12 ANGRY MEN

-BLDR Assignment

Submitted By:
Group AG2, Section 6, PGP2

Mr. Cheetal Surolia 15S616

Ms. Ira Garg 15804
Mr. Saptarshi Chatterjee 15S638
Mr. Srikanth Saratchandran 15S646
Mr. Suheet Mayekar 15S648
Q1. Who set the focus and what was it? Why do you say so?

The focus of the entire discussion was set by the character played by Henry Fonda. Initially, 11
out of the 12 jurors voted the defendant to be guilty except Henry Fonda. He set the focus of the
discussion on the possibility of the defendant being not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.
The defendant, if found guilty, would have been sentenced to death. All he wanted was for the
jurors to take such an important decision based on certainty, without room for any doubts,
biases or prejudice. His doubts, based on facts, were shared by others in the jury, especially
related to the reliability of the witnesses.

Ques. 2. What are the Leadership competencies that created an impression on you?

Managing Self We realized that Henry Fonda was high on self-confidence from moment he
stood out of the crowd and decided to vote in favor of the defendant. There were instances were
some of the jurors seemed angry and out of line with their comments. However, he remained
calm and made his points based on facts and not once did he raise his voice to make a point.

Communicating and Influencing Henry Fonda was successful in influencing all the other 11
jurors through his consistent persuasive communication. He did not speak out of turn, listened
to others and gave everyone a chance to speak. He was able to build collaborative
relationships which helped him turn the decision from guilty to not guilty.

Preventing and Solving Problems He diagnosed that there could have been a problem in the
defendants case, especially related to his lawyers attitude and the prosecutions witnesses. He
made sure that all the information was gathered before they took such an important decision.
He displayed his analytical thinking skills when he pointed out faults in the claims of the 2
main witnesses, the lady and the old man.

Empowering Others He actively encouraged other jurors to participate by asking their

opinions, especially those who seemed quiet at first. He instilled confidence in them and
empowered them to speak up.

Ques. 3. Elaborate on how the change was led by Henry Fonda keeping the steps of change
management in mind.

Create a Sense of Urgency He created significant opportunities throughout the movie for the
other jurors to change their original decision based on facts and persuasive communication. He
gave convincing reasons to get people talking and thinking which in turn helped him strengthen
his argument.

Page | 1
Build a Guiding Coalition He convinced the other jurors in changing decisions by leading the
change. He gradually built a coalition, starting from one juror and ended with all jurors coming
to a consensus.

Communicating the vision Henry Fonda has a vision that he and the other jurors have the
accountability to think about the facts in the case and consider the likelihood that the juvenile
may had not stabbed his father. Convincing 11 jurors to consider new insights on this case is a
challenging task and Henry Ford in this movie exhibits the quality of leadership vision.

Enable action by removing barriers - Henry Fonda knew that he cannot force his views on others
and that all the jurors have to be constantly nudged by giving them information that gradually
weakens their arguments. Here, Henry would ask for jurors views that find the juvenile guilty
and eventually make the juror believe that the accused is non- guilty.

Generate short term wins At a particular point in the movie, one of the jurors takes out a knife
which was presumed to be the evidence of the murder and everyone was convinced about it and
suddenly another juror takes out a knife which is exactly similar to the one used as an evidence,
which proved that the knife was not an antique one but could be bought from a nearer store. This
was the short term win as it helped in resolving one of the issues.

Consolidating improvements and Institute change Changes were consolidated by taking votes
for guilty or non- guilty after a few discussions and this consolidation in the end lead to
turning the tables from 11-1 in the favor of guilty towards all 12 in the favor of non guilty.

Page | 2