First Part A: The first part of the final exam itself is an exercise in the art of active listening, observation, persuasion, empathy, and self-awareness as you absorb the film Twelve Angry Men. This intense film is set in a hot, sticky jury room during the dog days of August 1957 located in the Criminal Courthouse at 100 Center Street, New York City where 12 men are deliberating the fate of a young man accused of murdering his father. The film digs beneath the surface of the individual jurors and does a great job of demonstrating how important it is to remember that facts are facts. No amount of emotion or wishful thinking can change the nature of a fact. People can interpret facts differently, but that interpretation may not be supported by the facts. The job of a jury is to determine whether or not the facts presented are accurate enough to be able to come to a decision on the issue the jury is deliberating. The judge applies the law. The film also is a portrait of how human frailties and bias can participate in a decision-making process. Each of the 12 different juror characters possesses unique peculiarities and biases. If you think this movie is not relevant to negotiation you would be wrongthis is the ultimate negotiation...negotiating over whether to strip someone of their liberty and possibly their life. First and foremost, before a jury can agree on a decision, they must all agree on the facts...that is their only job. If possible, watch the film and then step away. Have something to eat or go for a walk or just change the environment from that of where you watched the film so you can think about what you just watched and let it sink in. Think about preparing an outline of the interactions you choose to focus on. It will keep you organized while you write. B: Compose an analysis of the movie using the information that you have learned in this course and your own personal life experience. Remember, I am most interested in how you plan to integrate some of the basic types of negotiation that were presented during the course. What I mean by that is how you use the correct terminology in context when explaining an observed interaction and then applying the appropriate concept to that interaction that supports your reasoning. Examples: Was the interaction between the jurors distributive or integrative in nature? Why? Or was it a combination of those types of negotiation or some other approach? Provide an example to illustrate your reasoning. Use your course materials for reference. Second Part The following questions are designed to be a self-analysis of sorts. It is very important that negotiators are completely honest with themselves. Through personal knowledge, negotiators have learned what environments either support or detract from their performance and prepare based on that. Example: Are you the type of person that will stick with a decision that you believe is proper in the face of stiff opposition or be too prideful not to admit .

1. First Part
A: The first part of the final exam itself is an exercise in the art of active listening, observation,
persuasion, empathy, and self-awareness as you absorb the film Twelve Angry Men. This intense
film is set in a hot, sticky jury room during the dog days of August 1957 located in the Criminal
Courthouse at 100 Center Street, New York City where 12 men are deliberating the fate of a
young man accused of murdering his father.
The film digs beneath the surface of the individual jurors and does a great job of demonstrating
how important it is to remember that facts are facts. No amount of emotion or wishful thinking can
change the nature of a fact. People can interpret facts differently, but that interpretation may not
be supported by the facts. The job of a jury is to determine whether or not the facts presented are
accurate enough to be able to come to a decision on the issue the jury is deliberating. The judge
applies the law. The film also is a portrait of how human frailties and bias can participate in a
decision-making process.
Each of the 12 different juror characters possesses unique peculiarities and biases. If you think
this movie is not relevant to negotiation you would be wrongthis is the ultimate
negotiation...negotiating over whether to strip someone of their liberty and possibly their life. First
and foremost, before a jury can agree on a decision, they must all agree on the facts...that is their
only job.
If possible, watch the film and then step away. Have something to eat or go for a walk or just
change the environment from that of where you watched the film so you can think about what you
just watched and let it sink in. Think about preparing an outline of the interactions you choose to
focus on. It will keep you organized while you write.
B: Compose an analysis of the movie using the information that you have learned in this course
and your own personal life experience. Remember, I am most interested in how you plan to
integrate some of the basic types of negotiation that were presented during the course. What I
mean by that is how you use the correct terminology in context when explaining an
observed interaction and then applying the appropriate concept to that interaction that
supports your reasoning.
Examples:
Was the interaction between the jurors distributive or integrative in nature? Why? Or was it
a combination of those types of negotiation or some other approach? Provide an example to
illustrate your reasoning. Use your course materials for reference.
Second Part
The following questions are designed to be a self-analysis of sorts. It is very important that
negotiators are completely honest with themselves. Through personal knowledge, negotiators
have learned what environments either support or detract from their performance and prepare
based on that. Example: Are you the type of person that will stick with a decision that you believe
is proper in the face of stiff opposition or be too prideful not to admit an error in judgment or
mistake? This is key information to know about yourself. The information doesn't need to be

2. broadcast, it just needs to know and factored into your decisions in preparing for a negotiation.
A few sentences will do.
1. If you were a defendant on trial in a criminal case, would you select yourself to be a
juror? In other words, do you believe that you can be fair and impartial and park your
personal beliefs/biases at the door? 5 Point
2. How important do you think our system of justice and jury system are? 5 Points [Granted
our system of justice needs work and with that understanding please answer the question.
Remember, answer these questions only after you have completed your analysis of the
negotiation styles of the characters in the films. If the answers to these questions are not
incorporated the points associated with each question will be deducted.
Deliverable:
The first part film analysis document must contain no less than 750 words and no more than 1000
words. Word Format, 1.5 Spacing, 12 pt. Goudy Old Style which is the same font you are reading.
Post the word count on the document. If not, you will have 5 points deducted. The word count
helps by constraining the writer to use as few words to describe their thoughts and the reader
since there will be 220 submissions to read.