Negotiation “12 Angry Men” study case

The 1957 film "12 Angry Men" depicts an incredibly tense scenario of
jury deliberation, as well as serves as an insightful case study on the negotiation
process. Specifically, it presents an interpersonal negotiation between absolutely
different jurors with life-altering stakes.
The film begins at the end of a trial and it's here the cast of characters,
these 12 men form a jury tasked with deciding the fate of a young man accused
of murdering his father. If found guilty the defendant will receive the death
penalty within mere moments the stakes of the story are made clear a man's life
hangs in the balance. Yet most jurors don't seem to realize the weight of their
decision. No matter the experience or status, all of them chose to vote guilty, be
it in sake of leaving early or bringing so-called justice to those accused with no
room for doubt. Juror 8 came with an open mind, putting himself in the boy’s
shoes, not willing to end the boy's life without a proper discussion. The decision
has to be made not lightly – that was his reasoning for questioning the
possibilities.
In the case study, the process of jury deliberation illustrates the
complexities of group decision-making. Initially, individual jurors hold strong
and opposing positions based on personal biases and emotions. However,
through the efforts of Juror 8, who acts as a skilled negotiator, the group
undergoes a transformative process. This mirrors Navarro's theory of
negotiation, which emphasizes three crucial phases: assessment, engagement,
and transaction.
In the assessment phase of the jury deliberation, each juror evaluates the
trial evidence based on their initial perceptions, biases, and emotional
responses.
 Juror 1
As the foreman, he appears to be focused on maintaining order and
reaching a quick decision.
 Juror 2
As it is his first time being juror, he seems to lack confidence and
is inclined to follow the majority. His decision is rather based on
the desire to conform than on critical-thinking.
 Juror 3
It appears later on that he holds strong bias and a personal grudge
due to strained relationships with his own son. He is emotionally
charged and quickly votes guilty, projecting his anger onto the boy
accused.
 Juror 4
Approaches the case with a logical and analytical mindset. He
relies heavily on the evidence presented, such as weapons, the
 eyewitness accounts, and is reluctant to consider any other
possibilities.
“it’s possible but not really probable”
 Juror 5
Hesitant to go against the other members. He bases his choice on
personal experiences and cultural background and brings insights
from growing up in a similar environment, offering a different
perspective on the case.
 Juror 6
He seems more reserved, possibly influenced by others. His
reasoning aligns with maintaining group harmony rather than
expressing an independent opinion.
 Juror 7
Shows apathy and a desire to quickly reach an agreement. He is
more concerned about personal matters (a attending a baseball
game) than the case itself.
 Juror 8
His assessment “not guilty” comes from a belief in justice and the
importance of a fair trial.
 Juror 9
Appears to be observant and open-minded. Easily engaged in the
negotiations. Shows a willingness to reconsider his choice based on
new information.
 Juror 10
He has strong prejudice and bias, demostrating it by making
discriminatory remarks about the accused's background. His
reasoning is clouded by personal prejudices rather than a fair
evaluation of the evidence.
  Juror 11
Brings a sense of empathy and a commitment to justice, drawing
on his own experiences as an immigrant. His reasoning may be
influenced by a deeper understanding of the value of a fair trial.
 Juror 12
Appears distracted and more focused on his professional life,
talking about everything but the case. His reasoning may be
influenced by a desire to reach a quick decision and return to his
work.

This corresponds to the initial phase of negotiation where assessing the

situation and understanding the various elements at play is critical.

Next, Juror 8 engages everyone in a negotiation, using persuasion, critical

analysis, and conflict resolution to shift the opinions of his fellow jurors. He
trusts his gut but is open to accept the other side, if their arguments are
convincing enough. This aligns with Navarro's emphasis on the engagement
phase, where effective communication and influencing others play a vital role in
proper negotiations.

Finally, having won against all the mentioned biases by employing

everyone’s critical thinking they discover some inaccuracies in the witness
testimonies.

 Old man's testimony: He claimed to hear the boy shout “I will kill you”
and the body fall but could not have heard clearly through a passing train.
 Woman across the street: She claimed to have seen the boy through the
window but it could not have been the case with her impaired vision (not
wearing glasses).
  Timing of the old man seeing the boy: He claimed to have seen the boy
run down the stairs shortly after the noise, but it could not have been the
case as the layout of his apartment did not allow to reach the door quick
enough to see the boy.

As the deliberation progresses, the group reaches a transaction or decision

phase, ending up with a not-guilty verdict. This mirrors Navarro's third phase of
negotiation, where agreements are reached, and decisions are made.

The film “12 Angry Men” directly parallels formal negotiation principles,
despite its informal jury room setting. As the jurors navigate conflicting
viewpoints on a life-altering court case, negotiation strategies become crucial
for making one verdict. Clear assessment of complex issues, engagement with
emotional reasonings and usage of critical thinking are crucial in reaching an
unified agreement. The deliberation is heated, yet Juror 8 uses core tactics from
negotiation theory—thoughtful review of ambiguous evidence, bridging jurors
through mindful discourse, securing consensus by coming to conclusions that
convince everyone. His step-by-step influence mirrors a principled negotiator
steering resolution.

This classic film neatly demonstrates sophisticated negotiation skills

effectively swaying high-stakes outcomes, even in turbulent contexts beyond
conventional deal brokering. Its teachable message remains relevant:
embodying values like objectivity, empathy, sincerity, and consensus-building
can overcome entrenched differences.

12 Angry Men (10/10) Movie CLIP - Not Guilty (1957) HD