Leadership Within the 12 Angry Men Essay

Throughout the film, in that location is seemingly more than one attracter end-to-end the venire as according to cut offs definition of a attractor being that at that place were multiple influences and instances that persuaded the decisions of opposites. ab initio the situation is composed of a dyed and opinionated jury that is al close to nem con convinced the defendant is guilty. Throughout the scene, there is a slow but genuine change of mind throughout the jury as the protagonist, juryman 8, successfully persuades the other jurors who initially voted the son guilty of mop up to further go over and examine the feature which eventually leads to the confirmation and agreement of fairish doubt among the jury. juror 8s effective followership was best represented by his consistent approach and solution to the contrast that initially had nobody even listening. juryman 8 knew what he was standing up for, proper justice, even in the formula of adversity as he was chal lenged by everyone in the room and his willingness and courage to sham the responsibility and challenge the assumed (198). He is also seen as a leader of the group through the honesty and virtue he displayed by acting in accordance with solid moral principles (41) as well as a beat back to reach an honest verdict by convincing the group to look at all the possibilities despite the obvious and assumed. Juror 3 would best be categorise as an alienate follower as his prejudice against the defendant clouds his judgment, placing a turn on why he thinks the boy is guilty.As it turns out, his own son that he hasnt seen for 2 years had fully grown up challenging his authority and rejecting his ethical motive providing the basis for the vexation that is displayed so obstinately until the very bitter end. As alienated followers are capable, they focus alone on the shortcomings and have experienced setbacks and obstacles (195) as did Juror 3 when initially, he had convincingly and mi ndlessly persuaded the others of the defendants guilt feelings as a result of the anger he felt from the bitter alliance he had with his son.Juror 10 could most definitely be classified as conformist follower as his contrary belief in the defendants guiltiness was support by a mindless and intolerant argument supported by his racist, bigoted comments. Initially Juror 10 willingly participated in the heated up yet convinced discussion as there was little doubt some the defendants guilt and negate was at a minimum. As the tables off and tension rose, Juror 10 demonstrate 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 uncertainty or doubt present, oddly regarding a decision with such major(ip) implications such as the one presented to the xii Angry Men, I give away it highly necessary to further investigate and take all things into consideration sooner coming to a decis ion. The suspicion of shady, suspect behavior 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.