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
12 Angry Men
Transcript of 12 Angry Men
12 Angry Men
#2 Explain the leadership style of the appointed leader. Tell what you approved/disapproved according to his leadership and what you would have done differently.
•The foreman's leadership style was: Democratic
•He believed in allowing all thoughts and voices be heard, taking votes, doing things in order of their jury number, and allowing breaks whenever needed.
•Approved: His democratic way of leading. He was very soft spoken and did not create more hostility with his anger. He remained calm under pressure from his peers. I liked how he took votes whenever someone called for one and how he gave everyone freedom to be them.
•Disapproved: When they got to the jury room the foremen told them there were no rules. I did not approve of him not setting clear cut rules. By him not doing that it set the group up for some people to get offended and subsequently created undo hostility.
#4.Discuss at least three episodes of conflict you observed and explain the effectiveness or ineffectiveness these conflicts had on the overall group dynamics. How might you have handled these periods of conflicts as a group leader?
• The very first vote on who all thought if he was guilty or not guilty of the murder of his father. Effective
• The two older Caucasian jurors arguing about him wanting the verdict to be guilty for his own personal reasons. (2 scenes: when he says “I’ll kill you” and at the end when he shows that he looks at the defendant as his son) Both effective.
• As more people change their votes, the more conflicts arise.
6. You have been contacted because of your expertise in “multicultural counseling” to develop a group plan to implement for this group to work through their cultural diversity issues. Please explain your plan.
My plan begins with self-awareness and me knowing my own biases and how that can have an impact on the group. Secondly, being culturally competent by having knowledge of different cultures and worldviews. In addition to having the appropriate skills to be able to intervene in a manner that is culturally sensitive and relevant. Our book discusses the Skilled Counselor Training Model (SCTM). A skill based training program that promotes attainment of skills through the use of modeling, mastery, persuasion, arousal, and supervisory feedback. In the SCTM, skills are divided into three stages: exploring, understanding, and acting. For each stage, the Model illustrates (a) a purpose, (b) Two counseling processes, and (c) six counseling skills.
#5. You have been strongly recommended by your group professor at Alabama A&M University to lead this group. How would you go about leading this group? Be sure to include group rules and any ethical considerations.
In this situation, I would be a Democratic group leader. By it being more group centered and less directive it allows the jurors to discuss their perspectives freely and better analyze the case. A rule I would add is for one person to talk at a time. As for ethical considerations, no personal biases, only facts and laws
#3. Discuss at least (3) phases of group process you observed in the movie.
• Beginning: When they got the the deliberation room the foremen outlined how they would sit, what order they would speak in, and how they would began by taking an initial vote.
-Storming: This is when members start to compete with others to find their place in the group. Anxiety, resistance, defensiveness, conflict, confrontation, and transference are frequent feelings at this time (pg 107).
Many individuals became outspoken in this phase. They were hot, disgruntle and had their own biases that would not allow them to be opened minded about the case. The guy with the baseball tickets wanted to get out and attend the game. Everyone was upset with the older individual that needed persuaded to change his vote. Because they could not leave they became more and more irate.
Norming: Feeling of "Well-ness, identity, groupness, or cohesiveness that comes when individuals feels they belong to an association or organization larger than themselves (pg 116).
After the older gentleman described the condition of the older individual who testified about hearing something, most members for the group began to accept other thoughts are possible.
- Described as the working and performing stage. This stage focuses on the achievement of individual and group goals and the movement of the group itself into a more unified and productive system.
After the gentlemen described incongruencies in testimonies most of the members began to defend one another, come to the realization that they were not going to leave until they came to a united verdict, they began to put their biases aside, and accept other opinions for what they were worth. They began putting ideas to work and finally came to a unified verdict.
#1)Pick one character and tell why he stands out the most to you as it relates to group dynamics?
•The African American guy in the green shirt
•In the literature Dr. Louis Ormont stated "Sometimes silence is used to cover hostility" (pg 96). The guy in the green shirt intrigued me because of his silence. The one's that are the most talkative are not always the most interesting. It is the one's who shy away from the group and have reservations to participate that intrigue me the most; they are the one's with the most to say.
The Exploring Stage
The purpose of the exploring stage is to help clients determine where they are in relationship to the problems they are facing. The attending process is a component of this stage and includes eye contact, body language, and verbal tracking. The questioning and reflecting process, also a component of the exploring stage, includes open-ended questioning, paraphrasing, and summarizing. The exploring stage should be marked by high levels of client talk and minimal counselor interruption. During this stage, the counselor should communicate acceptance, empathy, and positive regard. At the conclusion of the exploring stage, clients should feel fully and completely supported to explore issues from their own viewpoints.
The Understanding Stage
The purpose of the understanding stage is to help clients recognize where they are in relationship to where they want to be with regard to the problems they are facing. During this stage, the counselor should confront the client concerning inconsistencies in behavior and attitudes. The counseling process of interchangeable empathy includes the skills of stating feelings and content, self-disclosure, and asking for concrete and specific expressions. The additive empathy process includes the skills of immediacy; identifying general problem situations, actions taken, and feelings; and caring confrontation. Thus, when the understanding stage concludes, clients should have a fresh perspective or be able to generate new viewpoints regarding their life challenges.
The Acting Stage
The purpose of the acting stage is to help clients identify what they need to do to get to where they want to be with regard to problems. The decision-making process includes the skills of deciding, choosing, and identifying consequences. At this point, the counselor should define clients’ situation as consisting of a choice to (a) change ineffective coping behaviors or (b) continue to allow these unsuccessful patterns to be problematic (deciding skill). The counselor should then outline the thoughts and feelings that previously prevented clients from implementing change (choosing) while exploring the positive values that are important to clients as a result of the decision (skill of identifying consequences). The contracting process includes the skills of reaching agreements; setting deadlines; and reviewing goals and actions to determine outcomes.
#10. You have been requested to pick at least one group member to write a letter about some concerns you have about their evolution in the group. Who would it be and why? What exactly would you tell the group member?
The juror whose development I was most concerned about throughout the movie would have to be Juror #10. The reason he was my pick is because of key words that he used pretty much every time he opened his mouth. Very early on I became aware of his use of the terms "they" & "them." This to me showed some form of distinction that he was making from himself and the young man on trial. He was also very attitudinal and short tempered. He ultimately did not care what happened to the boy on trial and made that very clear. However, the most alarming part of the movie concerning him was his speech he made nearing the end of the movie. From this speech, one could gather that he was very close-minded and one might even say racist. He used the term "wetbacks" and made other racial slurs about "them" coming over from their perspective countries and wanting to do whatever they wanted. He very apparently did not care about the law, but he viewed his position as a juror as an opportunity to "catch one." He felt that while in possession of the courts they had the chance to take one of "them" off the street due to his RACE, not the FACTS. My advice to Juror #10 would be to look at the facts of the case. The instructions were to vote guilty if there was ANY reasonable doubt on the boy's behalf. His position as a juror should not be taken lightly due to his own biases and opinions. I would ask him to face his biases. To examine his beliefs and to question his true motives. I would ask him to be open to the process of change, as someone else's life could have ended in the midst of their own innocence.
#11. How has the movie changed your perception of group dynamic based on what you have learned from textbook, etc.?
The movie has changed my perception of group dynamics because it showed me a different form of group. It allowed me to see that groups can form in many different situations. I never actually thought of jurors reaching a verdict as a group process. However, in watching the movie I was able to see that the same elements of group can also be seen here.
#12. Explain what Juror #3's agonizing excerpt was stating and how was it a turning point for George C. Scott? What was your overall reaction to this central event on group dynamics?
Early on in the movie Juror #3 shared his own relationship with his son and how he hasn't seen him in 14 years. He currently has no real standing relationship with his son. Therefore, it appears that his own biases and feelings are surfacing within the movie and with this case. I felt that he was holding on to the verdict of 'Guilty' because it was his way of dealing with his own life. Throughout the whole deliberation he held onto the witness testimonies, refusing to acknowledge anything but. In my opinion, the idea of this SON killing his FATHER is what made the case a stand out to him. Within this quote he is saying that ever since they came in the room, the 'facts' had been manipulated. He didn't care what the father had done, the point of him being the boys father remained. "I know what they're like..I know what they can do." I believe this was in reference to what his own son had did to him. He ultimately was able to feel the betrayal he believed happened in this incident. This point in the movie was critical because in that moment he freed himself of those feelings and came to terms with the reality of the situation. Not only this, but the group was able to really see why he held so strongly to his not guilty verdict & helped him to see that these were two different instances. I almost feel as though he confused this situation with his own in his head. A product of a non resolved issue.
#7. As the group leader of this group, what theoretical framework would you use to effectively lead this group? Explain why?
Jury duty is more of a task/work group than a counseling or therapy group. In this instance, the group has been tasked to deliberate on whether or not the boy is guilty of stabbing his father to death. On the face of it, there are two goals involved here. The first, which is the group goal, is to decide whether the boy is guilty or not. The second involves individual goal of each member to make the right decision based on his conscience.
Adlerian Theoretical Framework:
As the leader of such a group, I would choose the Adlerian theoretical framework to work with. The reason is that the main premise of Adlerian theory is that people are motivated by social interest. In other words, a normal, well-adjusted person is one having a feeling of concern for others. This concern for the well-being of others comes across as a positive attitude towards people that is best developed in a group context.
Secondly, Adlerian theory stresses the importance of having a healthy style of life. Style of life refers to the way one prefers to live and relate to others. Thus, according to this definition, a faulty style of life involves making life choices motivated by selfishness, competitiveness, or a striving for superiority. In short, people have difficulties when they strive to keep up with the Joneses. With such an orientation, I’ll motivate the group to make a decision based on altruistic motives.
Adlerian theory views problems and conflicts as being social in nature. That is, most of the problems people experience in life has to do with how to function in society. A group is, therefore, the best place to develop as a human being since it shows up a person’s maladjustment and conflicts, and also offers the best means to correct those maladaptive behaviors. Thus, this theory will help group members achieve their individual goals.
Group Leader Tasks
Storming Stage: To that end, as a group leader, I would encourage and promote cooperation and an egalitarian spirit devoid of competitiveness. I would also encourage open sharing and discussion of ideas so that people can gain an insight into their own behavior and motives which would go a long way in helping to make the right, conscientious decision regarding this boy’s fate. Lastly, I would encourage members to challenge and confront each other about specific behaviors as this would help them to also learn something about their own beliefs, motivations, and life goals.
Working Stage: Having achieved this spirit of cooperation and mutual concern, I would then focus on individual goals which involve giving group members an insight into their faulty lifestyles. Once this insight is gained, it will help individuals to become more socially involved and engaged with others. Ultimately, this improved social engagement will help group members to experience a spirit of “We-ness” that will help achieve group goals. For instance, Juror number 10 (Mykelti Williamson) will come to realize that his uncooperative attitude is hurting the group. This insight will help him reach out to specific individuals in the group as well as the group itself.
In conclusion, by focusing on the growth and actions of the individual within the group, the Adlerian framework will help members become personally integrated, socially oriented, and (group) goal directed.
#8. After observing this group, are there any ethical concerns you might be concerned about? Why or why not?
After observing this group, the main ethical concerns I have relate to the issues of lack of skilled leadership, possible violations of the rights of group members (including verbal assaults), personal relationships between members and the group leader, and screening of group members.
For a group to be effective, the leader should have some important personal qualities. He should be self-confident, self-aware, have the ability to form warm, caring relationships, and be genuinely sensitive and understanding. A group leader with these qualities is able to facilitate a smooth group experience that fosters growth in members and achieves group goals.
But this is far from the case in this group. This leader (Courtney Vance) is weak, self-centered and lacks the skills needed to facilitate the group experience. Beyond calling for votes, he cannot apply any group technique like summarizing, encouragement, or feedback to help correct members’ faulty behaviors. During the transition period, Mykelti Williamson tells him he is not needed. Instead of addressing the issue with this group member, the Jury Foreman offers to give up his position, effectively leaving the running of the group to Juror number 8 (Jack Lemmon). This almost disintegrates the group and is the cause of the acrimonious tone of the jury deliberations.
A second ethical issue relates to the issue of screening of group members. Screening helps the group process by weeding out members with unresolved issues that have the potential to derail the group goal. It also keeps out members with violent tendencies.
In this group, Juror number 3(George C. Scott) seems to have an inordinate desire to crucify the boy who has been accused of killing his father. This desire is related to an unresolved conflict with his own son. From what he reveals of his background, it appears he bullied his son (“I’m going to make a man of him.”) so much that the boy rebelled (“At sixteen he hit me in the face. Haven’t seen him since.”). But this unresolved conflict does not show up till he is confronted by the other jurors. Had it not been for this confrontation which forced him to examine his motives, he would have done the boy an injustice. As Juror number 8 tells him. “He’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.”
Similarly, Juror number 10, (Mykelti) is prejudiced against the ethnicity of the boy whose fate is being deliberated. He sees members of that particular ethnic group as criminals and undesirables who need to be removed from society. Adequate screening would have prevented these two members from having a say in the decision which could have sent the boy into the execution chamber.
Another ethical concern relates to the nature of the relationship between group members. Juror number 10 is particularly guilty of verbal attacks on anybody who votes “Not guilty.” After the second crucial vote, He attacks Juror number 5 (Dorian Harewood), whom he suspects of casting the vital vote. In addition to this, he almost physically attacks other jurors. In fact, he is so obnoxious that Juror number 9 (Hume Cronyn) “You’re a very sick man.” Thus, use of threats and force were unethical because they had the potential of derailing the group goals.
#9. List at least three (3) critical events you think that has the most profound impact on group dynamics. Explain.
The three critical events that have the most impact, as far as group dynamics are concerned, are the revelation of the replica knife by juror #8 (Jack Lemmon), Juror number 10’s racist speech, and Juror number 3’s (George C. Scott) meltdown at the end of the movie. These scenes are critical because they highlight crucial moments in the group process and their resolution helps to move the group closer to its goals.
Replica of the Murder Weapon
The first critical incident is when Juror #8 produces the replica of the knife that was used in the murder. This happens during the storming stage of the group. At this point in the group’s development, all the members have been trying to bully Jack Lemmon who had cast the only dissenting vote during the first ballot. But Jack shows great resistance. He is able to sow some doubt about the boy’s guilt, creating confusion and confrontation among other jurors. Mykelti is verbally aggressive and tries to coerce the group to vote “Guilty.” But Jack uses influential power to persuade them to look at the evidence again. Still, the group will not be swayed, pointing out that the evidence of the murder weapon is incontrovertible because the knife is one of a kind. It’s at this critical moment that Jack produces an exact replica of the knife.
The effect of the replica knife is that it gets group members to realize that facts can be manipulated. This gives Jack the chance to state his proposition: that if he does not get a single person to vote “Not guilty” during the second vote, he will go along with them. As it turns out, he gets another “Not guilty” vote. This paves the way for the group to move from the Storming stage to the Norming stage. It also gets the other group members to take more risks, accommodate dissenting views, and emboldens other group members like Juror number 5 (Dorian Harewood) to open up
The Racist Speech
The next critical incident is the Mykelti’s racist speech about the ethnicity of the boy. It comes at a time when the jury has voted 9 – 3 in favor of the boy. Mykelti proceeds to enumerate the various historical and social reasons why the boy is guilty, unleashing a plethora of ethnic prejudice which the group refuses to endorse. He says, for instance, “These people are born to lie-they think different, they act different.”
After this tirade, Juror number 9 (Hume Cronyn) pointedly tells him:
“You’re a very sick man!”
This incident occurs during the working stage of the group when the group is functioning well and members are being influenced positively. At this point, there has been increased insight among group members regarding the group goal (i.e. whether the boy is guilty or not). There is also good use of therapeutic devices like feedback (Tony Danza calls for the vote that splits the jury), confrontation (between George C. Scott and Tony Danza), positive transference (Dorian Harewood’s identification with growing up in a slum), and humor (George Scott’s joke that Wandolowsky has the motive). What is missing is an explicit expression of the interpersonal bonding or cohesiveness which signals that members understand one another.
The significance of this critical incident is that it acts as a catalyst that helps the group to maximize their use of group processing in the working stage. This outburst by Mykelti helps the group to reflect on their experiences in the group, understand their own thoughts, feelings, and actions, and ultimately, empathize with the boy whose fate they are dealing with. It makes them recognize that he is a human being just like them.
Juror #3's Meltdown
The final critical incident that impacts the group is George C. Scott’s meltdown after the group asks him to explain his reasons for finding the boy guilty. This also happens during the working stage. At first, he is defiant and refuses to give his reasons “I’m entitled to my opinion.” But when pressed further, he breaks down and rambles bitterly about ungrateful children.
“I know what they’re like. I know what they can do.”
This outburst, which occurs towards the end of the working stage, reveals that George has used transference and projected his unresolved conflict with his own son to punish the boy whose fate they are deciding. But by confronting him, the whole group provides him with feedback on his unconscious transference. This is known as “Consensual validation,” where one member gets the whole group to add their reactions to the feedback he is providing to another member. “He’s not your boy. He’s somebody else.”
It is this feedback that leads to his catharsis and purges him of his bitterness against his son and—by transference—all boys. It also helps him to reach an individual goal of eliminating a faulty lifestyle which hitherto had made him react in a hostile manner to every boy he meets.
Conclusion/Counseling Implications/Counselor Recommendations
From this movie and from the viewpoints of counselors, one big thing that stood out to us as a group was how important the dynamics of a group can change due to the members it holds. This group involved many different personalities. From the quiet Juror #4, to the wise-crack Juror #7 to the boldly outspoken Juror #10. We also seen the importance of screening participants prior to the forming of an official group. This can prove to be a very crucial step depending on the type of group being created. As leaders, we saw how critical it is to maintain order within a group while not stifling their personalities. Lastly, we saw how important the working stage is. Had the group skipped that stage, the verdict of the young man would have been the opposite & crucial elements of self would not have been revealed. Juror #10's biases would not have been confessed & Juror #3 just might not had come to term with his own feelings. You CANNOT rush work. It simply has to happen.