Twelve Angry Men: Different Personalities Are Placed In A Group

First and last name 
Course
Assignment
Date
12 Angry Men
Group dynamics deals with groups’ functioning and structures and the different roles played by each of the characters. In the “12 Angry Men (1957),” group dynamics are depicted through jury deliberations. In this classic movie, a group of twelve men is given the opportunity to decide if a young man is guilty of murdering his father. There is conflicting personality as the functioning and efforts of the minds jointly as they search to get to the bottom of the issue or truth we see several group dynamics’ characteristics at work. We can see the entire human spectrum as represented here from analysis of the juries. The group in nature influenced the outcome regardless of what they brought to the judgment.
When different personalities are placed in a group, there is a need to communicate effectively and work as a team. Sometimes you will find yourself stuck as an individual because of various barriers including inadequate of communication among members. Nevertheless, as a group, all the members are obliged to find the ability to do so as a unit. In the video, we come across 12 jurors who decided whether the young man is guilty of the murder or is presumed innocent in a capital murder trial. From our side as the audience, it is challenging for each of the juries to give a verdict backed by true consensus in the presence of different roles, personalities as well as negotiation strategies (Waller, Sohrab, and Ma, 446). Among the 12 jurors, six of them explicitly influenced the trial hence establishing informal roles. Characters at some extent played more than a single explicit role, including informal roles such as Information-seeker, Initiator-contributor, Opinion-seeker, Clarifier-Elaborator, Information-giver, Facilitator, Coordinator, Stage-hog, Fighter controller, Cynic, and Blocker.
Juror number 1 is Foreman who does not understand the complexity of the task before him while juror number 2 is a small quiet man who was accustomed to giving his opinion and who played the role of information-giver. Juror 3 is probably the most complex of all, a self-successful businessman and played the role of an aggressive, blocker, and a dominator (Waller, Sohrab, and Ma, 448). A self-assured and a somehow arrogant man, juror number 4 played the role of a coldly analytical information giver. Juror 5 is under emotional stress and is against compassion thus ended up playing the compassion role. Man number 6 is a silent and co...