Leadership Within the 12 Angry Men Essay

Throughout the film, in that location is seemingly more than one leader throughout the control panel as fit in to Nicks definition of a leader being that there were multiple influences and instances that persuaded the decisions of others. Initially the situation is composed of a biased and opinionated jury that is almost unanimously convinced the defendant is guilty. Throughout the scene, there is a slow but sure change of mind throughout the jury as the protagonist, Juror 8, successfully persuades the other jurors who initially voted the boy guilty of murder to further investigate and examine the fact which flushtually leads to the confirmation and agreement of sightly query among the jury. Juror 8s effective accompliceship was best represented by his consistent approach and solution to the conflict that initially had nobody even listening.Juror 8 knew what he was standing up for, proper justice, even in the face of adversity as he was challenged by everyone in the direction and his willingness and courage to assume the responsibility and challenge the assumed (198). He is also seen as a leader of the group through the honesty and integrity he displayed by acting in accordance with solid moral principles (41) as well as a drive to reach an honest verdict by convincing the group to look at all the possibilities despite the obvious and assumed. Juror 3 would best be classified advertisement as an alienated follower as his prejudice against the defendant clouds his judgment, placing a bias on why he thinks the boy is guilty.As it turns out, his own son that he hasnt seen for 2 years had grown up challenging his authority and rejecting his morals providing the basis for the anger that is displayed so stubbornly until the very bitter end. As alienated pursual are capable, they focus exclusively on the shortcomings and have experienced setbacks and obstacles (195) as did Juror 3 when initially, he had convincingly and mindlessly persuaded the others of the defendants guilt as a result of the anger he felt from the bitter relationship he had with his son.Juror 10 could most definitely be classified as conformist follower as his stubborn belief in the defendants guiltiness was supported by a mindless and intolerant argument supported by his racist, bigoted comments. Initially Juror 10 willingly participated in the heated yet convinced discussion as there was little doubt about the defendants guilt and conflict was at a minimum. As the tables turned and tension rose, Juror 10 strand himself concerned with avoiding conflict (195) and became less of a contributor to the conversation.As with Juror 8, in any situation in which there is an uncertainty or doubt present, especially regarding a decision with such major implications such as the one presented to the Twelve Angry Men, I find it highly obligatory to further investigate and take all things into consideration before coming to a decision. The suspicion of shady, questionable behavi or of the CEO is to be examined and reviewed in the kindred manner that Juror 8 went about questioning the assumed facts and looked at all the possibilities.