Conflict Management Paper: The Group As Arbiter Of Justice And The Rule Of The Minority Influence

ISSANTU TEMBE, ISSA – GROUP 119 OL 301 – GROUP DYNAMICS Nov 20, 2008 The group as arbiter of justice and the rule of the minority influence The film 12 Angry Men is depicting a jury attempting to render a unanimous verdict in the murder trial of a teenage boy. The process whereby the decision is reached in this film is illustrating a situation where a minority arrives to transform the opinion of a majority by exerting effective leadership. The jury in the film is a typical group of a dozen of men, a fairly homogeneous group isolated within a locked room, operating in a high stress atmosphere of heat and time concerns, with pressure to come to a unanimous decision. One of the film's posters described how the workings of the judicial process can be disastrous: "life is in their hands - death is on their minds! At the end, the lonely man with a different opinion among the twelve has changed all the jury’s perception of this murder, so they all as one decided that the teenage boy was “not guilty”. In this paper we are trying to come back on the management of this conflict among the twelve members of this jury. Revisiting the film and some attitudes of the actors, we try to analyze the social dynamics in this group and the opposition between the majority and minority influence (Forsyth 2006, p. 207, fig. 7-1). Our reflection will be set in 5 following parts:  Datasheet of the movie  The Gallup StrengthsFinder Profile and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter of the jurors  The started situation  The intermediate situation  The final situation  Conclusion

2 1. Datasheet of the movie “Twelve Angry Men” Original title

12 angry men

Director

Sydney Lumet

Script

Reginald Rose

Music

Kenyon Hopskins

Decoration

Robert Markell

Photos

Borris Kaufman

Producer

Henri Fonda

Running time

95 minutes

Casting

Production

Henry Fonda (Juror 8) J. Lee Cobb (Juror 3) Ed Begley (Juror 10) Jack Warden (Juror 7) Martin Balsam (Juror 1) Jack Klugman (Juror 5) John Fiedler (Juror 2) E. G. Marshall (Juror 4) Ed Binns (Juror 6) Joseph Sweeney (Juror 9) George Voskovec (Juror 11) Robert Webber John Savoca (Juror 12) Orion Nova Production

Exit

1957

2. The Gallup StrengthsFinder Profile and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter of the jurors A summary of the anonymous characters of the twelve jurors helps to flesh out their Gallup StrengthsFinder Profile and their Keirsey Temperament Sorter of each Jury members. None of the jurors are named, and they don't formally introduce themselves to each other (except for two of them in the final brief ending). Jurors are labeled with numbers based on their jury numbers and seats at a conference table in the jury room (in clock-wise order). We list them here in the order each votes “not guilty”

3 •

Juror #8: (Henry Fonda) An architect, instigates a thoughtful reconsideration of the case against the accused; symbolically clad in white; a liberal-minded, patient truthand-justice seeker who uses soft-spoken, calm logical reasoning; balanced, decent, courageous, well-spoken and concerned; considered a do-gooder (who is just wasting others' time) by some of the prejudiced jurors named Davis.

•

Juror #9: (Joseph Sweeney) Eldest man in group, white-haired, thin, retiring and resigned to death but has a resurgence of life during deliberations; soft-spoken but perceptive, fair-minded; named McCardle.

•

Juror #5: (Jack Klugman) Naive, insecure, frightened, reserved; grew up in a poor Jewish urban neighborhood and the case resurrected in his mind that slum-dwelling upbringing; a guilty vote would distance him from his past; nicknamed "Baltimore" by Juror # 7 because of his support of the Orioles.

•

Juror #11: (George Voskovec) A watchmaker, speaks with a heavy accent, of German-European descent, a recent refugee and immigrant; expresses reverence and respect for American democracy, its system of justice, and the infallibility of the Law.

•

Juror #2: (John Fiedler) A wimpy, balding bank clerk/teller, easily persuaded, meek, hesitant, goes along with the majority, eagerly offers cough drops to other men during tense times of argument; better memory than # 4 about film title.

•

Juror #6: (Edward Binns) A typical "working man," dull-witted, experiences difficulty in making up his own mind, a follower; probably a manual labourer or painter; respectful of older juror and willing to back up his words with fists.

•

Juror #7: (Jack Warden) Clownish, impatient salesman (of marmalade the previous year), a flashy dresser, gum-chewing, obsessed baseball fan who wants to leave as soon as possible to attend evening game; throws wadded up paper balls at the fan; uses baseball metaphors and references throughout all his statements (he tells the foreman

4 to "stay in there and pitch"); lacks complete human concern for the defendant and for the immigrant juror; extroverted; keeps up amusing banter and even impersonates James Cagney at one point; votes with the majority. •

Juror #12: (Robert Webber) Well-dressed, smooth-talking business ad man with thick black glasses; doodles cereal box slogan and packaging ideas for "Rice Pops"; superficial, easily-swayed, and easy-going; vacillating, lacks deep convictions or belief system; uses advertising talk at one point: "run this idea up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes it".

•

Juror #1 (The Foreman): (Martin Balsam) A high-school assistant head coach, doggedly concerned to keep the proceedings formal and maintain authority; easily frustrated and sensitive when someone objects to his control; inadequate for the job as foreman, not a natural leader and over-shadowed by Juror # 8's natural leadership.

•

Juror #4: (E. G. Marshall) Well-educated, smug and conceited, well-dressed stockbroker, presumably wealthy; studious, methodical, possesses an incredible recall and grasp of the facts of the case; common-sensical, dispassionate, cool-headed and rational, yet stuffy and prim; often displays a stern glare; treats the case like a puzzle to be deductively solved rather than as a case that may send the defendant to death; claims that he never sweats.

•

Juror #10: (Ed Begley) A garage owner, who simmers with anger, bitterness, racist bigotry; nasty, repellent, intolerant, reactionary and accusative; segregates the world into 'us' and 'them'; needs the support of others to reinforce his manic rants.

•

Juror #3: (Lee J. Cobb) Runs a messenger service (the "Beck and Call" Company), a bullying, rude and husky man, extremely opinionated and biased, completely intolerant, forceful and loud-mouthed, temperamental and vengeful; estrangement from his own teenaged son causes him to be hateful and hostile toward all young

5 people (and the defendant); arrogant, quick-angered, quick-to-convict, and defiant until the very end. 3. The starting situation Forsyth made a good comparison of the minority influence when he evokes the formal conflict between the church’s authorities and Galileo. When speaking about the “power of few” (Forsyth 2006, p. 220) he could list some cases like the jury of Oklahoma City Bomber, Martin L. King and Igor Stravinsky who “stood firm against the majority’s pressure” and “became the sources of influence in their group rather than targets of influence”. (Forsyth 2006, p. 220) Illustration1 The first time the jury votes all the eleven members voted « guilty ». The isolation of the Juror 8 as shown in this picture is illustrating the Majority Influence at the starting situation. There was a clear majority group sentiment that was expressed as the eleven all focused their attention on Fonda, the lone dissenter

A lone dissenter at the starting position, Henry Fonda (Juror 8) will have all along the 95 minutes of this movie first a character, a deep personality, a temperament and many strengths profile. The behaviour of the rest of the jury who voted originally “guilty” shows signs of a decision making based on the majority process. Under majority influence, the decision making process showed symptoms of groupthink. Stereotyping of the opponent was apparent in the prejudiced references to “those slum kids” (Film, 14:40), and there were pressures to maintain conformity by mind-guards such as the juror who exclaimed, “Look, you voted guilty, whose side are you on?” Mind-guards serve to encourage agreement by declaring those who deviate from the majority as disloyal. Self-censorship also occurred when people laughed at something the Adman said, so he didn’t finish his thought (Film, 1:01:15). 4. The intermediate situation: between the compliance and the conversion

6 Despite the strong pressures of the majority, the Juror 8’s presentation of interpretations of the case eventually stimulated divergent thinking in the majority members. The fact that he finally presented his idea to the group illustrates the fact that minority influence tends to foster a wider search for information from all sides. As new information begins to emerge various jurors show transformations in their non-verbal behaviour. Smelly, at the outset of the film, showed low-status kinesics through his posture, keeping his arms close to his body. His gestures grew progressively more confident as he shifted to the minority position. Juror 8’s unwavering desire to discuss the issue led to the first majority-minority shift, when the Old Man sided with him solely because he stood by his position (Film, 31:20). Interestingly enough, this shift was brought on by the group’s first anonymous ballot, an effective way of reducing the effects of conformity. At this intermediate position, after the first anonymous ballot, we could see the sense of this statement made by Forsyth, stating Clark:”a minority of two against four is far stronger than a minority of one against one” (Forsyth 2006, p. 211) 5. The final situation: the leadership of the Devil’s Advocate The film 12 Angry Men demonstrates that a majority position and the processes that support it are not infallible. This paper shows that through effective leadership, a minority influence can go so far as to convince eleven previously pro-guilty jurors of a reasonable doubt. The Juror 8’s character possesses the two orientations as identified by Forsyth (2006) that parallel successful leadership: task and socio-emotional. The fact that this Juror 8’s character is task-oriented is embodied in the scene where he crumples up a tic-tac-toe game the other jurors were playing while he was talking. This action serves as an emphatic reminder to abide to their objective by not trivializing the group’s role as jurors, reflecting the essence of a task-oriented leadership role

7 (Film, 40:50). Furthermore, his attention to the socio-emotional aspect of leadership is demonstrated by his offering of a cup of water to the Old Man and by gratefully accepting a cough drop from Mouse. More important is the following statement that the “prejudice obscures the truth” (Film, 1:20:44) said the Juror 8. This results in the formation of a common group identity, and allows many Jurors to gracefully enter the minority camp. In this third part of my reflection I want let emerge the shift from the “Devil’s Advocate” position to the “authentic dissenter” one. The Juror 8 has become more outwardly aggressive when he tried to convince the group. At the beginning of the film he is seen slumping in his chair, smiling frequently, and speaking in a passive tone. As the film progresses and more jurors’ side with his case, Fonda stands more often, smiles less, and is more forceful in his speech. Conclusion: Critical analysis The film was seen first in 1957. Even in the 50s, it could have been more exciting if the jury wasn’t an all-male and all-white. However, it's slightly forgivable since the play made the jury and trial largely symbolic and metaphoric. The jurors represented a cross-section of American attitudes towards race, justice, and ideology, and were not entirely realistic. The Juror 8 for what concerns him has acted all along the film like as a defence attorney. He investigated on his own by purchasing a similar knife. At all, after reviewing the film more than 7 times, it emerges that the 'angry' interactions between some of the jurors seem overly personal and exaggerated.