it is a project report on the movie ek ruka hua faisla which was released a long time back...gudd report you may get a good matter from this

1. A
PROJECT REPORT
ON
MOVIE- “EK RUKA HUA FAISLA”
SUBMITTED BY:
KARTIKVERMA

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Coming together is beginning andworking together is asuccess…
These words truly express all the joy & effectiveness of working together.
We would like to express our special thanks of gratitude to our teacher- Mrs.
PRADEEPIKA assistance professor in University School of Management,
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA who gave us the golden
opportunity to do this wonderful & knowledgeable project on the “OB in
movie”, which also helped us in doing a lot of research and we came to know
about so many new things. We are really thankfulto her.

3. INTRODUCTION
 Released : 1986
 Directed by BASUCHATTERJEE
 Remake of Oscar winning picture, American motion picture 12 angry
men (1957).
 Edited by: KAMAL A. SEHGAL
 The film in turn was an adaptation from a teleplay of the same
name by Reginald Rose.
STARCAST
 JUROR 1 (DEEPAK KEJRIWAL)

4. He acted as a co-coordinator throughout the film. He was expected to be non-
partial 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
everyone’s 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)

5. He is relatively new to such situation and thus has certain inhibitions. He is shy
by nature that 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 KAPOOR’s
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
introvertby nature. He displayed consulting style.
 JUROR 3 (PANKAJ KAPOOR)

6. 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 favour 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
favour of Juror 8.
Though he considered hardcore facts for making decisions, he formed a group
with Juror 3 once he felt that he is in minority. Their he strategized and advised
his fellow conspirer not to move from his stand. This shows that he is confident

7. about what he decides and in a threat situation; he can do things which might
not be correct according to his morals but correctto protect his decision.
 JUROR 5 (SUBHASH UDGHATE)
He is the person who belong 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 as KEPTIC 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)

8. 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 maintaindec
orum 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 a fight when another juror was insulting the
older juror 9.
 JUROR 7 (M. K. RAINA)
He very effortlessly demonstrates the role of a self-centred 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 person’s life. His personal affairs are
more important to him than the life of that boy. He snubbed all the
suggestions and throws tantrums every time the group follows an order
that is against his comforts and expectations. He show no regard to protocols
or justiceand does not actively supportthe decision making process.

9.  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 withstands 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 haven’t left any loop-
hole during their decision making process.
 JUROR 9 (ANNU KAPOOR)

10. 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 analyseall 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 behaviour. 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
favour of punishing the guilty without going over the detailed facts. He was
also very impatient in his decision making.

11.  JUROR 11 (SHAILENDRA GOEL)
He is one of the characters who show an adult ego state throughout 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 as he was using the implicitly suggested reference points to influence
his original decisions.

12.  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 that 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.

13. PLOT SUMMARY
EK RUKA HUA FAISLA is an adaptation of 12 Angry Men (1957), which was
directed by Sidney Lumet and was nominated for 3 Oscars. It also was another
13 awards and was nominated for 6. The original movie deals with the
deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused
of stabbing his father to death.
This is a movie about 19 year old boy who was a suspect for murder of his
father. There was a committee of 12 people assigned to decide whether boy
was culprit or not. The jury assembled in a room on a hot summer day. They
had to reach a consensus, unanimously, regarding the boy’s fate – guilty or not
guilty. When the movie begins it seems like the committee is already sure
about the decision- guilty. However, once the voting takes place the plot
thickens. Only one juror is unconvinced of the boy’s involvement in the crime
resulting in a difference in opinion and further discussion on the case. The
following discussion brings out different angles to the story along with
highlighting the characteristic traits of the committee member.
Before moving on to discussion on personality profile of each member and
its impact on their respective behaviour/stand taken, I would like to specify the
working conditions or environment. The jury had assembled in a small room
and had a task at hand – to adjudge whether the boy was guilty or not. Here, it
is interesting to observe the effect of individual thinking on the way they
dressed. Out of the 12 jurors, 11 had pre-decided that the boy is convict based
on individual notions which we would discuss later. Because of these pre-
decided stands, all of them, including the one who thought he was not guilty,
were heavily dressed on a hot summer day. This shows that while the 11 jurors
thought that it must be a quick affair and won’t take much time, I had an
impact on the thinking of the one left juror as well. Also, task was pretty
specific, that the court is expecting a common decision by the end of the day,
the jurors didn’t had an option to simply leave or postpone the meeting in
order to avoid the conflict. These preconceived notions and clear objectives set
the perfect stagefor whatunfolded later on.

14. From this, I could infer that time bound and specific objectives play an
important role in group dynamics. They bring out the conflict in open and thus
their resolution takes place under amiable conditions.

15. ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
IN
MOVIE

16. OB IN MOVIE:-
A team can be divided as a group of people having a common vision, carrying
out a specific task by following specific rules and protocols to achieve a
common goal/mission/objective. In this movie 12 jury members are appointed
by the court to discuss the case and reach to a consensus about the final
decision of the case.
Systems theorists have long believed that when individuals "merge into a
group" something new is created. This called the GESTALT effect which says
whole is much more powerful and effective than a part. This new entity,
although comprised of individuals, is believed to be "greater than the sum of
its parts" and thus the dynamic that is created within the group is not directly
attributed to any one individual but rather the unique interrelationship
between those individuals and the force that this interrelationship has on
group functioning.
Written below are the various benefits of teams, observed:-
1. Understanding group dynamics and creating participation and
involvement: In the movie, 12 jury members have to reach a consensus. So
the consent of every jury member was required. This required an underlined
understanding of where the group stood with respect to trust, disclosure and
acceptance. Also everyone was individually asked about their views and they
have to give appropriate reasons. Thus involvement of each and every member
was there. Participation of each and every member of the group was
encouraged. They were forced to share their point of views. . Here also it has
been strongly depicted that the group dynamics play a highly important role in
changing the mindset of its members. For example the character played by
PANKAJ KAPOOR was very stringent and stubborn for most of the part of the
movie, but the group was successful in changing his perception regarding the
new generation. I would start the team building process in the movie from the
beginning.
2. Facilitating better group effectiveness by honing every
member’s decision making abilities: At the beginning of the discussion

17. 11 out of 12 jurors considered the accused to be guilty of murdering his father.
The final decision made later shows that even after so many sessions in the
court many issues were left unexplored. These were unearthed during this
group task. This helped the group to make a decision considering all the true
facts and hence they were able to make a fair and just decision. Due to this the
innocent boy was realized of all the charges. So as a result of this team work
the effectiveness of the group as well as individual decision making ability
increased 12 folds.
3. Better management and utilization of conflicts by generation of
diverse ideas: all the brainstorming and teamwork helped in exposing all
those facts which were not even thought of during the entire trial and which
finally helped in proving the boy innocent. 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 place where he saw the boy running away from
home.
There were many instances when many of the jury members contradict each
other and heated arguments usually followed these conflicts. But at the end
everyone came out with a unanimous decision by accepting their differences
and acknowledging to the facts.
The main protagonist was the Juror #8, played by Mr. K .K RAINA
The major attributes, style and approach are discussed below:-
 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 with stands 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 demean or infuse 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

18. 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.
 Believed in Fair and Wise Judgments – Ethics and Justice: Juror
#8proves 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 looking
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 counsellor too. He tries to convince Juror #3 to think about the case
leaving all prejudices behind.
 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 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 haven 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 faraway
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

19. 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 fore 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.
 Leadership and Influence: The character demonstrates greatleaders
hip skills and influencing capabilities. Even though in thebeginning, he
was the only person against 11 jurors, he eventually convinced people
that the case is not as simple and straight as it has lain 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 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.
Finally, this character proves to be a go-getter, and an initiator who
actively seeks truth while maintaining calm, peaceful and pleasant
demean or 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. Upon examination, the film highlights
social psychology theories in areas of attitude change, conformity,
and group process.
 Attitudinal Change: Persuasion, being a function of attitude, plays an
integral aspect in the intriguing nature of the movie. Persuasions the
process by which attitudes is changed. They are the tools through which
people persuade others to agree with what is right and just or apt. There
are two ways to persuasion: peripheral and central. The central route is
the process by which a person carefully ponders upon a communication
and is eventually influenced by the power of argument. Juror #8 and
Juror #4, both follow this approach towards attitudinal change. Juror #8

20. appeals for the accuser’s innocence in well-thought, organized and
elucidated manner. He stipulates his points through empirical evidence
and eventually sways the
other jurors. The central route to persuasion characterized Fonda’sappro
ach. Likewise, the businessman uses his curt, stoic andinductive nature
to create a strong, convincing argument based on facts. Lastly, Juror #11
applies the central route to persuasion when he advocates, “going
deeper,” in reference to an examination of the facts. The peripheral
route of persuasion is characterized by
superficialcues surrounding the argument rather than validity of the fact
s presented in the argument. Juror #10 and 7 display this kind of an
approach. Where on one hand Juror #10 very inappropriately urges
other jurors to construe an attitude based on peripheral ethnic and
racial cues, Juror #7 asks them to get away with the decision as soon as
possible since there is no use in discussing the facts as
maximum number of them were convinced the boy was guilty. Through t
he use of non-factual, environmental cues, the sickgentleman utilizes
the peripheral route to persuasion. Route selection is another
component of relevance in the movie. The jurors, who care deeply about
the fate of the accused boy,
areconcerned with justice, take pride in their intellect regardless of
Group polarization is the concept that group discussion generally serves
to strengthen the already dominant point of view. This often leads to
risky shift. The movie initially exemplifies this process but with
consistent contempt is suppressed by Juror #8 and the people who
supporthim.
Hence it becomes emperative for any team to give their teammembers the
following:-
 Equal and fair chance to voice their opinions i.e. good space for Self-
Observation.
 A welcoming and supporting environment i.e. a conduciveenvironment
for Self-Disclosure.

21.  Experience trust, acceptance and understanding within the team.
 Vicarious learning i.e. a chance to pick up skills and attitudes from
others.
 Good insightto expand self-knowledge.
Share other people’s experiences- concerns, difficulties andhopes. This will
indeed makethe team an effective medium of change.
Perception:
Comparison between Three jurors
Lead Role:
Juror 8 played by K.K. Raina
Juror 9 played by Annu Kapoor
Juror 3 played by Pankaj Kapur
Juror 8:- KK Raina
 His perception was very positive.
 Initially he was having doubt about the case, but as discussion goes on
he was convinced the accused wasn’tguilty.
Juror 9:- Anu Kapoor
 Good perception
 Wanted to discuss and listen more about the case
Juror 3:- Pankaj Kapur
 Bad perception
 Always wanted other jurors to be his site.
 Forced others to make the decision what he wanted them to make.

22. Personality:
Juror 8:- KK Raina
Openness to experience:
Degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity & a preference for novelty and
variety.
Emotional Stability:
Calm, self confidence and cool.
High self efficacy.
Proactivepersonality:
Identified opportunity, showing initiatives and act on them till the desired
results come.
Active constructive:
Actively participated in the discussion. Took initiatives and ideas were logical
and reliable.
Juror 9:- Anu Kapoor
 Agreeableness :
Compassionate, cooperative, warm and agreeable
 Good listener :
Was listening to every juror whether positive or negative opinion until he come
with valid point.
 Patience:
Showed patience when other jurors madeinappropriatebehaviors with him.
Patiently observed everyone’s pointof view very closely.

23. Juror 3:- Pankaj Kapoor
 Neuroticism :
Experiencing unpleasant emotions easily such as anger, anxiety, aggression,
depression or vulnerability.
 Narcissism :
Arrogant, senseof self importance and self admiration, or extreme
selfishness.
Active destructive.

24. LEARNINGS FROM THE MOVIE:-
Firstly we learn that whenever a number of people from different background,
mindset, and culture come together then conflicts are bound to happen. The
scenario from the movie can be extrapolated to an organisation where people
from different backgrounds come together and are supposed to work in a
coordinated manner, then due to difference in opinions and personality
conflicts aresure to take place.
Secondly, in similar circumstances the role of power and politics comes into
play when people with a dominant personality try to influence others and
make them think and do things according to them. So in such cases proper
attention has to be taken so that the discussion takes place in an unbiased and
non influential way and everybody gets a fair chance to participate and express
his/her opinion.
Thirdly whenever some decisions are taken as a team then the focus should be
on taking the view points of everybody and collectively coming to a decision
rather than focusing on expressing only individual viewpoints and influencing
others as well.
We also learn that every decision should be based on reasonable evidence and
it can be dangerous to rush to conclusions. In the movie, most of the Jury
members were initially in a hurry to shut the case and pronounce the accused
guilty even when they know it’s a matter of someone’s life. Only Mr. RAINA
stands against such a decision and demands that the jury should give
appropriate time to the issue and have a healthy discussion on the entire case.
Hence, as managers, we should always be dedicated and do a thorough
analysis beforetaking an important decision.
Whenever working in a team some points have to be kept in mind always,
some of which are-
 Equal and fair chance to voice their opinions
 A welcoming and supporting environment
 Experience trust, acceptance and understanding within the team.

25.  Vicarious learning i.e. a chance to pick up skills and attitudes from
others.
 Good insightto expand self-knowledge.
 Shareother people’s experiences- concerns, difficulties and hopes
The accused in the movie came from a poverty stricken background. Some
members of the Jury had preconceived notions against people coming from
slums. It was evident in the movie that this preconceived notion had a big
impact on their decision .The film demonstrates the power of social influences
and shows us how prejudices and biases can cloud our decision making
capacities. It leaves us with learning that we should never have any pre
conceived notions while taking critical decisions since they may cloud our
rational thinking.
When dealing with Humans nothing is written on the wall as golden rule. As
one of the characters puts it "YEH KOI SCIENCE NAHIN HAI, JAHAN SAB KUCH
MUMKIN HOTA HAI" (this is not science where everything is fixed and proven).
What is required of us is to have an open mind to everything in life and
critically analyze all aspects of a situation before making any decision.
There are certain important points that should be kept in mind while working
in teams and when collective decision has to be taken-
Take interest-
While working in a group often what we witness is social loafing by some of
the members, which should be tried to get rid off at any cost. All members
should take interest in whatever is happening in the meeting, unlike what we
saw in the movie where majority of the jurors were in a hurry to finish the
proceedings and rush back home.
Avoid aggression-
Aggression should be avoided and everybody should remain calm and
composed so that rational decisions can be taken.

26. Avoid being a follower-
A fair chance should be given to all members to express their opinions and
point of view and they should be encouraged not to just go with what the
majority is saying.
Rational and logical thinking-
All members should to think and take decisions rationally. Members should
think critically and then arrive at any decision.