The document provides an analysis of the group dynamics and stages depicted in the movie "12 Angry Men". It summarizes that the 12 jurors in the movie naturally progressed through three stages of group development - orientation, conflict, and cohesiveness - during their deliberations. In the orientation stage, the lack of leadership and structure led to wasted time and potential conflict. This progressed to the conflict stage as disagreements emerged between members taking on stereotypical roles. Eventually, the group was able to build cohesiveness by working through personal issues and finding their shared purpose in evaluating the case.

1. Running head: GROUP DYNAMICS AND STAGES 1
Group Stages and Dynamics
in the Movie 12 Angry Men (1957)
W. Pleasant
CDNV 5312

2. GROUP DYNAMICS AND STAGES 2
Abstract
In the film 12 Angry Men (1957), twelve men enter one room and most decide on the fate of a
young men based on the evidence presented in a court of law. These men were chosen at random
by New York City. They were taken out of their comfort zones and forced to be part of a group.
By natural instinct these men went through three stages of group development: orientation,
conflict and cohesiveness in only a few hours. For the benefit of some of these group members,
the group transitioned from a task/work group to somewhat of a counseling group, that made
them aware of their own faults and prejudices.
Keywords: group development, task/work group, counseling group, self-aware

3. GROUP DYNAMICS AND STAGES 3
Group Stages and Dynamics
in the Movie 12 Angry Men (1957)
Orientation
It is rare to find someone who likes to be forced to be somewhere or do something they
do not have a desire to do. In, 12 Angry Men (1957), we are presented with just that. Twelve
men, of all different backgrounds and experiences are told they must spend their own valuable
time to judge a man on the basis of evidence that was presented to them. Gladding (2012) would
call this type of group a task/work group. This type of group comes together to accomplish group
task goals. Orientation, the forming of a group stage, is an important stage and should be
approached with caution (2012). Forming a group with people who did not volunteer to be part
of the group, has a far greater chance for disaster than success.
Every group should start with a reason to exist (2012). In this case it’s very simple to
describe. A man is accused of killing his own father and this group of men must decide if he is
guilty or not guilty. The judge in the beginning of the film made it crystal clear of what is to be
done when these men enter the jury room. If a group is formed without a clear reason, valuable
time is wasted and no goal of any kind will be accomplished.
Many other steps of forming a group was not seen during the filming of this movie. One I
would have been curious to have seen was the selection of the group leader, or in this case the
foremen. The foremen is sometimes chosen before the trial begins and sometimes upon the
beginning of deliberations (Jury, 2013). Leaders help groups get organized and develop, so the
style of the leader effects the behavior and group dynamics (Sampson & Marthas, 1981 as cited
in 2012). Our foremen in the film, Juror 1, chose the laissez-faire leadership style. He was a
leader by name only (2012). He instructs the jurors to take care of their job however they want to

4. GROUP DYNAMICS AND STAGES 4
and he was not going to establish any rules. This leadership style is dangerous because, usually,
nothing is accomplished under this leadership (2012). Another aspect in the leadership of this
group is that as the movie moves along the leadership roles start to rotate among the members.
This comes to no surprise as the so-called leader doesn’t establish himself as a leader so it
naturally moves from member to member as a need for a leader always exist in a group.
In addition to the lack of leadership, other tasks where not accomplished and caused
much of the conflict, within the jury room, that will be discussed later. According to Weiner
(1984 as cited in 2012) there are five tasks that much be accomplished or the group will not
functioning properly. One task that I have discussed earlier involves specifying group rules. The
foremen did not establish any rules on how votes will counted or set time limits on speaking, to
name a few examples. Rules keep things in order and must exist if a group leader wants to avoid
unnecessary conflict.
Another task dismissed, before the jury decided to battle over the life of a young man,
was positive interchange was not promoted. If positive interchanges among group member can
be facilitated, then group members will begin to share openly with one another, and the group
atmosphere will be enhanced (2012). The group leader had a responsibility to be enthusiastic,
draw out members, hold the focus on interesting topics, shift the focus when topics or irrelevant,
and cutting off any hostile or negative interactions (Jacobs et al., 2012 as cited in 2012). The
foremen did not try to promote this in the beginning but tried to fix any issues when they came
up. If such a productive tone is not created, then group members may drop out, close up, or
attack each other (2012). All three are exhibited in the film as some read newspapers, refused to
give an opinion over the decision, or started attacking each other over each other’s opinions.

5. GROUP DYNAMICS AND STAGES 5
This is just a summary of what it takes to form a group. A group leader can become
overwhelmed by all the demands associated with this responsibility if they are not prepared
(2012). Juror 1 was obviously overwhelmed in the beginning of the film as he noticed he was
losing control of the group. He almost completely withdrew from the group after becoming
frustrated with the whole experience. As counselors, we must use this Juror 1 as a testimony of
how hard it is to form a group and never go into it blindly. We must be prepared, as possible, for
the worse and be ready to handle any unpredicted issues in the orientation stage. Once we have a
well-structured group we are ready to move it along to its goal.
Conflict
No matter how much experience a group leader has, he or she knows conflict is
inevitable. In 12 Angry Men, the honeymoon was over very quickly because of one man, Juror 8.
While exactly eleven men saw the case as open and shut, Juror 8 experienced reasonable doubt.
At the moment he revealed his vote of “not guilty” the conflict began.
Conflict has a way to reveal the true character of individuals. In the film these
characteristics established stereotypical member roles, which I believe the director was trying to
exaggerate to tell a good story. Gladding (2012) discusses seven common membership roles that
are often displayed during the first session. No all existed amongst the jurors. However, the roles
that were presented were the foundation of most of the conflict in the film.
Members who are manipulators are characterized by their subtle and not-so subtle use of
feelings and behaviors to get what they want (2012). Often they are angry and bring into the
group unresolved life problems centering on control (2012). Two men join these roles very
quickly in the film. Juror 10 brought his bigotry into the group and Juror 3 has issues with a son

6. GROUP DYNAMICS AND STAGES 6
who seems to have forgotten him. Juror 10 preaches throughout the film about how they cannot
trust the kid just because of the neighborhood he grew up, which were called the slums in the
film. He also goes so far as to say that they are born liars. Juror 3 shows a picture of him and his
son early in the film and talks about raising him to be a man. However, we learn he hasn’t seen
him for two years. He obviously loves his son but feels disrespected and forgotten. It’s obvious
these two men are looking to put the suspect away based off personal reasons and won’t let facts
or evidence persuade them. The jury intervened by blocking manipulation actions, such as
threatening or pleading (2012). The jury eventually break down the emotion blinders on the eyes
of these men, so they can finally see the facts and change their verdict to not guilty.
Resisters are often angry or frustrated and bring feelings with them to the group (2012).
They do not participate in group exercises or tasks and act as barriers to helping the group form
(2012). Juror 4 and 7 play the role of resistors. Juror 4 does not speak unless asked a direct
question. Once he gets more comfortable with the group he becomes more active in the debates
on the evidence. He draws away anytime the debates take an emotional turn. Juror 7 sees
everything the jurors are doing as a waste of time and just wants to go to a ballgame he has
tickets for. Eventually he changes his vote to not guilty, not because he believes the suspect is
guilty but, because he believes they have been there long enough. Juror 11 tries to get him to
give a reason for changing his vote and to stop toying with a man’s life. However, nothing comes
out of the confrontation but more frustration. Leaders can help resistant group members build
trust in the group by inviting them to participate but not insisting that they do (2012).
People who are monopolizers dominate the conversation in a group and do not allow
other members a chance to verbally participate (2012). Monopolizers initially offer group
members relief because they focus attention on themselves and away from everyone else (2012).

7. GROUP DYNAMICS AND STAGES 7
However, this can eventually becoming annoying to the group members. Juror 12 is our
monopolizer. He is an advertisement executive and initially loves to talk about his life and job.
His nonproductive talk is dealt with early in the film and his vote is eventually changed to not
guilty after more facts are presented.
Silent members may or may not become involved with the group (2012). Members who
are silent are often nonassertive, reflective, or just slow in assessing their thoughts and feelings
(2012). Juror 2 and 5 are our silent members. Juror 2 is a meek and unpretentious bank worker
(12 Angry Men, 2013). He allows everyone to step all over him until he finds his voice and
changes his vote. Juror 5 grew up in the slums and is the polar opposite of what Juror 10 says
people from these neighborhoods are like. He is soft spoken and nonassertive. He doesn’t want
to speak his mind in the opening debates, choosing to skip his turn. He is eventually drawn out
by Juror 10’s bias statements about people from the slums. Once this happens he becomes
involved in the debates and eventually changes his vote.
The other 4 members, including the Juror 1, didn’t have defined roles other than the Juror
1 being labeled as the foremen. Some could say these men were silent group members, however
they were not timid in voicing their opinions when challenged. I would say these men were
observers. They watch the dynamic of the group and fit in where needed. If I am not a group
leader, I would say this is where I usually fit in. I watch the leader for his or her style and watch
if others accept or reject the group. If I need to step up as leader to keep things in order I will or
if I need to do my part to keep the group moving forward I’ll choose this role. This is exactly
how I viewed these men. They were not the focus of the group but they were not invisible.
Unfortunately, the foremen shouldn’t have played this part as it was his job to set norms and
keep things from going chaotic, which it did throughout the movie.

8. GROUP DYNAMICS AND STAGES 8
The group experienced the transition period known as the storming stage in a matter of
minutes of entering the juror room. During this stage members start to compete with others to
find their place in the group (2012). Members start trash talking, belittling, and threatening each
other. An effective group leader would employ either a conflict resolution or management
approach (2012). It is safe to say are foreman was not an effective or willing leader. As the group
each realize there was no clear management, the struggle for power became evident. Members
almost resorted to violence to get people to hear their opinions. Without any norms, or
expectations about group members’ behavior that should or should not take place (Forsyth, 2010
as cited in 2012), the jury room became a place of chaos. As a group leader we should always be
cognizant of and emotionally attuned at all times to each other’s interpersonal and interactional
patterns (2012). We much educate our groups on how to relate to each other if we expect any
work to get done.
Cohesiveness
During this final stage group leaders and members should feel more freedom and comfort
in trying out new behaviors and strategies because the group is settled and issues, such as power
and control, have been worked through enough for members to trust one another (2012). In 12
Angry Men, what caused the conflict was the same action that started building the cohesiveness
between the members. If Juror 8 never went against the group, the movie would have ended in 5
minutes and every men would’ve left the jury room and went on with their lives, never coming
together as a cohesive group.
Cohesiveness falls in line with group norming. Group norming is the feeling of “We-
ness,” that comes when individuals feel they belong to an association or organizational larger
than themselves (2012). Juror 8 helped people to realize that it’s not about their own personal

9. GROUP DYNAMICS AND STAGES 9
agendas. Juror 8 simply said they should talk about the case, rather than make a decision in a
hurry. Although this was not his objective, Juror 8 created an environment where people were
able to work out their issues. Especially within Juror 3 and Juror 10. These men became aware of
their own self-biases and prejudices. By coming together as a cohesive group, the other 10 jurors
helped them see the error in their thinking. Some may argue that the method of being silent or
turn their backs on these men are not very therapeutic, but it shows us an example of group
members working together to deal with personal issues so that a group can move along to their
goal.
The others jurors got a crash course in becoming a cohesive group. All but one group
member, Juror 7, became part of the group by not fading into the background and found their
place by either providing an opinion or became willing to listen to others. In the very first vote it
was obvious that some jurors wanted to just go along with the majority as some looked around to
see how everyone else voted before casting their own vote. Juror 5 had the biggest change as he
did not say but two words in the beginning of the film. Towards the end he brought up a key
piece of evidence that changed two more votes to not guilty. As group leader we must help
people find their voice in the group. Everyone has something to bring to the table and by creating
a cohesive group environment we can remove the fears and doubts within a group.
Conclusion
Juror 8 raised in hand, not worrying about each individual’s comfort or being alone in his
idea, he knew he had a task and was willing to do what it takes to complete the task effectively. I
believe as group leaders, we are going to feel like this and we should. People are going to come
to us for help, but not know what it takes to receive this help. They are going to want to blend in,

10. GROUP DYNAMICS AND STAGES 10
challenge others or simply give up. We must be prepared to face all three of Yalom’s group
stages (2005 as cited in 2012). As group leader we must choose a leadership style that fits the
group and set rules or norms so the flow of the group is constant and relevant. Then we must be
prepared to stand our ground and help the group as challenges and conflicts come up within the
group. Finally, we must be prepared to motivate and support the group as the work is taking
place externally and internally amongst our members.
Juror 8 was not trying to get everyone on his side—although on a superficial level it
looks like he was. He wanted people to give up some of their time and some of themself before
sentencing a man to the electric chair. I truly believe the same satisfaction experienced at the end
of the movie would’ve been felt even if the young man was still found guilty. As group leaders
and counselors our job is not to get everyone to think the same way as us, but to place a small
drop of awareness and hope into our group members’ minds. Once this takes place then we can
truly be ready to get to work.

11. GROUP DYNAMICS AND STAGES 11
References
12 Angry Men (1957 film). (2013, September 3). Wikipedia. Retrieved September 7, 2013, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)
Gladding, S. T. (2012). Groups: A counseling specialty. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Jury. (2013, September 4). Wikipedia. Retrieved September 7, 2013, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury
Lumet, S. (Director). (1957). Twelve angry men [Motion picture]. United States: Orion-Nova
Twelve Angry Men.