The drama, 12 Angry Men, was powerful to watch because of the debate and emotion felt throughout the entire movie. More importantly, what made the movie more powerful is that the storyline and lessons learned are still relatable to our world today. Today, we continue to debate on capital punishment, the right to be innocent until proven guilty guaranteed by our constitutional rights and the effects of living in a world with differing personalities, prejudices, and personal life experiences.Many of the influence techniques learned in our readings can be found in the movie: Coalition building: Coalition building was seen throughout the movie. At the beginning of the movie, the vote was 11 to 1 with multiple jurors having strong feelings about why the defendant was guilty. Juror 8 clearly demonstrated how he influenced coalition building by asking probing questions and forcing the other jurors to think critically by supposed and possible scenarios. The first sign was when juror 9 also voted not guilty simply based on the fact that there is room for reasonable doubt of the conviction. Juror 8 continued to build a coalition until the end of the movie where all jurors voted not guilty. Consultation: Juror 1 chaired the discussion and debates. His influence certainly played a role because he continuously asked and involved the rest of the men when it was time to take votes or to mediate an argument. He certainly proved to be influential because he was able to hold the ears and respect of the other men while mediating regardless of the negative reactions to him e.g. being called a kid early in the movie. Juror 8 also demonstrated this method of influence as well since he pushed all of the other jurors to dig deeper and to question more since someones life depended on them. Inspiration: Juror 8 played a key role in demonstrating this method of influence. Juror 8 was the first person to vote not guilty. His conviction lied in the fact that a man cannot be sentenced to capital punishment without thoughtful discussion and consideration. He appealed to higher values and ideals by persuading others that their personal prejudices and general stereotypes had no room when it came to the law, the value of a life, and the right to a fair trial. Juror 8 continued to press on and certainly proved his ability to influence by turning 11 guilty votes to not guilty. Pressure: We saw the result of what pressure can have on influencing others. Jurors 3, 4, and 10 played the role of being the loudest and strongest voices on the guilty bandwagon. They were able to use pressure to influence most of the jury by both verbal and nonverbal means. Body language and verbal insults were examples of using pressure as a method to influence others. Juror 12 proved how easy it is for pressure to be used since he continuously changed his decision back and forth. Claiming legitimacy: Juror 11 claimed legitimacy in one major instance when he described the importance of their role as jurors to support the constitutional right as American citizens and to uphold a fair trial for the defendant. Everyone should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. It was the jurys job to protect and exercise those rights just by being American. According to juror 11, the jury had nothing to gain or lose from being there, but it was their job to do it and do it well. Juror 8 was more effective and proved early on that he was the influential leader of the group. He demonstrated multiple methods of influence by proving why there should be reasonable doubt through use of logic, facts, and avoidance of personal prejudices like many of the other jurors. Juror 8 was committed to doing what is right, and was an effective leader by influencing the remaining jurors to clearly see that a fair trial was an obligation. His reactions toward the others also proved why he continued to be more influential e.g. his ability to stay calm, avoid emotional reactions like jurors 3 or 10, and his consistency to continuously prove why there should be reasonable doubt through exercises and deep analysis of the case e.g. defying the claims of the two witnesses or the ease of buying a similar weapon. The result: he was able to convince ALL of the other jurors. Consistency, logic, and leading by example are all key characteristics juror 8 used to show that he was an influential leader amongst them all. The foreman was absolutely correct when stating that conflict is getting them nowhere. At each instance where insults or names were thrown at each other, it was the least progressive part of their discussions. Insults such as juror 3 calling the other jurors bleeding hearts over a slum kid, or when juror 10 stated, You know how these people lie. Its born in them were clear moments where conflict or fighting did not help them to come to an agreement. Fighting prohibits everyone the ability to see clearly and to think rationally through any issue at hand. Like any conflict, whether the case in 12 Angry Men or any of life or societys conflicts, screaming and irrational thinking never accomplishes much. It is important to know the reason behind our thoughts, reactions or decision-making and imperative to differentiate whether those very thoughts, reactions or decision-making are fueled by clear logic or facts v. our personal prejudices or personal experiences. Juror 3s relationship with his son or juror 10s racist remarks are examples of how fighting or creating an atmosphere of tension and conflict leads to counter productivity. Reviewing this movie really highlighted the importance of understanding human behavior coupled with any organization. We are all affected by lifes experiences directly or indirectly but the goal is to not let it cloud our judgment of right from wrong, fair from unfair. Juror 8 was a perfect example of what an effective leader needs to be in order to influence others to do what is right or fair for any respective organization.