Christine Mae M.

Acedera
2012

September 6,

Psychology- BJ
12 Angry Men

1. What is your understanding of leadership?

Ive been through a lot of leadership training seminars and have
always enjoyed being a leader; Leading a class as the president, leading a
squad as the pep leader, leading a group as the speech choir trainer and
head, leading my siblings (which I am not so good at, I guess), and etcetera.
Because of these experiences, I can truly say that true leadership is to lead
not because you want to boss people around, it is when you lead to achieve,
enjoy, and inspire.

2. Evaluate the personalities and competencies of each of the twelve jurors.

Which juror seemed to exhibit good leadership qualities? What are these
qualities? Support your answers.

Each juror had a different personality. Honestly, I am not so good in

analyzing and evaluating personalities, so I searched for some information.
According to http://plays.about.com, Juror one is Non-confrontational. Juror two
is the most timid of the group. Juror 3, is the antagonist to the constantly calm Juror eight,
quick to lose his temper, and often infuriated when Juror #8 and other members disagree with
his opinions. Juror four is a logical, well-spoken stock-broker. Juror five is nervous about
expressing his opinion, especially in front of the elder members of the group. Juror six, is
described as an honest but dull-witted man. Juror seven is a slick and sometimes obnoxious
salesman. Juror eight is thoughtful and gentle and usually portrayed as the most heroic
member of the jury. Juror nine is described in the stage notes as a mild, gentle old man,
defeated by life and waiting to die. Juror ten is openly bitter and prejudice. Juror eleven is
intent on administering justice as a jury member. And Juror twelve is an arrogant and
impatient advertising executive. (source:

http://plays.about.com/od/plays/a/twelveangry.htm) (No plagiarism intended)

I believe that juror number eight, or the guy-who-voted-not guiltyfirst-and-got-stared-at-very-fiercely, seemed to exhibit good leadership
qualities because first of all, he made them actually talk about the case
instead of deciding right away just so they could go home early. He would
listen to the opinions of other jury members but is not afraid to voice out his
opinion.
3. Discuss some of the redeeming and undesirable qualities of juror number
3. Do you think he would make a good leader? Why or why not? Support your
answers.

In my opinion, I would say that Juror number 3 would make a good

leader due to the fact that he lets his emotions get in the way of actually
listening and seeing whats really going on. Laso, he is stained by his
personal life, or his bad relationship with his son, to affect his stand and also
affect the others.

4. What do you think would have happened if there were women in the jury?
Would the women immediately agree to a guilty verdict or not?
It would depend if the women had this personality of being too under
the power of the men, which I think would be a possibility during the time
frame of the story, because some women have not developed their ability to
voice out or defend their opinion whilst men are being overpowering. But
maybe if there were women there and had a deeper understanding of the
case, including the facts and validity of the evidences, then maybe these
women would not vote guilty.

5. Did the film somehow enrich your understanding of leadership? Did you
like the film?

Honestly speaking, not really. Just a little bit. Not o be taken the wrong
way, I do like the film. It actually taught me to be careful with what I say and
that evidences are not always reliable without further investigations and
research. But more or less, I did learn that to be a great leader, you must
always voice out your opinion and also listen to other opinions.