Angry men analysis

In the beginning of the movie, Jury number 1 interpretms to be an sudden leader (An emergent leader gradu tout ensembley achieves leadership by interacting with separate members and contributing to the achievement of the chemical throngs terminal, foliate 113). From the start he has started folding text file for voting, and the different Jurors seem to follow him. When he give tongue to we would like to f argon started, they all gather on the table. The type of leadership he is cover is democratic (a democratic leader promotes the interests of aggroup members and practices social equality, page 117).He asks for comment from the early(a) Jurors on how they should do the discussion. Pretty much he is the atomic number 53 controlling the flow of the discussion. He is also an initiator (Proposes ideas and suggestions provides direction for the group gets the group started, page 58). When the group Just came back from break he said, Now lets get started. Who wants to start it off? However, during the movie Henry set seems to starting to take over gradually by leading the group of non guilty. He looks more like the emergent leader towards the curiosity of the movie.During the discussion, some of the Jurors are acting as deserter (Withdraws from the group appears supra it all and bored or annoyed with the discussion remains distant or stops contributing, page 61) by playing games, left the room, so far the group leader Our no. L) was some to desert the group because he feels that the group thinks that his way of doing things is not right. The juror that wants to leave the discussion because he wants to watch a game almost deserts the discussion by changing his vote to not guilty so that the discussion would end earlier.Toward the midpoint of the discussion, one of the Jurors was taking totes and trying to build up a loyal fact from the discussion while the other Jurors are talking. He was doing an analytical listening, which focuses on evalua ting and forming appropriate opinions approximately a message. It requires critical persuasion and analysis (page 193). The climate neuters moderately throughout the film. It starts off with a darling climate, then it gets tighter when the Jurors start arguing until plain some of them feels that the other is world insensible. Nonverbal communications (message components other than words that generate meaning, page 163) that were shown in the discussion are for example, Jurors playing games hill the others are talking, throwing papers, etc. As for verbal communication (focuses on how you use words and language, page 163), in that location are changes in vocal tone by the Jurors that were aggravated by some other Jurors that changed their mind to not guilty. The Conflict starting at the beginning of the movie when the jurors were trying to answer the question, Is the suspect guilty? .Henry represent decided to go against the other 11 Jurors by voting not guilty for the suspect . This raised a substantive conflict (Occurs when a member disagrees round issues, ideas, decisions, actions or goals, page 211). The group does not like that decision, so the goal cannot be reached. Henry Found was very strong in his vote, so then emerged hidden agenda (A hidden agenda occurs when a members common soldier goal conflicts with the groups goals, page 38) from the group to try to convince Henry to change his vote because some of them want to go home, and the other thinks that it is too lucid and sticks to their decisions.Henrys conflict style is compromise conflict style (a gist earthly concern approach that involves conceding some goals in order to achieve others, page 218), this influences well because if you use compromise conflict Tyler, you are not gradeing that the other person is wrong, but saying that he has a point, but there is more to it. In the movie when somebody says the put one across ran away because he is afraid to get caught, he would reply wi th lets say the kid really ran away Then he would say his reasoning. In the middle of the movie, there was a procedural conflict (disagreement among group members about the method or process the group uses in its attempt to gain a goal, page 212). When a Juror suggested for another vote, one other Juror wanted an open suffrage instead of a vote. Toward the middle of the discussion, there are basically two groups that were formed in there, which are the guilty group and the not guilty group.The not guilty group reached performing stage, where all members are fully engaged and eager to work (page 32). They all work together to try to put all the evidence together to see exactly if the testimonies from witnesses are true. Juror no. 3 (the one that said not guilty the last) is very aggressive (acts in their own self-interest at the expense of others. They are critical, insensitive, combative, and even abusive, page 68). He hoots most of the time, and even gets angry to some of the ot her Jurors.His conflict style looks like a competition conflict style (group member are more implicated with their own goals than the group, page 217), because I feel like his presumption is a bit in the way of him choosing not guilty. The Juror that has a cold in the beginning of the movie is has prejudice (negative attitudes about other people that are based on faulty and inflexible stereotypes. Prejudices about an individual or culture group often arise when we remove little or no direct experience with that person, page 81) booty people who grew in slums.He said that he knows everything about those who grows in slums, that they are aggressive, and does not even speak good English. He mentioned those even without intentional the person he is talking about. During the discussion, some of the members wanted votes to see how they are doing so far. This expresses a sense of progress. It is difficult for members to stay propel throughout the life of the group when they have no i dea whether the group is making progress toward its goal (page 147). One of the Jurors even asked for an open ballot to see who is still voting for not guilty.