Blog Assignment #5 Columbus Day Movie

MSMC Columbus Day Blog Assignment
Organizational Behavior MGT 505.0-D1 “Twelve Angry Men”
Professor Cynthia L. Krom By May Lee
10/14/07


“Twelve Angry Men”

I chose the movie “Twelve Angry Men” for my Group Process paper for several reasons. First and foremost, because it is devoid of all what I would call “smoke and mirrors”. It is a raw black and white film shot almost entirely in one set, in one uncut scene, in real time, with no special effects. Secondly, this interacting group cannot help but relate to one another in this cell of a 12’x24’ room in one of the most undesirable conditions, a hot and humid summer night. In other words, it’s a kettle about to boil over. It is the poster boy for the topic we are discussing in class, group processes.

All group members are actors, each playing a role (Robbins & Judge, 2007). The classic archetypes of good vs. evil, of reason vs. emotion, of compassion vs. self-loathing, of gentility vs. crudeness, are all depicted here. In other words, this group of twelve cannot be more diverse. You have the compassionate architect leading the good vs. the self-loathing abusive father leading the evil.

This group of twelve jurors followed the five-stage group-development model by progressing but sometimes regressing to previous stages. Although this group of jurors was trapped in one room for the duration, they still formally assembled, and formally disassembled. A behavioral pattern emerged. Interestingly enough the start of a ball game determined the half way point of the groups time. It was as if the group’s midpoint worked like an alarm clock, heightening member’s awareness that their time is limited and that they need to get moving (Robbins & Judge, 2007). The group moved through the forming stage very quickly, with the foreman taking the lead and setting some basic rules (i.e. seating arrangement). The storming stage was reached just as fast, as one individual stood staunchly against the group, causing conflict. Under unanimous rule, the minority has a relatively strong influence on the group process and outcome. For example, a single individual in the group can (threaten to) block group decisions that run counter to his or her preferences, thereby steering the group process toward his or her preferred outcome (Miller, 1985). This is precisely what occurs. The group is threatened by the lone holdout. There is a battle over control of the group. At the end of the storming stage a clear hierarchy of leadership forms. Like the eternal battle of good vs. evil, two very distinct individuals rise to leadership roles. The norming stage is reached when sides are taken, those for good, those for evil, and the undecided. Close relationships develops within each smaller group and cohesion forms. Some of the undecided are even moved to side with evil in order to conform. The performing stage takes up the rest of the movie, as good and evil battles it out, tempest toss, until finally evil falls under the power of reason, and the group moves into their adjourning stage. The disbanded group members range in emotions from elation at the group’s accomplishments to depression over personal loss. This is a classic movie. Two thumbs way up.


References
1 Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior ,Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall
2 Miller, C. E. (1985). Group decision making under majority and unanimity
decision rules. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 51–61.