Download 12 angry men solution and more Assignments Negotiation in PDF only on Docsity!
CASE ISSUES
12 angry men is a story about twelve jurors who are confined in a jury room on a hot summer day to decide the guilt or innocence of defendant in a murder case. The defendant is an 18 year old boy from slums who is accused of killing his abusive father. If he is proved guilty he would be subject to verdict of death in an electric chair. The case initially appeared to be simple open and shut case but there are issues which forced the judge to assign the task of finding if the boy was guilty or innocent. However the decision had to be unanimous that is all twelve jurors should agree to boy's guilt or innocence. The judgment is based on certain issues which are instrumental in arriving at a decision: -The boy had an argument with his father which resulted in father hitting him twice -An old man living beneath the house where the boy lived with his father testified that he heard the boy shout I am going to kill you after a quarrel between father and son. Soon after he heard a body falling on the ground and then he saw a boy running down the stairs. -A women living across the street testified that she saw a boy kill his father from the window of a running train. -The boy didn't remember which movie he saw that night -The boy had prior record of offenses against him -On the night of murder the boy had bought a unique carved switchblade knife that was used in the murder. The boy claimed that he lost it while on his way to movie About Juror # 8: Henry Fonda When the case was presented, all Jurors except Juror# 8 wanted to end the case on the basis of facts provided. Juror# 8 was the only Juror amongst the 12 Jurors who gave a non-guilty vote to the accused. He did not do this because he believed that the boy was innocent but he wanted to have atleast a minimal discussion before arriving at any conclusion. Negotiations Approach Negotiation is a critical component of conflict resolution. The ultimate goal of negotiation is to reach a mutually beneficial solution to problem. Negotiation will be successful only when parties involved leave the table with substantial gains and inconsequential losses ("Approaches to negotiation", n.d). There are different approaches to negotiation which depend on the situation and people involved. Most of the negotiations are either distributive or integrative. Distributive Negotiation: In distributive negotiation each party tries to maximize its benefit from the fixed sum. Hence one party benefits at the expense of other. It is also called win-lose bargaining, zero-sum and competitive negotiation ("The two approaches...," n.d). Integrative Negotiation: In this type of negotiation parties integrate their interests to maximize their benefits. These negotiations are about creating value and claiming it. Integrative negotiations are also referred to as win-win, problem solving and cooperative negotiation ("The two approaches...", n.d). If we see the movie from point of view of learning about negotiation and decision making, Juror# 8 came across as a facilitator. He was not satisfied with the way council was handling the case and did
not believe completely in two eyewitnesses. When other jurors thought that they were wasting their time on the case which they presumed was shut and close one, he engaged others into discussion by asking them if they were sure that there was nothing to talk about in the room. He did not outrightly reject their beliefs but encouraged them to convince him on why they were right and he was wrong. Each juror explained their opinions while Juror # 8 responded with influential arguments and questions for others to consider. For example when Juror # 4 stated that boy was making up a story to escape guilty charges. The boy said that he was watching movie at the time his father was killed but did not remember the name of the movie. At this, Juror # 8 attacked his fellow juror by challenging his own ability to recollect small details. He used logic based arguments to do away with other Jurors prejudices and misconceptions and change their votes. These tactics indicate that he had an approach that could navigate its way through ambiguity and gain confidence of others. He used an integrative approach to negotiations by focusing on the problem and not getting into personal conflict with anyone. Juror # 8 was "logical negotiator". A logical negotiator is one who Develops discussion points Sets the rules for negotiation Argue in a logical manner Adapt their positions to meet changing situations Jurors # 8, from the beginning of the trial thought that it was important to atleast discuss for some time and did not pass judgments. Like a logical negotiator, he emphasized on process of negotiation rather than the outcome. At the same time, Juror # 8 was the lead negotiator amongst twelve Jurors. He was responsible for setting the stage for discussions and leading the way through all claims and qualms. He carefully listened to arguments of all jurors and went through their emotional plays without demanding his way. It was his collaborative negotiation style that he convinced 11 of the Jurors to change their votes. Negotiation Techniques Negotiation techniques and tactics help negotiator get the better end of the process. There are almost 40 negotiation techniques defined, we would outline 10 main ones which were used by Juror
8 in the movie. Juror # 8 was patient and actively listened to other Jurors. He hears opinion of each
of the Juror and connects with them in their way. He established the target for the discussion as non-guilty verdict for which he continuously built consensus.
- Interest Juror # 8 had interest in the case. He did not bother what personal engagements he had and how he could more utilize his time. He also had interest in social problems of boy which can be seen when he described the boy to his fellow Jurors. He said "Look this kid has been kicked all around his life. He lived in a slum. His mother has been dead since he was 9 and he lived in an orphanage for a year and a half while his father was serving a jail term for forgery. He is a wild and angry kid and that's all he's ever been. You know why? Because he's been hit on the head by someone once a day every day. He had miserable 18 years".
- Assertiveness
Compromises Made Compromise # 1 Juror 8 wanted to discuss the case when no one else was interested. He could not convince him fully of the guilt of the boy accused. Other jurors has already presumed that witnesses were hundred percent correct and all events point out that the boy was guilty. Juror # 7 wanted to get out of the room as quickly as possible as he had tickets for Yankees baseball game at 8:00 pm in the night. At this point Juror 8 made a compromise that instead of totally giving up on the case he suggested that they discuss the case for one hour. The result of this was that everyone got started on some preliminary discussions. Compromise # 2 When voting was done initially amongst the twelve jurors to get consensus on whether the boy was guilty or not guilty eleven of the jury members voted for the boy to be guilty. Only Juror # 9, played by Henry Fonda voted for the boy to be not-guilty. This irked other jury members as they believed that the case was clear and boy was guilty given all suspicions were correct. Fonda gave many arguments to defend his position and tried to get favorable response from others. However, when he got none, he reluctantly agrees that he has only succeeded in getting the jury hanged. At this point he makes a compromise. He asks for a second ballet, this time secret where he would not vote and if all eleven votes are in favor of guilty he would also agree with their decision. When votes were being counted a new not guilty vote was found. On revelation it was found that Juror 9 had voted for not guilty as he believed that Juror 8s points deserved further discussion. The result of this compromise was that Fonda got a favorable vote which gave him strength to further pursue with the problem. Personal Negotiation Techniques Looking back at negotiations techniques used by Juror 8, these were: Persistence Interest Provocation Listening Authority Problem Solving Research Patience Sense of Compassion Assertiveness From the above, I think, I would use following five tactics in my personal and business life.
- Assertiveness By being assertive I would be able to stand up for my rights as well as for rights of others in a calm and positive way. Both in personal and professional life assertiveness are important. In personal life, being assertive is all about engaging in effective communication. I can be assertive when dealing with a headstrong friend who wants me to believe him whether what he says is right or wrong. In the business setting if I am upset with my manager over performance review, I would approach him and express my opinion in a professional and diplomatic way. If I am passive I might not let my feelings come out and become resentful. It would take away my confidence and lead to stress and anxiety. On the other hand if I am aggressive I might get furious at manger and quit.
Results Expected By being assertive I would be able to build personal confidence, be better at managing stress and anger and have better emotional health.
- Persistence Persistence means not giving up and continuously doing the task until one succeeds. Persistence is a very important negotiation tactic which can be used in our everyday life. In personal context I have continuous debate with myself from the time I wake up till the time I sleep. For example, every morning I feel lazy to drag myself to go for running. As soon as I open my eyes I know running is the first time that should be done no matter what. In this matter I am very persistent on my belief that I may curse myself for not being able to sleep for some more time, but exercise is good for my physical and mental well being. It gives me immense pleasure after I have finished my task and I often give myself small snack treat. In the professional life persistence is very tricky negotiation technique. If I have right thinking and right approach to solve problem persistence would be good but if otherwise persistence may tarnish my reputation. I have been working on a marketing plan for a very long time. I felt that by introducing a new product in Canadian market the company would be able to get a considerable market share. There is no availability of similar product in Canadian market because of which our product could attract premium pricing. The management felt that it was too big a leap for the company financially. Initially they were not keen on evaluating feasibility of my plan. However, through my persistence I was able to convince the management of benefits from this product. Finally the plan got accepted and is underway implementation. Results Expected By learning to be persistent in negotiations with self and with others I would have stronger relationships, and rewards in the longer scheme of things of life.
- Listening By not listening we limit our ability to truly understand the message being delivered. There are many distractions in our day to day life which interferes with our ability to listen. Internal distractions could be remembering an event from previous day, thinking of important deliverables, dreaming about an upcoming trip with friends, etc. External distractions could be noises from outside, telephone ring, or unexpected visitors. If we want to improve our listening, we must switch off all distracters. External distractions can be turned off by switching off telephones, closing door of room, discourage unexpected visitors. Internal distractions may not be so easy to put off. It requires taming one's mind to stay in present. It requires concentration and no backlogs to be present. In my personal life I would use listening skills as negotiating tactics with my family, peer group and with professors at school. If there is something that is disturbing my sibling I could just listen to him or her and let him vent out his feelings and emotions. At the end when he is done I would ask if there is anything else he would like to share. I am sure half of the problem would be solved just by my listening. Then I would give my suggestions and advice based on different possibilities. In my professional life listening skills could be very useful while discussing appraisal with manager. I may think that I have performed far better than the rank I have been given but instead of letting my feelings out I can listen to what my manager has to say. It can give me an entirely different perspective on how I work and what needs to be changed.
By being patient I saved thousand dollars when I was negotiating for a used car. I liked the car and wanted to buy it and placed an offer of $1000 less than asking price. Within a small time the seller called me back to tell that so much reduction would not be possible. The speed of his callback indicated that he was really impatient and wanted to dispose the car as early as he could. I sat on it for a day or two. The result of my negotiating tactic was that the seller agreed upon lesser price and I saved thousand dollars. In the professional life patience is required to close any deal with clients. There are rounds of negotiation and re-negotiation before deal comes to us. It gives me time to understand what client really wants. Patience gives clients to get used to the idea that what they wished for must reconcile with realities of what they can actually get. Results Expected Being patient can save huge amount in both small and big negotiations. It also gives clarity of thoughts in the mind, i.e. why one really wants to negotiate. Jury Member # 4 Negotiation Strategy and Approach It was suggestion of Juror # 4 to have a preliminary vote. He had logic in his arguments and wanted to discuss about evidences. He was assertive yet collaborative. He had a personality with traits like sensibility, calmness, ability to articulate and ability to lead the group. It was evident from his personality that he had collaborative negotiation style. When Juror # 3 had emotional outburst resulting from discussion about background of the boy, it was Juror # 4 who voiced that the discussion was getting off the point. He was emotional and presented his ideas rationally to conclude that background of the boy was responsible for making him a criminal. Throughout the negotiation process he sticks to facts presented in the trial. He remembers even smallest of details related to evidences. However he doesn't lose track when other Jurors cross question his point of view. But he got irritated when Juror # 3 interrupted him. He was impersonal at all levels of negotiation and enjoyed the attention of other jurors when he spoke about his job. Basis of Guilty Analysis Juror # 4 did not get under influence of other Jurors most of whom casted their vote for boy to be guilty just because others were doing it. He was one of the six jurors who raised their hands immediately when a preliminary vote was taken. He thought that the boy was guilty because he thought that there was hard evidence against the boy and he had murdered his father. Reasons for which Juror #4 based his vote for Guilty: He thought that boy was giving an alibi to them which was unreal. The boy said that he was at movies at the time when his father was murdered but couldn't remember the name of the movie an hour later when he was questioned. Moreover no one saw him going in the theater or coming out of it. The knife, which was the murder weapon, was, according to him, very strong evidence as it had unusual carved handle and blade He saw the old lady who looked in her open window to see the boy stab his father. She stated that she saw the murder through window of a moving elevated train
Negotiation Techniques used by Juror # 8 to Change his Mind To the point of Juror #4 that the boy was giving alibi and he didn't remember name of the movie he watched an hour ago, Juror # 8 made a point that the boy was under great emotional stress. He chose to practically demonstrate that even we as adults are not able to recall all facts of previous day when we are not even under emotional stress. Juror #8, argued that it was possible that the boy lost the knife someone else stabbed his father with another knife. He turned the tables when he took out a knife identical to that which was the evidence from his pocket. He told jurors that he bought that knife for $6 from a local pawn shop in the locality where the boy lived with his father. With this Juror #8 said that it was possible. Juror #8 noticed marks near the woman's nose implying that she wears glasses. When she came to the court she wasn't wearing glasses as she thought they would spoil her looks. To this Juror #4 was quick to state that no one wears glasses while sleeping. Hence, Juror # 8 made his point that it was unlikely that the woman would have put her eyeglasses to see the murder that too through the window of the moving train sixty feet away. Juror #8 said that it was possible that she made a mistake and actually she saw only a blur. While doing so he did not shout or rush through the discussion to prove his point. Juror # 4 was in some ways had his ways of thinking and saw only those things that fitted in those ways. It created patterns of action which are fixed to great extent. He had already made up his mind that presented facts were hundred percent correct and did not find any outside clue important. It was when other juror deduced that the woman wore glasses that he was forced to think outside of his realm and take account of all the things that he did not notice earlier. Finally, he changed his vote from guilty to not-guilty once a reasonable doubt came to his mind about fallacies in evidences. Analysis of Juror # 3 Strategy Juror #3 wanted to get consensus for not-guilty based on facts of the case. He wanted other jurors to trust him and follow him in whatever he says. He harried those who did not agree with him by shouting at them. He did so with his son, as he wanted to take him in a particular direction which he thought was important. His personality was head strong and stubborn. It seemed that he had made up in his mind to pay no attention to whatever contribution was made and to constantly piss off others about their intentions. Though capable of acting rationally, he is under emotional stress and is not able to compose himself. Style & Approach with other Jurors Juror # 3 was a complex personality. He was going through rough relationship with his son and was very angry with him. The anger manifested in his arguments and influenced his decision. It was the main reason why he believed that the boy had actually stabbed his father. He had a straight forward approach that a boy of the kind that the accused is, is capable of committing any crime. He also believed in testimony of witnesses- the old man, the woman and switchblade. He was constantly pressing other jurors to see the boy guilty. He showed lack of respect while referring to Juror# 8 as "You down there!" He always countered the conclusion drawn by Juror # 8 and shows his stubbornness by his anger and intent to not agree with
Review: 12 Angry Men – Negotiations DECEMBER 26, 2015 GRACE FUNLEAVE A COMMENT Written by Fun Jin Wen Grace for the module GEM2903X – Community Leadership, read in the College of Alice and Peter Tan, National University of Singapore in Semester 1 AY2015/16. 12 Angry Men illustrates how successful negotiations necessitates careful observation and analysis of different, conflicting arguments presented by the various parties involved, such that emotions and positions are effectively separated from the more deeply-entrenched and often concealed interests. These actions were performed by Juror 8, who proceeded to question the other jurors’ motivations behind their assertion of a “guilty” verdict (position). This movie illustrates how specific positions were of little significance in determining the negotiation’s outcome; the parties who focused on superficial claims to “substantiate” their positions (Juror 3 and 10) and failed to evaluate theirs and the other jurors’ intrinsic beliefs and motivations for choosing the “guilty” option (like Juror 8 did), lost their credibility and influence in the negotiation process. Eventually, the audience and jurors do not know if the boy truly committed the murder or not (only ‘reasonable doubt’ was established, based on the testimonial evidence presented); the boy’s true innocence or guilt had no bearing on the jury’s final agreement; the agreement was derived by systemically questioning and addressing the assumptions and motivations (interests) backing the jurors’ decisions. While all twelve jurors essentially desired justice to be served (according to their personal definitions and interpretations) in the case, which is all parties’ fundamental interest, Juror 8 adopted a different position from the other jurors, due to his compassion and desire to see the teenager get a fairly-deliberated verdict. Juror 3 opted for “guilty”, making the mistake of attempting to solve the wrong problem by having a self-serving role bias. [1] His personal altercations and bad relationship with his son led him to interpret the trial’s testimonial “evidence” pertaining to his own side in a highly self-serving way, in which he was strongly determined to punish the boy as a result of his strong conviction that the boy was guilty of betraying and killing his own father. This conviction was extrapolated from his own son’s turning against him. This led to Juror 8’s assertion that #3 was taking on the role of the boy’s personal “executioner”, to “avenge himself” as a disappointed father. #3’s and #8’s examples (both had contradicting positions) demonstrate that despite similar fundamental interests, bargaining had to be performed between these two “camps” to lead to a mutually-assented outcome. Ultimately, Jurors 3 and 10 suffered from a cognitive role bias, wherein they believed that they had an extremely high chance of “winning” the debate (for more than half the movie, the votes favoured their position), as compared to #8, who originally cast the sole “not guilty” vote. As a result, #3 and #10 were overly confrontational (yelling, accusing, going on a tirade) and emotional in their approach, and were too committed to their point of view, refusing to listen to the evidence that suggested otherwise, or figuring out ways to reconcile gaps in the evidence to strengthen their position and convince the other jurors. Their failure to correct their skewed vision greatly influenced the outcome of the deal against them. Another problem observed was the over-commitment to a position, which was in part caused by forcing people to publicly display their opinions, e.g. calling for an initial vote. This reinforced some
jurors’ commitment to their position, i.e. they subsequently experience personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently. For example, Juror 12 was scorned for being fickle-minded and changing his vote multiple times; many jurors did not want to be perceived as such, ‘weak’ in one’s resolve and confidence in their personal decision-making abilities. This hinders the negotiation process as some jurors stubbornly stuck to their positions for quite a long time, until there was so much evidence against their position that they were technically forced to change their minds. The most striking observation was that all twelve jurors had the same BATNA[2]: a hung jury, which would most likely have resulted in a “guilty” verdict when deliberated by the next jury. This meant that parties like #3 and #10, had a stronger advantage in the negotiation, as they had a good BATNA, given that they were resolutely convinced that the teenager was guilty. However, this was a bad BATNA for Juror 8 and the jurors who started to doubt that the boy was truly guilty, and wanted to save the boy’s life. #8 was aware of his weak BATNA at the beginning of the debate, thus he adopted a conceding approach, where he sought to “understand” why the other jurors opted for “guilty”, and objectively challenged the evidence they produced to justify their positions, rather than confront, i.e. outright disagree with their perspectives. Throughout the film, #8 managed the improvement of his BATNA well. Initially, he was the overwhelming minority (11-1 against him), thus he knew that supporting the boy’s innocence and acquittal would undermine his credibility with the other jurors, thus he merely asserted that the jury take time to carefully weigh the evidence (a reasonable compromise position). When he believed he was getting through to some jurors, getting them to doubt the initial almost-unanimous decision, he called for a secret ballot, which would give the jurors more confidence in making an honest decision that would favour his standing in the negotiation process (letting the other jurors know that he was gaining support); as the film progressed and #8’s BATNA improved as more jurors swung to his side, he called for votes more regularly than before, i.e. he was revealing his strengthening BATNA to the opposing parties. Another of Juror 8’s strengths as a negotiator was that he did not search that hard for common ground. While each juror has conflicting goals/interests (e.g. Juror #7 wanted to get the discussion over with so he could attend his ball game, and #4 wanted a comprehensive analysis of the facts to determine their credibility in deriving a logical, fact-based verdict), there was a risk that a mediocre negotiator would find the need to compromise one party’s needs, or seek to find a common ground, which would have been nearly impossible among the twelve jurors. However, #8 was effective in separating the people from the problem; #8 refrained from making personal attacks on the other jurors (unless it was to prove a point), and refused to associate the person with his/her decision, unlike Juror #3, who accused #5 of changing his vote in the secret ballot based on the unfair assumption that he was defending his own upbringing in a slum. Instead, #8 was open to criticism of his position, seeking to frame each issue/piece of evidence as a collaborative search for objective criteria, based on logical reasoning and the questioning of false assumptions or dubious evidence. Through his openness to the establishment of objective criteria (e. g. the physical state of the eyewitnesses in deriving the verdict, whether the timing of the eyewitness’s testimony corresponded to a sound account of what could actually have happened, whether the knife was as rare as the prosecution claimed, which determines its value as significant evidence), #8 effectively created a positive bargaining zone, where there initially was none, and never bended to the pressure of the majority’s will (most parties thought he was being disagreeable when the evidence seemed to
kind of boy [race] he is”, and helped in the framing of each issue as a collective search for objective criteria, including the observation of #4 rubbing the top of his nose, and reconciling this with the observation of the female eyewitness’s tendency to perform a similar action, and coupled with the observation of the mark created by her spectacles, they inferred that she wore spectacles, and proceeded to evaluate her testimony with this new revelation, which helped the negotiation progress. Similarly, #11 also mentioned that he was not “picking sides”, but merely “asking questions”, which implies objectiveness and how he did not submit to pressure to pick a position, but based his decision on principles. Ultimately, it was only when the jurors successfully deserted their biases towards the people in discussing the problem, that the negotiation succeeded and a fair verdict achieved. Getting to Yes also highlights how premature judgment impedes imagination and the invention of options, and this is observed through the groupthink phenomenon that manifested during the first vote taken among the twelve jurors during the film. Following the trial, many of the jurors already based their strong belief in the moral propriety of their decision off of what the physical evidence (knife) and the eyewitness testimonies seemed to conclude, i.e. they were convinced that he did murder his father, and ought to be punished by the electric chair; and they closed their minds to other possible claims and branded #8 as a silly doubter. As observed during the voting, a significant proportion of jurors indicated their support for the “guilty” verdict, and after a pause and the other jurors, who were initially undecided, looked around and saw their fellow jurors’ raised hands, they felt the pressure to conform to an illusion of unanimity, and so repressed/censored any doubts or alternative perspectives they may initially have harboured. Coupled with the fact that many of the stronger, imposing personalities in the group were for the “guilty” verdict (e.g. #3 and #10), the group was largely compelled to adopt the “guilty” verdict, and this limited the variety of possible outcomes in the jurors’ minds, e.g. he may not be guilty because closing examining this piece of evidence seems to hint at an alternative conclusion, or he may/may not be guilty because the eyewitnesses’ testimonies make logical sense/does not seem to paint a coherent picture of the case? Therefore, Juror #8 wisely created a discussion space, where he invented possibilities, looking for shared (hunger for justice) and differing (more defined by one’s personal background) interests and forging alliances among the rest of the jury, in an attempt to reconcile the different interests and build upon the jurors’ shared interests in formulating a “deal”, and in the case of the film, he eventually managed to get everyone to assent to a “not guilty” verdict, because such a verdict was most aligned with their shared interest (their desire to deliver justice), and coincided some other jurors’ legitimate, problem-focused, separate interests, e.g. the desire to seek the truth objectively. 12 Angry Men ultimately shows an exceptional case of masterful negotiation by the “protagonist”, Juror 8. Despite his initial weak BATNA and his unreasonable opponents (Jurors 3 and 10), he recognised that his best alternative, a hung jury and the passing of the case to another jury, would most likely end in the death of the boy, whom he could not reasonably ascertain was guilty. As a result, he refused to accept the opposing party’s position, nor to accept the best alternative. #8 was assertive when he needed to be, or when he was close to influencing more people in accepting his position, though he was definitely not one of the most outspoken in the group. He interacted with
people on their own terms, forming collaborative alliances with the other jurors through a specific way, which catered/appealed to their interests, e.g. when he told Juror 7 that the discussion should remain within the time frame of an hour, knowing that #7 was not so much concerned about the final verdict as he did his leisure time, and would opt for the decision that would result in the earliest consensus. His negotiating strategy for this murder trial is appealing to the other jurors’ compassion and value for a life, which weighed heavily upon many of them, especially in a proceeding as serious as deciding the verdict for a murder trial – Juror 8 shared his own interest at this point, that he wanted to ensure the fairest verdict possible, by explaining that he was not prepared to commit to a unanimous vote and “send a boy off to die without talking about it first”. He then opened and facilitated the discussion of evidence and options, showing his willingness to meet his fellow jurors halfway to come to a consensus (collaborative approach), by letting them be heard, and to let them hear his perspectives on the issues and evidence of the case. Endnotes [1] Sebenius, J. (2011). Six Habits of Merely Effective Negotiators (p. 94). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. [2] Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), a term conceived by Roger Fisher, Bill Ury, and Bruce Patton in Getting to Yes.
If I go on in my idea of building a parallel between the movie and a complex sale, let’s imagine the following: Henry Fonda is the salesrep that offers the solution "Not guilty" while other members of the jury would be the committee responsible for choosing the solution and they are almost ready to "buy" the solution "Guilty". Henry Fonda is therefore a salesrep involved in a hard trading environment as the « sale » seems already done for his competitor. He could think it would be better not to waste time and go to focus on other easier cases. But complex sales rely on complex negotiation and salesrep must never give up too quickly. Thereby, 12 angry men will reveal us inspiring teachings for sales people. First, clearly understand business issues As Henry Fonda does, the first thing to do in a complex negotiation is to clearly understand the real issues and identify personal goals of all the people involved in the decision process. This to work on your strengths linked to the issues and also on the weaknesses of your competitor’s arguments in order to create a first doubt. Henry Fonda begins by gaining time to appreciate the situation and the group dynamics: one juror wants to decide quickly in order to get away, many are joining to the majority’s opinion and don’t want to go individual, some natural leaders are emerging from the group and dominate others, etc. He really needs to gain time as from the 10th minute, a first show of hands establishes 11 guilty votes: he’s alone, completely isolated from the group, and really needs to find a first ally quickly. His stance is very interesting at this point, because he doesn’t talk about the solution he defends. He also justifies himself he doesn't want to change other’s mind but just wants to talk about the consequences in order to be sure that the decision is the right one. He begins his negotiation on issues related to the decision. Just as in a complex sale: salesrep must first understand the issues before announcing a first argument related to its offer. Then find the first ally in the decision makers group But defenders of the competing solution attach to isolate him. Those in the group who follow the general opinion don't really speak at this time and this let an open field for the natural leaders of the group to hammer their key arguments concluding to the guilt of the boy.
After 30 minutes, during which he has sought to highlight the doubts of the case, Henry Fonda will play all out by offering to the other 11 jurors a vote by secret ballot. If the 11 ballots declare the accused guilty, he will join the common view. We are exactly in the same critical vision that a salesrep must have of his own business cases: if he's an outsider in the deal, he must quickly identify a first ally in the group of decision makers and if he can't, he must stop by making a NO GO. Henry Fonda will find his first ally after this secret vote, someone who doubts now obviously of the "guilty" solution. This new fellow will become quickly isolated too. And, to get back to my parallel with a complex sale, identify the first ally is very important because the salesrep will have to focus its energy to reassure him, support him and provide him all the elements in order to take sides with confidence, by being convinced of the value of the solution. Moreover, the violent attack of one of the juror after this new vote also shows the need to never denigrate an individual directly in a negotiation, we just risk to gain new enemies. And then just paddle and paddle for being heard. Because the person wrongly attacked will be the next to join the "not guilty" team at the next vote. While choosing the right time for each business actions The closed-door context is particularly appropriate to fully appreciate intensity variations of the negotiations. This shows us that there are right times for everything, exactly as in a complex sale. There will be important deadlines during which the intensity around the sale will be very high and then calmer times, more appropriate to other actions in the background... At the beginning, Henry Fonda only focuses on the decision issues and also his doubts on the arguments that weigh in favor of the competing solution. He will remind that the arguments that led to that the competing solution is obvious do not provide full guarantee. He also immediately trivializes a key argument, the murder weapon, by showing he was able to obtain an identical knife in a store for $6. He will also let his allies play their role as sponsors of the solution and let them argue for him. Henry Fonda plays excellently its role as an influencer, he's very persuasive in his arguments and gradually let others complete it. The movie also shows the interest of formal and informal discussions, salesrep's talks in parallel of formal discussion sessions are also critical to gain the interest of others.
Effective Negotiations- Learning’s from
Twelve AnEffective Negotiations- Learning’s
from Twelve Angry Men
Effective Negotiations and Entrepreneurs
Entrepreneurs know that effective
negotiations are critical and are part of their
everyday life- be it with their customers,
their dealers or even bureaucrats. The
concept of effective negotiation is brilliantly
brought out in an old classic English Movie,
Twelve Angry Men. The story revolves around
one person slowly winning over other eleven
jurors solely on the basis of his negotiation
skills.
Prologue
An eighteen-year-old boy has been charged
with murdering his father and the
proceedings are held in a New York City court.
The family lives in a slum. The prosecution
presents two crucial witnesses for the
murder.
After the final arguments are presented, the
Judge instructs the twelve-member jury to
come to an unanimous decision. He further
states that a guilty verdict will result in death
sentence as per the provisions of New York
State laws .For either of the decisions, the
jury members should reasonably be
convinced.
The court clerk ushers the 12 member jury
into a private room and reminds them that
their decision has to be unanimous.
The scene inside the closed room
The Jury exchange pleasantries and
introduce themselves. It is evident that the
jury is going to return a verdict of ‘Guilty’ as
they feel it is an open and shut case.
Only one among them feels that the
evidence presented by prosecution is weak
and that the boy is not guilty. His view
