MGT 415W
Final Paper
Video: 12 Angry Men (1997)
The movie 12 Angry Men was originally filmed in 1957 with an all-white male jury and a male
judge. The remake was made in 1997 with a diverse jury (still male) with a female judge. The
cost to rent the movie is the same with either version and the outcome was the same – so select
either version (choose the one that is the easiest to obtain).
You can rent it from Amazon Video for $2.99, YouTube for $2.99, Google Play & TV for $2.99 or
iTunes for $3.99.
In the 1997 version the jurors are as follows:
Juror # 1 – Courtney B Vance
Juror # 2 – Ossie Davis
Juror # 3 – George C Scott
Juror # 4 – Armin Mueller-Stahl
Juror # 5 – Dorian Harewood
Juror # 6 – James Gandolfini
Juror # 7 – Tony Danza
Juror # 8 – Jack Lemmon
Juror # 9 – Hume Cronyn
Juror #10 – Mykelti Williamson
Juror #11 – Edward James Olmos
Juror #12 – William Petersen
Watch the movie 12 Angry Men. You will submit the paper in three parts: 1) outline; 2) a rough
draft; and 3) a final draft. The outline should contain a minimum topic/tentative paper title;
brief overview of the proposed topic; and a list of sources. I will provide feedback on both the
outline and rough draft. You will be required to make substantial revisions to your rough draft
(100 points) in order to receive full credit for your final draft (200).
Prepare a 1500 to 2000-word paper addressing:
1. In the beginning of the movie, the foreman (#1) suggesting a process (straw vote) and
providing instructions on the process. Based upon the skills-assessments you have done
over the semester, what behavior(s) did the foreman use and what impact did they
have on the remaining jury?
2. Initially several jurors hesitated at his suggestion of a straw vote. Why is that and if you
were the foreperson what might you have done differently? Highlight points that you
learned during the week on persuasion.
3. The foreman suggested the 11 jurors convince juror # 8 why hes wrong while
another juror suggests juror #8 should be the one who tries to convince us (of the
defendants innocence). Both strategies provide value. What would help the group
choose between both strategies? How would you have handled persuading the others
to his guilt or innocence?
4. We get to see the jurors different personality styles. How would you use these
differences in a positive way that enables members to benefit from rather than being
aggravated and frustrated by those same differences?
5. Using your personality style, strengths and weaknesses, identify the juror by # and
explain how might you counteract, convince, persuade or communicate to the
following dysfunctional styles:
a. Talker/monopolizer (always has something to say)
b. Heckler/complainer (combative; tells team members why strategies will never
work)
c. Silent member (withdrawn, doesnt participate)
d. Sidetracker (discusses items not on the agenda)
6. If you were on the jury, is there anything you would have done differently to get the
remaining members to agree on the same outcome?
