Introduction
Twelve Angry Men is a provoking film highlighting the power of negotiation and persuasion. The movie revolves around a jury tasked with determining a young man’s destiny who allegedly murdered his father (Orion-Nova, 1957). The twelve jurors, each with unique personalities, values, and attitudes, must navigate their biases and emotions to reach a unanimous decision. Various negotiation tactics are seen in the play through their debates, from questioning and active listening to stereotyping and intimidation.
In this paper, four scenes from the movie will be analyzed, and the negotiation tactics employed by the characters in those scenes will be explored. In the first scene, Juror 8 uses questioning as a persuasion tactic to challenge the other jurors’ assumptions and beliefs. In the second scene, Juror 3 uses intimidation to convince the other jurors of his point of view. In the third scene, Juror 10 employs stereotyping to strengthen his argument. Finally, in the fourth scene, Juror 9 listens actively to Juror 4, creating an atmosphere of trust and collaboration. The negotiation tactics used by the jurors in Twelve Angry Men demonstrate the power of effective communication in achieving consensus. Still, they also reveal the limitations of aggressive and discriminatory tactics in fostering productive dialogue.
Scene 1: Juror 8 Convinces Juror 9 to Change His Vote
Negotiation Tactics Used
Juror 8 uses several negotiation tactics to persuade Juror 9 to change his vote. One of the tactics he uses is active listening. Active listening is a communication technique that involves listening attentively to the other party, understanding their perspective, and showing empathy toward their feelings (Lennon, 2022). Juror 8 listens attentively to Juror 9’s concerns and addresses them one by one. He acknowledges Juror 9’s point of view and shows empathy toward his feelings. Active listening is essential in negotiations as it allows the negotiator to apprehend the other party’s viewpoint better and identify their underlying concerns.
Another tactic Juror 8 uses is framing, which involves presenting an issue that appeals to the other party’s values and beliefs. Juror 8 frames his argument in a way that appeals to Juror 9’s values and beliefs. He tells him that changing his vote would be courageous and that he could look back on it with pride. Framing is a powerful technique as it can influence how people perceive a situation and make them more receptive to a particular argument (Lennon, 2022). Juror 8 also uses the “principled negotiation” approach, which is advocated in the book Getting to Yes (Fisher et al., 2011). This approach stresses the significance of separating individuals from the problem and concentrating on the parties’ welfare rather than their positions. Juror 8 tries to understand Juror 9’s underlying interests and addresses them by presenting new evidence and alternative explanations for the facts of the case.
Reflection on the Negotiation Tactics
Juror 8’s negotiation tactics effectively persuade Juror 9 to change his vote. Active listening allows Juror 8 to understand Juror 9’s concerns and address them in a way that makes Juror 9 feel heard and validated (Lennon, 2022). By acknowledging Juror 9’s point of view, Juror 8 shows that he is willing to understand and empathize with his concerns. This creates a sense of trust and mutual respect between the two parties, making it easier for Juror 8 to persuade Juror 9 to change his vote.
Framing the argument in a way that appeals to Juror 9’s values and beliefs is also effective as it makes Juror 9 more receptive to Juror 8’s argument. This motivates Juror 9 to change his vote, seeing it as an opportunity to demonstrate his courage. The principled negotiation approach helps Juror 8 find common ground with Juror 9 and identify their shared interests (Lennon, 2022). Juror 8 can present new evidence and alternative explanations that address Juror 9’s concerns by focusing on the parties’ interests rather than their positions. This creates a sense of collaboration and problem-solving between the two parties, making it easier for Juror 8 to persuade Juror 9 to change his vote.
The negotiation tactics used by Juror 8 are also in line with the recommendations of the books Beyond Winning and Difficult Conversations. In Beyond Winning, the authors recommend using empathy, framing, and problem-solving to negotiate effectively (Mnookin et al., 2004). Juror 8’s use of active listening and empathy, framing the argument in a way that appeals to Juror 9’s values and problem-solving through the principled negotiation approach, aligns with these recommendations. In Difficult Conversations, the authors emphasize the importance of understanding the other party’s perspective, managing emotions, and reframing the conversation (Stone et al., 2014). Juror 8’s use of active listening and empathy, acknowledging Juror 9’s emotions and framing the argument in a positive light demonstrate his ability to manage emotions effectively. Furthermore, his use of problem-solving through the principled negotiation approach is a way of reframing the conversation from a positional argument to a problem-solving exercise.
Reactions and Thoughts
The other jurors’ reactions to Juror 8’s negotiation tactics are mixed. Some jurors initially resist Juror 8’s arguments, but they eventually come around as Juror 8 presents new evidence and alternative explanations. However, despite overwhelming evidence, other jurors are more stubborn and refuse to change their minds. This highlights the importance of understanding the other party’s perspective and interests in the negotiation. The same arguments can persuade only some people, and tailoring the negotiation tactics to the other party’s values and beliefs is essential. Juror 8’s ability to identify Juror 9’s underlying interests and values is a crucial factor in his success in persuading him to change his vote.
Overall, the scene is an excellent example of effective negotiation tactics and their importance in persuasion. Juror 8’s use of active listening, framing, and problem-solving through the principled negotiation approach all contribute to his success in persuading Juror 9 to change his vote. By understanding Juror 9’s perspective and interests and tailoring his arguments accordingly, Juror 8 can create a sense of trust, mutual respect, and collaboration, making it easier for Juror 9 to change his mind.
Scene 2: Juror 3 Confronts Juror 8
Negotiation Tactics Used
Juror 3, played by Lee J. Cobb, is a businessman and a father who believes the defendant is guilty. He is initially calm and collected during the deliberation process. However, Juror 3 becomes increasingly aggressive and belligerent as the deliberation continues. He uses various negotiation tactics to persuade the other jurors to agree. One of the tactics that Juror 3 uses is bullying. He repeatedly interrupts the other jurors and tries to dominate the conversation. He also tries to intimidate the other jurors by using his position of authority as a businessman and a father. For instance, he tells the other jurors that he has three kids and he knows what kids are capable of. Juror 3 also uses personal attacks to discredit Juror 8’s arguments. He accuses Juror 8 of being a bleeding-heart liberal who is more concerned with the defendant’s feelings than the facts of the case.
Another negotiation tactic that Juror 3 uses is emotional appeals. He appeals to the other jurors’ emotions using loaded language and vivid imagery. For example, he tells the other jurors that the defendant is a “common ignorant slob” who deserves to be executed. He also tells the other jurors that the defendant’s age and background are irrelevant and that they should focus solely on the facts of the case.
Reflection on the Negotiation Tactics
Juror 3’s negotiation tactics could be more effective. He comes across as aggressive and unreasonable, which turns the other jurors against him. His attacks on Juror 8 only make him look petty and insecure. He fails to provide any compelling evidence or arguments to support his position. Instead, he relies on emotional appeals and bullying tactics, which are unlikely to persuade anyone who does not already agree with him. According to Beyond Winning, Juror 3’s negotiation tactics are counterproductive (Mnookin et al., 2004). The book argues that negotiation should be a collaborative process to find a mutually beneficial solution. Juror 3’s aggressive behavior and personal attacks do not align with this collaborative approach. Instead, his behavior creates a hostile environment that is unlikely to lead to a mutually beneficial solution.
Difficult Conversations argues that personal attacks and emotional appeals are ineffective negotiation tactics. The book argues that negotiation should be a process that focuses on interests rather than positions. Juror 3’s behavior does not align with this interest-based approach. Instead, he focuses on his position and uses emotional appeals to persuade the other jurors. Getting to Yes argues that negotiation should be a principled process that focuses on finding a solution that meets the needs of all parties involved (Fisher et al., 2011). Juror 3’s negotiation tactics need to align with this principled approach. Instead, he tries to dominate the conversation and intimidate the other jurors.
Reactions and Thoughts
The other jurors are initially taken aback by Juror 3’s aggressive behavior. Some of them try to reason with him and point out the flaws in his arguments. Others tune him out and continue to focus on the facts of the case. Juror 8 remains calm and composed throughout the confrontation, making Juror 3 look more unreasonable by comparison. This highlights the importance of remaining calm and composed in negotiations, even when faced with difficult and aggressive behavior. Juror 8’s ability to stay focused on the facts and not be swayed by emotional appeals is a key factor in his success in convincing the other jurors to consider the possibility of the defendant’s innocence.
Juror 3’s tactics ultimately backfired, and he alienated the other jurors. This highlights the importance of building relationships and rapport in negotiations. When negotiators rely solely on aggressive tactics, they risk damaging relationships and making reaching an agreement in the long term more difficult. Juror 3’s behavior is a cautionary tale for negotiators who may be tempted to use bullying tactics to get their way.
In contrast, Juror 8’s approach to negotiation is more effective. He remains calm and composed throughout the confrontation and listens to the other jurors’ concerns and objections. He does not resort to personal attacks or emotional appeals but instead focuses on the facts of the case and tries to persuade the other jurors based on the evidence presented. This is consistent with the principles of principled negotiation, as outlined in the book Getting to Yes. According to this approach, negotiators should focus on the underlying interests and concerns of the parties involved rather than their positions. (Fisher et al., 2011) They should also strive to find mutually beneficial solutions that meet the needs of all parties involved.
Scene 3: Juror 8 and Juror 9 recreate the evidence
Negotiation Tactics Used
The negotiation tactics used in Scene 3 of Twelve Angry Men include creating common ground and active listening. Juror 8 and Juror 9 attempt to create common ground by physically recreating the crime’s location. This helps to bring the jurors together and break down barriers. They also engage in active listening by acknowledging the concerns of other jurors and collaboratively responding to them. This helps to build trust and increase the likelihood of a successful negotiation.
As discussed in Getting to Yes, creating common ground is an effective tactic for building consensus and reducing negotiation conflict (Fisher et al., 2011). In Scene 3, Juror 8 and Juror 9 employ this tactic by physically recreating where the crime occurred. This helps to provide a shared experience that brings the jurors closer together and breaks down barriers. Another tactic employed by Juror 8 is active listening, as discussed in Difficult Conversations by Stone, Patton, and Heen (Stone et al., 2014). Juror 8 demonstrates a willingness to listen to the opinions and perspectives of others, which allows him to understand their reasoning better and engage with them more collaboratively. This is shown when he acknowledges Juror 3’s concerns about the crime’s timing, which helps build trust and increase the likelihood of a successful negotiation.
Reflection on the Negotiation Tactics
The negotiation tactics used in Scene 3 of Twelve Angry Men effectively achieved the negotiators’ goals. By creating common ground and actively listening to the opinions of others, Juror 8 and Juror 9 were able to build consensus and persuade the other jurors to consider their arguments. However, some jurors resisted their arguments, suggesting that their tactics convinced not everyone. The tactic of creating common ground was effective in breaking down barriers and reducing conflict among the jurors. By physically recreating the location where the crime occurred, Juror 8 and Juror 9 provided a shared experience that helped bridge the divide between the jurors and bring them closer together. This was evident in the increased collaboration and openness among the jurors as they collaborated to recreate the evidence.
The tactic of active listening was also effective in building trust and increasing the likelihood of a successful negotiation. Juror 8 demonstrated a willingness to listen to the opinions and perspectives of others, which allowed him to understand their reasoning better and engage with them more collaboratively. This helped to build trust and increase the likelihood that the other jurors would consider his arguments.
Reactions and Thoughts
The reactions of the other jurors to these tactics were mixed. Some were receptive to recreating the evidence and actively engaged in the process, while others remained skeptical and resistant. Juror 3, in particular, was initially hostile to recreating the evidence but ultimately came around after Juror 8 actively listened to his concerns. It is worth noting that not all jurors were convinced by the tactics employed by Juror 8 and Juror 9. This suggests that different tactics may have been needed to convince them fully. However, the fact that some jurors were persuaded demonstrates the effectiveness of these tactics in achieving their goals.
Scene 4: Juror 4 presents the facts
Negotiation Tactics Used
One of the main negotiation tactics employed by Juror 4 is using authority. Juror 4 is accustomed to making decisions based on objective evidence and sound reasoning as a successful businessman. He uses this experience to bolster his arguments, citing the expertise of eyewitnesses and the importance of following the letter of the law (Lennon, 2022). He also appeals to the authority of the court system, reminding the other jurors of their duty to uphold justice and protect society from dangerous criminals.
Another tactic used by Juror 4 is framing the issue in a way that supports his position. He focuses on the defendant’s criminal record and his violent past, framing the case as one of a habitual offender who is likely to re-offend. He also frames the evidence presented by the defense as weak and unreliable, highlighting inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses and pointing out flaws in the defense’s argument.
Reflection on the Negotiation Tactics
Using authority can be an effective negotiation tactic, particularly when the authority figure is seen as credible and trustworthy. However, relying solely on authority can also backfire if the other party feels their expertise or experience must be considered. Difficult Conversations suggests that it is important to balance authority with active listening and openness to the other party’s perspective (Stone et al., 2014). Framing the issue in a way that supports one’s position is also a common negotiation tactic. As Beyond Winning suggests, negotiators should strive to find objective criteria to support their arguments and avoid relying on subjective interpretations or biases. (Mnookin et al., 2004). However, it is important to ensure that the framing accurately reflects the facts of the case and does not mislead or manipulate the other party
Reactions and Thoughts
The other jurors have varying reactions to Juror 4’s negotiation tactics. Some are persuaded by his use of authority and his framing of the issue, while others remain skeptical. Juror 8, in particular, challenges Juror 4’s framing of the case, pointing out that the defendant’s past does not necessarily prove his guilt in this particular instance. Overall, Juror 4’s negotiation tactics are effective in persuading some jurors but must be more sufficient to convince everyone. The scene highlights the importance of active listening and openness to other perspectives in negotiation. As Getting to Yes suggests, negotiators should concentrate on well-being rather than ranks and strive to find common ground to reach mutually beneficial agreements.
Conclusion
In conclusion, “Twelve Angry Men” is an inspiring film that showcases the importance of communication and negotiation in resolving conflicts. The various negotiation tactics employed by the characters in the movie demonstrate the power of persuasion and the need for open-mindedness and empathy in the negotiation process. The scenes analyzed in this paper illustrate the effectiveness and the limitations of different negotiation tactics, from questioning and active listening to intimidation and stereotyping. The movie teaches us that we can only reach a fair and just decision through respectful and collaborative dialogue.
References
Fisher, Roger., Ury, William., & Patton, Bruce. Getting to Yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Books (2011).
Lennon, C. (2022). Strategies and tactics of negotiation. The Silver Bullets of Commercial Negotiation, 104–117. Web.
Mnookin, Robert. H., Peppet, Scott. R., & Tulumello, Andrew. S. Beyond winning: Negotiating to create value in deals and disputes. Belknap (2004).
Orion-Nova Twelve Angry Men. (1957). Twelve angry men. Web.
Stone, Douglas., Patton, Bruce., & Heen, Sheila. Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. Yuan Liou Publishing (2014).