12 Angry Men
Although the 1957 movie “Twelve Angry Men” was not written for this purpose, it serves as an excellent portrayal of small group development. The author, Reginald Rose, had written it after his own personal experience serving as a juror. In “Twelve Angry Men” a young man stands accused of stabbing his own father to death. The jurors must unanimously decide the defendant’s guilt or innocence. If found guilty, the accused will be put to death in the electric chair. To eleven of the jurors this is an open and shut case, but one lone juror stands against them to prove there is reasonable doubt.
As the movie unfolds, you begin to see several group roles emerge. Initially, the jury foreman is filling the role of leader. He has been chosen to tabulate votes, call for evidence, and fulfill other organizational duties during deliberations. Over time, his leadership over the group begins to erode. At the onset, he appears to be a little hesitant, as if not quite sure how to proceed. He makes suggestions and looks for approval from the others. He contributes little to the discussion.
The angry man insists that the old man in the suspect’s building could have identified a yelling voice from downstairs even with the el-train passing by. In this group and in most others, it can be difficult to label any one juror as playing out a specific task role. Two other leaders emerge during deliberations. Jack Klugman’s character is able to describe the way a switchblade knife is typically used based on what he saw growing up in the slums. By building our communication skills and avoiding faulty inferences, we can become very effective in the groups we work with every day. He asks the stockbroker for details about his own activities over the last few days and he is unable to remember everything.
While all of these disruptive roles were being demonstrated, the men exhibiting task roles were fighting against them to reach a fair, unbiased decision. As Bormann predicts, the quiet members are the first ones eliminated in “Twelve Angry Men”. Several jurors correlated the fact that the boy was from a bad neighborhood with his being guilty. As Henry Fonda’s character states, “prejudice always obscures the truth”. The man with the cold puts a great deal of effort into trying to convince the others that the boy is guilty because all children with his background are no good. The man with the cold constantly interrupts the others while they are speaking and the angry man shouts throughout the entire movie, as if by being the loudest he will convince them he is right. The facts are supposed to determine the case.