Conflict Management Paper: The Group As Arbiter of Justice and The Rule of The Minority Influence
Conflict Management Paper: The Group As Arbiter of Justice and The Rule of The Minority Influence
Conflict Management Paper: The Group As Arbiter of Justice and The Rule of The Minority Influence
The group as arbiter of justice and the rule of the minority influence
The film 12 Angry Men is depicting a jury attempting to render a unanimous verdict
in the murder trial of a teenage boy. The process whereby the decision is reached in this film
exerting effective leadership. The jury in the film is a typical group of a dozen of men, a fairly
homogeneous group isolated within a locked room, operating in a high stress atmosphere of
heat and time concerns, with pressure to come to a unanimous decision. One of the film's
posters described how the workings of the judicial process can be disastrous: "life is in their
hands - death is on their minds! At the end, the lonely man with a different opinion among
the twelve has changed all the jury’s perception of this murder, so they all as one decided that
In this paper we are trying to come back on the management of this conflict among the
twelve members of this jury. Revisiting the film and some attitudes of the actors, we try to
analyze the social dynamics in this group and the opposition between the majority and
minority influence (Forsyth 2006, p. 207, fig. 7-1). Our reflection will be set in 5 following
parts:
The Gallup StrengthsFinder Profile and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter of the jurors
Conclusion
2
Exit 1957
2. The Gallup StrengthsFinder Profile and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter of the
jurors
A summary of the anonymous characters of the twelve jurors helps to flesh out their
Gallup StrengthsFinder Profile and their Keirsey Temperament Sorter of each Jury members.
None of the jurors are named, and they don't formally introduce themselves to each other
(except for two of them in the final brief ending). Jurors are labeled with numbers based on
their jury numbers and seats at a conference table in the jury room (in clock-wise order).
case against the accused; symbolically clad in white; a liberal-minded, patient truth-
and-justice seeker who uses soft-spoken, calm logical reasoning; balanced, decent,
• Juror #9: (Joseph Sweeney) Eldest man in group, white-haired, thin, retiring and
resigned to death but has a resurgence of life during deliberations; soft-spoken but
• Juror #5: (Jack Klugman) Naive, insecure, frightened, reserved; grew up in a poor
Jewish urban neighborhood and the case resurrected in his mind that slum-dwelling
upbringing; a guilty vote would distance him from his past; nicknamed "Baltimore" by
respect for American democracy, its system of justice, and the infallibility of the Law.
• Juror #2: (John Fiedler) A wimpy, balding bank clerk/teller, easily persuaded, meek,
hesitant, goes along with the majority, eagerly offers cough drops to other men during
painter; respectful of older juror and willing to back up his words with fists.
• Juror #7: (Jack Warden) Clownish, impatient salesman (of marmalade the previous
year), a flashy dresser, gum-chewing, obsessed baseball fan who wants to leave as
soon as possible to attend evening game; throws wadded up paper balls at the fan; uses
baseball metaphors and references throughout all his statements (he tells the foreman
4
to "stay in there and pitch"); lacks complete human concern for the defendant and for
the immigrant juror; extroverted; keeps up amusing banter and even impersonates
• Juror #12: (Robert Webber) Well-dressed, smooth-talking business ad man with thick
black glasses; doodles cereal box slogan and packaging ideas for "Rice Pops";
belief system; uses advertising talk at one point: "run this idea up the flagpole and see
doggedly concerned to keep the proceedings formal and maintain authority; easily
frustrated and sensitive when someone objects to his control; inadequate for the job as
foreman, not a natural leader and over-shadowed by Juror # 8's natural leadership.
and grasp of the facts of the case; common-sensical, dispassionate, cool-headed and
rational, yet stuffy and prim; often displays a stern glare; treats the case like a puzzle
to be deductively solved rather than as a case that may send the defendant to death;
• Juror #10: (Ed Begley) A garage owner, who simmers with anger, bitterness, racist
bigotry; nasty, repellent, intolerant, reactionary and accusative; segregates the world
into 'us' and 'them'; needs the support of others to reinforce his manic rants.
• Juror #3: (Lee J. Cobb) Runs a messenger service (the "Beck and Call" Company), a
bullying, rude and husky man, extremely opinionated and biased, completely
from his own teenaged son causes him to be hateful and hostile toward all young
5
Forsyth made a good comparison of the minority influence when he evokes the formal
conflict between the church’s authorities and Galileo. When speaking about the “power of
few” (Forsyth 2006, p. 220) he could list some cases like the jury of Oklahoma City Bomber,
Martin L. King and Igor Stravinsky who “stood firm against the majority’s pressure” and
“became the sources of influence in their group rather than targets of influence”. (Forsyth
2006, p. 220)
Illustration1
The first time the jury votes all the eleven
members voted « guilty ». The isolation of the
Juror 8 as shown in this picture is illustrating
the Majority Influence at the starting situation.
There was a clear majority group sentiment
that was expressed as the eleven all focused
their attention on Fonda, the lone dissenter
A lone dissenter at the starting position, Henry Fonda (Juror 8) will have all along the
95 minutes of this movie first a character, a deep personality, a temperament and many
strengths profile. The behaviour of the rest of the jury who voted originally “guilty” shows
signs of a decision making based on the majority process. Under majority influence, the
decision making process showed symptoms of groupthink. Stereotyping of the opponent was
apparent in the prejudiced references to “those slum kids” (Film, 14:40), and there were
pressures to maintain conformity by mind-guards such as the juror who exclaimed, “Look,
you voted guilty, whose side are you on?” Mind-guards serve to encourage agreement by
declaring those who deviate from the majority as disloyal. Self-censorship also occurred when
people laughed at something the Adman said, so he didn’t finish his thought (Film, 1:01:15).
Despite the strong pressures of the majority, the Juror 8’s presentation
the majority members. The fact that he finally presented his idea to the group illustrates the
fact that minority influence tends to foster a wider search for information from all sides. As
new information begins to emerge various jurors show transformations in their non-verbal
behaviour. Smelly, at the outset of the film, showed low-status kinesics through his posture,
His gestures grew progressively more confident as he shifted to the minority position.
Juror 8’s unwavering desire to discuss the issue led to the first majority-minority shift, when
the Old Man sided with him solely because he stood by his position (Film, 31:20).
Interestingly enough, this shift was brought on by the group’s first anonymous ballot, an
effective way of reducing the effects of conformity. At this intermediate position, after the
first anonymous ballot, we could see the sense of this statement made by Forsyth, stating
Clark:”a minority of two against four is far stronger than a minority of one against one”
The film 12 Angry Men demonstrates that a majority position and the processes that
support it are not infallible. This paper shows that through effective leadership, a minority
doubt. The Juror 8’s character possesses the two orientations as identified by Forsyth (2006)
that parallel successful leadership: task and socio-emotional. The fact that this Juror 8’s
trivializing the group’s role as jurors, reflecting the essence of a task-oriented leadership role
7
demonstrated by his offering of a cup of water to the Old Man and by gratefully accepting a
cough drop from Mouse. More important is the following statement that the “prejudice
obscures the truth” (Film, 1:20:44) said the Juror 8. This results in the formation of a common
group identity, and allows many Jurors to gracefully enter the minority camp. In this third part
of my reflection I want let emerge the shift from the “Devil’s Advocate” position to the
“authentic dissenter” one. The Juror 8 has become more outwardly aggressive when he tried
to convince the group. At the beginning of the film he is seen slumping in his chair, smiling
frequently, and speaking in a passive tone. As the film progresses and more jurors’ side with
his case, Fonda stands more often, smiles less, and is more forceful in his speech.
The film was seen first in 1957. Even in the 50s, it could have been more exciting if
the jury wasn’t an all-male and all-white. However, it's slightly forgivable since the play made
the jury and trial largely symbolic and metaphoric. The jurors represented a cross-section of
American attitudes towards race, justice, and ideology, and were not entirely realistic. The
Juror 8 for what concerns him has acted all along the film like as a defence attorney. He
investigated on his own by purchasing a similar knife. At all, after reviewing the film more
than 7 times, it emerges that the 'angry' interactions between some of the jurors seem overly