Ek Ruka Hua Faisla

All 12 jurors had their own understanding and rationale behind their actions. Information sharing and consensus building is important to make the decision. Every member is a potential contributor to the process of decision making, which involves understanding the problem, breaking it down to meaningful components, formulating a general strategy in terms of a sequence of action steps, generating alternatives, providing and pooling the required information, generating favourable and unfavourable points for each alternative, coming to a shared understanding, making a final choice, and getting the commitment of all members to the choice made. The commitment of the jurors to the implementation of the solution is thus assured. In this case, the decision making style of the group was mainly a participative style. All the jurors proceeded through the entire decision making process. The role of leader (Juror 1) was that of a process facilitator. As the consequence of the decision made by the jurors was very serious (conviction of murder), it was very important for the decision to be made after ‘Deep Deliberation’. In this style, the person spends large amounts of time and attention weighing out all possible options before deciding on one. A person places great time and importance on the decision.
The role of leader (Juror 1) was that of a process facilitator. As the consequence of the decision made by the jurors was very serious (conviction of murder), it was very important for the decision to be made after ‘Deep Deliberation’. In this style, the person spends large amounts of time and attention weighing out all possible options before deciding on one. A person places great time and importance on the decision. There were some factors which hindered consensus building like dominating nature of few jurors (Juror 3 and Juror 10: they forcibly tried to put their points above others and spoke out of their turn), tendency of few to make a quick decision (Juror 7: more worried to catch the evening movie), etc. As a leader, build consensus between different jurors was of extreme significance. The basis of consensus is the respect and concern people have for others. A relevant example from the movie is: Juror 9(old man) was trying to put a point across and then Juror 3 stops him in the middle and starts shouting at the old man. At this point, Juror 6 intervenes and asks Juror 3 to behave properly and gives him warning. Later he requests the old man to complete his talk. Juror 6 presents a leadership quality here of concern for others and also a good listener. Juror 8 presents great leadership qualities at several instances in the movie and is the centre point for consensus building in the group. He is a good listener and recognizes that in order to make a good decision, it is necessary to utilize the resources they have in a proper manner. He knew that that their decision would have major implication and hence, outwardly expressed no adherence to either position, but instead encouraged his fellow jurors to simply discuss the case in an openminded manner. He wanted to collect as much information before making such an important decision.