PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS

KREENA JAIN
24- 2042
KIMBERLY 31010224043
MENEZES
24-2067
31010224068
ALIASGAR
DAHODWALA
24-2016
REHAN KHAN 31010224016
24-2052
31010224053
SANTOSH
KUMAR
BEHERA
24-2007
31010224007
 RELEASED IN 1957, 12 ANGRY MEN, DIRECTED BY
SIDNEY LUMET, IS A COMPELLING COURTROOM
DRAMA THAT SHOWCASES GROUP DYNAMICS,
CONFLICT RESOLUTION, AND NEGOTIATION SKILLS.
SET ALMOST ENTIRELY IN A JURY DELIBERATION
ROOM, THE FILM EXPLORES HOW TWELVE JURORS
MUST DECIDE THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF A YOUNG
DEFENDANT ACCUSED OF MURDER. WHILE THE
MOVIE APPEARS STRAIGHTFORWARD, IT DELVES
DEEP INTO COMPLEX HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY,
TOUCHING ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS,
COMMUNICATION SKILLS, BIASES, AND THE
PROCESSES INVOLVED IN MAKING GROUP
DECISIONS.
 KEY CONCEPTS

12 ANGRY MEN REVOLVES AROUND THE CONCEPT

OF GROUP DECISION-MAKING AND THE IMPACT OF
ONE INDIVIDUAL'S DISSENT IN SHIFTING A
COLLECTIVE OPINION. IT HIGHLIGHTS HOW BIASES,
PREJUDICE, AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCES
INFLUENCE JUDGMENT. THE MOVIE ALSO
EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF CRITICAL
THINKING, ACTIVE LISTENING, AND THE VALUE OF
STANDING UP FOR JUSTICE EVEN WHEN IT'S
UNPOPULAR. CENTRAL TO THE STORY IS THE
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE—"BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT"—A CORE LEGAL PRINCIPLE
THAT JUROR 8 INSISTS ON FOLLOWING.
 LISTENING
SKILLS
FOR EXAMPLE, JUROR 3, WHO HAS A PERSONAL
VENDETTA DUE TO HIS STRAINED RELATIONSHIP
WITH HIS SON, REPEATEDLY CUTS OFF OTHERS AND
LISTENING PLAYS A PIVOTAL ROLE IN THE RAISES HIS VOICE. HIS INABILITY TO LISTEN
FILM'S PROGRESSION. JUROR 8 (PLAYED OBJECTIVELY HINDERS THE GROUP'S PROGRESS.
BY HENRY FONDA) EXEMPLIFIES ACTIVE OVER TIME, THE JURORS BEGIN TO LISTEN MORE
LISTENING AND OPEN-MINDEDNESS. HE CAREFULLY AS JUROR 8 RAISES THOUGHTFUL,
LISTENS INTENTLY TO THE ARGUMENTS EVIDENCE-BASED QUESTIONS. THIS SHIFT IN
OF OTHERS BEFORE RAISING DOUBTS LISTENING CONTRIBUTES TO A GRADUAL CHANGE
ABOUT THEIR ASSUMPTIONS. THIS IS IN OPINIONS.
CONTRASTED WITH SEVERAL OTHER
JURORS WHO, AT FIRST, ARE DISMISSIVE
AND UNWILLING TO LISTEN TO
ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES.
 BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE LISTENING

PREJUDICES: JUROR 10 DISPLAYS OVERT

RACIAL PREJUDICE, ALLOWING HIS BIASES
TO CLOUD HIS JUDGMENT. HIS REFUSAL
TO LISTEN TO REASON OR CONSIDER THE
FACTS IS A SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO THE
GROUP'S EFFORTS
 BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE LISTENING
•PRECONCEPTIONS: SOME JURORS, LIKE
JUROR 7, ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH
THEIR PERSONAL SCHEDULES (E.G.,
ATTENDING A BASEBALL GAME) THAN WITH
THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE DELIBERATION.
THIS CREATES BARRIERS TO OBJECTIVE
THINKING AND LISTENING.
 BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE LISTENING
EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE: JUROR 3 PROJECTS
HIS PERSONAL FAMILY ISSUES ONTO THE
CASE, VIEWING THE DEFENDANT THROUGH
THE LENS OF HIS TROUBLED RELATIONSHIP
WITH HIS SON. THIS EMOTIONAL BAGGAGE
MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO HEAR
ARGUMENTS THAT MIGHT LEAD TO A
DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
CONFLICTS
 JUROR 8 VS. THE GROUP: JUROR 8 INITIALLY STANDS
ALONE IN VOTING “NOT GUILTY,” CREATING A DYNAMIC
OF ONE AGAINST MANY.
JUROR 3 VS. JUROR 8: JUROR 3 IS THE MOST VOCAL IN
HIS OPPOSITION TO JUROR 8, BELIEVING STRONGLY IN
THE DEFENDANT’S GUILT. THEIR CONFLICT BECOMES
PERSONAL, AS JUROR 3'S EMOTIONS AND PERSONAL
BIASES COME INTO PLAY
JUROR 10 VS. THE GROUP: JUROR 10'S BLATANT RACISM
LEADS TO CONFLICT WITH THE REST OF THE JURORS,
WHO EVENTUALLY SHUN HIM FOR HIS PREJUDICED
OUTBURSTS.
 CONFLICT RESOLUTION:
CONFLICTS IN 12 ANGRY MEN ARE RESOLVED PRIMARILY THROUGH THE USE OF RATIONAL
DISCUSSION, ACTIVE LISTENING, AND QUESTIONING ASSUMPTIONS. JUROR 8 SLOWLY
DISMANTLES THE CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, PIECE BY PIECE, BY FOCUSING ON
INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE. HE NEVER CONFRONTS THE OTHER
JURORS WITH HOSTILITY BUT RATHER ENGAGES THEM WITH LOGICAL REASONING, FOSTERING
A CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE.
•FACILITATING DISCUSSION: JUROR 8 USES THE
TECHNIQUE OF REFRAMING THE SITUATION.
INSTEAD OF ATTACKING OTHERS, HE PRESENTS
ALTERNATE POSSIBILITIES AND ENCOURAGES
THE JURORS TO RECONSIDER THEIR STANCE.
•NON-CONFRONTATIONAL APPROACH: JUROR 8'S
CALM DEMEANOR AND FACT-BASED APPROACH
ALLOW HIM TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITH OTHER
JURORS WHO ARE INITIALLY AGGRESSIVE OR
DEFENSIVE. JUROR 8’S RESPECTFULNESS PLAYS A
MAJOR ROLE IN CHANGING THE ATMOSPHERE IN
THE ROOM.
 NEGOTIATION IS A KEY
ELEMENT THROUGHOUT
THE FILM. JUROR 8
DOESN'T IMPOSE HIS
VIEWS BUT INSTEAD
OFFERS ALTERNATIVE
PERSPECTIVES THAT INVITE
NEGOTIATION. HIS
APPROACH IS SIMILAR TO
PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION,
WHERE THE FOCUS IS ON
INTERESTS RATHER THAN
POSITIONS:
 •CLARIFYING ASSUMPTIONS:
JUROR 8 REPEATEDLY
QUESTIONS ASSUMPTIONS,
SUCH AS WHETHER THE KNIFE
USED IN THE MURDER IS
UNIQUE OR IF THE WITNESS
TESTIMONY IS RELIABLE. THIS
TACTIC HELPS BREAK DOWN
RIGID POSITIONS AND OPENS
UP ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION.
•BUILDING CONSENSUS:
JUROR 8 WORKS TO BUILD
CONSENSUS BY FINDING
COMMON GROUND WITH
OTHER JURORS. ONCE HE
PERSUADES ONE OR TWO
JURORS TO VOTE "NOT
GUILTY," THE NEGOTIATION
DYNAMIC CHANGES, AND
MORE JURORS BECOME
WILLING TO RECONSIDER
THEIR POSITIONS
 CONCLUSION:
12 ANGRY MEN IS AN EXCEPTIONAL STUDY IN GROUP
COMMUNICATION, INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS, AND
CONFLICT RESOLUTION. IT SHOWS HOW A LONE INDIVIDUAL,
EQUIPPED WITH STRONG NEGOTIATION SKILLS, LISTENING
ABILITIES, AND LOGICAL REASONING, CAN SWAY THE OPINIONS
OF OTHERS IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION. THE
FILM NOT ONLY ILLUSTRATES THE INTRICACIES OF GROUP
DYNAMICS BUT ALSO UNDERSCORES THE IMPORTANCE OF
JUSTICE, RATIONALITY, AND MORAL COURAGE IN DECISION-
MAKING. IT REMAINS A TIMELESS EXPLORATION OF HUMAN
BEHAVIOR, RELEVANT TO UNDERSTANDING BOTH
INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP INTERACTIONS.