12 Angry Men is one of the most lauded movies in instruction and for good ground. The topic is dateless ; the characters are so existent and are easy to associate to. The narrative line is both touching and challenging. I tend to appreciate item in films and this one was no different. The movie opens with a long. go uping shooting of the tribunal house ( giving us a sense of its fateful nature ) . As we enter. we see a adult male coming out of a courtroom. evidently hard-pressed. Although he is non a portion of the narrative subsequently. it puts us in the right temper for a courthouse and the serious nature of what goes on at that place. We see person rather happy and apparently observing a triumph with friends. The first was a adult male who likely lost his instance and was despairing and entirely. The 2nd is rather the antonym. The audience is informed. through this speedy gap scene. that instances can travel either manner yet and that there can be terrible effects for the parties involved. A bailiff tells the observing group to hush down whereupon we. as an audience. come in the tribunal room.

Context for Discussion

It’s here ; in this scene that we see the justice. the jurymans. the accused and the attorneies for the first clip. The justice so introduces the serious nature of the instance before them. reminding them that the determination must be consentaneous and that the litmus trial is “reasonable doubt” . As the surrogate jurymans are excused. you can about experience their sense of alleviation as they realize that they will non hold to digest any more of this awful narrative nor be obligated to make up one’s mind the destiny of person so immature perchance traveling to the electric chair. The staying jurymans are told to retire to the jury room and we see “the stage” for the first clip that we will be watching for the following few hours. It’s a instead long shooting that rapidly conveys that premiss. One by one. each of the jurymans arrive on the scene. Their personalities are presented rapidly. On parade for us is haughtiness. shyness. gaiety. superficiality. self-contemplation. simple mindedness. choler. uncomfortableness and ignorance.

Procedure Drives Outcome

This impermanent “organization” is a bit untypical as it was a really short continuance. there were conflicting dockets. The concluding outlook of the result was in inquiry. Sandra Christensen and John Kohls ( 19 shed some visible radiation on what this group was confronting and possibly the best manner to manage the issue. They province that “An ethical determination is defined as a determination in which all stakeholders have been accorded intrinsic value by the determination shaper. This is a process definition of moralss. There are some advantages to utilizing this definition: ( a ) When it is highly hard to acquire consensus on specific results required by moralss … . . it is easier to acquire consensus on process… . . ( B ) There will be controversy here every bit good. but it is more manageable ( Ethical Decision Making in Times of Organizational Crisis. p. 332 ) .

If you consider 12 Angry Men. juryman # 8. recognizing he was entirely in his strong belief that there could be more to see in the instance and he decided to concentrate on the procedure instead than merely contending to acquire his point across. By so making. he was able ( by working the procedure over and over once more ) to alter the tide of idea and the remainder of the group ( organisation ) began to hold “reasonable doubt” . He convinced the group that the male child had a tough upbringing. that he had no interruptions in life. had been abused and that with no 1 on his side. he deserved consideration from this organic structure. He persisted until he was heard. This was non easy and the leading he displayed was rather singular.

Juror # 8 was non looking for a particular a result but was seeking an ethical determination in the instance and he felt strongly that they owed the male child. at the really least. to follow legal process and give some clip to the instance prior to geting at a finding of fact. His remark that “we should at least talk about it” was a defining statement for the thesis as it relates to treat presenting a greater opportunity for an ethical result. Christensen and Kohl shed some farther visible radiation on this procedure by saying that “We have defined an ethical determination as one that accords intrinsic value to all stakeholders. When all stakeholders are non explicitly considered. a determination is by our definition non ethical. We have defined crises as events that are equivocal. threaten organisational endurance. have high impact. and are characterized by clip pressures” ( p. 333 ) . This definition is nicely illustrated in the instance we are discoursing.

John Gibb as quoted in Craig Johnson’s “Ethics in the Workplace – Tools and Tactics for Organizational Transformation” states that “Our moral responsibility as a group is to prosecute in supportive communicating that contributes to a positive emotional clime and accurate apprehension. At the same clip. we need to pull attending to the remarks of others that spark defensive reactions” . He so names the six behaviour braces that encourage members to be defensive or supportive ( p. 152 ) . By looking at each of these behaviours. the personalities of each of the jurymans can be easy seen:

1. Evaluation V. Description – Evaluative messages are judgmental. descriptive messages are much more positive. 2. Control V. Problem Orientation- A commanding message implies that the receiver is unequal while job work outing messages drive coaction. 3. Strategy vs. Spontaneity – Strategic communications are manipulative in nature and conceal true motives. Spontaneity nevertheless reduces defensiveness. 4. Neutrality V. Empathy – Neutral messages carry small warmth i. e. . “Don’t worry” . Empathic statements communicate reassurance and credence. 5. Superiority V. Equality – One-upmanship provokes a defensive response whereas supportive communicators treat others as cohorts. 6. Certainty vs. Provisionalism – Dogmatic. inflexible “know it all’s” messaging. Conversely. probationary communicating seeks to “dig in” and accept input from others.

Gibb’s finishing touch message to this construct is his treatment of “Standing Alone” . He notes that “The concluding duty may be the toughest to presume. Bing in the minority is ne’er easy but it runs contrary to our strong desire to be liked and accepted by others. We can anticipate unfavorable judgment. ridicule. and other signifiers of group force per unit area when we offer dissenting thoughts that challenge the bulk opinion” ( p. 152 ) . Juror # 8 defines this construct. I find it interesting that we are told that he’s an designer by trade as he is the draughtsman of the full turnaround of sentiment of the group.

Craig E. Johnson in his work Ethical motives in the Workplace. ( 2007. p. 33 ) lineations five constituents of personal ethical development. In the first constituent. he sketches some of import tips to pull offing our “shadows” or the unpleasant facets of ourselves. Four of these tips specifically pertain to what should be taking topographic point in that hot. sultry room. They are: * Take personal duty for your actions

* Learn from your errors
* Find a supportive spouse ( the old adult male )
* Accept unfavorable judgment
Had more of the members of this impermanent organisation followed these simple guidelines of ethical behaviour. the decisions eventually reached could most likely have been accomplished in a much shorter period of clip.

Decision

12 Angry Men is a polar movie and a fantastic survey in organisational kineticss and leading. The movie demonstrates the kineticss of human interaction. the lives and influences that make them who they are. the Deoxyribonucleic acid that aid to specify them and the motives that drive them. It’s the undertones that begin to play out when the group is brought together that reveal procedure and outcomes merely possible with the group as a whole. In his work “Love and Profit” . Jim Autry negotiations approximately workplace as a community. He notes: “By raising a metaphor of community. we imply that we… . are bound by a family of enterprise in which we commit to common ends. in which we contribute to the best of our abilities. in which each part is recognized and credited. in which there is a forum for all voices to be heard. in which our success of the common endeavor and to the success of others. in which we can differ and hold different point of views without retreating from the community. in which we are free to show how we feel every bit good as what we think. in which our value to society is straight related to the quality of our committedness and attempt. and in which we take attention of each other” ( p. 74 ) .

This observation. albeit a really long sentence. says much about the importance of respectful interaction in a communal environment. As we see in this instance. leading was non about place. Juror # 1 was designated but was incompetent in the function. It was Juror # 8. a quiet. intellectual. unassuming. low adult male. armed merely with strong belief and lovingness that turned the tide of the determination that saved a boy’s life. Kouzes & A ; Posner provide an even more utmost illustration ( vs. what we consider normal in an organisational leading analysis ) . They discuss the success of a new theoretical account at General Mills in which no formal leader is assigned to the squad.

Rather. they speak of leading as a accomplishment set and processs that can be learned irrespective of formal placement. They were able to show that self-led squads in their organisation are more successful at accomplishing ends than direction groups ( Credibility. p. 156 ) . The formal leading in this instance was so weak that an informal squad developed and in the terminal. were successful. We are ne’er told whether or non the male child. in world was guilty or non guilty in the violent death of his male parent but it is immaterial to the existent narrative. The achievement of the squad was to bring forth an result that served the intent for which they were formed. to make up one’s mind whether or non the suspect was guilty beyond a sensible uncertainty. This they accomplished and the end of the procedure was realized.

Mentions

Autry. J. A. ( 1991 ) . Love and Profit. New York. Morrow Publishers. Christensen. Sandra & A ; Kohls. John. ( 2003 ) Ethical Decision Making in Times of Organizational Crisis. BUSINESS & A ; SOCIETY. Vol. 42 No. 3. Gibb. J. R. . ( 1961 ) . Defensive Communication. Journal of Communication. 11-12. 141-148. Johnson. Craig E. . ( 2007 ) . Ethical motives in the Workplace – Tools and Tactics for Organizational Transformation. Thousand Oaks. CA. Sage Publications.

Kouzes. James M. & A ; Posner. Barry Z. ( 1993 ) . Credibility. San Francisco. CA. Jossey – Bass