Juror No4, a stockbroker, played by E.G. Marshall, acts as though he is entitled and better than everyone in the room. Juror no5 asks him “… don’t you ever sweat” – “No”. He is not involved in any side bar conversations, his only focus is on the facts. He does not base his arguments nor decision on how he views kids from the slums “If we’re going to discuss this case, why, let’s discuss the facts.”. His negotiation strategies includes the win-win approach of collaborative, rationality, and interest-based. As it is defined in the book collaborative strategy is when both maximize your outcome on the substantive issues and sustain or enhance the quality of the relationship between you and the other side (Lewicki et al., 2014). Rationality refers
…show more content…
This gets the men to calm down and sit down to take their first preliminary vote, coincidently decided by him. This occurs on more than one occasion throughout the movie where he steps in and stops frivolous arguments. When juror No3 losses him temper for the 10th time he calms him down “there is no point in getting nasty. You keep trying to turn this into a contest.” Even though he was quiet he always argued any objections with the facts. He did not undermined anyone’s thought process nor spoke to them in a demeaning manner when they presented their reason behind their …show more content…
The way he saw it, there were all there for one common reason and that was to examine the facts and come to a conclusive verdict on the faith of the boy. There was no room for the bias remarks or emotional outbreak that he observed from the other juror members he states: “If we are going to discuss this case let’s discuss the facts.” Even though he does have his own preconceived notions about individuals from the slums he manages to contain those thoughts maintaining his logical position and working to attain a concrete verdict. A central theme of our work is that our natural decision and our negotiation processes contain biases that prevent us from acting rationally and getting as much as we can out of a negotiation (Lewicki et al.,
This gets the men to calm down and sit down to take their first preliminary vote, coincidently decided by him. This occurs on more than one occasion throughout the movie where he steps in and stops frivolous arguments. When juror No3 losses him temper for the 10th time he calms him down “there is no point in getting nasty. You keep trying to turn this into a contest.” Even though he was quiet he always argued any objections with the facts. He did not undermined anyone’s thought process nor spoke to them in a demeaning manner when they presented their reason behind their …show more content…
The way he saw it, there were all there for one common reason and that was to examine the facts and come to a conclusive verdict on the faith of the boy. There was no room for the bias remarks or emotional outbreak that he observed from the other juror members he states: “If we are going to discuss this case let’s discuss the facts.” Even though he does have his own preconceived notions about individuals from the slums he manages to contain those thoughts maintaining his logical position and working to attain a concrete verdict. A central theme of our work is that our natural decision and our negotiation processes contain biases that prevent us from acting rationally and getting as much as we can out of a negotiation (Lewicki et al.,