In the movie 12 Angry Men (1957) many opinions, decision-making traps, and biases overshadowed the reality of the case at hand. With different personalities who have attitudes and stereotyping and implicit prejudice to a greater extent were to decide the fate of a young boy who was accused of murdering his father. I strongly believe as stated by Banaji, Bazerman, and Chugh, “[It] makes implicit prejudice so common and persistent is [because] it is rooted in the fundamental mechanics of thought.” There was not enough evidence, therefore, it was hard to prove him guilty, although it seemed most of them would rather find him guilty and be done with so that they can move on with their lives, without doing their due diligence, or the realization
…show more content…
They had to decide unanimously to find the accused guilty or not. They faced many challenges within their group, which ranged from, biases, confirming-evidence trap, opposing points of view, status-quo trap, stereotyping, framing, classification of a lower class (slum) person and much more. What really mattered, in the end, was that they reached a decision that saved a boy’s life. Whether he is guilty or not we may never know, but what’s important is that looking at his age, he can be counseled to prevent from further wrong doings, as my belief is that when it comes to the youth they can be further developed to be responsible, and contributing individuals. As leaders have a responsibility to concentrate on self-awareness and teach others to do the same who are junior to us. I know for myself this film was an eye-opening like others I do fall into the trap of status-quo at times, although I may not like it at times. This was especially a lesson for me to stay on course, and stick to my beliefs in order to be fair to everyone concerned. Overall, it turned out to be an interesting movie, which taught me very important lessons to use in my life going forward. I would like to keep in mind what Banaji, Bazerman, and Chugh suggested, “[Leaders who aspire to be ethical must challenge the assumption that [we] are always unbiased and acknowledge that vigilance, even more than good intention, is a defining characteristic of an ethical [human being] (2003, p.
They had to decide unanimously to find the accused guilty or not. They faced many challenges within their group, which ranged from, biases, confirming-evidence trap, opposing points of view, status-quo trap, stereotyping, framing, classification of a lower class (slum) person and much more. What really mattered, in the end, was that they reached a decision that saved a boy’s life. Whether he is guilty or not we may never know, but what’s important is that looking at his age, he can be counseled to prevent from further wrong doings, as my belief is that when it comes to the youth they can be further developed to be responsible, and contributing individuals. As leaders have a responsibility to concentrate on self-awareness and teach others to do the same who are junior to us. I know for myself this film was an eye-opening like others I do fall into the trap of status-quo at times, although I may not like it at times. This was especially a lesson for me to stay on course, and stick to my beliefs in order to be fair to everyone concerned. Overall, it turned out to be an interesting movie, which taught me very important lessons to use in my life going forward. I would like to keep in mind what Banaji, Bazerman, and Chugh suggested, “[Leaders who aspire to be ethical must challenge the assumption that [we] are always unbiased and acknowledge that vigilance, even more than good intention, is a defining characteristic of an ethical [human being] (2003, p.