Leadership in Twelve Angry Men Essay

In our textbook, the process in which a group selects a leader is through process of elimination. In the movie 12 Angry Men the emergence of a leader somewhat follows along that line. The movie begins with all of the jury minus one agreeing that the defendant was guilty of murdering his father. Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) who voted against the other eleven jurors believed that there was enough reasonable doubt to question the case. With him being the only one who disagreed I believed it was to be assumed that he would be the one to emerge as the leader. I will briefly describe the process of elimination in the movie took place and state the styles that were used.

At first juror#1 attempted to lead the group by trying to maintain authority and organizing how the discussion was going to go, you could easily see how frustrated he became with the rest of the group. With that said juror #1 is eliminated. Juror#2 also was eliminated although he was a very positive character with an open mind, he did not have much confidence. The third juror was definitely out of the picture of becoming the leader because he bullied many of the members of the group, used a lot of offensive and abusive language, and did not take any of the other members thoughts into mind, he was very stubborn. Juror #4 was not leader material at all because he thought he was above everyone else and was very driven among facts. Juror #5 was a very interesting character although he did not have the characteristics for a leader, he was much to scared and not confident. Juror #6 seemed a bit on the slow side and very indecisive. Juror #7 was most definitely eliminated because he was very self absorbent; he only interested in getting to a baseball game and followed the majority. Juror #8 demonstrated many characteristics that are stated in the book of how to become a leader. He was very open to other members views, respected everyone, didnt dominate the conversation, listened and participated in every conversation. Juror #9 was the old man who had potential of being the leader but was not paid much attention to because of his age. Juror#10 was an angry man who did not even bother to relate to the defendant and looked down upon people like them. Juror #11 was a very nice foreign man who seemed to be ashamed about some of the men of the group but he did want to seek justice in the case. Lastly is juror #12 was a bit self centered and only interested in showing off but he had good intentions and was trying to be a good juror.

All three forms of leadership styles were demonstrated during the movie. Juror #3 showed examples of autocratic styles, he did not seem concerned of what the other members thought and was very stubborn, and refused to switch sides. Juror#7 was the perfect example for the laissez-fair style of leadership because he didnt influence any of the members or even try to get anywhere with the discussion, all he thought about was himself. Lastly is the democratic style in which most of the jurors demonstrated in, jurors #1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 were the ones who mostly participated and attempted to solve the conflicts they were having in choosing guilty or not guilty. As you can see it was juror#8 who emerged as the leader because he was the one who demonstrated amazing competence and most definitely satisfied the group members expectations.