Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The focus of the discussion was set by juror 8, i.e. Henry Fonda. The focus
he tried to establish was to create sufficient reasonable doubt in favour of
the defendant in the murder trial so that a potentially innocent young man
is not subjected to execution for a crime he possibly did not commit.
Reasons:
a Fond, and not juror 1 created the core value for the groups vision
by stating that if there is reasonable doubt, then the possibly
innocent defendant must be acquitted.
b He insisted that if there is any anomaly or uncertainty detected by
any of the jurors, in the lawyers arguments, the evidences or the
witness testimonies, then that creates reasonable doubt. Thus,
Fonda established the core purpose keeping the core value in
mind.
c Fonda set the big hairy audacious goal (BHAG) of making 11 out of
12 jurors to think critically and question everything in a seemingly
open-and-shut case, all by himself, despite an impossible amount of
resistance.
Qs 3. Elaborate on how the change was led by Henry Fonda
keeping the steps of change management in mind:
Answer:
Kotter has published essential 8 step process for organizational change
management in 1995.The protagonist, Henry Fonda, has meticulously
followed these steps throughout the movie to change the verdict or the
fate of the 18 year old boy. The steps are explained below:
1) Create Urgency:
i.
Initially Henry Fonda knows perfectly that he is the only juror to vote
non guilty. He doesnt jump to the conclusion or start stating his
views like other jurors and starts by quoting that I just want to
talk. In our view, he wanted to examine the views of all the other
jurors before trying to convince them by giving his argument. This is
an important step where he was basically judging the market and its
competitiveness in marketing terms.
ii.
ii.
iii.
i.
ii.
ii.
He gave all his arguments with the question that if the existing
proof clear enough, beyond any doubt, to give the kid a death
sentence. This way he steered the group into understanding that
they should give a verdict of guilty when they are absolutely
sure of the proofs and arguments.
Now, he communicated his views using oral and non-verbal
communication. He made himself adamant that even lousy jury
like Juror 3 or Juror 10 was afraid to insult him. So, he was very
clear about his agenda and also those who supported him, he
extended a caring attitude towards them.
ii.
iii.
ii.
ii.
ii.