12 Angry Men Analysis Essay

The movie xii Angry Men is a film ab start twelve jurors in a murder trial deliberating the guilt or acquittal of a def determinationant on the basis of level-headed doubt. All of the jurors come from actu onlyy different backgrounds and see things in very different perspectives. This essay narrow out be analyzing the group discussion that was dramatized in the film. The issues that will be brought up in this essay are leadership, participation, climate, conflict, and argumentation. One of the leadership theories that is used in this film is the styles theory. The Styles Theory of Leadership examines a collection of specific behaviors that lay out three distinct leadership styles autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. In the beginning of the movie only of the jurors were going to vote the defendant guilty expect for Juror 8. He was the only one of the jurors that wasnt in a rush to go home and go about their business. In his opinion they shouldnt take a man to jail withou t discussing it first. This is an example of a laissez-faire leader. He was laid back and didnt demand to be the leader or to control anyone.He simply asked that they share why they beilieed the defendant was guilty. He then asked them to loisten to what he had to say and if they still didnt believe that in that location was reasonable doubt he would vote guilty so that they could all go home because that is what they wanted. Although he is the odd one out it is idle to the viewer that he is the leader of the jury not the Forman. By the end of the film he had convinced all of the jurors to believe that in that location was reasonable doubt and that the defendant was not guilty. Trait theory was another supposititious approach that was used in the film by Juror 8. memorize AlsoGood Analytical Essay TopicsHe possessed a few leadership traits that persuaded some of the other jurors to listen to him. Juror 8 was intelligent, respectful, open-minded, calm, and had good listening skil ls. At the begioing of the film everyone was yelling at him and telling him that he was crazy. He didnt fight back or get angry he stayed calm. He just wanted everyone to hear him out and have a discussion before acquitting a possibly impeccant man. Juror 8 listened to what everyone had to say and brought up different ways that the grounds could have been wrong. He didnt force or peer drag anyone to change thier vote, but he had such compelling arguments that everyone came to the realization that there was a possibility that the defendant did not kill his father.