The film, 12 Angry Men , plays on a psychological mind while at the same time highlighting various features of organizational behavior. As 12 jury of men gather in a room to decide on the fate of an 18-year-old boy accused his father’s murder, the group goes under the four stages of group development which are forming, norming and performing. Together with demonstrating the stages, they undergo critical organizational processes among them decision making and other aspects of OB. At the forming stage that represents an initial stage of group members coming together characterized by uncertainty and anxiety, the jurors are cautious with their verdicts, and each one of them seeks to be accepted by all the others (French, 2011). At this stage, the jurors have voted 11 against one of the gilt of the boy but none has had the time to explain the reason for their verdict including the single dissenting juror 8. The second storming stage is normally a stage where competition and conflicts are at their peak. The members here get an understanding of what task is ahead, and their respective roles in executing it thus become more serious and confident (French, 2011). The jury at this stage has understood the real task ahead, and members have stopped voting for guilty or not guilty just for the sake of it. The votes for not guilty first increase to two when juror 9 joins juror 8. Another vote balances the jurors at 6 on both sides, and the competition between them gets stiffer.
The third stage is the norming stage at which the group members now get the necessary clarity and becomes one cohesive unit. There is high morale as members acknowledge the experience, skills and talent of each member and utilize it effectively (Griffin and Moorhead, 2011). The jury at this stage is now serious and has embarked on deciding the cases using critical analysis and not driven by their own personal attitudes and life driven opinions. Juror 8 finally gets the chance to present his reasons for not finding the boy guilty. First, the knife that was used to murder the boy’s father had initially been termed as a unique one and with a witness claiming to have sold it to him a few hours before the murder, the boy must have used it to kill his father. Surprisingly, jury 8 is able to prove that the knife was not unique at all by presenting a similar knife that he bought near the boy’s home. All witnesses are critically analyzed with juror 9 who was initially for the verdict of the boy being guilty calls into question the testimony given by one of the eyewitnesses, a woman, who claimed that she had seen the boy murdering his father through the window of her bedroom. She wears glasses, and there are no chances that she may have had them on in her bed when she does not have them even in court. At the same time, it was not possible to hear the boy shouting in the midst of a noisy passing electric train. Having analyzed all the testimonies of witnesses, the jury is now in the last stage of performing.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
At the last stage of performing, group members are unified, supportive and loyal. They reason together, and they yield productive results and achieving a high autonomy in their decision-making process. The jury is finally at this stage (Griffin and Moorhead, 2011). They realize that jurors, 3 and 10 verdicts are influenced by issues not related to the case. Jury 3 has issues with children because of his son who fell out of his control but later lest his resentment go and finds the boy innocent while jury 10 is simply prejudiced and wants the boy hanged just because of his race. The other juries silence juror 10 having understood he is prejudiced and not well behaved and finally, all the votes are for the innocence of the boy. The task ahead has eventually been executed, and the boy’s life has been saved.
There are other elements of organizational behaviour that come up in this case in addition to the development stages. First, the attitude has overtaken the legal process and jurors instead of weighing the provided evidence are driven by their emotions and attitudes towards the accused boy. Emotions have particularly overtaken juror 3 who judges the boy because his boy wronged him and now generalizes all the others (Cherniss and Adler, 2000). Jury 10 on the other hand practices discrimination in the workplace and his verdict is based on the boy’s race and not any of the testimonies given by the witnesses. Juror 8 has demonstrated, focus, determination and commitment in his work. While all the other jurors were initially for the boy’s death sentence, he has done all in his experience, skills and expertise to make them see sense and ensure that his ultimate goal of saving the boy’s life has been saved. This is the only juror who took time and even used his resources to buy a knife similar to the one that strangled the deceases to prove that it was not in any way unique. He is passionate about his work and does it diligently without being influenced by the majority that is unjust. His initial vote together with that of juror nine has demonstrated an effective minority influence. Their weighing of the testimonies given by the woman across the street and the man who suffered from stroke has been able to persuade the other jurors that the evidence was incredible and unreliable. There has been an effective change of attitude from all the jurors except juror 8 who has stood his ground and ensured that justice of the boy has prevailed. He achieves his goal and is proud of it.
Communication has often played a key role in organizations in all processes and especially when it comes to conflict resolution and decision making processes (Normore, Long and Javidi, 2016). This has been confirmed in this particular case. Through effective communication where every member is allowed to speak out their mind and give their reasons for their verdicts, jurors have finally come to a consensus. Juror 8 has been able to explain to him why a knife would not be enough reason and evidence of the boy murdering his father while juror 9 logically disputes the woman’s testimony. Juror 10 and 3 however lack emotional intelligence and allow emotions to overtake them while on duty which would have resulted in the murder of an innocent boy were it not for the determination of juror 8 who refuses to follow the majority and stands for what he believes is right and sacrifices time and resources to prove his point.
The case has presented a variety of issues that are experienced in the workplace, and that would impact the performance of an organization. A case that initially had 11 votes against one ends up with all the votes joining the minority one. If the case did not require a unanimous ruling, the boy would have lost his life not for being proven guilty but because of jurors who followed the majority, some who were influenced by emotions derived from their life experiences and another who was racially prejudiced.
References
Cherniss, C., & Adler, M. (2000). Promoting emotional intelligence in organizations: Make training in emotional intelligence effective. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
French, R. (2011). Organizational behaviour . Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.
Griffin, R. W., & Moorhead, G. (2011). Organizational behavior . Cengage Learning.
Normore, A. H., Long, L. W., & Javidi, M. (2016). Handbook of research on effective communication, leadership, and conflict resolution.
