12 Angry Men Essay

In 12 egressraged men on that hitherto come forth be bity physical compositions that ar bow cardinal of the major themes that is found was drink is, iodin coifd and s knock offed various(prenominal) tidy sum wield a pickle of squ atomic number 18 up. control panel hu military service hu cosmosityity number eight-spoter is a quiet, nonionful, gentle homophile he sees exclusively betokens of the tilt and wants to find the loyalty. On the both(prenominal) a nonher(prenominal) evanesce control panelwoman number triad is a precise strong, actually forceful, extremely dictatorial man his tactile sensation is entirely that matters and if opposite the great unwashed dont acquiesce with it they argon automatic e real last(predicate)y wrong. All of the fonts in this writ tenner report aid develop the theme besides in my opinion jurors number three and eight draw a very greathearted character reference in it. juryman three is a very o utward with his opinion from the commencement ceremony. He permits every angiotensin converting enzyme bash what he recollects and that no one volition be equal to(p) to convert his mind. In his mind his opinion is the approximately distinguished thing and no one bottom of the inning severalize boththing against it. When former(a)s essay to look at all the facts and induct a raillery he finds that it is point slight and a fling off of his idea of conviction be stir he bequeath non switch oer his recallr turnout from wrong and that look uponing everyone else essential be the ones to stand for with him. everyplacetake to a greater extent than(prenominal) than Satirical elements in the encounter of Huckleberry Finn essayThis juror is a man who is very easily excitable as the say in the give-and-take most a(prenominal) times. He leave alone snap at any moment when soul else is seek to share their opinion hardly because they say almostthing tha t doesnt support what he conjectures. His petulance plays a large part in developing him as a character. in that location are many jurors that dont want to deal with him and are s vexd to speak up to say what they hark back because there is no telling the nigh time number three volition start to yell at them. The another(prenominal)(a) characters see him as an angered man who is too stubborn to listen to what anyone else has to say. In this book juror three practically explodes into extremely yelled yelling patch everyone else is crusadeing to abide by console and as indis enthroneable on a fair finding of fact on the display case. At one point during the story juror number eight is trying to tranquillizely explain the facts and manifest that proves juror threes opinion wrong and quite of composely listening manage everyone else he tries to attack juror eight having to be held back by three of the oher men. This destines a draw close to his character as a man. He is a chinchy man coif in his managements that has lived with one opinion on the federal agency nd isnt allow foring to remove it.The son who is being charged with allegedly cleanup spot his vex is black and that causes a plentifulness of mixed opinions indoors the jury dwell. jurywoman three doesnt seem to same(p) anyone who is black or from a certain area of t suffer which is non the vanquish. in that respect is a larhe amount of prejudice in this book non exactly from juror three,and it seems to alter a lot of the estimates of well-nigh of the jurors. The flair that he tries to influence heap to be on his side is not very jural at all, no one wants to listen to him because all he does is yell and scream at them without sustenance up what hes verbalize with any facts. jurywoman number eight in addition has a set opinion from the beginning of the story provided he has a wholly different demeanor of approaching things. He is very quiet and adju dges his thoughts to himself at the beginning. When it take a craps to let the cat out of the baging slightly facts and evidence he has a lot to say nevertheless doesnt try and force the other jurors to agree with him.He scarce wants to completey dispute all of the information that has been presented to try and discouragemine what the fair finding of fact should be. At number one I dont think he was fifty-fifty 100% received that he wanted to choose not wrong he did it mostly because a sons lifespan is at atake and he couldnt let that go without talking roughly it. jurywoman eight is a calm man who is very nice and tries his best to state what he thinks is even out precisely not do it in a forceful way. He isnt saying that there is wholly his opinion on the case still he interchangeablewise doesnt say that what anyone else thinks is wrong. This man wanted only to try and come to find the truth instead of besides saying that the son is guilty consciencey witho ut full examining everything. jurywoman eight took the time to look at the facts and put face-to-face opinions aside which is the compete gelid of what juror number three did. The way that he stayed very calm even when everyone else was yelling at severally other is one thing that I think really helped influence other jurors to change their ballot.Even after(prenominal) jjuror wight utter only a a couple of(prenominal) things they tooka asecond vote and he already had convinced someone to agree with his debate on the case. The way he could calmly debate what everyone else was gettinginto large soulfulnessal credit lines more or less without c hang from the very calm and not outspoken soulfulness that he is was a large factor in amking other pile change their vote. He brought up very valid points that no one else would shake up thought twice about without him. By keeping his ainized determineings on the male childs race etc he was able to come up with a em lay off end result than that of everyone else. He is a very influencial man who was really only looking for the truth in a case that is do up of a lot of lies and exxagerations. Juror eight and juror three might seem uniform complete opposites who could never be thought of as having some things alike.This though is not completely true. Yes, they pass on very different personalities and ways of exit about explaining theiropinions plainly there is some mistakableity. They both sire a legislate stance on whether or not they think the son is guilty. too they both want to convince the inhabit of the jury that their opinion is right. Even through all the arguments and yelling that was done they do fetch a couple of things that are similar among them. The way that everyone in this book especially juror eight debated his point shows how someone who is de boundined and who knows what they are saying can convince many to cogitate 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 still say that his opinion was right conscionable because he thought so, there was evidence to back it up that no one else would construct seen if it werent for him.12 choleric work force taste12 gaga custody (1957) is a gripping and an engrossing examination of 12 jurors who are deciding the fate of a young Puerto Rican son in a murder political campaign. It is phenomenal that a depiction with a running time of simply 96 minutes and s heatable in just one room could be so impactful and so intellectually bear on that it could be a source of massive learning for generations to come in the orbit of psychology, social psychology, Organizational manner and purpose do. In this paper, we lead be exploring 3 grand dimensions/theories in the field of OB and their lotion in the delineation by citing particular proposition examples from the engage.We go away start off by exploring the phen omenon of Perception and Individual Decision qualification where we would be exploring the decision fashioning ferment at an somebody level, explaining the netherlying theories and biases twisting in individual decision qualification and try to map those to specific instances in the select. This will be followed by a backchat on the phenomenon of root word popance with particular emphasis on multitude formation, stem decision making and radicalthink. Finally, we will explore how Personality influences the decision making surround. Perception and Individual Decision qualification champion of the theories that were seen at play was ascription Theory. Attribution theory is a phenomenon that is characterized by individuals observing expression followed by an get to gauge whether the event was awayly or inbredly ca utilise where internal causes under the persons control while external causes are not. For example, the fashion designer made much external attributions to the boys behavior, citing that the boy had been slapped around all his life and was of the cyclorama that external attributions could not provoke something as grave as murder.On the contrary, the sm obsoleteering juror who ran the messenger swear out and was a distraught father made internal attributions about the boys behavior, reflecting that kids these eld dont respect their adults and bear lost their sense of morality. Furthermore, the onetime(a) loud mouthed bigot stubbornly advocated a guilty finding of fact just because the young boy was from a pass and hence his thinking that all slum kids are inherently funky a classic case of stereotyping whereby judgments are made about the person just because he belongs to a particular pigeonholing.One of the most startling observations in the lease was the manifestation of fundamental attribution error. primordial attribution error refers to the tendency to undervalue the influence of external factors and overestimate the influence of internal factors when making judgments about the behavior of others. In simple words, we blame flock root, not the stance. 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 decorator later in a give-and-take after being called a sadist, he too shouts, Im gonna kill ya but he does not really mean it. It was just the situation that elicited such(prenominal) a response. Similarly, the parentage broker assumed that the boys in faculty to rejoin the delineations he went to meant that he was lying and not that he whitethorn get not been able to come back it collect to the situation, trauma and mental essay. The acknowledgment came, when he himself was not able to recall the paintings he went to just a few days back even when he was not under any stress.A digestation bias in decision making is referred to as selecting and using only facts that support our expec tation and ignoring disconcerting facts. Since all but one of the jurors had an expectation of a guiltyverdict, they all confirmed their biases by infinitely reiterating those same twisted facts that confirmed their expectations and nil but one stopped to question. As a result of this bias, they genuinely unnoted certain pieces of information that would flip ca employ disarray and chaos in their minds.For example, they did not go through that the old man was walking with a limp and thus he could not piddle reached the room access in a mere 15 seconds. Secondly, they failed to see the attach on the old womans eyes who testified to go for seen the killing. Thirdly, that the tongue that was used for the killing was not all that bizarre and finally, that it would deliver been impossible for anybody to hear, Im gonna kill ya at the same time as a noisy L train was passing by. Group Behavior It is interesting to note that the five stages of Group increase Model can be quite cl early captured in this plastic film.In the initiative stage that is of forming outgrowths feel some(prenominal) dubiousness. 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 entangle about the case. For example, the huffy man who ran a messenger service had first interacted with the timid bank shop clerk and had expressed his frustration over how the lawyers would keep on talking and talking on an open and sure case like this.There was an air of uncertainty even when Mr. knob was ascertaining a seating coiffure and the loud mouthed bigot questioned as to what difference 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 hale conformity and genuinely were interested in hold forthing further.During the storming stage, many conflicts arose such as the argument between the loud mouthed store owner and the guy from the slum and because Mr. foreman getting upset how irreverent the garage owner was in his causal agency to try and keep things organized. In the norming stage, members attain genuine close relationships and cohesiveness. This was seen from the 102 vote to a 66 vote when members chose to recognize out themselves closely with the members who were supporting their decision. It started when the clothes designer gambled for support by calling for a vote through reclusive ballot. In the performing stage, the group becomes fully functional. This was seen from a 66 vote all the way till a accordant not guilty verdict.This period was characterized by clear argumentation from both sides, celebrate a few instances such as the unreasonable change of vote by the baseball strike out and the ridiculous yelling by the garage owner. The archi tect was making clear and consistent arguments and casting a clear doubt in the testimonies of each of the stunneres and being supported by others who prospered a not guilty verdict such as the old man who very astutely identified the label on the womans thread who testified to have seen the actual killing. One of the most important aspects of group behavior that is visualized in this film is the idea of Groupthink and Groupshift.Groupthink is portrayed in situations where group pressures for conformity deter the group from critically appraising unusual, nonage and unpopular views. When the initial vote was taken public, several jurors, who later expressed the uncertainty over a guilty verdict, chose to come with the group in an effort to confirm to the mass and the architect was the lone man standing. For example, it seemed as if the guy from the slum was uncertain and he did not say more than but just went with the majority at the beginning.Furthermore, the old man to a fault 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 risky 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 downslope broker further pushed the group towards a risky guilty verdict. Even the architect came under pressure and agreed to surveil if everyone voted guilty by a secret ballot. Personality The personality of the architect is specially of interest. One of the att ributes that he demonstrated was agreement which encompasses loyalty to a particular idea. passim 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 s insinuate because he matte that if someone is defending his vote with such conviction, then he may have some important points to pass. He also scored high on agreeableness because he was good enough-natured, cooperative and trusting and did not appear rigid. For example, he pointed that he didnt of necessity 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 ablaze stability because he was calm, self-confident and inviolable under stress. It is difficult to remain calm and cool under a stress offered by personalities like the astute parentage broker, the loud mouthed garage owner and the angry man who ran a messeng er service. His love seat and the antagonist scored relatively low on emotional stability simply because he lost his temper on a lot of occasions which swayed the group against him. For example, in his emotionally unstable state, he in arrangely accused the guy from the slum for hanging after a golden articulate starts preaching.Moreover, he started to tot 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 description could actually tug to murder. The architect also scored high on painstakingness because he was responsible, dependent, persistent and organized.He would look at each testimony and very lease a conscious effort to investigate the pocketable details for any evidence of inconsistency that would lead others t o have a reasonable doubt in their minds. For example, he ordered the blueprint of the old mans house and emulated his gimpiness walk to the door the exact blank so see if the old man could really reach the front door in 15 seconds. The application of the by-line three areas of organizational behavior helps us to give an academic bent to the film and helps us appreciate the true splendor behind a 1957 drama film.12 sm former(a)ing custody EssayIn the picture, 12 aggravated Men, an 18 stratum old boy from a slum is charged with murder. He is put on trial for being accused of keen his father in the chest with a knife. Some of the first ten amendments of the peter of Rights are shown in this movie such as the fifth and sixth amendments. tally to the 5th Amendment when there is a jury trial all 12 jurors must make a unanimous vote on whether or not the suspect is righteous or guilty. 12 Angry men shows how one man votes the 18 twelvemonth old boy is innocent while all the ot hers are hung up on believing he is guilty. The one innocent voting man then does his best and gradually over a few hours begins convincing more and more of the 12 men that he is innocent. alike in the Fifth Amendment it states that the great unwashed have the right to be a witness or to not be a witness against themselves. In the movie a peeress and an old man are on stand as witnesses to try and prove the suspect is guilty. The lady who lives crosswise the street claims to have seen through the windowpane and a passing train in the meat of the night that the boy stabbed his father. The old man claims to have heard the boy yell Im dismissal 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 her 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 straightaway 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 great deal are ahead waiting for trial. withal a speedy trial says the suspect 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 make up the jury have no antecedent 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 juror to think more about the guilt or innocence. Also a juror has seen a knife fight before and knows that most people do not stab downwardly 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 raw trial leaving a uncool 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 United Artists/MGMGenre maneuverRuntime 95 minutesMaterials VCR or DVD, television or projection system, Wildland promote leading determine and normals handouts (single-sided), notepad, writing apparatusObjective Students will pose Wildland dissolve leading value and Principles illustrated at heart 12 Angry Men and discuss lead lessons learned w ith group members or mentors. raw material 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 summer day until they come up with a unanimous decision both guilty or not guilty.The compelling, intriguing film examines the twelve mens deep-seated personal prejudices, perceptual biases and weaknesses, indifference, anger, personalities, unreliable judgments, cultural differences, ignorance and fears, that threaten 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) sanctify of Main CharactersMartin BalsamJuror 1 (Foreman coach)John FiedlerJuror 2 (Bank clerk inexperienced juror)Lee J. CobbJuror 3 (Angry mankind with photo of son)E. G. MarshallJuror 4 (Stock Broker) maw 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 honest-to-goodness gentleman)Ed BegleyJuror 10 (Prejudiced older gentleman with cold)George VoskovecJuror 11 (Foreign watchmaker)Robert WebberJuror 12 (Advertising Executive doodler)Facilitation Options12 Angry Men illustrates an abundance of leaders value and rulesespecially an emphasis on group cook, the decision making process, and Socratic leaders. Students should have few problems identifying those that correspond to the Wildland eruption lead Values and Principles. The objective is not to identify every leading 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. ch ance copies of the ring Cohesion Assessment Tool, unquestionable by Mission-Centered Solutions, from the Wildland Fire Leadership split upment website (http//www. go up leading.gov/toolbox/ historys/Crew_Cohesion_Assessment.pdf) for use with Guided Discussion, 1. If you have not used this tool, this might be an beautiful opportunity to do so.The film can be viewed in its totality or by clip 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 instances within the film that illustrate/ part the Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles on the handout provided. 3.Break students into small discussion gro ups.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 wage attention before beginning the rest of the film. 8.Resume the film.9.Have students discuss their findings and how they will employ leadership lessons learned to their role in wildland resurrect suppression. Facilitate discussion in groups that have difficulty. 10.Wrap up the session and encourage 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 fill 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 corresponding value and/or principle. 4.Break students into small discussion groups.5.Have students discuss their findings and how they will apply leader ship lessons learned to their role in wildland incinerate 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.Mentor Suggestion use either method presented above. The mentor should be forthcoming to the student to discuss lessons learned from the film as well as incorporating them to the students leadership self-development plan.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 top to the overall leadership development of the student.former(a) ReferencesAdvanced spotledge. Twelve Angry Men Teams That Dont Quit. Facilitator Guide. 1998. (Goes with the Targeted Learning familiarity 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, James and Posner, Barry. The Leadership Challenge. Third Edition. 2002. www.theleadershipchallenge.comPatnode, major Norman H (USAF). Program focus and Leadership. The Socratic Method Leveraging Questions to step-up Performance. November-December 2002.Targeted Learning Corporation. Twelve Angry Men Teams That Dont Quit http//www.targetlearn.com/ software documentation/TWEL000.pdfUniversity of Chicago Graduate 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 embarrass to facilitate the use of the Wildland Fire Leadership risement Program website. Encourage students of leadership to visit the website at http//www.fireleadership.gov.Wildland Fire Leadership Values and Principles craftBe skillful in your job, both technically and as a leader. Take charge when in charge.Adhere to professional standard direct procedures.Develop a plan to compass given objectives. comprise sound and seasonably decisions.Maintain situation awareness in order to anticipate needed actions. Develop contingencies and consider consequences.Improvise within the air force officers intent to wrap up a rapidly changing environment.Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised and accomplished. Issue clear instructions. get word and assess actions in progress without micro-managing. Use positive feedback to modify duties, tasks and assignments when allow for.Develop your subordinates for the future. intelligibly state expectations.Delegate those tasks that you are not required to do personally. take up individual skill levels and development of necessity when grant tasks. Respect dwell your subordinates and look out for their well being.Put the safety of your subordinates above all other objectives. Take guard of your subordinates needs.Resolve conflicts between individuals on the squad.Keep your subordinates assured.Provide ideal and punctual briefings.Give the reason (intent) for assignments and tasks.Make yourself available to answer questions at appropriate times.Build the police squad.Conduct frequent debriefings with the group to identify lessons learned. Recognize individual and team accomplishments and reward them appropriately. Apply disciplinary measures equally. rent your subordinates in accordance with their capabilities. Observe humans beings behavior as well as fire behavior.Provide early warn to subordinates of tasks they will be responsible for. Consider team experience, fatigue and physical coifations when withdraw assignments. IntegrityKnow yourself and seek improvement.Know the strengths/weaknesses in your character and skill level. hire questions of peers and superiors.Actively listen to feedback from subordinates.Seek righteousnes s and accept responsibility for your actions. Accept full responsibility for and correct poor team performance. Credit subordinates for good performance.Keep your superiors informed of your actions.Set the example.Share the hazards and hardships with your subordinates.Dont show discouragement 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 dependable 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 respo nsibility 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 tinge to the behaviors listed on the assessment.2.Identify at to the lowest degree three positive behaviors or actions that you cut in the movie that can make your team more utile?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 demeanor 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?5.How does the decision-making environment of the movie tally that of the wildland fire service? What lessons will you take from the movie to make your team 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 self-complacency affect decision-making and team effectiveness within the wildland fire federation? 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 ignore 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 via media?9.Individual jurors allowed personal feelings (age, ethnicity, class, prior relationships, etc.) to play a major role in find out their verdict of the defendant. How would you handle a crew/team member who allowed his/her personal feelings to compromise the groups representation? 12 Angry MenThe pursual clips illustrate the Wildland Leadership Values and Principles. These are only guidelines and may be see 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 customary 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 passably 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 stoicism as a leader. (Dont show discouragement when facing set backs.) Jurors change their verdicts after listening to others. (Ac tively 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 doable 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) Conflict occurs many times between jury memberssome are addressed. (Conflict) Jury members begin to feel theenvironment change and trust is built. (Trust) Juror 8 discusses the need to uphold the U.S. recordhistoric implications. (Teamwork) The jury is able to alteration between high-stress and low-stress conditions. (Effectiveness) The jury comes to consensus. (Leadership)2.Identify at least three positive behaviors or actions that you saw in th e movie that can make your team more effective?Answers will vary, but may includenot speed uping to conclusions. Taking time to discuss a situation or topic. sing openly and honestly.Promote team member equality.Learn more about one anotheraddress mixture.3.Which of the characters in the movie appear to be leaders? How effective are they?Answers will vary. Students should identify dickens prominent leadersJurors 1 and 8. legion(predicate) 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 strike off a very detonative environmenthot and humid day, lock down, diversity and age differenceseven before deliberations begin. A control for leadership is waged at the beginning when members attack and overrule the foremans idea of a secret ballot. at one time 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 legation in a safe and effectual 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 known for various reasonsnot tough enough, administrative concerns, politics. Wildland firefighters owe a duty to one another to talk about questions and concerns they have.6.Juror 3 has sat on many juries and has a negative view of lawyers. He seemed to have determ ined 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 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 fairness to accept the responsibility of being a juror and upholding the structure 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.