12 Angry Men 12 Angry Men An

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

12 Angry Men: An Invaluable Case Study in the Art of Negotiation and Communication

Terence P. Bonner

Lasell College

Abstract:

The following paper will identify and analyze the techniques exemplified by Henry

Fonda’s character in the film 12 Angry Men to assess the film’s value as a case study and

teaching tool in organizational behavior. The paper will further argue that Fonda’s

character exhibits valuable techniques in managing group dynamics, decision making,

coalition building, effective leadership, and negotiation strategies. To support its theories

and arguments the following work will draw from scholarly journals, academic texts, and

well known literature discussing leadership and negotiation.

“One man is dead. Another man’s life is at stake,” (Fonda & Rose, 1957) states the judge

in the opening scene of the classic drama 12 Angry Men. Perhaps there is no greater issue

in any negotiation than the guilt or innocence of an individual as decided by a jury of their

peers. In some cases such negotiations literally decide life or death, as is the case in the

film 12 Angry Men. As the judge so aptly tells the jurors in the film prior to deliberations,

“you’re faced with a grave responsibility”(Fonda & Rose, 1957). From this moment twelve

men become responsible for the life of one. Their subsequent deliberations become the

subject of a riveting American drama. During these negotiations tensions will rise, and

although the majority of jurors quickly assume guilt, one man will have to effectively

influence eleven others to assure justice. Therefore, 12 Angry Men becomes a film that acts

as a case study that brilliantly provides lessons in group dynamics, decision making,

coalition building, and effective leadership and negotiation strategies.

12 Angry Men was written by Reginald Rose, directed by Sidney Lumet, and stars Henry

Fonda as Juror 8. The film is a classic American drama based on the riveting deliberations

of a jury deciding a verdict in a murder trial, with Juror 8 being the lone dissenter amongst

a group convinced that the accused is guilty. The jurors are all depicted as white, middle

class males in the film; although, each differs in their ethnic backgrounds, age, and cultural

experiences. Before deliberations begin the judge instructs the jurors that they must reach a

unanimous decision, and if they have any reasonable doubt in regards to guilt, they must

find the defendant innocent. They are further cautioned that a unanimous guilty verdict

will result in the issuance of the death penalty for the defendant. The majority of the film

then takes place in the jury room on a hot and humid summer’s day and focuses on the

ensuing deliberations.

The defendant in the film is a young, impoverished Puerto Rican boy from what is referred

to in the film as “the slums” (Fonda & Rose, 1957). The accused has a prior criminal

record and is accused of killing his father with a switchblade knife. Eleven of the twelve

men believe the defendant to be guilty, arguing that the prosecution presented an open and

shut case. The sole dissenting opinion is presented by Juror 8, played by Henry Fonda,

who supports the boy’s innocence. While the majority of the jurors want to quickly issue a

guilty verdict thus quickly completing their jury duty, Fonda’s character asserts the

importance of discussing the case and thoroughly deliberating. The subsequent

deliberations, or negotiations, set the tone for the film and purpose of this case study. To

analyze the tactics one individual is able to utilize in order to successfully lead and

negotiate from a minority position, ultimately influencing eleven others to support his

position.

Negotiation is defined by Robbins and Judge as “a process in which two or more parties

exchange goods or services and attempt to agree on the exchange rate for them” (Robbins

& Judge, 2011 p.465). In the case of 12 Angry Men it is important to build on this

definition and to discuss the environment in which negotiations take place. According to

Flouri and Fitsakis, negotiation is a structured relationship between the parties, the

resources and the constraints within the environment, and bargaining power (Flouri &

Fitsakis, 2007 p. 450). Furthermore, there are two significant dimensions for analyzing the

environment in which negotiations take place: the fixed elements of the negotiation and

changeable parts (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007 p.450). Fixed elements are defined as

fundamentals of the negotiation that the parties cannot influence but can leverage to their

advantage. Whereas changeable parts within the negotiation are elements that can be

influenced by the parties involved. In order to fully understand the incredible teaching

power of 12 Angry Men it is important to discuss the aforementioned parts of negotiations

in greater detail.

In this case the parties involved are the individual members of the jury, who at the start of

deliberations have no existing relationships to each other. This further means that at the

start of the negotiating process there are no concrete teams or coalitions previously

established; with each juror being responsible only to himself and the law. Therefore,

conflict in these negotiations is likely to increase because the members of the group are not

required to maintain any type of relationship at their conclusion (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007

p.451). This presents a particularly challenging obstacle for Juror 8, who as the lone

dissenter must overcome the likely competitive and confrontational behaviors that will

surface amongst the parties. Analyzing the tactics used to accomplish this will provide