SAN MATEO MUNICIPAL COLLEGE

San Mateo, Rizal

PRINCIPLES OF SYSTEMS THINKING

Movie Review
12 Angry Men

Name: BALURAN, MISSY L.

BSBA MM 3-H

This movie review challenges your senses in analyzing, and assessing people’s
behavior. Your ability to dissect and scrutinize situations based on your background
knowledge and experiences will greatly enhance your evaluation, opinion and
decisions. Let us then explore through this movie review.

Your paper should cover the following points:

1. Summarize the purpose and membership of the group.

Answer: The purpose of the group in "12 Angry Men" is to serve as the jury for a
murder trial and to reach a unanimous verdict regarding the guilt or innocence of the
defendant. Their membership consists of twelve male jurors selected to deliberate on
the case. Each juror brings their own background, biases, and perspectives to the
deliberation process, reflecting a diverse range of experiences and viewpoints within the
group. Despite their initial differences, the members must work together to fulfill their
duty of delivering a fair and just verdict based on the evidence presented during the
trial.

2. Discuss the behavior of every role in the movie and connect this to the stocks
and flow.
Answer: In "12 Angry Men," each juror exhibits distinct behavior that influences the
group dynamics and decision-making process, which can be connected to the concept
of stocks and flows:

Juror #1 (Foreman): He initially assumes a leadership role, guiding the group's

discussions and maintaining order. His behavior resembles a flow, as he directs the flow
of conversation and ensures that each juror has an opportunity to speak. However, his
authority is challenged as other jurors assert themselves, leading to a shift in the
balance of power within the group.
Juror #2: He demonstrates a passive and shy behavior, often deferring to others and
hesitating to express his own opinions. His behavior can be likened to a stock, as he
holds back his contributions and allows others to take the lead in the deliberation
process. However, when he does speak up, his insights and observations contribute to
the group's understanding of the case.

Juror #3: He exhibits aggressive and confrontational behavior, driven by personal

biases and emotional baggage. His behavior creates a negative flow within the group,
as he attempts to impose his views on others through intimidation and manipulation. His
rigid adherence to his initial guilty verdict represents a stock of entrenched beliefs that
resist change.

Juror #4: He adopts a rational and analytical approach to the deliberations, focusing on
the facts and evidence presented during the trial. His behavior resembles a flow of
logical reasoning, as he systematically evaluates the case and weighs the credibility of
witnesses. His willingness to reconsider his initial stance based on new information
demonstrates the flexibility of flows in decision-making.

Juror #5: He brings a unique perspective to the group as someone with firsthand
experience in the neighborhood where the crime took place. His behavior reflects both
stocks and flows, drawing on his personal knowledge and experiences as a stock of
information while also contributing to the ongoing dialogue and exchange of ideas as a
flow within the group.

Juror #6: He exhibits a cautious and deliberative approach, carefully considering the
evidence before making his decisions. His behavior represents a balance between
stocks and flows, as he draws on his own convictions and values while also remaining
open to the perspectives of others and the evolving dynamics of the group.

Juror #7: He displays a disinterested and apathetic attitude towards the deliberations,
more concerned with personal inconveniences than the gravity of the case. His behavior
disrupts the flow of discussion and undermines the group's cohesion, as he prioritizes
his own comfort and convenience over the task at hand.

Juror #8 (Protagonist): He emerges as the protagonist of the film, challenging the

group's assumptions and advocating for a fair and impartial deliberation process. His
behavior embodies the concept of flows, as he initiates a shift in the group's dynamics
by introducing new information and perspectives that challenge the status quo. His
ability to sway others through reasoned argumentation and moral conviction illustrates
the power of flows in shaping collective decision-making.
Juror #9: He demonstrates empathy and insight, drawing on his own life experiences to
understand the motivations and perspectives of others. His behavior represents a flow
of empathy and understanding within the group, as he encourages his fellow jurors to
consider the human implications of their decisions beyond the confines of the
courtroom.

Juror #10: He embodies bigotry and prejudice, displaying overtly racist attitudes
towards the defendant and other members of the group. His behavior represents a toxic
stock of hatred and intolerance that poisons the group dynamics and impedes
constructive dialogue. Despite attempts by others to challenge his views, he remains
entrenched in his beliefs, resistant to change.

Juror #11: He brings a sense of duty and integrity to the deliberations, drawing on his
reverence for the American legal system and the principles of justice. His behavior
represents a stock of moral values and principles that guide his decision-making
process, even in the face of adversity and pressure from others.

Juror #12: He exhibits indecisiveness and a tendency to prioritize expediency over

careful consideration. His behavior represents a flow of superficiality and conformity, as
he seeks to align himself with the majority opinion rather than engaging in critical
thinking and independent judgment. His reluctance to challenge the group's
assumptions and his own lack of conviction undermine the integrity of the deliberation
process.

3. What are the roles, goals, tasks, values, and relationships of this group?
Answer: The role of each juror serves as a member of the jury, responsible for
deliberating and reaching a verdict in a murder trial. The primary goal of the group is to
reach a unanimous verdict regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Their
tasks are to evaluate and discuss the merits of the prosecution and defense arguments.
The groups' values are justice, integrity, and empathy. Initially, relationships within the
group are characterized by skepticism, tension, and conflict as jurors grapple with their
differences in opinion.
Explain.
1. What pattern of behavior of this group shows?
● In "12 Angry Men," the characters exhibit goal-seeking behavior as they are
striving to reach a unanimous verdict in the murder case they are deliberating.
They are driven by their individual beliefs, biases, and goals, seeking to
persuade others to adopt their perspectives and reach a common decision.

2. How does the group make decisions? Is this a useful process? Why?
● The group of twelve men in "12 Angry Men" make decisions through a process of
deliberation, discussion, persuasion, and ultimately, consensus-building. Each
juror presents their arguments, evidence, and perspectives, and through dialogue
and debate, they gradually influence each other's opinions until they reach a
unanimous decision. It is a useful process since it showcased critical thinking,
serving as a form of checks and balances with the legal system, fairness, and
legitimacy.

3. What are the characteristics of the patterns of behavior?

● As I answered earlier that they possess goal-seeking behavior, this pattern
involves the pursuit of a specific target or outcome. Individuals or systems
exhibiting goal-seeking behavior adjust their actions in order to achieve a desired
goal, taking into account feedback and making corrections as needed to stay on
track towards the goal.

4. Is this group a “team”? If so, what tells you it is a team?

● Yes, the group of twelve men in "12 Angry Men" can be considered a team,
despite their initial differences and conflicts. They are a “team” because of their
shared goal, interdepence, collaboration by sharing ideas, and support in
understanding legal concepts.

5. What type of team are you studying--Problem-solving? Self-Managing? Cross-

Functional? Virtual?
● The group of twelve men in "12 Angry Men" can be classified as a
problem-solving team. Their primary task is to deliberate and reach a decision
on a complex legal issue: determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant in a
murder case. Throughout the film, they engage in a systematic process of
analyzing evidence, discussing perspectives, and resolving conflicts in order to
arrive at a unanimous verdict.

While they exhibit elements of self-managing behavior, as they independently

navigate their roles and responsibilities within the deliberation process
6. How is trust gained or lost with this group?
● Here's a specific scenario from "12 Angry Men" that illustrates how trust is gained
and lost within the group:

In one scene, Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda, presents a reasonable doubt
about the guilt of the defendant. He suggests that they take time to discuss the
evidence thoroughly before reaching a hasty verdict. Initially, many of the jurors
are skeptical and resistant to reconsidering their initial guilty votes. However, as
Juror #8 calmly and methodically presents alternative interpretations of the
evidence and raises questions about the reliability of key witnesses, he begins to
earn the trust of some jurors.

For example, when Juror #8 challenges the accuracy of a crucial eyewitness

account, Juror #9, played by Joseph Sweeney, expresses admiration for his
courage to stand alone against the majority and reconsider the evidence
objectively. This moment of solidarity and respect between the two jurors
demonstrates how trust can be gained through integrity, reasoned
argumentation, and the willingness to challenge the status quo.

Conversely, trust is momentarily lost when Juror #3, played by Lee J. Cobb,
becomes emotionally volatile and aggressive in his defense of the guilty verdict.
His personal biases and unresolved issues cloud his judgment, causing him to
lash out at Juror #8 and question his motives. This confrontational behavior
creates tension within the group and undermines the trust that had been building
among the jurors.