Any other interesting aspects of group dynamics which you may have observed while seeing the film

Decision making Top managers often work as groups to address strategic problems because the complexity, dynamism, and ambiguity of such problems overwhelm the knowledge of any one person. Each participant brings unique information, knowledge, or perspectives that may be shared via discussion or other forms of interaction. A group's effectiveness in solving strategic problems depends in part on its abilities to identify, extract, and use its members' potential contributions. These abilities may be impaired, however, when a consensus-seeking group values harmony more highly than open expression and evaluation of assumptions and recommendations. A group's effectiveness in solving strategic problems also depends on its members' reactions to experiences within the group and their acceptance of the group's decisions. Ideally, the group process serves to win acceptance and commitment among those ultimately responsible for implementing the decisions made. Sometimes, though, the process alienates participants from both the decisions and their fellow group members. In effect, a decision-making group may perform its task well but 'burn itself up' in the process so much divisiveness and conflict among members that they are unwilling to work together in the future". Such an outcome would undermine not only the implementation of the decisions the group made but also its future effectiveness. In the movie we see various factors in play as a group decision is in process to be made. Each and every person had their personal constraints and prejudices and had a different perception and opinion about the case. In the beginning of the movie we see that all of the jury members were convinced that the defendant is guilty except one of the jury members who solely questions the possibility that the accused could be after all innocent. When he casts his vote in favour of the defendant in the beginning of the first open ballot vote he faces the disapproval of all the jury members who almost try to persuade him to vote otherwise so that they could go home to their respective lives. He is undeterred by their attempt and holds his ground and so begins a serious of discussions among the jury members throwing light on the dynamics at play while taking a group discussion. Also during the course of discussion in the beginning when Jury #8 lays down the reason behind his conclusion that the defendant is after all innocent and still facing rejection by all he calls for a second vote but by secret and swears that he would be willing to plead guilty if now also everyone vote guilty otherwise everyone would have to debate and discuss the case until a reasonable decision couldnt be taken. After the voting is done jury #8 gets another vote in his favour thereby winning his plea for discussing the case yet again before taking any decision. However this infuriates jury #3 as he randomly starts blaming one of the jury members for changing his vote on no basis what so ever, it is then when jury #9 a calm yet strong old gentleman stands up and claims to have been

the one to change the vote citing the reason that he wanted to hear jury #8s reason for he had the courage to voice his opinion and take a stand for what he believed in. Similarly, there are several other circumstances where one sees various other group dynamics at play when taking a group decision rite till the very end when everyone except jury #3 is convinced of the defendants innocence but he due to his own personal biases refuses to change his vote until the entire jury gang up on him and he finally breaks down giving his decision in favour of the jury members thus acquitting the defendant of all charges. Thus one sees how complex group decision making can get at times as numerous factors come into play. This movie is an excellent example of such a situation and one can learn a lot from the movie and strive to implement it real complex situations which might crop during the course of group discussion while in a corporate set up.

Status relations within the group The status of members in the group evolves as the meeting progresses. The unquestioned leader of the group was juror #8 who had a knack of analysing situaions and put forth strong logic supporting his opinion. He fought till the end for what he believed and held his ground. His qualities as leader came natural to him, he did not try to be dominating, conveyed his point of views assertively and listened to all other views patiently. Eventually his resaonable doubt turns out to be the consensus of the group and the young man was proven not guilty. Juror #1 is an appointed facilitaor and his authority is based upon the incumbency. He conforms to the trust bestowed upon him by the court by moderating the meeting efectively but is not immune to group members questions about his authority. During the discussion he even asks other memebrs to facilitate the discussion out of shear frustration. It seems he has been on the similar roles before. Juror # 2 is a compliant and timid fellow who is good at analytitical skills but has no conviction to put forth his views until someone shows him the direction. He never emerges as an assertive member of the group but he conveys the image of a disciplined soldier. Another leader with a negative shade is juror # 3 the angry father. He was the most vocal, naturally influential and stubborn. He fights till the end even though he was cornered by 11 jurors. The quirky sales man is yet another leader. He represented those who believed that the case was over even before discussion. He came up with humorous perspective for every situation and was in a sense one of the powerful members who tried to be the leader. He a

sort of sales technique to push his views to the group and seeks buy in, reminding everyone that the way things are going they might never reach to a conclusion. The old man emerges as one wise fellow who has the guts to support the resonable doubt of juror #8. The stockbroker (juror #4) is the key opinion leader of the group with strong base of facts and logic. He is indifferent to emotions and trusts his instincts. Juror no. # 3 finds a friend in him but he seems un concerned. The injured soldier of the group is juror # 5 who belongs to slums and speaks only when thing get overboard. He contributes with his experiences with usage of knives in neighbourhood fights.