1.What are this group’s strengths and weaknesses?
The strengths of the group include the communication between each other there is a good steady flow of dialog between each character, there is an organization by the leader of who gets to talk and when. This helps explain exactly how the jury will vote and decide on the plaintiff.
The weaknesses of the group include its unstructured communication of back and forth arguments that lead no were but bantering about baseball. The doodling that goes on by some of the members and the side arguments all the members of the group have.
2.What traits did the leaders in this film display?
The leaders in the group are all elected through unanimous decision, the ones on the guilty and not guilty sides as well as the leader of the room that controls the dialog. The leader that controls the room is compromised for not doing a good enough job but he keeps control of the room by keeping a good relationship with everyone and keeping the men in good standing. The leader of the not guilty party shows that he is in control by maintaining his stature the longest and not being persuaded the longest. The leader of the not guilty side shows his stature by standing up for his beliefs in. And all deal with conflict in different ways.
3.Explain how “groupthink” is portrayed in this film?
Groupthink in this film is portrayed in a positive manner because all the doubts in the group are being discussed through out the movie. If it weren’t for the one man with the doubts of him not being guilty then it would have been a short movie and groupthink would have got the best of the particular jury. They do discus all the matters and what seem to be all the facts in the movie and doubts and possibilities seem to ruin all the facts portrayed in the courtroom. The assumption was all not guilty but
without the one man who contributed his thoughts on him not being guilty ended up changing the entire groups mind
4.How does the jury qualify as a “small group”
The jury qualifies as a small group because they Antecedent >>>anticipatory >>>encounter>>>> assimilation >>>>and exited they came together not knowing each other, had a purpose of deciding of being guilty or not. Enforced rules had individual roles and distinctive communication practices and by following rules the group finally got to make a decision. They had to take a sacrifice from there lives to be there they had a synergy of there contribution to the projects scope and finally completed the task at hand.
5.How could the jury manage conflict more constructively?
There are many issues regarding the conflict in the group it was managed indifferently then how I would have handled it. The wasting of time of out speaking of random dialect between groups would be banned. Topic and only topic statements should be aloud and of course the same as the senators office you can only speak if you have the speaking floor, this would allow for allot more of listening and responding and the confusion and miscommunication may not have happened. The leader of the group did a good enough job of finishing the scope of the groups project.