There was no deep level of trust for each, and therefore the viewed each other with suspicion. The team really spent very little time getting to know one another, or to access the strengths of each other, so they really could not have a good appreciation for what each of their skill sets brought to the table. Additionally, there was weak leadership which caused confusion in the team about who should be doing what activity. Initially when conflict is introduced, the jury members attempted to gang up against juror number eight who is seen as the source of disagreement. Juror number three is constantly trying to control the outcome, and continues to be hostile towards the team in an effort to get them to agree with his opinion. Other members of the team either choose the side of juror eight or juror three. These two became more the focal point of the argument, and it became more of a power struggle between the two at least in the eyes of juror number
There was no deep level of trust for each, and therefore the viewed each other with suspicion. The team really spent very little time getting to know one another, or to access the strengths of each other, so they really could not have a good appreciation for what each of their skill sets brought to the table. Additionally, there was weak leadership which caused confusion in the team about who should be doing what activity. Initially when conflict is introduced, the jury members attempted to gang up against juror number eight who is seen as the source of disagreement. Juror number three is constantly trying to control the outcome, and continues to be hostile towards the team in an effort to get them to agree with his opinion. Other members of the team either choose the side of juror eight or juror three. These two became more the focal point of the argument, and it became more of a power struggle between the two at least in the eyes of juror number