Final Project of Negotiation On The Movie 12 Angry Men

Group Members
Names M.Zubair Abdullah Ishfaq M.Zubair Saeed Hassan Bin Shahid M.Hashim Younas Reg No. L1F09BBAM2234 L1F07BBAM0201 L1F09BBAM2127 L1F09BBAM0008 L1F07BBAM2246

Submitted To Mam Neelam Yousaf

Date: 22/6/2013

Introduction
We have made our report of Negotiation based on the movie 12 Angry Men of 1957. 12 Angry Men was a story based on the topic of young Spanish-American boy which was accused of murder of his own father. The jury of 12 persons was appointed by judge to differentiate facts from fury. This movie contains many negotiation techniques and tactics which we have learned in our class. The difficulty faced by the jury members was that the judge ordered to give unanimous decision. In this movie the jury members uses different negotiations styles to change others members perception with the help of re-examining the evidences. Basically this movie displays how to negotiate in different situations, in shorter time limit and how to achieve the outcomes with the help of strategies and tactics, and how to deal with individuals who have different personalities and viewpoints.

Case Summary
A Puerto Rican youth is on trial for murder, accused of knifing his father to death. The twelve jurors retire to the jury room, having been admonished that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Eleven of the jurors vote for conviction, each one has its own reasons. The sole holdout is Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda. As Henry Fonda plays a most vital role in the movie who votes not guilty as the deliberations begin. As the film proceeds, he persuades jury members to re-examine the evidence. Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb), a bullying selfmade man, has estranged himself from his own son. Juror #7 (Jack Warden) has an ingrained mistrust of foreigners; so, to a lesser extent, does Juror #6 (Edward Binns). Jurors #10 (Ed Begley) and #11 (George Voskovec), so certain of the infallibility of the Law, assume that if the boy was arrested, he must be guilty. Juror #4 (E.G. Marshall) is an advocate of dispassionate deductive reasoning. Juror #5 (Jack Klugman), A young paramedic from a violent slum hopes that his guilty vote will distance himself from his past. Juror #12 (Robert Webber), an advertising man, doesn't understand anything that he can't package and market. And Jurors #1 (Martin Balsam), #2 (John Fiedler) and #9 (Joseph Sweeney), anxious not to make waves, "go with the flow." The dreadfully hot day drags into an even hotter night; still, Fonda chips away at the guilty verdict, insisting that his fellow jurors bear in mind those words "reasonable doubt."

Twelve Angry Men Characters

Juror #

Character

Actor

Order that juror votes 'not guilty'

1/Mr. Foreman

The jury foreman, somewhat preoccupied with his duties; proves to be accommodating to others. An assistant high school football coach

Martin Balsam

9th

A meek and unpretentious bank clerk who is at first dominated by others, but finds his voice later in the story.

John Fiedler

5th

A businessman and distraught father, opinionated, disrespectful, and stubborn with a temper; runs a messenger service, Beck and Call. The antagonist.

Lee J. Cobb

12th

A rational stockbroker, unflappable, self-assured, and analytical

E. G. Marshall Jack Klugman Edward Binns Jack Warden Henry Fonda Joseph Sweeney Ed Begley George Voskovec Robert Webber

11th 3rd 6th 7th 1st 2nd 10th 4th

A young paramedic from a violent slum, a Baltimore Orioles fan

6 7

A house painter, tough but principled and respectful A salesman, sports fan, superficial and indifferent to the deliberations

An architect, the first dissenter and protagonist. Identified as "Davis" at the end

A wise and observant elderly man. Identified as "McCardle" at the end

10 11

A garage owner; a pushy and loudmouthed bigot A European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen

12

A wisecracking, indecisive advertising executive

8th

Analysis
The judge assigned the duty to 12 jurors to differentiate facts from fancy and the decision must be unanimous.

Time Pressure
The jury members having time pressure, because they have to submit their arguments in specific time period. Due to that some of the jury members were in hurry to give their arguments and close the case as soon as possible

Best Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)

They have not having the Alternative because of the order of judge to make unanimous decision based on facts. But at the middle of the process of negotiation process some of the jury members declare a hung jury, which would result in a mistrial. But this act would mean they failed to fulfill their responsibility and that they will burden another jury.

Interdependence
Jury members were independent from each other and they change their decisions with the help of re-investigation of evidences and find the unanimous conclusion.

Conflict
The Negotiation starts with the level of conflicts Intrapersonal Conflict: The conflict starts with the statement of Henry Fonda I dont Know shows that he was not sure that the boy was guilty or innocent. Later some of the other jury members convinced by the arguments of Henry Fonda and they were confused about the boy were guilty or innocent.

Intra Group Conflict Man vs. group conflict shaped into conflict within the group when Henry Fonda convinced by saying people make mistake and could they be wrong? and presented another knife then Joseph Sweene who was a wise observer convinced and he said I want to hear more about the evidences. Henry Fonda convinced Jack Klugman who was a young paramedic from a violent slum by trying to separate facts from fury about the story of old witness who hears the voic e of young boy who said Ill Kill You. With the help of re-examining the evidences, reasonable doubt was been developed in the minds of other jury members.

Functions and Dysfunctions of Conflict

Biasness: Juror no. 3 Lee J. Cobb was biased towards the boy who was accused for the murder of his own Father, and he was biased because his own son left him alone at the age of sixteen after a fight with him.

Blurred Issues: Some of the jury members were doesnt sure about the guilt or innocence of the boy. In the first vote out some of the jury members were just giving their votes in the favor of conviction of murder by seeing other jury members.

Rigid Commitment: Lee J. Cobb had a rigid commitment towards the conviction of boy. He was not focusing on the arguments, evidences and facts and become more committed on his own point of view.

Typical Hardball Tactics

Intimidation: Some of the jurors used this tactics, and they force other jury members through an emotional play and anger.

Aggressive Behavior: Some of the group members uses aggressive behavior after the conflict arises within the group, they were forcing others members to conclude the decision in accordance with their view point.

Snow Job: Some of the juror uses that strategy by giving information about the witnesses and the evidences.

Creating a Free Flow of Information

Some of the jury members create the conditions for free and open discussion to discuss the evidences. Through that some of the jury members share their opinion and information about the evidences and witnesses.

Types of Interests
Substantive Interests: Most of the jurors were focusing on the issue that the boy was accused for the murder of his father based on the evidences and the witnesses.

Process Interest: Most of the jurors were willing to solve the issue with the help of re-examining the evidences. But some of the jurors were doesnt want to re-examine the evidences, they were concluded their statement that all the evidences are against the boy.

Interest in Principle: Some of the juror focusing on the judgment which was based on facts and in accordance with the re-examining the evidences but some of the juror were doesnt want to re-examine the case.

Motivation and Commitment to work together

Some of the jurors were keen to find the outcome with the help of discussions and viewpoints of the jurors about the evidences that were presented in the court. Most of them were committed to reach the decision that were fair for the boy but some of them were forcing their viewpoint about the verdict that all the proof were against the boy and he must be hang for that.

Negotiator Relationship
The Jurors doesnt know each other personally even they doesnt know names of other jury members. They were assigned to give the unanimous decision about the guilt or innocence of a boy. They were not focusing to develop the relationship after the completion of the case but during the negotiation process some of the jury members establish mutual respect.

Stereotyping
Juror no.10 Ed Begley stereotypes the boy that they do not require solid reason to kill someone. The
people from slum are like that and they have no feeling, can do anything.

Power
Some of the jury members were trying to show the power through their angriness, they were forcing their decision, thats why some of the jury members were reluctant to give their point of view. But equal power was given to every jury member to present the crucial points about the evidences and witness. Through the help of re-examining the evidences the power distance were broken and they finally reach to the unanimous decision based on facts.

Affect in Negotiation
Affect in negotiation due to the moods and emotions of some jury members. Some of the jury members were in a rally bad mood and more intense to resolve the case and their behavior was aggressive towards other jurors.

Lessons Learn from 12 Angry Men

Differences of opinion doesnt mean you are wrong It is not necessarily that all get agree on one point; disagreement may lead to the better judgment and help your decision with logic.

Always look at the root cause Dont look on the surface always go for the insight of the problem as the root cause can be different. Same is with the conflict remove the root cause rather than thrashing it from the surface.

Always stay stick with the facts On whatever stage you are, you must stay stick with the facts and figures by completely forgetting the human emotions and psychology. It may be possible that you perceive the things wrong.

Negotiation is the only solution to handle the conflict effectively When you struck in some decision making process and conflict start arising, it is much better that you sit there and negotiate with the opposing party and come up for some harmonizing stage.

Baked your decision with wisdom and Logics When you take some decision before that you must have enough logic and wisdom behind that as in this case he proves with the example that the boy is not guilty but others perceive it wrong. In group others decision may make impact on your own choice While working in group others decision can make an impact on you and the simple solution as it was used in this movie was that you must conduct some secret belting so the element of influence can be avoid.

Decision should be based on collective wisdom The decisions should be based on collective wisdom as in this case of movie if judge make a decision by himself so, he may get it wrong and an innocent life may come to an end for nothing. But making a jury was a good decision and the element of collective wisdom play an important role in order to go for the right decision.

Important decisions should be given time. In the movie, a boys life is at stake if found guilty, he will be executed. So Fondas character (called Davis) wants to talk things through, not to rush to a snap, potentially prejudiced decision.

Emotions must put aside As human have emotions and some time we cant control our emotions but we must try to put our emotions aside and think logically while making any decision.

Stay Calm More influential folks in the room are those that make their points in a calm and steady manner. In comparison, those who lose their temper, shout and attempt to force their opinion on others quickly lose any ability to persuade. They have an impact on people, but not the one they seek.

Conclusion
At the outset, eleven jurors vote in favor of convicting the accused without even discussing a single shred of the evidence presented at trial. Only one brave juror (No 8) refuses to vote. He openly admits that he does not know whether the accused is guilty or innocent and that he finds it necessary to simply talk about the case. What follows is not only a discussion of the particular facts of the case, but an intense examination of the personal baggage that each jury member brings to the room. Many critics argue that the jury system works against justice because a jury is not trained to distance itself from a case in the same way that a lawyer or judge is trained to do. On a certain level, this argument makes sense. At least its a rational argument. However, how is it possible for human beings to check their lived experience at the door? Is it necessarily "bad" that jurors scrutinize the evidence through the unique filters with which they view the world? After all, are they not called upon to speak on behalf of the diverse community in which we live? These are key questions Twelve Angry Men begs us to ask. Theyre good questions because they force us to reevaluate our thinking before hastily reaching the conclusion that the system doesnt work or that it amounts to nothing more than a mere joke.

10