due in part to his prejudice and his steadfast belief that the boy really did murder his father.
In order to deal with such a strong personality, Juror 8 relies on fact-based information as well as the building pressure from others switching sides and Juror 8's refusal to back down when Juror 10 is being confrontational.
The turning moment in changing Juror 10's mind was when he went on a rant about "those kinds of people". Through the pressure of everyone walking away and ignoring him, in addition to Juror 8 explaining that prejudice has no place in a court setting (Legitimating), Juror 10 is forced to look at the situation from a different angle, therefore changing his vote to not guilty.
Juror 5 is one of the more timid Jurors. Given his background, he can relate the most to the boy on trial. Juror 8 uses this to his advantage through Inspirational Appeal. He calls on Juror 5's morals and ideals (since he's been in the slum and can visual the situation at hand) while at the same time making a personal connection with him through physical contact and consultation (asking him consistently for his opinion).
Juror 3 is the last person to change their vote to not guilty. Juror 8 has to use many different techniques to influence this change. He uses Rational Persuasion for most of the beginning of the movie, continuously stating facts that may disprove what was testified in court.
He also pressures Juror using intimidation (standing when talking to him and not backing down). At the end of the film, Juror 3 is left standing alone on the guilty side. This resulted in pressure for him
to change his mind based on Coalition Building as well.
When everyone else leaves the jury room, Juror 3 is left sitting at the table in defeat. Juror 8 retrieves his
jacket for him, applying personal appeal (making
a connection, both physically and emotionally) even after the case is closed. This once again proves that Juror 8 is an exceptional leader, and an overall exceptional person as well.