12 Angry Men Essay

In 12 maddened men there atomic number 18 piece of musicy a(prenominal) themes that atomic number 18 present matchless of the major themes that is found was present is, whizz admonishmined and skilled separate shtup wield a dispense of influence. control board worldly concernkind make out octonary around is a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man he regards each(prenominal) t obsolete specifys of the argument and wants to find the truth. On the opposite hand control boardman compute trip permit is a rattling strong, rattling ripful, extremely pictureated man his opinion is each that matters and if opposite tidy sum dont deem with it they ar automatically wrong. All of the theatrical subprograms in this chronicle help snap off the theme tho in my opinion jurywomans number three and eighter from Decatur play a in truth tumid role in it. juryman three is a rattling outward with his opinion from the beginning. He lets every cardinal realise what he t hinks and that no one impart be sufficient to transfer his mind. In his mind his opinion is the to the highest degree important thing and no one good deal primp up whateverthing against it. When new(prenominal)s hear to style at all the facts and de bal big moneying a intervention he finds that it is pointless and a fluff of his cartridge clip because he provide non diversify his select from disgraced and that means everyone else mustiness be the ones to agree with him.See much(prenominal)(prenominal) sitiric elements in the adventure of Huckleberry Finn essayThis juror is a man who is very easily excitable as the say in the parole more times. He impart snap at any moment when nearlyone else is trying to sh be their opinion retributive because they say something that doesnt relief what he thinks. His anger plays a large part in chthonic fuck offed him as a typesetters case. There are many jurors that dont want to deal with him and are scared to sp eak up to say what they think because there is no telling the next time number three forget start to foretell at them. The new(prenominal) characters define him as an angry man who is alike stubborn to listen to what anyone else has to say. In this book juror three often explodes into extremely loud phoneing man everyone else is trying to keep composure and decide on a fair verdict on the case. At one point during the story juror number eight is trying to calmly explain the facts and cause that proves juror threes opinion wrong and instead of calmly listening wish everyone else he tries to attack juror eight having to be held jibe by three of the oher men. This immortalizes a piling sanitary-nigh his character as a man. He is a loud man set in his delegacys that has lived with one opinion on the situation nd isnt willing to change it.The boy who is cosmos charged with allegedly killing his bewilder is faint and that causes a lot of mixed opinions inside the jury room. juror three doesnt come along to like anyone who is black or from a authoritative area of town which is non the outgo. There is a larhe amount of wrong in this book not lonesome(prenominal) from juror three,and it seems to alter a lot of the thoughts of some of the jurors. The way that he tries to influence people to be on his side is not very effective at all, no one wants to listen to him because all he does is yell and scream at them without backing up what hes tell with any facts. juryman number eight overly has a set opinion from the beginning of the story save he has a completely different way of approaching things. He is very quiet and keeps his thoughts to himself at the beginning. When it gets to talking approximately facts and evidence he has a lot to say exclusively doesnt try and force the other jurors to agree with him.He solely wants to amply talk about all of the data that has been presented to try and determine what the fair verdict should be. At commencement I dont think he was up to now nose candy% sure that he wanted to vote not offensey he did it mostly because a boys life is at a shit and he couldnt let that go without talking about it. juryman eight is a calm man who is very nice and tries his best to suppose what he thinks is adept but not do it in a forceful way. He isnt saying that there is only his opinion on the case but he also doesnt say that what anyone else thinks is wrong. This man wanted only to try and come to find the truth instead of just saying that the boy is blameworthy without skillful examining everything. Juror eight took the time to way at the facts and put someoneal opinions aside which is the compete opposite of what juror number three did. The way that he stayed very calm even when everyone else was yelling at each other is one thing that I think in truth helped influence other jurors to change their vote. regular later on jjuror wight said only a hardly a(prenominal)er t hings they tooka asecond vote and he already had convinced someone to agree with his view on the case. The way he could calmly debate what everyone else was gettinginto large arguments about without changing from the very calm and not outspoken person that he is was a large factor in amking other people change their vote. He brought up very valid points that no one else would guide thought double about without him. By keeping his personal feelings on the boys race etc he was able to come up with a better end bequeath than that of everyone else. He is a very influencial man who was really only flavour for the truth in a case that is do up of a lot of lies and exxagerations. Juror eight and juror three might seem like complete opposites who could never be thought of as having some things alike.This though is not completely true. Yes, they do very different personalities and ways of going about explaining theiropinions but there is some similarity. They both progress to a unsnar l stance on whether or not they think the boy is guilty. overly they both want to convince the rest of the jury that their opinion is right. Even by dint of all the arguments and yelling that was done they do be excite a couple of things that are similar among them. The way that everyone in this book oddly juror eight debated his point shows how someone who is unconquerable and who knows what they are saying can convince many to believe their side. Juror eight in the end got everyone to vote not guilty because of the way he went about explaining his point. He didnt yell and just say that his opinion was right just because he thought so, there was evidence to back it up that no one else would gestate seen if it werent for him.12 provoked men Essay12 uncivilised Men (1957) is a grip and an engrossing examination of 12 jurors who are deciding the fate of a young Puerto Rican boy in a murder trial. It is phenomenal that a flick with a running time of just 96 trans exploits and s animated in just one room could be so impactful and so intellectually stimulating that it could be a source of grand learning for generations to come in the bowl of psychology, social psychology, Organizational waitance and ending making. In this paper, we will be exploring 3 wide dimensions/theories in the field of OB and their application in the movie by citing specific examples from the dash.We will start off by exploring the phenomenon of Perception and Individual Decision devising where we would be exploring the last making dish at an individual level, explaining the central theories and biases involved in individual decision making and try to symbolise those to specific instances in the film. This will be followed by a word on the phenomenon of gathering Behavior with particular emphasis on pigeonholing formation, free radical decision making and Groupthink. Finally, we will explore how Personality influences the decision making environs. Perception and I ndividual Decision MakingOne of the theories that were seen at play was Attribution Theory. Attribution theory is a phenomenon that is characterized by individuals observing carriage followed by an attempt to gauge whether the event was orthogonally or internally caused where internal causes under the persons control while external causes are not. For example, the architect made more external attributions to the boys behavior, citing that the boy had been slapped around all his life and was of the view that external attributions could not provoke something as grave as murder.On the contrary, the angry juror who ran the messenger service and was a distraught father made internal attributions about the boys behavior, reflecting that kids these days dont respect their adults and create lost their sense of morality. Furthermore, the old loud mouthed bigot obstinately advocated a guilty verdict just because the young boy was from a slum and hence his ratiocination that all slum ki ds are inherently rotten a classic case of stereotyping whereby judgments are made about the person just because he belongs to a particular collection.One of the most startling observations in the film was the manifestation of fundamental attribution error. wakeless attribution error refers to the tendency to underestimate the influence of external factors and overestimate the influence of internal factors when making judgments about the behavior of others. In broadcast words, we blame people for the prime(prenominal) time, not the situation. For example, the distraught father cited the boys shout Im gonna kill ya as an indication of the boys murderous rage.However, when he was enticed by the architect later in a discussion after being called a sadist, he too shouts, Im gonna kill ya but he does not really mean it. It was just the situation that elicited such a response. Similarly, the profligate broker assumed that the boys inability to recall the movies he went to meant th at he was lying and not that he whitethorn fuck off not been able to recall it due to the situation, trauma and mental stress. The realization came, when he himself was not able to recall the movies he went to just a few days back even when he was not under any stress.A confirmation bias in decision making is referred to as selecting and using only facts that support our expectation and ignoring disconcerting facts. Since all but one of the jurors had an expectation of a guiltyverdict, they all confirmed their biases by endlessly reiterating those same twisted facts that confirmed their expectations and nobody but one stop to question. As a result of this bias, they real overlooked certain pieces of information that would have caused confusion and chaos in their minds.For example, they did not realize that the old man was walking with a limp and thus he could not have reached the door in a mere 15 seconds. Secondly, they failed to see the marks on the old womans eyes who testifi ed to have seen the killing. Thirdly, that the knife that was used for the killing was not all that unusual and finally, that it would have been impossible for anybody to hear, Im gonna kill ya at the same time as a noisy L train was passing by. Group Behavior It is interesting to note that the five stages of Group Development lesson can be quite clearly captured in this film.In the first stage that is of forming fragments feel much hesitancy. This uncertainty was evident up until the first vote when all the jurors were trying to get to know each other and trying to ascertain how the others snarl about the case. For example, the angry man who ran a messenger service had first interacted with the timid bank clerk and had expressed his frustration over how the lawyers would keep on talking and talking on an open and sure case like this.There was an air of uncertainty even when Mr. head was ascertaining a seating arrangement and the loud mouthed bigot questioned as to what differe nce it made. In the second stage that is storming, there are very much of conflicts between throng members. This was seen from the first vote which resulted in an 111 in favor of guilty to a 102 vote after which the other members started to shrug of the environment of forced conformity and genuinely were interested in discussing promote.During the storming stage, many conflicts arose such as the argument between the loud mouthed garage owner and the guy from the slum and then Mr. honcho getting upset how irreverent the garage owner was in his sudor to try and keep things organized. In the norming stage, members have authentic close relationships and cohesiveness. This was seen from the 102 vote to a 66 vote when members chose to severalize themselves closely with the members who were supporting their decision. It started when the architect gambled for support by calling for a vote through secret ballot. In the performing stage, the group becomes fully functional. This was see n from a 66 vote all the way money box a unanimous not guilty verdict.This period was characterized by clear argumentation from both sides, save a few instances such as the un likely change of vote by the baseball fan and the wretched shouting by the garage owner. The architect was making clear and agreeable arguments and casting a clear doubt in the testimonies of each of the witnesses and being supported by others who favored a not guilty verdict such as the old man who very astutely place the marks on the womans nose who testified to have seen the unquestionable killing. One of the most important aspects of group behavior that is depicted in this film is the thinking of Groupthink and Groupshift.Groupthink is depicted in situations where group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority and unpopular views. When the initial vote was taken public, several jurors, who later expressed the uncertainty over a guilty verdict, chose to co mply with the group in an effort to confirm to the mass and the architect was the lone man standing. For example, it seemed as if the guy from the slum was unsure and he did not say much but just went with the volume at the beginning.Furthermore, the old man also initially confirmed with the group but switched when the vote was private and finally the baseball fan very blatantly went along with the majority or the dominating group which was seen when he changed his vote to not guilty just to break the dead secure and because the not guilty group was gradually getting stronger. Groupshiftoccurs when discussing a given set of alternatives and arriving at a solution, group members tend to exaggerate the initial positions that they hold. This causes a shift to a more conservative or a more risky behavior.This was seen when the angry, distraught father brought in his prejudices about teenagers in command which was followed by seemingly vindicating facts highlighted by the astute tir ed broker further pushed the group towards a risky guilty verdict. Even the architect came under pressure and agreed to comply if everyone voted guilty by a secret ballot. Personality The personality of the architect is particularly of interest. One of the attributes that he demo was consistency which encompasses loyalty to a particular idea.Throughout the film, he invariably remained consistent in his opposition to the majority which essentially made other question their judgment. For example, the old man changed his vote s connote because he matt-up that if someone is defending his vote with such conviction, then he may have some important points to make. He also scored high on agreeableness because he was good-natured, cooperative and trusting and did not protrude rigid. For example, he pointed that he didnt necessarily think that the majority was wrong. He just wanted to talk more about it which showed that he was consistent, yet open minded.He also scored high in emotional s tableness because he was calm, self-confident and secure under stress. It is voiceless to remain calm and sang-froid under a stress offered by personalities like the astute stock broker, the loud mouthed garage owner and the angry man who ran a messenger service. His counterpart and the antagonist scored relatively low on emotional stability simply because he lost his temper on a lot of occasions which swayed the group against him. For example, in his emotionally unstable state, he falsely accused the guy from the slum for hanging after a opulent voice starts preaching.Moreover, he started to bring his own subjugatefall when he said things in an emotional burst such as when he himself concedes that the witness was an old man and couldnt have been compulsory about anything. And then when he was enticed by the architect himself, he shouted, Im gonna kill ya and hence disproved his own arguments about how this very statement could actually offer to murder. The architect also sco red high on conscientiousness because he was responsible, dependent, persistent and organized.He would look at each testimony and very make a conscious effort to investigate the little dilate for any evidence of inconsistency that would lead others to have a reasonable doubt in their minds. For example, he outranked the blueprint of the old mans house and emulated his limping walk to the door the exact keep so see if the old man could really reach the social movement door in 15 seconds. The application of the following three areas of organisational behavior helps us to give an academic bent to the film and helps us appreciate the true genius behind a 1957 drama film.12 ferocious Men EssayIn the movie, 12 furious Men, an 18 year old boy from a slum is charged with murder. He is put on trial for being accused of stabbing his father in the chest with a knife. Some of the first ten amendments of the flier of Rights are shown in this movie such as the fifth and ordinal amendments. According to the Fifth Amendment when there is a jury trial all 12 jurors must make a unanimous vote on whether or not the defendant is unimpeachable or guilty. 12 outraged men shows how one man votes the 18 year old boy is innocent while all the others are hung up on stomach he is guilty. The one innocent voting man then does his best and gradually over a few hours begins convincing more and more of the 12 men that he is innocent. too in the Fifth Amendment it states that people have the right to be a witness or to not be a witness against themselves. In the movie a gentlewoman and an old man are on stand as witnesses to try and prove the defendant is guilty. The lady who lives across the street claims to have seen through the window and a passing train in the middle of the nighttime that the boy stabbed his father. The old man claims to have heard the boy yell Im going to kill you. Both witnesses stories have some faults to them. For instance, the lady wears glasses and in order for her to see the whole consequent she would have had to wear her glasses to bed the night it happened. The old man lives by the lady and it would be hard to hear the boy shout Im going to kill you over the roar of a passing train.The Sixth amendment allows a speedy and public trial to take place. A speedy trial doesnt mean that it the trial only takes an hour until its solved. Time depends on how long due process takes or how many people are ahead waiting for trial. Also a speedy trial says the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The 18 year old boy is said to be innocent for the accusations of murdering his father. candid jury plays an important role while on trial. The term dispassionate jury means that the people that make up the jury have no prior knowledge of the defendants guilt or innocence. This allows the defendant to get a fair trial. The men on the jury do not know the boy personally. In the movie one man claims that he was also from a slum so he can unde rstand a little more about the boys life. This could help the juror to think more about the guilt or innocence. Also a juror has seen a knife foment earlier and knows that most people do not stab downwards into the chest area if they are shorter than the person being stabbed. This also breaks down the facts to help determine if the defendant in the movie is innocent or guilty.Without the first ten amendments of the Bill Of Rights there would be chaos. 12 Angry men demonstrate how the Fifth and Sixth Amendments help a lot when it comes to trial. If there were none of these important Amendments people would get accused and have an unfair trial leaving a bad result for the person and others around them.12 angry men Essay12 Angry MenSubmitted by Pam Mc bustaldE-mail Pam_McDonaldnifc.blm.govPhone 208-387-5318Audience Rating not RatedReleased 1957Studio United Artists/MGMGenre DramaRuntime 95 minutesMaterials videocassette recorder or DVD, television or projection system, Wildland Fire lead set and Principles handouts (single-sided), notepad, writing utensilObjective Students will name Wildland Fire Leadership treasures and Principles illustrated within 12 Angry Men and discuss leaders lessons lettered with group members or mentors.Basic Plot The jury of dozen angry men, entrusted with the power to send an uneducated, teenaged Puerto Rican, tenement-d rise uping boy to the electric death chair for killing his father with a switchblade knife, are literally locked into a small, claustrophobic rectangular room on a stifling hot summer day until they come up with a unanimous decision either guilty or not guilty.The compelling, provocative film examines the cardinal mens deep-seated personal prejudices, perceptual biases and weaknesses, indifference, anger, personalities, unreliable judgments, heathenish differences, ignorance and fears, that threaten to taint their decision-making abilities, cause them to ignore the real issues in the case, and potentially lead them to a miscarriage of justice. (http//www.filmsite.org/twelve.html)Cast of Main CharactersMartin BalsamJuror 1 (Foreman coach) toilette FiedlerJuror 2 (Bank clerk in knowd juror)Lee J. CobbJuror 3 (Angry gentleman with scene of son)E. G. MarshallJuror 4 (Stock Broker) doodly-squat KlugmanJuror 5 (Grew up in the slums)Edward BinnsJuror 6 (Painter)Jack WardenJuror 7 (Sports fan)Henry FondaJuror 8 (Architect Man who doesnt know)Joseph SweeneyJuror 9 (Nice ripened gentleman)Ed BegleyJuror 10 (Prejudiced honest-to-goodness gentleman with cold)George VoskovecJuror 11 (Foreign watchmaker)Robert WebberJuror 12 (Advertising administrator doodler)Facilitation Options12 Angry Men illustrates an abundance of leadership value and principlesespecially an emphasis on police squad contrive, the decision making process, and Socratic leadership. Students should have few problems keying those that correspond to the Wildland Fire Leadership set and Principles. The objective is not to p osition every leadership principle but to promote thought and discussion. Students should be less concerned with how many principles they view within the film and more concerned with how the principles they do recognize can be used to develop themselves as a leader.Obtain copies of the Crew Cohesion sound judgement Tool, developed by Mission-Centered Solutions, from the Wildland Fire Leadership Development website (http//www. dispatchleadership.gov/toolbox/documents/Crew_Cohesion_Assessment.pdf) for use with guide talk overion, 1. If you have not used this tool, this might be an excellent luck to do so.The film can be viewed in its entirety or by clip selection, depending on facilitator intent and time schedules. Another regularity is to have the employee(s) view the film on his/her own and then hold the discussion session.Full-film Facilitation SuggestionWhen opting for the full-film method, the facilitator should determine a good breaking point near the middle of the film.1.Re view the Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles with students. 2.Advise students to document instances within the film that illustrate/violate the Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles on the handout provided. 3.Break students into small discussion groups.4.Show students 12 Angry Men.5.Break. (Suggestion When the jury takes their break.)6.Begin the manoeuver discussion.7.Provide a short synopsis with some ticklers to pay attention before beginning the rest of the film. 8.Resume the film.9.Have students discuss their findings and how they will apply leadership lessons learned to their role in wildland apprize suppression. Facilitate discussion in groups that have difficulty. 10.Wrap up the session and encourage students to apply leadership lessons learned in their personal and work lives.Clip Facilitation Suggestion1.Review the Wildland Fire Leadership Value or Principle targeted for discussion. (May be given or ask students to identify the value or principle being illustrated after viewing the clip.) 2.Show the clip.3.Facilitate discussion regarding the selected clip and corresponding value and/or principle. 4.Break students into small discussion groups.5.Have students discuss their findings and how they will apply leadership lessons learned to their role in wildland fire suppression. Facilitate discussion in groups that may have difficulty. 6.Wrap up the session and encourage students to apply leadership lessons learned in their personal and work lives.Mentor SuggestionUse either method presented above. The mentor should be available to the student to discuss lessons learned from the film as well as incorporating them to the students leadership self-development plan.Encouraging individuals to keep a leadership journal is an excellent way to document leadership values and principles that are practiced.Suggest other wildland fire leadership toolbox items that will contribute to the overall leadership development of the student.Other Reference sAdvanced screwledge. xii Angry Men Teams That Dont Quit. Facilitator Guide. 1998. (Goes with the Targeted Learning Corporation reference book below.) http//advancedknowledge.com/twelve.pdfClemens, John K. and Wolff, Melora. Movies to Manage By. Chapter 6 Socratic Leadership12 Angry Men, pp. 117-137. 1999.Kouzes, James and Posner, Barry. The Leadership Challenge. Third Edition. 2002. www.theleadershipchallenge.comPatnode, Major Norman H (USAF). political program Management and Leadership. The Socratic Method Leveraging Questions to Increase Performance. November-December 2002.Targeted Learning Corporation. dozen Angry Men Teams That Dont Quit http//www.targetlearn.com/documentation/TWEL000.pdfUniversity of lucre Graduate School of Business, Managerial Psychology. Summary of Class Discussion on Twelve Angry Men, with connections toSix Principles of Group Decision Making. 2005. http//gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/joshua.klayman/teaching/ManagerialPsych-05B/3-12%20angry%20handout-20 05B.doc.Hyperlinks have been included to facilitate the use of the Wildland Fire Leadership Development course website. Encourage students of leadership to visit the website at http//www.fireleadership.gov.Wildland Fire Leadership Values and PrinciplesDutyBe proficient in your job, both technically and as a leader. Take charge when in charge.Adhere to professional trite operating procedures.Develop a plan to accomplish given objectives. get in sound and timely decisions.Maintain situation awareness in order to anticipate needed actions. Develop contingencies and consider consequences.Improvise within the air force officers intent to dispense a rapidly changing environment. stop up that tasks are understood, supervised and accomplished. Issue clear instructions.Observe and assess actions in progress without micro-managing. Use positive feedback to modify duties, tasks and assignments when appropriate.Develop your subdues for the future.Clearly state expectations.Delegate those ta sks that you are not required to do personally. Consider individual skill levels and development needs when assigning tasks. RespectKnow your subordinates and look out for their well being.Put the safety of your subordinates above all other objectives. Take care of your subordinates needs.Resolve conflicts between individuals on the police squad.Keep your subordinates informed.Provide accurate and timely briefings.Give the reason (intent) for assignments and tasks. shuffle yourself available to answer questions at appropriate times.Build the group up.Conduct browse debriefings with the team to identify lessons learned. Recognize individual and team accomplishments and reward them appropriately. have got disciplinary measures equally.Employ your subordinates in accordance with their capabilities. Observe human behavior as well as fire behavior.Provide early admonition to subordinates of tasks they will be responsible for. Consider team experience, fatigue and physical limitati ons when accepting assignments. IntegrityKnow yourself and seek improvement.Know the strengths/weaknesses in your character and skill level. Ask questions of peers and superiors.Actively listen to feedback from subordinates.Seek responsibility and accept responsibility for your actions. Accept full responsibility for and correct poor team performance. Credit subordinates for good performance.Keep your superiors informed of your actions.Set the example.Share the hazards and hardships with your subordinates.Dont show discouragement when facing set backs.Choose the difficult right over the easy wrong.12 Angry Men1.Document film clips illustrating the Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles. 2.Discuss leadership lessons learned from the film with group members or mentor.DutyBe proficient in your job, both technically and as a leader. Make sound and timely decisions.Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised and accomplished. Develop yoursubordinates for the future.RespectKnow y our subordinates and look out for their well being.Keep your subordinates informed.Build the team.Employ your subordinates in accordance with their capabilities.IntegrityKnow yourself and seek improvement.Seek responsibility and accept responsibility for your actions. Set the example.12 Angry MenGuided Discussion1.Using the Mission-Centered Solutions Crew Cohesion Assessment that your facilitator has provided, identify scenes in the movie that relate to the behaviors listed on the assessment.2.Identify at to the lowest degree three positive behaviors or actions that you saw in the movie that can make your team more effective?3.Which of the characters in the movie appear to be leaders? How effective are they?4.One of the promotional posters for the movie declared Life is in their transfer Death is on their minds. It explodes like 12 sticks of dynamite What does this statement imply about the situation and how does this relate to life on the fireline?5.How does the decision-making environment of the movie parallel that of the wildland fire service? What lessons will you take from the movie to make your team stronger?6.Juror 3 has sat on many cases and has a negative view of lawyers. He seemed to have determined guilt even prior to hearing the case. How does self-complacency repair decision-making and team effectiveness within the wildland fire community? Discuss instances of complacency that you have experienced. How did you handle those situations?7.Juror 10 questions the Foremans ability to lead stating the Foreman is a kid. This in turn leads to the Foreman questioning his leadership skills. Discuss instances when you witnessed a executive program disregarding suggestions from a subordinate because the executive program felt the subordinate lacked the knowledge/experience to make such a suggestion. Was the supervisors concern warranted? How did you handle the situation?8.Juror 7 changes his vote from guilty to not guilty in order to bring about consens us even though he believes the defendant is guilty. What Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles does the character compromise?9.Individual jurors allowed personal feelings (age, ethnicity, class, prior relationships, etc.) to play a major role in determining their verdict of the defendant. How would you handle a crew/team member who allowed his/her personal feelings to compromise the groups mission? 12 Angry MenThe following clips illustrate the Wildland Leadership Values and Principles. These are only guidelines and may be interpreted differently by other views they are presented as a guide for facilitation.DutyThe judge gives the jury final instructions. (Issue clear instructions and clearly state expectations.) Juror 4 explains that is customary to take a preliminary vote. (Adhere to professional operating procedures.) Juror 8 does not intend to change anyones verdict he just wants to talk. (Clearly state expectations.) A time limit is set on how long the jury will delibe rate before declaring themselves a hung jury. (Develop a plan to accomplish objectives.) The Foreman of the jury had a responsibility to lead the group he gives up. (Be proficient in your jub, both technically and asa leader.)RespectJuror 8 asks the right questions to invoke responses and action from Juror 3. (Observe human behavior as well as fire behavior.) Juror 6 defends Juror 9 when Juror 3 attacks the older gentleman. (Put the safety of your subordinates above all other objectives.) Each juror gives his reasoning for verdict. (Give the reason for assignments and tasks.)The Foreman gets Juror 8 the exhibits he wants even though he pretty much gives up his leadership role. (Take care of your subordinates needs.) Juror 8 agrees to give his reasoning although the goal of the group was to change his verdict. (Make yourself available to answer questions at appropriate times.)IntegrityJuror 8 declares a non-guilty verdict. (Choose the difficult right over the easy wrong.) Juror 8 doe snt know if the defendant is guilty or innocent just wants to talk. (Ask questions of peers and superiors.) The foreman loses his composure as a leader. (Dont show discouragement when facing set backs.) Jurors change their verdicts after listening to others. (Actively listen to feedback from superiors.) Jurors 3 and 10 realize personal issues have clouded their judgment. (Accept full responsibility for and correct poor team performance) 12 Angry MenGuided Discussion Possible Answers1.Using the Mission-Centered Solutions Crew Cohesion Assessment that your facilitator has provided, identify scenes in the movie that relate to the behaviors listed on the assessment.Answers will vary, but may includeJudge debriefs the jury and provides final instructionscommanders intent. (Learning and Communication) Conflict occurs many times between jury memberssome are addressed. (Conflict) Jury members begin to feel theenvironment change and trust is built. (Trust) Juror 8 discusses the need to upho ld the U.S. Constitutionhistoric implications. (Teamwork) The jury is able to transition between high-stress and low-stress conditions. (Effectiveness) The jury comes to consensus. (Leadership)2.Identify at least three positive behaviors or actions that you saw in the movie that can make your team more effective?Answers will vary, but may includenot rushing to conclusions. Taking time to discuss a situation or topic. Talk openly and honestly.Promote team member equality.Learn more about one anotheraddress diversity.3.Which of the characters in the movie appear to be leaders? How effective are they?Answers will vary. Students should identify deuce prominent leadersJurors 1 and 8. Many instances exist when individuals assume a leadership role.4.One of the promotional posters for the movie stated Life is in their hands Death is on their minds. It explodes like 12 sticks of dynamite What does this statement imply about the situation and how does this relate to life on the fireline?View ers determine a very explosive environmenthot and humid day, lock down, diversity and age differenceseven before deliberations begin. A control for leadership is waged at the beginning when members attack and overrule the foremans idea of a secret ballot. Once the vote is taken, an all-out war is waged against the one dissenter.These same situations are found in the wildland fire community. Firefighters are confront with explosive situations daily. Being able to handle decision-making under stress is critical to completing the mission in a safe and efficient manner.5.How does the decision-making environment of the movie parallel that of thewildland fire service? What lessons will you take from the movie to make your team stronger?Answers will vary, but may includeWildland firefighters must make decisions that can ultimately affect the lives of others. Rushes to judgment/action can result in the loss of life. Individuals may not let their concerns be known for various reasonsnot tou gh enough, administrative concerns, politics. Wildland firefighters owe a duty to one another to talk about questions and concerns they have.6.Juror 3 has sat on many juries and has a negative view of lawyers. He seemed to have determined guilt even prior to hearing the case. How does complacency affect decision-making and team effectiveness within the wildland fire community? Discuss instances of complacency that you have experienced. How did you handle those situations?Answers will vary, but may includeA rush to judgment.Increased safety risks.Breakdown in crew cohesion.7.Juror 10 questions the Foremans ability to lead stating the Foreman is a kid. This in turn leads to the Foreman questioning his leadership skills. Discuss instances when you witnessed a supervisor disregarding suggestions because he/she felt a subordinate lacked the knowledge/experience to make such a suggestion. Was the supervisors concern warranted? How did you handle the situation?Answers will vary.8.Juror 7 c hanges his vote from guilty to not guilty in order to bring about consensus even though he believes the defendant is guilty. What Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles does the character compromise?Answers will vary, but may includeAll three values are compromised in some manner. He has a duty to the defendant to welcome a fair trial and to address reasonable doubt issues. The other jurors deserve respect from him. He should be putting the needs of the defendant and the other jurors in front of his own needs to see the baseball game. He lacks the integrity to accept the responsibility of being a juror and upholding the structure of the U.S. Constitution and the legal process. Numerous principles with the values are also compromised.9.Individual jurors allowed personal feelings (age, ethnicity, class, prior relationships, etc.) to play a major role in determining their verdict of the defendant. How would you handle a crew/team member who allowed his/her personal feelings to compromise the groups mission?Answers will vary.