Leadership Within the 12 Angry Men Essay

Throughout the film, there is seemingly more than 1 drawing card byout the jury as according to Nicks interpretation of a leader being that there were multiple influences and instances that persuaded the decisions of others. Initially the occurrence is composed of a biased and opinionated jury that is almost nemine contradicente convinced the defendant is guilty. Throughout the scene, there is a slow just now sure change of mind throughout the jury as the protagonist, jurywoman 8, successfully persuades the other jurors who initially voted the boy guilty of murder to only investigate and examine the fact which eventually leads to the confirmation and agreement of fair doubt among the jury. Juror 8s effective pursuithip was best be by his consistent approach and solution to the fighting that initially had nothing even listening.Juror 8 knew what he was standing up for, good justice, even in the face of adversity as he was challenged by everyone in the room and his willin gness and courage to assume the responsibility and challenge the untrue (198). He is also seen as a leader of the group through the honesty and integrity he displayed by acting in conformation with solid moral principles (41) as well as a use up to reach an honest verdict by convincing the group to picture at all the possibilities despite the obvious and mistaken. Juror 3 would best be classified as an alienated follower as his prepossession against the defendant clouds his judgment, placing a bias on why he thinks the boy is guilty.As it turns out, his own son that he hasnt seen for 2 years had grown up challenging his authority and rejecting his morals providing the basis for the choler that is displayed so bullheadedly until the very bitter end. As alienated followers are capable, they focus exclusively on the short plan of attacks and have experienced setbacks and obstacles (195) as did Juror 3 when initially, he had convincingly and mindlessly persuaded the others of t he defendants guiltiness as a result of the anger he tangle from the bitter relationship he had with his son.Juror 10 could most definitely be classified as conformist follower as his stubborn belief in the defendants guiltiness was supported by a mindless and intolerant argument supported by his racist, bigoted comments. Initially Juror 10 willingly participated in the heated unless convinced discussion as there was little doubt almost the defendants guilt and conflict was at a minimum. As the tables turned and tension rose, Juror 10 found himself concerned with avoiding conflict (195) and became less of a contributor to the conversation.As with Juror 8, in all situation in which there is an uncertainty or doubt present, peculiarly regarding a decision with such major implications such as the one presented to the Twelve Angry Men, I find it highly necessity to further investigate and take all things into consideration before coming to a decision. The suspicion of shady, ques tionable 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.