The Virtues and Shortcomings of Negotiation in the 12 Angry Men

Rating: 10/10 (25 October 2019)

In the 1954 film, 12 Angry Men, twelve jurors are tasked to decide the conviction or acquittal of an 18-year-old boy on trial for murdering his father. They are instructed to discuss the case on the basis of reasonable doubt and arrive at a unanimous verdict. While all but one juror - Juror 8 - are convinced that the boy is guilty at the beginning of the film, they eventually reach a consentient decision of "not guilty" at the end after an extensive deliberative process. In this movie review, I will be discussing the insights on negotiation that I have gained from the movie, with reference to the book Getting to Yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in by Fisher, Ury, and Patton (2012).
The jury quickly runs into the folly of locking themselves into their initial positions on the case when they echo Juror 7's call for a vote to be taken at the outset of their meeting. The situation took a turn for the worse when the foreman decides to implement an open ballot where the jurors indicate their votes by a show of hands - a voting method that has been shown to trigger the "show-of-hands syndrome" and discourage honest and equitable voting (Robbins, 2007). The phenomenon is a likely explanation behind Juror 2 and 6's inability to justify their vote, which seems to suggest that they might have merely conformed to the majority without much consideration for the rationale behind their decisions. This sets the stage for their arguing over positions, which Fisher identifies as one of the most common mistakes in negotiation (p. 4). Arguing over positions does not satisfy the fundamental criteria of bringing about a wise agreement in an efficient and amicable manner (ibid.) since the more clearly people define their positions, the more they commit to it and the harder it is for them to change their position (p. 4 - 5) - due in part to their newfound interest in "saving face" by ensuring the consistency of their subsequent actions with their initial positions (p. 8). This obstinate insistence on one's position is embodied in Juror 7's melodramatic response to a position that is opposed to his own: "you couldn't change my mind if you talked for a hundred years". In order to arrive at a wise solution, the jury should instead focus on interests, and not positions (p. 23). Sebenius defines positions as "one party's stands on the issue" while interests are "underlying concerns that would be affected by the resolution" (p. 91, 2001). Hence, instead of digging themselves into their positions, the jurors should look past the superficiality of their positional differences and examine their underlying interests by focusing on reconciling different interests and advancing their shared interest (p. 11), which is to bring justice to the case.
An interesting aspect of the negotiation is that while all jurors share the same Best Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) - concluding with a hung jury - the implications of a failed negotiation are vastly different between those for and against a guilty verdict. Research has shown that approximately half of the hung jury cases result in an acquittal of the defendant (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966). However, with all the eyewitness testimonies and physical evidence against him, it is most likely that the boy would be convicted by the subsequent jury in the event of a hung jury. Thus, at the start of the negotiation, the jurors who firmly believes that the boy was guilty - such as Jurors 3 and 9 - have a good BATNA, while Juror 8, who believes that the boy may be innocent, has a bad BATNA. Consequently, the jurors who were in favour of a guilty verdict had a stronger negotiating power than Juror 8, as the relative negotiating power of two parties is predominantly determined by how attractive to each is the option of walking away from the negotiation (p. 52). This advantage in negotiating power is manifested in Juror 3's exclamation of his readiness to declare a hung jury. However, Juror 8 cleverly develops his BATNA throughout the discussion, which is the most effective way to deal with a negotiator who is apparently more powerful than himself (p. 54). At the very end of the discussion, Juror 8 even manages to erode Juror 3's confidence in his own BATNA (p. 53) by invoking his conscience and appealing to his underlying interest in doing what is just.
A handful of the jurors also fail to separate the people from the problem, such as when Juror 3 baselessly accuses Juror 5, who has lived in a slum all his life, of changing his vote out of personal sympathy for the teenage boy, who had similarly grown up in a slum. At one point, even the usually clear-headed and composed Juror 8 let his righteous indignation get the better of him and falls prey to the ad hominem fallacy (Yap, 2013) when he momentarily diverges from the discussion, condemns Juror 3 for being a sadist, and questions his motive for wanting to see the boy executed. These exemplify Fisher's claim that people tend to draw speculative inferences about the intentions and attitudes of others in an almost reflexive manner (p. 22), which causes them to be "defensive and reactive" while overlooking the legitimacy of the others' interests (p. 40). Interestingly, both confrontations are successfully mediated by Juror 10, who brings the discussion back to the substantive issue by highlighting that they should not make the discussion "a personal thing", as it is precisely the fact that they have "nothing to gain or lose by the verdict" which makes them competent jurors. By disentangling the substantive problem from the "people problem", the jury is better able to target the problem instead of the people (ibid.), making it easier for them to see one another as partners working side-by-side to satisfy their collective interest (p. 41).
A large part of Juror 8's success in convincing the other jurors may be attributed to his use of objective criteria that are independent of either side's will, which facilitated the exploration of possible standards and solutions (p. 46). Juror 4 sets the scene for negotiating with objective criteria by proposing that they should "discuss the facts", effectively bringing the group to agree on truth and rationality as the appropriate standards on which to base their decision. Throughout the discussion, Juror 8 plays his part by remaining "open to reason but closed to threats" (p. 43). He is receptive to reasoned persuasion by objective facts (p. 59) as he is aware of the possible lapses in his knowledge and the potential shortcomings of his arguments. Thus, he routinely invites the other jurors to participate in re-enacting the crime scene and in evaluating the reliability of the evidence (p. 18), which is useful in turning criticism from his opponents into a key ingredient of convincing the others of his views (p. 56). He is also able to remain unphased and steadfast in the face of threats and personal attacks from the more aggressive jurors and never succumbs to pressure. For instance, when Juror 10 and 3 lash out Juror 8, he calmly diffuses the tension by asking questions and employing strategic pauses (ibid.).
Juror 8's masterful application of negotiation jujitsu, which revolves around skilful sidestepping one's opponent's attack while deflecting it against the problem (p. 55), is also key to his success. Towards the end of the discussion, Juror 3 persists in his refusal to negotiate based on principle and confronts Juror 8 with the threat: "I will kill you!" Instead of defending himself or responding in kind through physical retaliation or counterthreats, Juror 8 comes back with a rhetorical question: "you don't actually mean you'll kill me, do you?" This enables Juror 8 to successfully recast the threat as an attack on the problem (p. 56) by turning it into ammunition for his earlier assertion that the phrase has largely been considered inane due to its repeated use in everyday conversations as a common expression of anger. Not only does this manoeuvre give vent to Juror 3's frustration (ibid.) while simultaneously taking the power out of his threat, it also increases the persuasiveness of Juror 8's argument and gets the others to reconsider the relevance of the eyewitness testimony. Juror 8 also demonstrates his strategic use of questions, instead of statements, to challenge his opponents and lead them to confront the problem (ibid.) when he exposes an incongruity between Juror 10's choice to believe the testimony of a non-white witness and his self-professed distrust towards people of colour with the question: "how come you believe her? She is just one of them too, isn't she?"
In conclusion, I consider 12 Angry Men to be one of the greatest cinematic exhibitions of group psychology within a deliberative assembly and a textbook example of principled negotiation. The movie is also perfectly complemented by the book Getting to Yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in (Fisher et al., 2012). Being able to watch the negotiation techniques play out in the movie has greatly enhanced my understanding of the theories expounded in the book and helped me realise the usefulness and importance of good negotiation skills.