movie reflection

9% List three leadership lessons you have learned about decision making from watching the movie? Explain the “why” for each one. (1/2 – 1 page)

5% Reference page format

5% A+: The assignment is presented with excellence, ready to publish, and displays a strong understanding of all sections of the assignment.

· Near perfect grammar and English

· Perfect spelling

· All criteria met and presented in a professional and thoughtful manner.

· Displays a clear knowledge of the material covered in LDRS 320 thus far.

GRADING RUBRIC FOR EACH SECTION

Each section will be graded on the:

· accuracy

· level of critical thinking

· integration of the topic with the actions in the movie

· effectiveness of the references

· spelling and grammar

12 ANGRY MEN 1

12 ANGRY MEN 10

Comment by Huishu Zhang: You need the article title here

An example of collaborative decision-making may be found in the film 12 Angry Men. The film tells the story of a group of 12 men who were chosen to decide the fate of an 18-year-old kid accused of murdering his father. Either the boy is guilty or he is not, and that must be decided. To begin the film, the twelve men met in a room to debate and vote on whether or not the boy is guilty. The first voting starts with 11 to 1 in favor of guilty. Everyone was taken aback since they assumed that the evidence produced in court proved conclusively that the youngster had murdered his father. However, one juror who found the boy not guilty cast doubt on the evidence offered.

In the film 12 Angry Men, it is shown that group decision making is more effective than individual decision making. It’s because group members come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of viewpoints on the same subject. Having more data and knowledge at their disposal, the group may then come to a more solid and evidence-based conclusion through debate and questioning. Group decision-making is demonstrated to be more effective than individual decision-making in the film 12 Angry Men. It’s because the group members come from different backgrounds and have different perspectives on the same topic. By debating, questioning, and working together, the group may be able to arrive at a more solid and factual decision. Comment by Huishu Zhang: Citation needed
Is the following website your reference？
https://www.academia.edu/23720852/Group_decision_making_analysis_of_12_Angry_Men_

A group or even more than one person isn’t involved in the decision-making process when it’s done individually. Individual decision-making saves time and money by avoiding the need to call a meeting or a series of meetings, or even to send a single email to everyone involved. Analysis and predicting of an individual’s behavior can benefit from an individual’s predisposition to ponder and question before to action.

Some of the guys on the “guilty” side were intimidating and insulting, and many jurors didn’t want to be seen as disagreeing with these men when the vote results were announced in the public arena. This was carried out in order to avoid being singled out by the “men in authority.” One juror kept flipping his vote back and forth in order to please the majority and get out of here as quickly as possible. Those involved believed that their actions were morally correct because they placed their trust in the group’s judgment (Hu, 2018). They were morally correct because they believed they were going to punish a terrible person for the dreadful deed that they had perpetrated in the first place. It was clear from the start that there would be a lot of pressure to follow the “group leaders,” yet the minority ultimately prevailed.

Gradually, as more information became available, each juror came to realize that whatever justification they had for believing the youth had committed the crime was in fact problematic, according to the rules of social psychology. Because of these considerations, the court determined that the kid should have been found guilty also the evidence presented was insufficient to condemn the lad. A shift in group dynamics may have occurred because, at first, everyone supported the majority group’s leaders and was angry by one juror who claimed that the kid was not guilty since they only wanted to exit the courtroom, but that has now changed.

There are several reasons why an elderly man’s testimony would be questionable, and these are discussed. The elderly gentleman could not have gotten up and moved as rapidly as he did when the toddler dashed down the stairwell to his room (Kuznetsova, 2020). It’s likely that an elderly gentleman noticed the youngster making his way down those stairs. Because they didn’t want to accept the possibility that this boy might be innocent, several jurors sided with the prosecution and formed a fictitious majority.

A solitary juror informed the rest of the jury that he had recently purchased a knife that was identical to the one in issue and that he had brought this to their attention. When they were unable to locate a matching knife, they began to concoct excuses as to why it had to be the guys, such as the fact that it was a coincidence. They simply ignored the data since he was of a different race in order to demonstrate a unreal consensus.

Throughout the film, the availability heuristic is demonstrated when a witness claims to have seen the youngster through the window of a moving train, despite the difficulty of really witnessing something like that. It was another piece of proof that she wore glasses, which would have made it difficult for her to wake up in time to witness the child commit the murder. Despite the huge amount of quantity of evidence given, some jurors were not persuaded, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence.

Due to the fact that the vote was public and everyone could see what they were responding to, all but one jury member raised their hands to indicate guilt during an initial vote in the film (Armstrong, 2018). One of the jurors, a former slum youth, doesn’t say much in the beginning of the trial. Even though the fact that he later admits to having doubts about the boy’s guilt, he first agreed to cooperate with the gang because he felt he had no choice but to. It’s the same as when a jury member asks to go to a baseball game and is turned down by the committee. When it came time to cast his vote, he simply followed the lead of the rest of the group.

An organization’s basic unit of work is dialogue. The quality of the conversation impacts how people acquire and process information, how they make decisions, and how they feel about one another and the outcomes of these decisions. It is possible to get a competitive advantage through dialogue. The knowledge worker’s productivity and growth are directly linked to their ability to communicate effectively. The tone and content of discourse influences people’s actions and beliefs that is the business culture faster and more permanently. Leadership that fosters intellectual honesty and trust between people is essential to overcoming an apathetic culture. Comment by Huishu Zhang: If you just copy-paste sentences from an article without citing the material, it would be seen as plagiarism, which is a serious academic issue.

Clarify = Decide what action has to be taken or what the problem is that needs to be resolved.

Consider = Consider all of your options and the consequences of making each one. Consider both the positive and negative aspects of each decision.

Choose = Make a wise decision.

For a small period of time, allowing jury 3 to express his worries about the case helped to lessen the ego clash that existed between him and juror 8 during the trial. In order to avoid an outburst from juror eight, the other jurors engaged in active listening as long as juror eight or another juror who had voted not guilty was on the stand. As a result, the group resolved to put in place a period of leisure between meetings (Fernandes, 2019). When jury number three had an outburst, the foreman would keep the conversation focused on the issues of the case at hand. Therefore, the foreman should particularly “instruct the jury to be descriptive rather than evaluative and judgmental.”

In the film, Juror ten and the other jurors had an interesting and direct discussion that was worth seeing. After a while, the remainder of the jury had had enough of his nasty remarks and walked out of the courtroom. As a result of their disinterest in hearing it, the rest of the jury missed Juror ten’s nasty behavior toward him. It was only after two of the jury members remained at the table that juror ten was told by juror four to “sit down and don’t open your lips again.” Once the jurors had removed themselves from their bigotry, it was only then that the tenth juror realized what he had done wrong and changed his vote to not guilty. Juror four was able to alleviate the tension by calmly informing jury ten that he had said too much and that he should stop speaking out of turn.

The most significant conflicts were settled, while the smaller ones were ignored. The jurors were influenced by each of the tensions in the film to vote not guilty. A small disagreement over jury eight’s vote of not guilty would forever alter the group’s dynamics.

Juror 3’s demeanor shows he is an extremely intolerant person. Juror 8 is a reliable juror who accepts both evidence and reasonable doubt, although Juror 7 is skeptical. Their varied personalities provide them a fresh viewpoint on the murder inquiry. Juror 8 defends the law. A vote was called at the start of the play, and he was the only one to vote not guilty. He may appear calm, thoughtful, and caring, yet he is a driven character who would stop at nothing to see justice done. Juror 8 is persuasive but also manipulative. For example, he continually riled Juror 3. Unlike Juror 8, Juror 3 lacks the bravery to stand alone on the murder scene. One possibility is that he lacks the mental capacity to formulate effective counter-arguments.

It shows the entire process of collective decision making. The movie ’12 Angry Men’ demonstrates the superiority of group decision-making over individual decision-making. People in groups tend to come from different backgrounds and have a variety of viewpoints. Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias in which we give greater weight to evidence that supports our initial, unconsciously held belief. Jurors in 12 Angry Men are influenced by the defendant’s history or their personal preconceptions in the majority of the cases. Consequently, they are able to swallow the prosecution’s case with a gulp of water.

Among the jurors, eleven expressed a desire to have the case over and done with. As a result, they voted the youngster guilty without providing any further information. They didn’t want to put in any effort, both mentally and physically. Take your time if the decision is critical. A young boy’s life was in jeopardy in the film. Find out what’s at risk and prepare discussions and dialogues accordingly.

You can’t force someone to believe what you believe. That’s already been taken! Fonda was well aware of this, and as a result, he never attempted to persuade anyone to vote ‘not guilty.’ Assuring people that they were on the right track was his goal (Ryan, 2018). You must deal with a complicated network of innumerable emotions, social interactions, and the ever-persistent urge of people to resist change in order to get your ideas accepted by others. Good leadership is characterized by the ability to nudge others rather than shoving them. Emotional intuition and logical reasoning are the keys to becoming an effective leader.

References

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=12+angry+men+film

Hu, J., Erdogan, B., Jiang, K., Bauer, T. N., & Liu, S. (2018). Leader humility and team creativity: The role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 313.

Kuznetsova, I. N. N. A., & Sokurenko, I. G. O. R. (2020). Practices of decision-making in small business.

Armstrong, B. A. (2018). Leadership Culture Maturity (Doctoral dissertation, The Claremont Graduate University).

Fernandes, V. (2019). Investigating the role of data-driven decision-making within school improvement processes. In Evidence-based initiatives for organizational change and development (pp. 201-219). IGI Global.

Ryan, A., Duignan, S., Kenny, D., & McMahon, C. J. (2018). Decision making in paediatric cardiology. Are we prone to heuristics, biases and traps?. Pediatric cardiology, 39(1), 160-167.

Thank you for your effort. You observed the decision-making process that takes place in the movie carefully. However, your article mainly discussed group thinking and collective decision-making which did not follow the assignment requirement. All the assigned materials must be read and understood before you analyze a scene of the decision-making process in the movie. More importantly, you must read the assignment requirements carefully and strictly follow the criteria to accomplish your paper. Furthermore, you did not master the citation rules of APA7 sufficiently. Please refer to the following website and correct your citation and references list.

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/general_format.html