Organizational Behaviour - II

Assignment - Reflection on “12 Angry Men”

Group 8
Name Roll No.
Prince Goyat 2024DPM17
Sudhaharan H 2021IPM145
Supriya Venkatesh R 2024PGP493
Uttank Jha 2024PGP436
Veerta 2023PGP539
Vishanth Ghanta 2024PGP540
 Sidney Lumet's 1957 American courtroom drama film "12 Angry Men" chronicles the story of a
jury of twelve men deciding the guilt or acquittal of a juvenile killer accused of killing his father.
Among the several Organizational Behavior topics the movie explores are group dynamics,
leadership, compliance, decision-making prejudices, and psychological safety. This study
focuses on showing how the story of the movie shows the Organizational Behavior concepts.

● Group Dynamics and Development:

The jury's development across Tuckman's paradigm is really clear as the film shows. At first,
the group exhibits traits of a forming stage, in which the jurors are looking to the informal
leader—the jury foreman—for guidance. Juror 8, the only one who questions the group
agreement, shows up in the Storming stage. This stage is marked by conflict when the juror's
own opinions and prejudices collide. Particularly the emotional outbursts and forceful
posture of Juror 3 reflect the increased tensions. The Norming stage starts as Juror 8's calm,
rational but relentless questioning starts impacting others, therefore promoting a more
organized conversation. The performing stage is achieved because the jury, which gets more
coherent, collaboratively reexamines the evidence and participates in constructive debate.
The jury marks the effective end of group growth with a unanimous "not guilty" decision.

● Conformity and Social Influence:

The way the movie shows conformity emphasizes how many people hide their ideas in
order to fit in with society expectations. Driven by a mix of normative and informational
influence, the first vote shows 11 jurors voting guilty without much debate. Juror 8's plays
a key part in shattering the cycle of conformity and motivating others to re-examine the
facts free from bias. This questions the group's first choice and allows the other voices to
express uncertainty. The first member to assist juror 8 is Juror 9, therefore highlighting the
need of peer reinforcement in reducing conformity.Groupthink and Its Affective
Symptoms

● Groupthink and Its Symptoms:

In 12 Angry Men, groupthink delayed the jury in their decision to convict a person accused
of a crime. Most jurors felt that it was easy to reach a consensus and vote guilty because
such a decision would not take time. Once a dominant view has surfaced, no amount of
argument will convince the group otherwise and the sense of unity makes everything seem
almost flawless. They also quickly disregard other viewpoints, especially when Juror 8
attempts to instigate them. Instead of pitying the gentlemen, they censure him and all and
sundry are eager to be in the above row. Certain jurors make use of generalities, Juror 10
made prejudiced responses regarding the defendant and his background. Some of them try
to suppress them, as no one wants to be ostracised, others do not have that option as there
 is pressure on them to conform, for instance, Juror 8 is termed a time waster. Even though
there is no dissenting opinion, there is an agreement level that can be reached, compliance
with the will of the majority, this, however, has its pitfalls in that no one feels they have to
speak out. Some jurors take the view that Juror 3 is a mindguard who supports the majority
opinion and does not allow in any sort of dissent. Through the course of the film, the viewer
can see the effects of groupthink on the case. When Juror 8 breaks the norm of silence that
the group had maintained in order to fit in, this is when the real review of the evidence
occurs. His bravery in challenging the majority makes others pause and reconsider their
beliefs, which in the end saves a potential injustice from occurring.

● Leadership Styles and Influence:

Each juror’s leadership style is a determining influence in the deliberation of the group in
12 Angry Men. At number eight, he is the only democratic member who advocates for the
free expression of ideas and an even-handed evaluation of the information available. This
steady, deliberate approach of his style prevails, at times causing other people to be the one
doing the changing as they are the ones that develop doubts. In contrast, Juror Three is an
authoritarian who engages in emotional assault and coercive tactics to obtain a conviction.
His first approach seemed to work as some jurors responded to his aggressive techniques,
but in the end his aggressiveness turned into a form of alienation to him.

Juror 12 discourages to a great extent any form of interaction as he is a loser and always
opts to go with the majority which abets his influence on the group. Juror Nine’s leadership
style can be seen as a transforming one, where after observing the brave Juror Eight, he
started empowering others to re-examine the evidence and offer their comments. In
addition, the eight voters demonstrated a concern for equity and fairness rampant justice
taking precedence which resonated well with the group and redirected the debates towards
substantive reasoning.

These strategies illustrate the main theme of the film: in overcoming the issue of balance,
emphasis in authoritarian and laissez faire strategies highlight the pitfalls of being too
controlling or too distant, while the democratic, transformational and servant strategies
promote the aim of the decision making in the film.

● Decision Making Biases:

Significant cognitive biases are evident in jurors’ decision making progress that affect their
judgment of the case.Their reliance on personal experiences and recent events, particularly
evident in Juror 10’s prejudice against individuals from small slums where he relies on
stereotypes rather than objective evaluation demonstrates availability bias. Confirmation
bias manifested as jurors actively seek evidence supporting their predetermined “guilty”
 verdict while discarding contradictory facts. The sunk cost fallacy is demonstrated through
Juror 3’s emotional investment as he refuses to reconsider his stance even when confronted
with logical counter arguments. Through Juror 8’s strategic questioning these biases are
systematically exposed, promoting a more analytical approach that successfully shifts the
group’s focus from assumptions to facts, illustrating the importance of challenging biases
in organizational decision making.

● Role perception and Identity:

The film shows how individual identities and roles emerge within the jury room, shaped
by each member's personal history and beliefs. Juror 8 takes on the role of the challenger,
demonstrating willingness to oppose the majority in pursuit of justice, which involves
taking calculated interpersonal risks aligned with psychological safety principles. His
approach contrasts dramatically with Juror 3, whose personal biases create a destructive
conflict between his duty as a juror and his emotional reactions. Juror 11's perspective as
an immigrant brings unique insight and advocacy for fairness, emphasizing the value of
diversity in enhancing group decision-making processes. Together, these varied roles and
perspectives create a rich tapestry of interactions that ultimately guide the jury toward its
conclusion.

● Challenging the norms:

The jury’s approach changed over the course of the discussion, evolving from a casual and
hasty assumption about the guilt of the accused to that of a dedicated deliberation over the
case facts as well as questioning their own blind beliefs. This change also paralleled the
change in the cohesiveness in the group as it evolved from a superficial and self-serving
level to a more engaging level as the trust and collective feeling of a common goal emerged
within the group.

This process was driven by Juror 8’s determination to bring about a constructive change in
the way the group thought about the issue at hand by independently sticking to his point of
view in the face of criticism with confidence, like any good devil’s advocate.

● Evolving Heirarchy:
Hierarchy within the jury was quickly established in the movie by portraying certain
characters as loud, boisterous and vocal about their opinions, whereas others were
portrayed as quiet, calm and collected. While all juror’s have an equal say, the movie
effectively showed how different interpersonal interactions can make certain members of
the group have a greater degree of say. Juror 3 was a good example of the same.
 Juror 8 began as the sole non-conformer in the group, drawing the ire of the others. But his
ability to reason his way through different arguments, as well as keep his composure in
difficult situations made others perceive him differently. The group began to take his words
more and more seriously as he started gaining support from the rest of the jury, thus
changing the established hierarchy within the group.

● Synergy and Collaboration:

The group first operates with almost no cooperation; everyone's just throwing in their own
ideas without much group effort. But as time passes, the jurors begin to find common
ground and cooperate. Their varied backgrounds and points of view give their analysis of
the data much more complexity, thus highlighting the fact that, under appropriate
management, diversity results in wiser choices. This is a classic Organisational Behaviour
idea: effective leadership of a group can lead to something more than what any one person
could have accomplished alone.

Here Juror 8 is quite important since she guides the discussion in a way that enables
everyone to go past those first conflicts and start leveraging each other's insights. One ideal
illustration of the value of teamwork is seeing the group move from disorganised conflicts
to actual problem-solving.

● Trust and Safety in the Mind:

Juror 8's insistence on reevaluating the evidence and challenging the majority creates a
psychologically safe space where jurors are at ease raising concerns and changing their
minds. This component of OB is essential for any high-performing team because it allows
members to communicate honestly and openly without worrying about being judged.

The movie demonstrates that trust is not built instantly but developed through consistent,
respectful interactions. Juror 8’s behavior sets the tone for trust, which gradually permeates
the group. This transformation is essential in overcoming social loafing, where individuals
initially contribute less effort, assuming that others will carry the discussion