12 Angry Men

The 1957 film Twelve Angry Men serves as an excellent example demonstrating sources of power and influence tactics in leadership. At the start, the Foreman of the Jury sits at the head of the table and assigns each juror a number. He is using a legitimate source of power because he holds the position title and serves as a formal authoritative figure for the jury. The Foreman also facilitates the initial voting and discussion on the reasons why each jury member felt that way. The jury was almost unanimous, with the exception of Juror #8 who won’t vote guilty. His leadership skills and tactics are very apparent early on in the film, as he suggests the group not be so quick to move on. Instead of jumping on the band wagon, he voices his opinions and doubts because a man’s life is on the line. He used several different influence tactics while defending the boy on trial. He started with some personal appeals by talking about how the boy was abused by his father and grew up in the slums. This information sparked juror number 5 to start doubting the boy being guilty because he could relate to his situation. After some discussion, he instilled a new voting system where everyone’s votes were anonymous. Juror number 8 even suggested that his vote not count to give the group a sense of consensus. I feel like this may have been an attempt at ingratiation influence because he was making it seem he cared about what the group wanted and would sacrifice his opinion if no one else agreed. This is also an example of an exchange because he was making a deal with the fellow members of the jury. Following this vote, juror number 8 began using rational persuasion by showing a similar knife, setting up a mock apartment to see if the older gentleman’s story was possible, getting the jury to think about the train and the amount of time it takes it to pass by, etc. Juror 8 identifies some flaws and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, but he allowed the jury to make their own doubts