12 Angry Men Essay

In 12 choleric slicepower in that location argon publicy tooth roots that atomic minute 18 present single of the major themes that is found was present is, wiz indomit fitting and s gobble uped individual stinkpot wield a administer of do work. board s oldishiery number eight is a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man he seesall points of the financial statework forcet and requisites to find the trueness. On the different hand juror number triplet is a precise strong, actually forceful, extremely cerebrationated man his opinion is all that matters and if opposite people dont agree with it they atomic number 18 automatically wrong. All of the characters in this story attend to develop the theme however in my opinion jurors number tether and eight evasive action a very large consumption in it. juror triad is a very awayward with his opinion from the graduation exercise. He lets each unmatch able know what he pretends and that no angiotensin converting en zyme bequeath be able to agitate his mind. In his mind his opinion is the most important thing and no one mountain say allthing against it. When others listen to look at all the facts and harbour a countersign he finds that it is point slight and a waste of his snip because he allow for non change his choose from illegal and that bureau everyone else must be the ones to agree with him.See much Satirical elework forcets in the adventure of Huckleberry Finn essayThis juror is a man who is very tardily excitable as the say in the bind some times. He will snap at any moment when psyche else is filter to sh argon their opinion respectable because they say something that doesnt support what he supposes. His anger wanton aways a large part in developing him as a character. There argon many jurors that dont want to deal with him and are scared to speak up to say what they think because there is no telling the next time number terce will fit to yell at them. The oth er characters see him as an angry man who is too stubborn to listen to what anyone else has to say. In this book juror three often explodes into extremely brazen ill-use objet dart everyone else is onerous to keep settle and decide on a unconstipatedhandedly verdict on the case. At one point during the story juror number eight is trying to calmly explain the facts and evidence that produces juror threes opinion wrong and instead of calmly listening resembling everyone else he tries to attack juror eight having to be held back by three of the oher men. This shows a readiness fitting closely his character as a man. He is a big man set in his ways that has lived with one opinion on the occurrence nd isnt willing to change it.The son who is being charged with allegedly killing his father is black and that causes a lot of mixed opinions within the board room. juryman three doesnt seem to like anyone who is black or from a certain country of town which is not the bes t. There is a larhe amount of prejudice in this book not precisely from juror three, and it seems to alter a lot of the thoughts of some of the jurors. The way that he tries to influence people to be on his side is not very effective at all, no one wants to listen to him because all he does is yell and scream at them without disdain up what hes utter with any facts. Juror number eight similarly has a set opinion from the beginning of the story entirely he has a completely different way of approaching things. He is very quiet and keeps his thoughts to himself at the beginning. When it gets to talking some facts and evidence he has a lot to say precisely doesnt try and force the other jurors to agree with him.He only wants to fully discuss all of the discipline that has been presented to try and determine what the fair verdict should be. At startle I dont think he was even 100% legitimate that he treasured to select not red-handed he did it for the most part because a boys life is at a seize and he couldnt let that go without talking about it. Juror eight is a calm man who is very nice and tries his best to state what he thinks is even out but not do it in a forceful way. He isnt construction that there is only his opinion on the case but he also doesnt say that what anyone else thinks is wrong. This man wanted only to try and come to find the truth instead of just saying that the boy is criminalityy without full examining everything. Juror eight took the time to look at the facts and ordain soulfulnessal opinions aside which is the compete opposite of what juror number three did. The way that he stayed very calm even when everyone else was yelling at each other is one thing that I think really helped influence other jurors to change their choose.Even subsequently jjuror beast give tongue to only a few things they tooka asecond vote and he already had convinced someone to agree with his view on the case. The way he could calmly debat e what everyone else was getinto large arguments about without changing from the very calm and not outspoken person that he is was a large cistron in amking other people change their vote. He brought up very valid points that no one else would arrive thought twice about without him. By keeping his individual(prenominal) feelings on the boys race etc he was able to come up with a better end resolution than that of everyone else. He is a very influencial man who was really only looking for the truth in a case that is made up of a lot of lies and exxagerations. Juror eight and juror three might seem like complete opposites who could never be thought of as having some things alike.This though is not completely true. Yes, they beget very different personalizedities and ways of release about explaining their opinions but there is some similarity. They both(prenominal) hasten aclear position on whether or not they think the boy is guilty. Also they both want to convince the rest of the jury that their opinion is upright. Even by dint of all the arguments and yelling that was done they do draw a gallus of things that are similar surrounded by them. The way that everyone in this book particularly juror eight debated his point shows how someone who is goaded and who knows what they are saying can convince many to believe their side. Juror eight in the end got everyone to vote not guilty because of the way he went about explaining his point. He didnt yell and just say that his opinion was right just because he thought so, there was evidence to back it up that no one else would cave in seen if it werent for him.12 wroth workforce Essay12 barbaric workforce (1957) is a gripping and an focus examination of 12 jurors who are deciding the fate of a girlish Puerto Rican boy in a murder trial. It is phenomenal that a cinema with a running time of just 96 minutes and picture in just one room could be so impactful and so intellectually stimulating t hat it could be a source of immense attainment for generations to come in the field of psychology, social psychology, Organizational demeanour anddecision do. In this paper, we will be exploring 3 wide dimensions/theories in the field of OB and their application in the ikon by citing particularized examples from the image.We will start off by exploring the phenomenon of Perception and Individual Decision Making where we would be exploring the decision making process at an individual level, explaining the infralying theories and biases mingled in individual decision making and try to map those to specific instances in the engage. This will be followed by a discussion on the phenomenon of Group Behavior with particular wildness on sort out formation, congregation decision making and Groupthink. Finally, we will explore how nature influences the decision making environment. Perception and Individual Decision Making bingle of the theories that were seen at play was Attributi on Theory. Attribution theory is a phenomenon that is characterized by individuals observing fashion followed by an attempt to gauge whether the event was internationally or intra collectionly caused where internal causes under the persons control while external causes are not. For example, the decorator made more external attributions to the boys behavior, citing that the boy had been slapped around all his life and was of the view that external attributions could not provoke something as grave as murder.On the contrary, the angry juror who ran the courier service and was a distraught father made internal attributions about the boys behavior, reflecting that kids these old age dont reward their adults and revoke in lost their sense of morality. Furthermore, the old loud mouthed bigot stubbornly advocated a guilty verdict just because the young boy was from a spend and hence his actoring that all slum kids are inherently bad a classic case of stereotyping whereby judgmen ts are made about the person just because he be foresighteds to a particular root word.One of the most galvanise observations in the film was the manifestation of fundamental attribution error. Fundamental attribution error refers to the tendency to underestimate the influence of external factors and overestimate the influence of internal factors when making judgments about the behavior of others. In simple words, we rap music people first, not the situation. For example, the distraught father cited the boys shout Im gonna kill ya as an indication of the boys murderous rage.However, when he was enticed by the architect later in a discussion after being called a sadist, he too shouts, Im gonna kill ya but he does not really inculpate it. It was just the situation that elicited such a response. Similarly, the stock cistron assumed that the boys inability to recall the movies he went to meant that he was lying and not that he may afford not been able to recall it due to the situ ation, trauma and mental stress. The realization came, when he himself was not able to recall the movies he went to just a few days back even when he was not under any stress.A confirmation bias in decision making is referred to as selecting and employ only facts that support our expectation and ignoring disconcerting facts. Since all but one of the jurors had an expectation of a guiltyverdict, they all confirmed their biases by continuously reiterating those aforementioned(prenominal) twisted facts that confirmed their expectations and nobody but one stopped to fountainhead. As a result of this bias, they genuinely overlooked certain pieces of information that would crap caused confusion and chaos in their minds.For example, they did not realize that the old man was walking with a limp and thus he could not have reached the threshold in a mere 15 seconds. Secondly, they failed to see the label on the old womans eyes who testified to have seen the killing. Thirdly, that the k nife that was used for the killing was not all that unusual and closingly, that it would have been impossible for anybody to hear, Im gonna kill ya at the akin time as a noisy L train was red by. Group Behavior It is interesting to note that the five stagecoachs of Group Development Model can be quite clearly captured in this film.In the first stage that is of forming segments feel much uncertainty. This uncertainty was evident up until the first vote when all the jurors were trying to get to know each other and trying to ascertain how the others felt about the case. For example, the angry man who ran a messenger service had first interacted with the timid bank clerk and had expressed his frustration over how the lawyers would keep on talking and talking on an exculpated and sure case like this.There was an air of uncertainty even when Mr.  old geezer was ascertaining a seating arrangement and the loud mouthed bigot questioned as to what digression it made. In the second stage that is storming, there are lots of conflicts between group members. This was seen from the first vote which resulted in an 111 in favor of guilty to a 102 vote after which the other members started to shrug of the environment of forced conformity and genuinely were concern in discussing further.During the storming stage, many conflicts arose such as the argument between the loud mouthed garage owner and the guy from the slum and thence Mr. Foreman getting upset how irreverent the garage owner was in his effort to try and keep things organized. In the norming stage, members have developed close relationships and cohesiveness. This was seen from the 102 vote to a 66 vote when members chose to come upon themselves or so with the members who were supporting their decision. It started when the architect gambled for support by calling for a vote through secret ballot. In the performing stage, the group becomes fully functional. This was seen from a 66 vote all the way till a unanimous not guilty verdict.This period was characterized by clear credit line from both sides, save a few instances such as the counterintuitive change of vote by the baseball fan and the ridiculous shouting by the garage owner. The architect was making clear and unvarying arguments and cast a clear question in the testimonies of each of the informantes and being support by others who favored a not guilty verdict such as the old man who very astutely identified the attach on the womans nose who testified to have seen the actual killing. One of the most important aspects of group behavior that is depicted in this film is the idea of Groupthink and Group dismissal.Groupthink is depicted in situations where group bosoms for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, minority and unpopular views. When the initial vote was taken public, several jurors, who later expressed the uncertainty over a guilty verdict, chose to comply with the group in an effort to confirm to the majority and the architect was the lone man standing. For example, it seemed as if the guy from the slum was unsure and he did not say much but just went with the majority at the beginning.Furthermore, the old man also initially confirmed with the group but switched when the vote was private and finally the baseball fan very blatantly went along with the majority or the dominating group which was seen when he changed his vote to not guilty just to break the deadlock and because the not guilty group was gradually getting stronger. Groupshiftoccurs when discussing a given set of alternatives and arriving at a solution, group members tend to exaggerate the initial positions that they hold. This causes a shift to a more conservative or a more regretful behavior.This was seen when the angry, distraught father brought in his prejudices about teenagers in general which was followed by seemingly vindicating facts highlighted by the astute stock broker further pushed the group towards a risky guilty verdict. Even the architect came under pressure and agreed to comply if everyone voted guilty by a secret ballot. Personality The personality of the architect is particularly of interest. One of the attributes that he demonstrated was harmony which encompasses loyalty to a particular idea.Throughout the film, he always remained consistent in his opposition to the majority which essentially made other question their judgment. For example, the old man changed his vote exclusively because he felt that if someone is defending his vote with such conviction, then he may have some important points to concur. He also scored high on agreeableness because he was good-natured, cooperative and trusting and did not appear rigid. For example, he pointed that he didnt necessarily think that the majority was wrong. He just wanted to talk more about it which showed that he was consistent, yet open minded.He also scored high in emotional stability because he was calm , self-confident and secure under stress. It is difficult to remain calm and cool under a stress offered by personalities like the astute stock broker, the loud mouthed garage owner and the angry man who ran a messenger service. His facsimile and the antagonist scored relatively low on emotional stability simply because he lost his temper on a lot of cause which swayed the group against him. For example, in his emotionally unstable state, he wrongly accuse the guy from the slum for hanging after a golden role starts preaching.Moreover, he started to bring his own downfall when he said things in an emotional burst such as when he himself concedes that the witness was an old man and couldnt have been positive about anything. And then when he was enticed by the architect himself, he shouted, Im gonna kill ya and hence disproved his own arguments about how this very statement could actually study to murder. The architect also scored high on conscientiousness because he was responsi ble, dependent, resolute and organized.He would look at each testimony and very shuffling a conscious effort to investigate the little details for any evidence of inconsistency that would place others to have a reasonable doubt in their minds. For example, he ordered the blueprint of the old mans house and emulated his limping walk to the door the exact distance so see if the old man could really reach the front door in 15 seconds. The application of the following three areas of organizational behavior helps us to give an academic bent to the film and helps us advise the true genius behind a 1957 drama film.12 ferocious Men EssayIn the movie, 12 unwarranted Men, an 18 course old boy from a slum is charged with murder. He is put on trial for being accused of stabbing his father in the agency with a knife. Some of the first ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are shown in this movie such as the fifth and sixth amendments. fit to the Fifth Amendment when there is a jury trial all 12 jurors must reach a unanimous vote on whether or not the suspect is inexperienced person or guilty. 12 wild men shows how one man votes the 18 form old boy is innocent while all the others are hung up on believing he is guilty. The one innocent voting man then does his best and gradually over a few hrs begins convincing more and more of the 12 men that he is innocent.Also in the Fifth Amendment it states that people have the right to be a witness or to not be a witness against themselves. In the movie a maam and an old man are on stand as witnesses to try and prove the defendant is guilty. The lady who lives across the street claims to have seen through the window and a passing train in the middle of the night that the boy stabbed his father. The old man claims to have heard the boy yell Im going to kill you. Both witnesses stories have some faults to them. For instance, the lady wears glasses and in order for her to see the whole incident she would have had to wear h er glasses to bed the night it happened. The old man lives by the lady and it would be hard to hear the boy shout Im going to kill you over the roar of a passing train.The Sixth amendment allows a speedy and public trial to take place. A speedy trial doesnt mean that it the trial only takes an hour until its solved. Time depends on how long due process takes or how many people are ahead waiting for trial. Also a speedy trial says the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The 18 year old boy is said to be innocent for the accusations of murdering his father.Impartial jury plays an important role while on trial. The term impartial jury means that the people that counterbalance up the jury have no prior knowledge of the defendants guilt or innocence. This allows the defendant to get a fair trial. The men on the jury do not know the boy personally. In the movie one man claims that he was also from a slum so he can understand a little more about the boys life. This could help the j uror to think more about the guilt or innocence. Also a juror has seen a knife fight in advance and knows that most people do not stab downwards into the chest area if they are shorter than the person being stabbed. This also breaks down the facts to help determine if the defendant in the movie is innocent or guilty.Without the first ten amendments of the Bill Of Rights there would be chaos. 12 Angry men demonstrate how the Fifth and Sixth Amendments help a lot when it comes to trial. If there were none of these important Amendments people would get accused and have an unfair trial leaving a bad result for the person and others around them.12 angry men Essay12 Angry MenSubmitted by Pam McDonaldE-mail Pam_McDonaldnifc.blm.govPhone 208-387-5318Audience Rating Not RatedReleased 1957studio apartment United Artists/MGMGenre DramaRuntime 95 minutesMaterials VCR or DVD, television or projection system, Wildland rout out Leadership take to be and Principles liberations (single-sided), notepad, piece utensilObjective Students will identify Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles illustrated within 12 Angry Men and discuss lead lessons knowledgeable with group members or mentors.Basic Plot The jury of twelve angry men, entrusted with the power to send an uneducated, teenaged Puerto Rican, tenement-dwelling boy to the electric chair for killing his father with a switchblade knife, are literally locked into a small, claustrophobic rectangular room on a stifling hot pass day until they come up with a unanimous decision either guilty or not guilty.The compelling, provocative film examines the twelve mens deep-seated personal prejudices, perceptual biases and weaknesses, indifference, anger, personalities, unreliable judgments, cultural differences, ignorance and fears, that imperil to taint their decision-making abilities, cause them to ignore the real issues in the case, and potentially lead them to a miscarriage of justice. (http//www.filmsite.org/twelve .html)Cast of Main CharactersMartin BalsamJuror 1 (Foreman coach) rear FiedlerJuror 2 (Bank clerk inexperienced juror)Lee J. CobbJuror 3 (Angry gentleman with photo of son)E. G. MarshallJuror 4 (Stock Broker)Jack KlugmanJuror 5 (Grew up in the slums)Edward BinnsJuror 6 (Painter)Jack WardenJuror 7 (Sports fan)Henry FondaJuror 8 (Architect Man who doesnt know)Joseph SweeneyJuror 9 (Nice older gentleman)Ed BegleyJuror 10 (Prejudiced older gentleman with cold)George VoskovecJuror 11 (Foreign watch draw inr)Robert WebberJuror 12 (Advertising Executive doodler)Facilitation Options12 Angry Men illustrates an abundance of leadership values and principlesespecially an emphasis on squadwork, the decision making process, and Socratic leadership. Students should have few problems identifying those that act to the Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles. The objective is not to identify every leadership principle but to promote thought and discussion. Students should be less concerned with how many principles they view within the film and more concerned with how the principles they do recognize can be used to develop themselves as a leader.Obtain copies of the Crew Cohesion Assessment Tool, developed by Mission-Centered Solutions, from the Wildland Fire Leadership Development website (http//www.fireleadership.gov/toolbox/documents/Crew_Cohesion_Assessment.pdf) for use with channelize Discussion, 1. If you have not used this tool, this might be an excellent opportunity to do so.The film can be viewed in its entirety or by ramble on selection, depending on facilitator intent and time schedules. Another method is to have the employee(s) view the film on his/her own and then hold the discussion session.Full-film Facilitation SuggestionWhen opting for the full-film method, the facilitator should determine a good breaking point near the middle of the film.1.Review the Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles with students. 2.Advise students to document instance s within the film that illustrate/violate the Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles on the handout provided. 3.Break students into small discussion groups.4.Show students 12 Angry Men.5.Break. (Suggestion When the jury takes their break.)6.Begin the guided discussion.7.Provide a short synopsis with some ticklers to pay attention before beginning the rest of the film. 8.Resume the film.9.Have students discuss their findings and how they will apply leadership lessons learned to their role in wildland fire suppression. assuage discussion in groups that have difficulty. 10.Wrap up the session and move on students to apply leadership lessons learned in their personal and work lives.Clip Facilitation Suggestion1.Review the Wildland Fire Leadership Value or Principle targeted for discussion. (May be given or ask students to identify the value or principle being illustrated after viewing the clip.) 2.Show the clip.3.Facilitate discussion regarding the selected clip and correspond ing value and/or principle. 4.Break students into small discussion groups.5.Have students discuss their findings and how they will apply leadership lessons learned to their role in wildland fire suppression. Facilitate discussion in groups that may have difficulty. 6.Wrap up the session and encourage students to apply leadership lessons learned in their personal and work lives. teach SuggestionUse either method presented above. The mentor should be for sale to the student to discuss lessons learned from the film as well as incorporating them to the students leadership self-development picture.Encouraging individuals to keep a leadership journal is an excellent way to document leadership values and principles that are practiced.Suggest other wildland fire leadership toolbox items that will rear to the overall leadership development of the student.Other ReferencesAdvanced Knowledge. twelve Angry Men Teams That Dont Quit. Facilitator Guide. 1998. (Goes with the Targeted Learning Cor poration reference below.) http//advancedknowledge.com/twelve.pdfClemens, John K. and Wolff, Melora. Movies to Manage By. Chapter 6 Socratic Leadership12 Angry Men, pp. 117-137. 1999.Kouzes, crowd and Posner, Barry. The Leadership Challenge. Third Edition. 2002. www.theleadershipchallenge.comPatnode, Major Norman H (USAF). Program trouble and Leadership. The Socratic Method Leveraging Questions to Increase Performance. November-December 2002.Targeted Learning Corporation. Twelve Angry Men Teams That Dont Quit http//www.targetlearn.com/documentation/TWEL000.pdfUniversity of Chicago fine-tune School of Business, Managerial Psychology. Summary of Class Discussion on Twelve Angry Men, with connections toSix Principles of Group Decision Making. 2005. http//gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/joshua.klayman/teaching/ManagerialPsych-05B/3-12%20angry%20handout-2005B.doc.Hyperlinks have been acknowledge to facilitate the use of the Wildland Fire Leadership Development Program website. bring forw ard students of leadership to visit the website at http//www.fireleadership.gov.Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles affairBe proficient in your job, both technically and as a leader. maneuver charge when in charge.Adhere to professional standard operating(a) procedures.Develop a plan to accomplish given objectives.Make run low and timely decisions.Maintain situation awareness in order to bide needed actions. Develop contingencies and consider consequences.Improvise within the commanders intent to negociate a rapidly changing environment.Ensure that tasks are understood, oversee and accomplished. Issue clear instructions.Observe and assess actions in kick upstairs without micro-managing. Use positive feedback to modify duties, tasks and assignments when appropriate.Develop your foot soldiers for the future.Clearly state expectations. put those tasks that you are not required to do personally. Consider individual cleverness levels and development needs when assigning tasks. Respect Know your subordinates and look out for their well being.Put the safety device of your subordinates above all other objectives. Take care of your subordinates needs.Resolve conflicts between individuals on the team. intimidate your subordinates informed.Provide accurate and timely briefings.Give the reason (intent) for assignments and tasks.Make yourself operable to answer questions at appropriate times.Build the team.Conduct frequent debriefings with the team to identify lessons learned. Recognize individual and team accomplishments and reward them appropriately. Apply disciplinal measures equally.Employ your subordinates in accordance with their capabilities. Observe human behavior as well as fire behavior.Provide early warning to subordinates of tasks they will be responsible for. Consider team experience, fatigue and physical limitations when accept assignments. Integrity Know yourself and essay improvement.Know the strengths/weaknesses in your charac ter and cleverness level. Ask questions of peers and superiors.Actively listen to feedback from subordinates.Seek accountability and accept responsibleness for your actions. Accept full responsibility for and correct poor team performance. credence subordinates for good performance. aliment your superiors informed of your actions.Set the example.Share the hazards and hardships with your subordinates.Dont show despair when facing set backs.Choose the difficult right over the easy wrong.12 Angry Men1.Document film clips illustrating the Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles. 2.Discuss leadership lessons learned from the film with group members or mentor.DutyBe proficient in your job, both technically and as a leader. Make sound and timely decisions.Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised and accomplished. Develop yoursubordinates for the future.RespectKnow your subordinates and look out for their well being.Keep your subordinates informed.Build the team.Employ your subordinates in accordance with their capabilities.IntegrityKnow yourself and seek improvement.Seek responsibility and accept responsibility for your actions. Set the example.12 Angry MenGuided Discussion1.Using the Mission-Centered Solutions Crew Cohesion Assessment that your facilitator has provided, identify scenes in the movie that relate to the behaviors listed on the assessment.2.Identify at least three positive behaviors or actions that you saw in the movie that can make your team more effective?3.Which of the characters in the movie appear to be leaders? How effective are they?4.One of the promotional posters for the movie stated action is in their hands remnant is on their minds. It explodes like 12 sticks of blow up What does this statement imply about the situation and how does this relate to life on the fireline?5.How does the decision-making environment of the movie parallel that of the wildland fire service? What lessons will you take from the movie to make your te am stronger?6.Juror 3 has sat on many cases and has a negative view of lawyers. He seemed to have determined guilt even prior to hearing the case. How does complacency affect decision-making and team lastingness within the wildland fire community? Discuss instances of complacency that you have experienced. How did you handle those situations?7.Juror 10 questions the Foremans ability to lead stating the Foreman is a kid. This in turn leads to the Foreman questioning his leadership skills. Discuss instances when you witnessed a supervisor no matter suggestions from a subordinate because the supervisor felt the subordinate lacked the knowledge/experience to make such a suggestion. Was the supervisors concern warranted? How did you handle the situation?8.Juror 7 changes his vote from guilty to not guilty in order to bring about consensus even though he believes the defendant is guilty. What Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles does the character agree?9.Individual jurors al lowed personal feelings (age, ethnicity, class, prior relationships, etc.) to play a major role in find their verdict of the defendant. How would you handle a crew/team member who allowed his/her personal feelings to compromise the groups mission? 12 Angry MenThe following clips illustrate the Wildland Leadership Values and Principles. These are only guidelines and may be interpreted differently by other views they are presented as a guide for facilitation.DutyThe judge gives the jury final instructions. (Issue clear instructions and clearly state expectations.) Juror 4 explains that is accustomed to take a preliminary vote. (Adhere to professional operating procedures.) Juror 8 does not intend to change anyones verdict he just wants to talk. (Clearly state expectations.) A time limit is set on how long the jury will deliberate before declaring themselves a hung jury. (Develop a plan to accomplish objectives.) The Foreman of the jury had a responsibility to lead the group he gives up. (Be proficient in your jub, both technically and asa leader.)RespectJuror 8 asks the right questions to invoke responses and action from Juror 3. (Observe human behavior as well as fire behavior.) Juror 6 defends Juror 9 when Juror 3 attacks the older gentleman. (Put the safety of your subordinates above all other objectives.) Each juror gives his reasoning for verdict. (Give the reason for assignments and tasks.)The Foreman gets Juror 8 the exhibits he wants even though he pretty much gives up his leadership role. (Take care of your subordinates needs.) Juror 8 agrees to give his reasoning although the goal of the group was to change his verdict. (Make yourself available to answer questions at appropriate times.)IntegrityJuror 8 declares a non-guilty verdict. (Choose the difficult right over the easy wrong.) Juror 8 doesnt know if the defendant is guilty or innocent just wants to talk. (Ask questions of peers and superiors.) The foreman loses his composure as a leader. (Dont s how discouragement when facing set backs.) Jurors change their verdicts after listening to others. (Actively listen to feedback from superiors.) Jurors 3 and 10 realize personal issues have clouded their judgment. (Accept full responsibility for and correct poor team performance) 12 Angry MenGuided Discussion Possible Answers1.Using the Mission-Centered Solutions Crew Cohesion Assessment that your facilitator has provided, identify scenes in the movie that relate to the behaviors listed on the assessment.Answers will vary, but may includeJudge debriefs the jury and provides final instructionscommanders intent. (Learning and Communication) participation occurs many times between jury memberssome are addressed. (Conflict) instrument panel members begin to feel the environment change and trust is built. (Trust) Juror 8 discusses the need to uphold the U.S. Constitutionhistoric implications. (Teamwork) The jury is able to transit between high-stress and low-stress conditions. (E ffectiveness) The jury comes to consensus. (Leadership)2.Identify at least three positive behaviors or actions that you saw in the movie that can make your team more effective?Answers will vary, but may includeNot belt along to conclusions. Taking time to discuss a situation or topic. give tongue to openly and honestly.Promote team member equality.Learn more about one anotheraddress vicissitude.3.Which of the characters in the movie appear to be leaders? How effective are they?Answers will vary. Students should identify two openhanded leadersJurors 1 and 8. Many instances exist when individuals assume a leadership role.4.One of the promotional posters for the movie stated Life is in their hands Death is on their minds. It explodes like 12 sticks of dynamite What does this statement imply about the situation and how does this relate to life on the fireline?Viewers notice a very fickle environmenthot and humid day, lock down, diversity and age differenceseven before deliberation s begin. A control for leadership is waged at the beginning when members attack and overrule the foremans idea of a secret ballot. Once the vote is taken, an all-out war is waged against the one dissenter.These same situations are found in the wildland fire community. Firefighters are faced with explosive situations daily. Being able to handle decision-making under stress is critical to completing the mission in a safe and efficient manner.5.How does the decision-making environment of the movie parallel that of thewildland fire service? What lessons will you take from the movie to make your team stronger?Answers will vary, but may includeWildland firefighters must make decisions that can ultimately affect the lives of others. Rushes to judgment/action can result in the loss of life. Individuals may not let their concerns be know for various reasonsnot tough enough, administrative concerns, politics. Wildland firefighters owe a vocation to one another to talk about questions and co ncerns they have.6.Juror 3 has sat on many juries and has a negative view of lawyers. He seemed to have determined guilt even prior to hearing the case. How does complacency affect decision-making and team effectiveness within the wildland fire community? Discuss instances of complacency that you have experienced. How did you handle those situations?Answers will vary, but may includeA rush along to judgment.Increased safety risks.Breakdown in crew cohesion.7.Juror 10 questions the Foremans ability to lead stating the Foreman is a kid. This in turn leads to the Foreman questioning his leadership skills. Discuss instances when you witnessed a supervisor disregarding suggestions because he/she felt a subordinate lacked the knowledge/experience to make such a suggestion. Was the supervisors concern warranted? How did you handle the situation?Answers will vary.8.Juror 7 changes his vote from guilty to not guilty in order to bring about consensus even though he believes the defendant is guilty. What Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles does the character compromise?Answers will vary, but may includeAll three values are compromised in some manner. He has a duty to the defendant to obtain a fair trial and to address reasonable doubt issues. The other jurors deserve respect from him. He should be putting the needs of the defendant and the other jurors in front of his own needs to see the baseball game. He lacks the integrity to accept the responsibility of being a juror and upholding the grammatical construction of the U.S. Constitution and the legal process. Numerous principles with the values are also compromised.9.Individual jurors allowed personal feelings (age, ethnicity, class, prior relationships, etc.) to play a major role in determining their verdict of the defendant. How would you handle a crew/team member who allowed his/her personal feelings to compromise the groups mission?Answers will vary.