The motion picture ? cardinal fantastic Men? is roughly a unexampled hu humankind who is accuse of stabbing his fuck off to final examinatione. The twelve jurors break to decide whether the def ceaseant is guilty or innocent. If the untested man is found guilty, at that place is a mandatory death sentence (the control panel needs to be unanimous in their decision). At the preliminary vote, eleven of the twelve jurors vote the upstart man guilty. henry Fonda is the only wiz who voted the accused as non guilty because he doesn?t need to use up off the defendant to the death penalty without dealing it. byout the movie, hydrogen uses discordant entitles of loss leadership in which I leave behind wrangle notwithstanding in the following section.
Question 1:At the beginning, heat content uses the patronageing style of leadership from Hersey and Blanchard?s Situational Leadership framework. In this style, total heat demonstrates low business focus and high descent focus. As menti angiotensin-converting enzymed previously, at the beginning of the deliberation process enthalpy is the only one who votes not guilty, e very(prenominal)body else voted guilty without really persuasion about their decision. total heat needed to talk about it in advance reservation a serious decision concerning a young man?s life. Compared to other jurors, enthalpy was hard to r each(prenominal) a discussion rather than an argument. He expressed no adherence to either position but wanted to discuss the case in an broad-minded manner. Although other jurors got mad and started yelling, Henry stayed calmed throughout the part and was a good listener. He was nerve-racking to find out why the other jurors voted guilty and trying to get their cooperation (this was seen when Henry was elaborating on the juror?s storys of their prime(a) for voting guilty). As well, he was trying to motivate persons at bottom the company and keep them rivet; only several jurors were not cooperating and there was a lack of commitment (although the jurors possess the competency to come to an mark offment). They were constantly interrupting him, shouting, and at one point cardinal jurors were playing ?tic-tac-toe?. They were not open-minded and didn?t want to listen to what others had to say. Almost everyone in the room wanted to reserve but in the end Henry was sufficient to get others to reconsider their position. This leadership style was appropriate when comparing it to the multitude?s curing. Although the jurors were competent to examine this case in striking details, they were refusing to do so and were not showing any commitment. Henry was able to persuade them to cooperate and participate (high focus on relationship) in which it led him into another leadership style onrush; coaching.
A second leadership style that was used by Henry was the coaching style. In this style, Henry demonstrates high caper focus and high relationship focus. The jurors were several(prenominal)what willing to discuss the situation but Henry reinforced his suggestion of talk about it before making any final decision. The jury did have the competence to oppose on a verdict but lacked commitment. They mandatory direction from the leader in ordinate to get them going. By persuading the gray man to change his vote, it gave the company an opportunity to discussion the situation. As a consequence, Henry was able to change others minds and feelings concerning the young man.
Throughout the deliberation, Henry gave his mind and created reinvigorated options and ideas in which he raised valid and logical points. He looked at the situation from disparate point of views, for interpreter; when they investigated the witnesses? credibility. He analyzed several accompaniments from the night of the murder and he re-enacted received scenes in order to essay his point. The re-enactment eventually got the interest of others in the room in which it triggered their curiosity to hear what Henry had to say. He had several counter arguments throughout the deliberation asking others questions concerning the situation, for instance; is it possible the boy lost his knife and someone else stabbed his father with a similar knife? He got others to reflect about the situation more seriously without telling them exactly what to do. He exhibited high relationship with other jurors when they began to discuss the situation more seriously, for instance; when they discussed the murder weapon and another juror showed interest, Henry quickly turned his attention to him. Throughout the deliberation he reputeed quiet members and formed alliances. This leadership style was useful because Henry couldn?t have told others what to do but the jurors needed direction. He wasn?t very direct in his overture in the sense of telling them what to do or else he may have encountered a broad amount of resistance. preferably he got the flow of communication going by stating his opinion and clarifying his thoughts which got the involvement of others.
I don?t rely the other two leadership styles were used to a great extent by Henry. I don?t adjourn him using the directing style in which as a leader he tells others what to do. Many of the discussions in the deliberating room were arouse by Henry; however he did not have to tell anyone what to do. For example, Henry began the discussion of the murder weapon however Lee Cobb is the one who asked about the credibility of the old man and his testimony. The discussion of the angle of the stab wound was initiated by crapper Fiedler, and Joseph Sweeney discovered the indented impressions on knucklebones Klugman?s nose in which the old woman had the same marks. As well, the delegating style was not used because of the lack of motivation and willingness demonstrated by the followers. Henry wasn?t able to sit back and charge the group to get on with the task of discussing the situation.
Throughout the movie, Henry visualised the appropriate attitudes and leadership style according to the readiness level of the group. He emerged as a leader because of the respect that he earned and his ability to be both task and maintenance oriented. He was honest and open to exploration and remained open-minded throughout the deliberation.
Question 3:As stated by Rothwell (2007) a force out resource is anything that helps individuals attain their goals. Essentially there are five elemental power resources that an individual groundwork possess, much(prenominal) as; selective information, expertise, punishments and rewards, individualised qualities, and legitimate authority (p.301-302). Throughout the jury deliberation there are several primary power resources that are exhibited by different jurors. I will describe the power resources of three members of the jury; Henry Fonda, Jack Klugman, and Joseph Sweeny.
To begin with, Henry displayed power resources in two areas: personal qualities and legitimate authority. Throughout the deliberation, Henry was able to deflect others peculiarly with his charisma. He was able to change the minds and actions of others with different tactics. Henry possesses great communication skills and he is able to persuade others with his intelligence. He took the situation seriously and wanted to discuss it rationally before making any decisions. Throughout the discussion he remained calm and had the endurance to face others. It seems like Henry knew which actions were appropriate in different circumstances, for instance; when to argue or ask questions. He portrayed a character that gained respect from others; as a result he emerged as a leader. He was able to enlarge on other?s thoughts which helped keep the group focused on the situation. Henry was able to modulate the group because of the influence he possessed over them. The fact that Henry emerged as a leader gave him greater authority compared to others. His vote at the beginning gave him the greatest power ? he was the only one who voted not guilty. Henry?s power resources had several influences on the final outcome of the deliberation because he had influence on the decisions of the other jurors.
Jack displayed power resources with his expertise. His expertise emerged near the end of the deliberation when the group was discussing the angle of the stab wound. Various jurors were trying to figure out how the angle could have been downwards and that it was very awkward. They re-enacted the scene and came to a conclusion; however Jack had a counter-argument. He was able to use valuable and useful information that others did not possess.
Jack had previous experience with a flick-knife knife and explained to the group how anyone who?s ever used one would handle it. He was able to convince others with his expertise and influenced their decisions. This had an influence on the final outcome because they came to a conclusion that perchance the young man did not stab his father.
Joseph displayed power resources through information power when the group was discussing the credibility of the testimony of the old man and old woman. During this discussion, Henry was speculating with the facts obtained in the trial and seek to make sense of it. He uses information as power because it is unavailable to others. The fact that he is an old man himself makes it easier for him to translate the situation which he then explained to the group, for instance; the old man wouldn?t lie but perhaps he do himself conceive that he heard those words. Having information that is perceived to be unavailable to others does have a great influence on the rest of the group and their decision to vote not guilty.
unconstipated though the three jurors mentioned above brought different power resources to the group, the fact that these power resources received support from the rest of the group make them influential.
Question 5:Unanimity rule is often used in juries in which all members mustiness agree on the decision. As explained by Rothwell (2007), a consensus is sphereed when all members have had the opportunity to express their opinions or concerns. A true consensus requires three elements: agreement, commitment, and ecstasy of all members. Members must be able to say that they agree and support the decision (p.263).
Throughout the deliberation we see each juror basically change their vote one at a metre; however a viable explanation for their reasoning was not always given. Joseph Sweeney changed his vote to give Henry support, George Voskovec changed his mind because of his reasonable doubt, and Jack Warden because he wants to be dismissed.
The group was able to discuss the situation and stated their concerns in which they analyse in mingled ways (i.e. re-enactment). They had no time constraints to reach a consensus decision. All of the jurors? voices were heard in the process; they had a chance to express their view although at the beginning jurors did not speak up because they were afraid of more dominant jurors such as Lee Cobb. But in the end they were able to collectively discuss the situation.
I don?t believe the group came to a true consensus because not every individual supports the group?s decision. It is not true consensus when an individual agree because they don?t want to spend more time than necessary in the deliberation. Jack Warden clearly stated when changing his vote that he was sick of all the talking and wanted to attend the ball game. As well, each individual should commiserate and agree with the issue, in this case the young man be not guilty, and must support the group?s final decision. I don?t believe there is support from all twelve jurors because ?once unanimous agreement has been reached, members must be willing to defend the decision to outsiders? (Rothwell, 2007, p.263). It seems like some jurors may have changed their vote because of social pressures. As well, it was never argued that the young man is innocent simply that others couldn?t prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
in that location are various concepts of leadership displayed throughout the movie ?Twelve Angry Men?. Henry Fonda emerged as a leader because of his motivation and respect earned from others. Although he was surrounded by intimidating people he was able to emerge into various leadership styles. There is a lot to learn from this movie and it shows that anyone is able to influence others through effective leadership.
ReferencesLumet, S. (Director). (1957). Twelve Angry Men. United States: United Artists.
Rothwell, D. J. (2007). In Mixed Company: communication in Small Groups and Team (6th edition). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment