Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Qs 1. Who set the focus and what was it? Why do you say so?

(Give a maximum of three reasons)


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.
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
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
Qs 3. Elaborate on how the change was led by Henry Fonda
keeping the steps of change management in mind:
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:

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.


He becomes perfectly aware that the jurors lacked the seriousness

and were eager to finish the discussion by agreeing to the judge.
They dont want to think about the consequence of the judgement.
So after gauging the crisis, he understood even if he put forward
serious arguments backed with facts, other juries will declines those
as they lacked seriousness. So rather than putting arguments at the

beginning, he tried to create a sense of seriousness so that other

could able to comprehend those arguments properly.

To create sense of urgency, he kept repeating that the life of a 18

year old boy was in the hands on them. A bad judgement will take
someone else life. By doing so he made sure that others understood
gravity of the situation. When he grabbed everyones attention, he
started unfolding the arguments which could change their views.

2) Form a Powerful Coalition:


Fonda is a good observer also. During the initial voting, he noticed

few of the jury is not sure about their judgement but they decided to
go with the majority. That makes them potential target whose view
can be changed with little effort. So, Fonda started to influence
those potential juries. This helped him to assemble a group with
enough power to lead the change.


Sometimes it is necessary to do whatever is necessary to advocate

the change and then take a calculated risk to reduce the influence
of prevailing idea. When Fonda made arguments about the knife, he
has to test whether his strategies were working or not. So, he
decided to take a gamble and ask for another secret ballot. He was
sure that those who are toggling between guilty or not guilty, will
not vote for not guilty under those circumstances. So, the strategy
of secret vote was paid off. When he got follower, he gained
confidence and stared to break the opponent group. Gradually
others also started to look Not guilty: option more seriously. So,
ultimately his strategy was working and he kept building strategies
depending on the situation.


He ultimately finds the support of all the jury members by

convincing them one by one. Time and again he made sure that he
kept asking for vote after every single round of discussion. He
understood that incremental change is easier that big bang change.
So, he kept increasing Not Guilty voter team and maintain a
steady flow until everyone converted into Not Guilty decision.

3) Create a vision for change:


Fonda created a vision for change by voting not guilty in his

first vote and giving the first argument that he doesnt feel the
proceedings compelling enough to send an 18-year-old kid to the
chair. He first created a sense of seriousness among the juries
who are restless due to hostile weather condition (Heat) and
eager to take decision hurriedly. Then he started mentioning all


those arguments to establish that there was significant amount

of possibility that all evidences were not accurately analysed.
He established that fact that court trial was one sided and also
pointed out why the lawyer of the boy was so uninterested about
the case. He created the vision for change by pointing out to the
lack of accuracy and reliability of the witnesses, countering the
argument about rarity of the murder weapon and giving
arguments against overall questionable circumstantial evidences.
He also carried the knife which court upheld a very rare kind of
knife, to show them lack of accuracy in several instances. He
created a domino effect, as those who converted into Not
Guilty then started accumulating facts to prove the boy not

4) Communicate the vision:



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.

5) Empowering others to act on the vision:




The main obstacles towards change was the insincerity, unyielding

stubbornness and prejudices of the other jurors. He tried to make to
first use his arguments about what is at stake to gain he sincerity of
some of the jurors.
To kill the stubbornness, he first converted those who were toggling
between Guilty or not guilty. Then created a sense of inferiority
complex and aloofness among the stubborn juries. By using rule of
isolation and strong arguments based on physical evidence (Knife
and Old man walking scene), he was able to convert them also.
In the end, he created tremendous stress to break juror 3 from his
prejudice. Its easier to counter insincerity that to counter
prejudices. This was the reason it was done at last. To counter
prejudices of some jurors against a particular age group or a
particular community he asked them to justify their own views and
in the process realise their mistake.

6) Planning for and creating short term wins:



Throughout the process, Fonda played with intelligently with

cautiousness. From his first strategy to ensure seriousness in the
room to targeting rational jury to convert them first and use
unconventional method to prove the witness wrong, he set small
goals. After every discussion he insisted for a vote to ensure that
he is in the right path.
There was a moment when prejudice jury 3 has reconverted the
decision of jury 11 to Guilty. Then, Fonda took the immediate
step to convert him again. He made sure all short term goals are
achieved and they were intact.

7) Consolidating improvements and producing still more



The best example of this would be to allow newly converted

member to share their views and arguments. This helps to raise
such points which Fonda himself may not thought about. In our
management terms, hiring, promoting and developing employees
who can implement vision.
There were moments in the films when Juror 3 or Juror 10 tried to
spoil the situation by yelling or creating sense of tension. But
after every instances, he resumed with new strategy to nullify
their arguments.

8) Institutionalising New Approaches:



Fonda was successful to institutionalise his idea. Because in the

end all of Not Guilty voter had started to point out new
arguments without the help of Fonda. Those individuals were also
started putting their strategies. They were able to understand the
vision Fonda shared.
There was one instance in the film where Juror 6 was converted
to Not Guilty to finish the discussion quickly. Then other jury
member (Juror 9) infuriated with such comment. He tried to
establish the seriousness of the arguments. So, it is clear that
Fonda is able to institutionalize his approaches.