Leadership In 12 Angry Men

Leadership and roles are depicted throughout the whole movie by many different jurors. The designated leader of the jury group was Juror #1. Juror #1 was when they first entered into the room but Juror #8 took the emergent role when he declined to agree with a guilty verdict. His rejection to agree in a guilty verdict was crucial since he voiced his uncertainty to the evidence at a early stage. If he would have sided with everybody then the accused would have been declared guilty and faced te maximum penalty by law. But by him questioning the evidence that was displayed it made him the best choice for the emergent leader. The faulty evidence wasnt enough to take him to the death penalty. Juror #3 had the role of a egotistical self absorbed

Juror #3 mixed his personal conflicts with his son running away from home to the young man accused of hurting his father. His assumption was that young men who don't get along with their fathers might go as far as to kill him. Which is a very informal practice in a small group setting. Another incident of a informal role is to not provide the evidence first hand how can a room full of jurors decide the fate of somebody when they don't have precise evidence to incriminate him. Other jurors based the fact that the accused lived in a slum and that slum residents are delinquents by nature. The results of these informal practices only proved that the accused wasn't guilty because the arguments were not valid enough to incriminate him. Leadership did emerge differently from a small group setting because a designated leader should not let a group member overtake his position. So Juror #8 as a initiator should have never tried to take the position of Juror #1. But it was needed for him to do that so that the group could reach into a correct decision. If Juror #8 wouldn't have voiced his opinion then maybe this innocent young men could have been acquitted. A group needs to be a stable and positive environment in order to