[OB2 Assignment]

Sumit Kumar
M2014HRM054

MOVIE REVIEW: EK RUKA HUA FAISLA

About the Characters in the Movie
PERSONALITY PROFILE
JUROR 1 (DEEPAK KEJRIWAL)

He acted as a co-coordinator throughout the film. He was expected to be nonpartial during the proceedings and to keep the deliberation orderly and
procedural. He is the facilitator and mediator of the discussion and is hence
expected to be someone who guides the discussion forward and resolute the
conflicts. He is soft spoken and believed in democratic decisions with everyones
consent.
Though he is a good moderator but he lacked control over the group so as to
ensure disciplined and peaceful approach towards decision. Because of this, his
role was not taken seriously by others and he was often questioned about his
authority and was unnecessarily emphasizing on rules. In response, he lost his
cool twice in the movie and asked other members to take up his role.
Irrespective of the role, he kept his cool throughout the discussion and never
fought with anyone. He is the kind of person who seeks co-operation from others.
He is social as he tried to bring everybody to the table and maintained amiable
relationship with everyone.
From his profile, I can say that he was probably working in a bank or at some
place where interaction with strangers is most as his soft skills are very polished.

JUROR 2 (AMITABH SRIVASTAVA)

He is relatively new to such situation and thus has certain inhibitions. He is shy by
nature who is easily convinced and influenced during stressed moments. He also
tries to keep the discussion peaceful. He tries hard to keep up with the group. He
was very keen in making significant contribution to the discussion, though every
time he was overpowered by Pankaj Kapoors character. He had good analytical
skills and he came up with some good and valid point about the time taken by the
lady witness to observe the entire situation. Most of the times it seemed that he is
a good follower and used to get influenced by the majority and was more willing
to receive than to give. His part in the movie is affronted by the Juror #3. But
finally, he speaks up about some evidence that bothered him.
During conflict and heated situation, he tried to move away from the situation by
given excuse of his ailing daughter. This shows that he is very timid and introvert
by nature. He displayed consulting style.

JUROR 3 (PANKAJ KAPOOR)

He is the arrogant, criticizing and was the shouting member of the group. Though
he plays the role of the most divisive character who is falsely convinced that the
accused is the murderer; his dissentious stand was because, his only son deserted
him, so this painful relationship with his son caused anger toward all young
people, thereby influencing his vote. As time goes on he becomes more personally
involved with the case. He emerges as a rigid proud person who is not open to
new data and bases his judgment on old material. He does not listen to any points
made by the people in favor of the accused. He depicts an active-destructive
personality. He is over emotional and takes the case very personally. He is very
active in the decision making process but in a destructive way by having an
attacking and commanding attitude.

JUROR 4 (S. M. ZAHEER)

He is the well dressed stock broker whose character is shown very conceited and
unemotional. He based his decisions on hardcore facts and demonstrates an
active constructive personality. He is very patient and calm throughout the
process and bases his decisions on pure logic. He showed signs of thinker and
controller in his decision making style. He faced hindrance of the evidence trap
because once Juror 8 had presented him the other side of coin, and there were
evidences supporting him, he immediately went into a thoughtful state realizing
his blunder in ignoring the details and then shifted his decision in the favor of
Juror 8.
Though he considered hardcore facts for making decisions, he formed a group
with Juror 3 once he felt that he his in minority. Their he strategized and advised
his fellow conspirer not to move from his stand. This shows that he is confident
about what he decides and in a threat situation, he can do things which might not
be correct according to his morals but correct to protect his decision.

JUROR 5 (SUBHASH UDGHATE)

He is the person who belongs the same slum as the accused. He becomes very
defensive and does not react well to others prejudice. Since he comes from a
similar background, he is in a better position to understand the accused situations
and empathize with him. He is also logical in his methodology and bases his
opinions only on facts. He demonstrates a passive constructive personality. He
behaves like askeptic any time when someone would point out that the accused is
from slum area so the prejudiced thinking was that all slum dwellers
were criminals. Other than that, he was acting like a follower and going with the
flow of majority.

JUROR 6 (HEMANT MISHRA)

He plays a secondary role in the movie, with no substantial contributions. He also

demonstrates a passive constructive personality. This
characterdoes not shy away from voicing his opinions and likes to maintaindecoru
m during the discussions. Initially he was also against the accused but with the
rational logics given by juror #8 he was convinced that the boy is not guilty.
He is traditional by thinking. That is, he showed respect to elders, others and their
personal life. He also had an fight when another juror was insulting the older juror
9.

JUROR 7 (M. K. RAINA)

He very effortlessly demonstrates the role of a self-centered person who is

more worried about his own comforts and leisure than being fair and detailed. He
shows least concern about the case even though a life was dependent on it. He is
least bother about the importance of the decisions taken with respect to the
accused persons life. His personal affairs
aremore important to him than the life of that boy. He snubbed all thesuggestions
and throws tantrums every time the group follows an
orderthat is against his comforts and expectations. He show no regard to
protocols or justice and does not actively support the decision making process.

JUROR 8 (K. K. RAINA)

He is the voice of reason, and plays the most crucial role. At thebeginning, he is
the only member of the jury who votes not guilty' and with stands all the
pressure from the other jury members. By saying that it's not easy for him
sentence a boy to death without even discussing the facts he opens the other jury
member's minds to the possibility that the accused may not be guilty. He is calm,
cool, and collected, and is probably one of the few jury members who fully
understand his role as a jury. Along with this, he approaches the trial logically,
calmly and competently by scrutinizing each and every fact discussed during the
trial, so that they are doubly sure that they havent left any loop-hole during their
decision making process.

JUROR 9 (ANNU KAPOOR)

He is the old and wise juror who proves to be open to difference in opinions and
supports them. He brings along with him loads of wisdom and experience which
eventually helps the jury members to come to
aconclusion regarding a faulty witness. This character shows a lot of patience but
is still agitated due to inappropriate behaviour on the part of other jurors. His
passion for truth and justice drives his decision making process and helps him to

logically analyse all the facts.

JUROR 10 (SUBBIRAJ)

He is the most actively destructive juror having his original opinions

andprejudices which are biased in nature. He demonstrates a clear cutexample of
a personalized approach leading to destructive behavior. His community biases
lead to many verbal conflicts resulting in an aggressive approach. He showed a lot
of arrogance in his style was trying to influence others in the favor of punishing
the guilty without going over the detailed facts. He was also very impatient in his
decision making.

JUROR 11 (SHAILENDRA GOEL)

He is one of the characters who show an adult ego state through out the decision
making process. He was not amongst the jury members who were not taking their
roles seriously and were only making the
environment more aggressive and uncontrolled. He was in fact pacifying other
members of the jury and calming the environment. His decision style is again a
mix of a charismatic and a follower. He was one of the members who were ready
with the decision almost immediately when the discussion started, but later on
when logic and facts were presented, he changed sides again aggravating Juror3.
He was also a victim of the Anchoring and Adjustment heuristic a she was using
the implicitly suggested reference points to influence his original decisions

JUROR 12 (AZIZ QURESHI)

He portrays the role of the most indifferent character. He was behaving as if he is

just passing his time and is least interested in the decision making process. He
displays a typical child ego state who is excited but not serious about the task
assigned. He again shows a mix of charismatic and a follower in his decision
making style and was a victim of the status quo bias like most other characters in
this movie.

1. Explain the group personality in terms of norms followed by the Jurors. What
sorts of group norms emerged during the interaction among group
members?
In the beginning of the movie the moderator was making chits which he
thought could be used in the due course of time for secret voting. This was
one instance where everyone agreed.
Another norm which the group followed was regarding the seating
arrangement. Initially people were ranting that what difference it will create
but eventually everyone settled for their respective positions.

2. Is there any evidence in the movie that reflects group socialisation process?
Yes, Group socialization process means a pattern of change in the
relationship between an individual and a group that begins when an
individual first considers joining the group and ends when he or she leaves
it.
Initially 11/12 members of the groups agreed that the 19- Year old boy is the
culprit. However, due to positive influence of one individual, the entire
group at last agreed upon the fact that the boy was not guilty. The change
in commitment level of individuals from a non-member of the group to exmember of a particular group can be seen throughout the movie.

3. What sort of status differentiation is found in the group? Who ( among

jurors) are trying to do the pecking and who are pecking?.
Groups do not always allocate status fairly (Schneider & Cook, 1995).
Juror#8 and Juror#3 are the two jurors who are pecking in the movie.
However, it is a very subjective thing to say that who is pecking in the order.
It is evident that all 12 have tried to influence the course of final result.
4.

Based on the IPA, identify the

individual group members.

predominant interaction forms for the

Using the Paper on IPA style, following is the diagram which can be used for
understanding the

IPA
Deepak Qazir Kejriwal
#1
Amitabh Srivastav as
Juror #2
Pankaj Kapur as Juror
No. 3
S. M. Zaheer as Juror
No. 4
Subhash Udgata as
Juror No. 5
Hemant Mishra as Juror
No. 6
M. K. Raina as Juror No.

Catego
ry
6
11
12
10
12
1
2

7
K.K. Raina as Juror No. 8
Annu Kapoor as Juror
No. 9
Subbiraj as Juror No. 10
Shailendra Goel as Juror
No. 11
Aziz Qureshi as Juror
No. 12

9
5
12
5
5

5. Also identify who are the open-minded , reflective and hard members in the
group. How it is related to the conversation style of the respective
members.
Juror#8 and Juror#9 are the most open-minded and reflective members of
the group. Juror#3 and Juror#10 are the hard members because of their
personal bias and past experiences which are restricting them to think big.

6. Write how this analysis can be used to assess the interpersonal interaction
takes place in work organizations.
The answer to this question is given by keeping in mind Juror#8 and how his
behavior will work in an organization setting.
a) Openness and ability to voice opinions: He is the voice of reason, and
the most crucial character in the movie. In the beginning, he is the only
member of the jury who votes not guilty' and withstands pressure from all
other eleven jury members. By doing this, he opens the other jury
members to the possibility that the accused may not be guilty. His calm,
cool, and collected demeanor infuses confidence in the audience, and
shows that he is probably one of the few jury members who fully
understand his role.
All that Juror 8 wants is to give the accused a fair chance by structurally
going forward with the process of scrutinizing every fact and detail. He is
the first to question the evidence that is brought forward. He went to
lengths to prove his point and to convince people of his opinions. For
example, the knife which was the weapon of crime was supposed to be
unique and rare to find. He proved this wrong by buying the same kind of

knife from a local shop. He approaches the trial in a very logical and
organized manner. He stood out due to his ethics, motives, passion for fair
and just hearing, and rational approach.
b) Believed in Fair and Wise Judgments Ethics and Justice: Juror #8
proves to be an ethical person. This is reinforced by the fact that despite of
so many ethical dilemmas encountered by the protagonists, he never
budged from his values and ethics, and continued lookin forward to a just
and fair discussion. For example, even when 11 out of 12 jury members
were against him he did not get intimidated by numbers. He told them that
he was not entirely convinced and considers it ethically wrong to sentence
a boy to such a fate without discussing about the case properly. In some
parts of the movie he acts like a counselor too. He tries to convince Juror
#3 to think about the case leaving all prejudices behind.
c) Logical and Rational Approach: An architect by profession he brings
with him a logical, rational and analytical way of going forward with the
procedure. Right from the beginning he says that he does not know for
sure whether the accused is guilty or not, and neither does he have any
valid points to put forward but all that he wants is a discussion about the
same so that they are able to validate their beliefs. For him sentencing
someone to a death penalty is a huge decision and he would require pure
logic and valid reasons to prove him that the accused deserves such a
harsh penalty. He likes to overanalyze the facts so that every aspect of the
problem is studied in detail.
He contributes some very logical and valid counter arguments that were
not even thought of by others. For example the fact that the lady witness
wore spectacles and it would have been difficult for her to recognize the
killer from such a far away distance, or the time taken by the old man with
an injured leg, to reach the point where he saw the boy running away from
home. The old man who lived in the apartment exactly below the crime
scene, had heard the accused shouting just few seconds before he heard
someone scream and fall with a thud. He said that he then saw the young
boy running from the stairs. All this according to him took 15-20 sec. But
the juror 8 proved that for a person that old, walking with the help of a
stick, cannot reach the staircase in just 15 seconds. In fact he himself
demonstrated that it will take minimum of 41 seconds to reach there.
d) Leadership and Influence: The character demonstrates great leadership
skills and influencing capabilities. Even though in the beginning, he was
the only person against 11 jurors, he eventually convinced people that the
case is not as simple and straight as it has laid out to be. He tells them
that according to him there are various loop-holes in the case which need
to be discussed and scrutinized in order to reach a fair judgment. He

believes in logically approaching the discussion and hence convinced

everyone to do the same. Being a performer and a through and through
hard worker, he devotedly does his studies the case, the witnesses and the
crime scene to come up with any loop-holes which will help them to reach
a conclusion about the case. Being the leader that he is, he believes in his
gut feeling and follows it right from the beginning till the end. His greatest
strength was the ability to positively influence others.
e) Finally, this character proves to be a go-getter, and an initiator who
actively seeks truth while maintaining a calm, peaceful and pleasant
demeanor throughout the procedure despite of being provoked a number
of times. Being an achiever and a confident man he actively listens to his
fellow jurors opinions and point of views, and encourages them to think
and rationalize.
7. Categorise some of the conversations took place in the movie in
terms of the framework suggested by Gratton and Ghosal (Refer
the article) ( with snippets)

1. Juror# 8 delivers an analytical and emotionally argument in favour of the

accused. This argument will be a Creative Dialogue as described by

Grotton and Ghoshal. The argument is analytically strong and also is an

emotional appeal which results in one person changing their vote in the
secret ballot.
2. At 13 minutes into the movie juror #7 says that the entire discussion is
useless because all of them know that the accused is guilty. This interaction
of his with juror #8 is categorised as Dehydrated Talk as it is more of a
subjugation and ritual fulfilment
3. At the beginning of the movie a couple of jurors joke about the power
shortage in the country. The trouble is real and there i high emotional
authencity as every one could connect to the issue but the reasoning for the
same is very flawed. But this kind of conversation did increase the
cohesiveness of those jurors as can be seen in the movie. Such a
conversation is said to be Intimate exchange
4. Juror #4 intervenes when the group is bickering and reminds the group to
discuss the case purely on facts presented. But the facts can also be
misconstrued and hence it is the duty of the jury to find the underlying
reason. His argument was cogent but it lacked in emotional authencity. Such
a conversation is called Disciplined Debate
8. During their conversation, what symbols (if any) did that group
use that have specific meaning for those in the group, but carry
either a different meaning or no meaning at all to outsiders?
One thing which most of the individuals were doing in the movie was that, they lit
a cigarette everytime they felt that there is a need to calm themshelves down.
Also cigarette was used a medium to start a conversation. For eg, Juror#8 offered
a cigarette to juror#7 in the washroom to continue the conversation. Now Juror#8
smoked only couple of times in the entire movie signifies that he was relatively
calm and was handling the pressure which everyone was imposing on him.
Juror#10 smoked Pipe, Pipe is used as a status quo and also it can be seen that
the same person was pointing out to boys background because he felt that as the
convict was from a poor background he must be guilty. Infact, he was pointing out
to the entire society.

9. Do you think Habermas' theory of communicative action can be

applied in this case?

Communicative action is action based upon this deliberative process, where two
or more individuals interact and coordinate their action based upon agreed
interpretations of the situation (Habermas, 1984)
Communicative action is possible because of the human capacity for rationality.
Habermas argues that rationality is tied with language essentially in the form of
argumentation.
In this movie the 11 jurors first have decided that the accused is guilty but upon
listening to the arguments of the lone juror who opposed.
Juror number #8s arguments :
1. Lacked coercion: Unlike some of the jurors, especially juror 3 , juror 8s
arguments lacked coercion. He just wanted everyone to deliberate
2. A search for mutual understanding: Juror 8 wanted to include everyone in
the search for a better understanding behind the situauon and the reason of
the crime. He simply culd not pass a judgement without getting everyone to
atleast think about the problem
3. Strong compelling arguments: His arguments were not only analytically
strong but also emotionally compelling
These three characteristics of his arguments helped to move the
deliberation in a better direction. The jurors moved into a communicative
action after his arguments. They role played the various scenarios, trying to
understand the validity of the witnesses claims.
So, Yes the Communicative Action can be applied in this situation.
10.
Apply the following theories of group communication to the
movie:
a. Communication Accommodation Theory

We see clear examples of Divergence between Jurors #7 and #1. Juror #7 thinks
less of people who are not American citizens and he tries to accentuate this
difference between himself and #11 with his loud and exaggerated comments.
When Juror #11 reacts in a dignified manner, it causes #7 to tone his actions
down out of shame. Convergence can be observed between Jurors #3 and #4
where Juror #3 who acts hot-headed with everybody else calms down while
interacting with #4 who supports his claim of Guilty with cogent and rational
arguments.
b. The Narrative Paradigm
Juror #3 has had a painful experience with his son while Juror #10 holds a
prejudice against the people from slums. For these two, the accounts of the
witnesses carry Narrative Fidelity as it goes along with their belief system. The
entire proceedings which seem to establish guilt without a doubt
exhibit Narrative Coherence. Every bit of information including the criminal
record of the defendant makes it difficult for the Jurors to believe that he could be
guilty. Due to these reasons, the jurors enter the room with their minds made up
about the guilt of the defendant.
c. Social Exchange Theory
We find ample evidence of the fact that people prefer to invest their time and
emotions in others only when the net worth of that interaction is positive. Juror #9
converses frequently with Juror #8 only because the latter encourages him and
doesnt treat him like a senile person as the others do. Juror #12 who has a
slightly exaggerated sense of self because of his profession prefers to talk to Juror
#1 about his work as he gives him his attention.
d. Social Penetration Theory
At the very beginning, Juror #3 shows everyone the picture of his son and talks
dispassionately about him. Towards the end we find that Juror #3 has broken
down after an emotional tirade where he recognizes that all the hatred that he
held for his son has caused him to be biased against the defendant. Juror #3
moved from small talk to revealing his innermost self to the 11 others with whom
he had made the decision of whether to send the defendant to the electric chair.

e.Symbolic Interaction Theory

For the same reason you are not: it's the way I was brought up.
The above is a statement made by Juror #11 when he is insulted by Juror #7. This
is because Juror #11 values democracy and wants the defendant to have a fair
trial. He is rational and open minded. So while another person might have picked
a fight with Juror #7, he manages to calmly make his point yet not let the
discussion break out into violence. His interpretation of Juror #7s words are based
on the meaning he ascribed to them (Juror #7 wants to go home early) instead of
the literal meaning of the words.

f. Uncertainly Reduction Theory

When the Jurors meet at the very beginning, we find that everyone is low on selfdisclosure and adheres to group norms as there is still highcognitive and
behavioral uncertainty. But as the guilty and not guilty camps get firmly
established, peoples real personality is revealed when they start making personal
comments at the other group while being sociable and agreeable with in-group
members.