12 Angry Men: How Each Member of the Group Can Change the Group Dynamics

The roles of individual group members within a larger organization and the impact that each member has on the others is complex - and a critical part of organizational analysis. It is perhaps surprising that the 1957 film classic 12 Angry Men has endured as a prime example of short-term politics among a small group of individuals. It is likely that this is simply a testament to the fact that human interaction has fundamentally changed very little in the large span of time since its release and present day.
The initial interpretation of presented evidence of the crime varied tremendously among the twelve jurors. The overwhelming majority (eleven out of twelve) voted that the defendant was guilty, with several of them (chiefly Jurors #3 and #10) taking the evidence at face-value without question. The rest of those who initially voted guilty likely used this evidence as the crux of their reasoning as well, although they did not do as much to defend it over time, and were eventually convinced of some flaws in the prosecution’s arguments by Juror #8. This point illustrates a distinction in decision making within a group. Depending on past experiences and personality, many individuals will choose to accept or reject facts inherently, or may be more inclined to depending on the consequences of these actions. Other individuals generally apply more thought and analysis to facts presented to them.

Obviously, there is a spectrum in between, and this is characterized in the film by the order in which jurors respectively choose to change their ballots in light of new evidence. Indeed, as in the film, this can sow disagreement and create conflict within a group, especially if there are consequences such as a deadline or a great moral decision. In the film, these are both issues and thus the jurors undergo more conflict as a group. One of the greatest impacts that a group can have upon an individual within is influencing their opinions via groupthink, which essentially involves a concentrated peer pressure where a majority or a strong minority may persuade others to support their consensus.

The most obvious example of this is again at the opening vote in the film, but it is also present throughout juror deliberations. Jurors #3, #4, and #10 are really the only jurors who present any evidence or reason to support their opinion that the defendant is guilty. Most other jurors simply agree because that is the general consensus at the beginning. However, as the deliberations progress, fragments in this majority appear, including internal strife between Juror #3 and #5 (who #3 accuses of being sympathetic due to his impoverished upbringing), and when Juror #10 criticizes immigrants with a poor grasp of English, directly offending Juror #11.

Ultimately, groupthink occurs in the reverse direction in the later parts of the film, with most jurors starting to side with Juror #8 in his “not guilty” vote, but some others simply joining because strong arguments have been made against voting “guilty”, because that now appears to be the winning side, and because they have extraneous obligations, such as leaving to watch a baseball game in the case of Juror #7. It is clear that out of all the effects of groups studied in the film, groupthink is the central issue of analysis in its detriment to individual thought and achieving the best result for the group. Conflict is a central theme in 12 Angry Men. Due to the serious tone of the film and the fact that the setting is significantly constrained, conflict draws the viewer in and is explored in detail. Several types of conflict are presented which are common in groups.

Notably these include avoidance, competition, and accomodation. Several jurors, generally those less invested in the case, practice avoidance in the face of serious discussion or arguments. This especially applies to Juror #12 (changing the conversation to talk about his advertising work) and Juror #2 (quietly offering cough drops when things get heated). Competition is perhaps more strongly employed, this time by the more boisterous jurors previously mentioned (#3 and #10). However, other jurors competitively conflict with each other at times as well. In fact, perhaps the best example is when Juror #7 puts his own personal goal of attending a baseball game in front of a correct outcome in this serious case. Finally, the accommodation conflict style is used by Juror #1, the foreman, in order to smooth things over and try to keep everyone happy, rather than reaching a thought-out resolution for the trial. Fundamentally, this analysis just scratches the surface of group interaction among the twelve jurors in 12 Angry Men. The characters appear realistic yet are somewhat simplified in order for viewers to more easily interpret various dynamics, causes, and effects of their actions.This results in a film which is valuable for both leaders and group members. Indeed, not only is the group relatively diverse (at least in terms of personality and demeanor), but they together create a fine example of a team in conflict, in most of its intricacies.Note: The discussion questions from the handout, addressed in order and by paragraph, were questions 1, 2, and 4.