Case study Team members
Team members did not know each other’s opinions ; reasons and needed direction. One Juror took charge and asked others to vote on the issue. This was the forming stage. As they started to vote, some members just voted as they did not want to go against others. Juror 8 voted against other 11 persons.
During secret vote, one person changed his vote. This led all the members to argue and team members started fighting. Some members got personal and accused each other. There was lot of distraction because of personal commitments, emotional Issues, etc.
This was the storming stage. Juror 8 helped to focus on facts and explained the seriousness of the matter.
Also, Juror 9 helps to ring some Important observations In the picture. This helps other members to review their reasoning and people start giving second thoughts to their vote. Ultimately, more members understood the point of view of Juror 8 and team earned clear direction to proceed and arrive at consensus. This was the morning stage. In the later stage, many people shared various point of views to analyze the details for testimonies and other evidences.
Almost all the team members were completely focused about the case and team was determined to make a logical decision.
This was performing stage. ) Impact of perception on decision-making: I could see many examples of Perception in this movie. For example, Juror 3 was having tough time with his son. (His son was young of similar age group as that of the accused boy. ) So, he had a perception that young generation, including the accused, did not respect elders.
Hence, Juror 3 was certain that the accused boy had murdered his father.
Also, Juror 10 had perception that all people from slums could not be trusted and they could kill others very easily. I could see some examples of selective perception as well. Some members pointed that the accused did not member names of actors from the film but did not take into consideration the atmosphere where he was questioned after murder of his father. Also, some members repeatedly pointed to the testimony of old man but neglected his physical condition. Same is applicable for the witness lady whose testimony was considered very important but facts about her social status and eye-sight were neglected conveniently.
) Decision-making traps: I feel decision trap Is logical flaw that could result In wrong decision-making. One of the most Important decision traps was not to consider that there could be other side o the story. 11 members of the Jury did not think about this and were ready with their decisions. As this was a group decision, 11 members were Just willing to vote based on majority and leave quickly. As the team members were held responsible as also feel majority of the team members did not understand consequence of their judgment going wrong and resulting into death of an innocent man.
I feel this flaw emerged from the fact that people were not going to get punished individually in case their Judgment would have been wrong. So, in case of fast but wrong decision, hey were going to leave quickly without punishment. But, to make logical decision, they needed to discuss and spend more time and this logical decision did not offer any reward. People were not ready to believe the story of the accused boy, but they readily accepted the stories of old man and lady witness without any questions.
People easily assumed that the boy purchased one unique rare knife and it was used for the murder.
They did not take into consideration that similar knife was available in the market. Also, some members repeatedly pointed out that accused threatened o kill his father, but they did not consider that it could have been an action taken in the fit of rage. *** Impact of individual level behavior impacting group decision- making: There are several examples of individual behavior impacting group decision-making. I feel Juror 8 was the most influential team member.
He was ethical, analytical and committed to his responsibility as a Jury member. He dared to take different stand and stood against 11 members initially.
He explained his point of view very well and convinced other member to change their decisions based on facts. He possessed good leadership qualities as he did not buckle under pressure and was self-motivated. He understood consequences of his actions very well and saw the possibility that the accused could have been innocent. He took efforts to search for the special knife and provided it to support his argument.
Juror 8 did not lose his temper and motivated his team to stay focused.
I feel Juror 8 displayed many qualities of an Inspired Leader such as ethics, compassion and mindfulness. I feel behavior of Juror 9 also created positive impact on group decision-making. He hanged his mind in the secret voting as he agreed with the reasoning of Juror 8. This changed track of the events and helped Juror 8 to present his views. Juror 9 was also observant and pointed out facts about the witness lady which proved that she was not able to see the murder with accuracy.
I also feel willingness of Juror 5 to share his experiences about fights with knife helped the team to understand more of about relation between possible use of knife, height of attacker and injury on the chest of dead man. Behavior of Juror 3 created a strong negative impact on the roof decision-making. He was behaving like a sadist and repeatedly obstructed the discussion. He was influenced by his personal relation with his son and it blinded his actions, which in turn affected group decision-making.
He did not show respect towards difference of opinions and got violent sometimes. I also feel Juror 7 had purchased tickets to a game and was in hurry to leave the court to watch the game.
He constantly interrupted others and did not think logically. He did not understand the severity of his actions. Most of the Jurors were willing to accept the logical arguments made by Juror 8 and therefore changed their opinions from “Guilty’ to “Not Guilty’. So, by changing their opinions, they helped the team to make the right decision ultimately. ** Ethical dilemmas: I feel the biggest ethical dilemma was understood by Juror 8.
The dilemma was whether to declare the accused as Guilty without considering the possibility that he coo a De Innocent. Plainly agreeing Walt toner Jury memoirs Ana cellaring ten accused as guilty posed a serious danger of punishing an innocent with death sentence. This was the ethical dilemma which motivated Juror 8 to think about other aspects of the case (not discussed in the court earlier) and he convinced other Jury members to focus on unforeseen facts and logical analysis.
Juror 8 understood the real significance of Jury’s decision affecting life of a human being. Ultimately he managed to change their votes from “Guilty’ to “Not Guilty’.
I saw two other principles of SOIL: compassion and mindfulness. Juror 8 was compassionate towards others. Juror 8 understood various factors involved in upbringing of the accused. Also, Juror 8 was compassionate towards other Jury members. He understood real problem of Juror 3. At the end, he helped Juror 3 to get his coat as he understood real pain of Juror 3.
I also feel Juror 8 was mindful as he proved his point that a person can threaten to kills someone in the fit of rage without actually meaning it really. Also, his mindfulness was displayed as he searched for knife to prove his point. Juror 9 was also mindful as he closely observed the witness lady within short time and made logical conclusions. To conclude, this movie helped me to understand many principles of Organizational Behavior in real life scenario. Lessons learned from this movie will help to take decisions logically.