Essay On How Did Henry Fonda Influence People
TWELVE ANGRY MEN
Was Henry Fonda convinced right from the start of the case that the boy was not guilty?
He was not absolutely sure that the boy was guilty but he was sure that the evidences provided are not strong and sufficient enough to proof the boy guilty of murder. So he decided to dig deep in to the case and analyzed the evidence technically to make sure if they are worthy of declaring the boy guilty of the charge. So from the beginning of the case he was convinced that there is some grey area that needs to be verified before any decision. He started from saying that the boy is not guilty and that there is a possibility that the provided proofs are not so influential. He was pre-planned that he will not give-up the decision on the basis of vote call and that he will discuss it deep into the hard facts with others until he will be convinced enough to called the boy “Guilty”. He also did some homework for the case like arranging a similar “Knife” and brainstorming with the evidences. Because he thought that it is his responsibility to confirm the charge on the boy as “one man was already dead and the life of another man was at …show more content…
1. Henry used Personal Power to influence other by creating an environment where all of them can argue with each other and remained sensitive to view-point of others. He put aside his ego and remained tolerant to the arrogant behavior of other Jurors. He was focused to his objective and responsibility. He projected himself to be unbiased and he was not working in self-interest. He builds trust and then with his charismatic and communicative abilities he convinced others. 2. He used Persuasive Push Tactics to influence rational people. He gave them a point to think and re-evaluate their decisions. 3. He also used Bridging Pull Tactics where he involved & listened to the suspicions of others and then with his logical reasoning he convinced others to his
Was Henry Fonda convinced right from the start of the case that the boy was not guilty?
He was not absolutely sure that the boy was guilty but he was sure that the evidences provided are not strong and sufficient enough to proof the boy guilty of murder. So he decided to dig deep in to the case and analyzed the evidence technically to make sure if they are worthy of declaring the boy guilty of the charge. So from the beginning of the case he was convinced that there is some grey area that needs to be verified before any decision. He started from saying that the boy is not guilty and that there is a possibility that the provided proofs are not so influential. He was pre-planned that he will not give-up the decision on the basis of vote call and that he will discuss it deep into the hard facts with others until he will be convinced enough to called the boy “Guilty”. He also did some homework for the case like arranging a similar “Knife” and brainstorming with the evidences. Because he thought that it is his responsibility to confirm the charge on the boy as “one man was already dead and the life of another man was at …show more content…
1. Henry used Personal Power to influence other by creating an environment where all of them can argue with each other and remained sensitive to view-point of others. He put aside his ego and remained tolerant to the arrogant behavior of other Jurors. He was focused to his objective and responsibility. He projected himself to be unbiased and he was not working in self-interest. He builds trust and then with his charismatic and communicative abilities he convinced others. 2. He used Persuasive Push Tactics to influence rational people. He gave them a point to think and re-evaluate their decisions. 3. He also used Bridging Pull Tactics where he involved & listened to the suspicions of others and then with his logical reasoning he convinced others to his