Ek Ruka Hua Faisla

  • 3,396 views
Uploaded on

Ek Ruka Hua Faisla -- Power of Communication

Ek Ruka Hua Faisla -- Power of Communication

More in: Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
3,396
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Ek Ruka Hua Faisla : Power of Communication Name – Pratik Gandhi Introduction to Power of Communication The Power of Communication comes from knowing the right questions to ask and practising good listening skills. The secret weapon of power negotiators is being skilled in asking questions. Why? One of the reasons is that questions get the communication going and encourages the other party to talk, to share information with you. And what you are always, always looking for is information, particularly something you do not know. Even when you think you know the answers, get in the habit of asking questions; at the least, it will confirm your knowledge. And if you have somehow missed asking the really right question, the answer you need will likely come out the more the other party is forced to talk and you are talking less. Abstract Sometimes in life your professions reflect on your personalities. And more often more than profession communication may represent your Personality. In this movie we observe the entire decision making process and way the people communicate with each other, where each individual had different perception and different behavior in particular situation. their personal opinion leads them to one wrong decision first but later on with just one leading, convincing, neutral and practical individual, they were able to think on the other side of the case and finally they reached to right conclusion. There are twelve male members of a jury who have gathered together in an enclosed room to deliberate on charges of murder against a young boy accused of killing his father. The case against the boy looks irrefutable and indomitable, as there is a witness in the form of an old man who claims to have heard the incident and another woman who claims to have seen the actual act of stabbing. Plus there is the murder weapon - a knife - that was found at the crime scene, seemingly implicating the boy without any fragment of doubt. But all is not what it seems like. All the jury members, except one, are convinced that the boy is guilty of the crime and the task before them is to reach a unanimous decision to expedite the case. But there is only one jury member who is not completely convinced about the case and he starts the deliberations, in which all the members have to participate to reach a common conclusion.
  • 2. An Overview Twelve jurors - common people with their usual daily problems, emotional swings and their regular habit to stick to what is obvious - are selected to judge a case where very strong evidences are available against the accused. Everything was transparent and vividly clear. The case was supposed to end with common opinion against the accused within no time. But one person was against this common judgment and this is the point where story builds up. This one person make other eleven to change their decision. The movie opens in the first state of Group Development, the opening period. This is the time when people in small groups will small talk, introduce themselves, and begin to learn a little about one another. During this stage in the movie, jurors discuss the view, old buildings, hot weather colds, and some even share what they do for a living. And this is the stage when the group dynamics start showing, and how in the heat of discussion, the true feelings start showing through. People's biases, bigotry, temper, all start showing through. Gradually, we come to know the communication skills of each and every jury member in the room being opened. Eventually we see the missing links, the loopholes in the vital clues, and testimonies, and eventually persuade all except Pankaj Kapoor. Pankaj is not so easily persuaded because his son has left him, and he has a bias against youth, but eventually he is also persuaded with more m. Members involved in the conflict want to create and maintain stability. However, they also want to move forward which requires change. Conflict then exists as the individuals struggle between creating both at the same time. This struggle is seen in the film as the jury members struggle between their desire for stability and their desire for change. Initially, it is seen that all the jury members except one have a guilty verdict. The fact that one member, KK Raina, has a not guilty verdict is an initial source of conflict. For the remaining jury members, their focus is not on understanding why Mr. Davis is saying not guilty. Instead, they want him to agree with them and choose a guilty verdict. In doing so, they are trying to achieve stability, since if KK Raina says not guilty, there will be no conflict. Key Takeaways/Conclusion Transistion from Communication to Conflict Management Situational Understanding with all possible Permutations and Combinations Team Dynamics for a Decision making process The issues in the movie are addressed to the Indian audiences and in Indian setting, with Indian characters and in Hindi language. Even after a quarter of a century later the movie stirs you with its treatment of topics because the issues of caste, class, materialism, loopholes in judicial process and of course human prejudices and judgement still plague us.