12 Angry Men - Negotiations

Rating: 8/10 (7 November 2017)

The movie "12 Angry Men" is about 12 jurors who embark on a difficult task to reach a unanimous vote to either acquit or convict a young man for the murder of his father. The discussion takes place in a stiflingly hot and cramped room where all the members of the jury are motivated to end the session quickly, except for one (Juror 8). In the span of the movie, Juror 8 was able to convince all other 11 jurors to vote "Not Guilty", though with difficulty and obstacles. The film depicts negotiations at play, which will be discussed in correspondence to Fisher & Ury's "Getting to Yes" book.
#1 Moving from Positional Bargaining to Focusing on Interests
According to Fisher and Ury (1981), parties should refrain from positional bargaining and to instead, practice principled negotiations. During the jury discussion, positional bargaining is accurately displayed. The jurors started off indicating their stance through an internal vote. This reveals their differing positions and they argue about it till the group ultimately concurs with one position. Once jurors took on positional bargaining, it was a challenge to move from being fixated on their individual positions to focus instead on interests and perspectives of others so as to constructively create wise agreements.
One underlying common interest that can be identified among-st the jurors is that all of them wants justice for the murder case. This is even though their perception of what "justice" could be is largely contrasting. One side felt that the case could be deliberated longer so as to give the disadvantaged boy a fair shot. Whereas, the other side felt that justice would be best served through conviction and an eventual death penalty. Many times, behind strongly-opposing positions, lie shared interests too. Perhaps, recognizing and reconciling similar interests could positively change the circumstances and position the jurors as combating the problem together as opposed to combating each other.
Fortunately, with Juror 8's convincing argument and powerful influence, he was able to garner the support of the otherwise-opposing jurors. Otherwise, he would have either backed down by changing his stance or have the jury declared as a hung one. Either of these, would not have had any positive consequences.
#2 Separating people from the problem
Fisher & Ury (1981) postulate that it is crucial to separate people from the issues. As seen from the discussion, the jurors got visibly agitated when others were not on their side. Perhaps they felt that their opinions were being encroached on and had interpreted objections from others as personal attacks. Inevitably, the relationship between them became entangled with the issue.
The authors identified three people problems, namely perception, emotions, and communication. Firstly, the tension depicted is the result of variances among-st the jurors, in terms of personalities, values, backgrounds, and worldviews. These form up their perceptions that contribute to what they think, say or do during the discussions. Since conflicts in negotiations often stem from differing interpretations of facts, it is then imperative for all to understand the viewpoints of other parties. Also, the audience is given a glimpse of the deeply-entrenched prejudices one can have. Juror 10 seemed racist and has obvious biases against the defendant. Also, as Juror 3 has a hostile relationship with his son, he is seemingly unable to separate his ill-feelings towards his son and the defendant.
Secondly, the agonizing heat led to them perspiring profusely, adding on to their irritability and irrational thought processes. As such, voices rose and tempers flared during their deliberations. Emotions visibly ran high, but however, were rarely acknowledged in the movie.
Thirdly, communication broke down when some jurors walked out or were simply a bystander instead of an active participant in the discussions. For instance, the shy Juror 2 was sidelined by the much louder Juror 3 & 10. Active listening should be practiced so that everyone has a stake in negotiations and to prevent misunderstandings or sides-taking. Only when the jurors communicate effectively, will they be able to gain new perspectives and resolve the conflict amicably.
#3 Using Objective Criteria
To help resolve conflicts, negotiators should utilize objective criteria. Battling wills and pressurizing others to back down would hurt relationships and lead to unwise agreements. Hence, the use of legitimate, practical, relevant and objective criteria will create a fair procedure to resolve a dispute.
Given the tense situation, there is immense importance to align the jury's objectives, goals, and rules in negotiations. The foreman was attempting to be as fair as he could. However, as he also voted "Guilty" initially, he may have been subconsciously biased. As the head juror, he is expected to be a neutral facilitator and mediator. Perhaps he could have spelled out an agenda, establish ground rules/procedures, and to summarize discussions. For example, they could engage in rule- setting in the beginning, to provide structure and forbid certain actions such as personal attacks, name-calling or shouting. The foreman chose not to engage in this as he started off the discussion saying he was "not going to make any rules". Hence, it was inevitable that the jurors were not on the same page; they presumed the guilt of the boy, seemed rather flippant about the situation and were not willing to engage in meaningful debates. For instance, a disinterested Juror 10 was doodling while others were discussing. Furthermore, Juror 7 indicated his impatience when he said "this better be fast" as he had tickets to a ball game that night. Setting rigid time constraints and deadlines would not be helpful to a productive and robust negotiation session.
In addition, Juror 8 used scientific facts alongside with his deductions, such as the fastest possible speed the old male witness could walk and the eyesight of the female witness. This was a form of objective criteria as it was logical reasoning and facts rather than arbitrary feelings or thoughts.