12 Angry Men - Negotiation Analysis

Analysis of 12 Angry Men

Nicole Adams, Lauren Halde, Kyle Rhoads, and Kathryn Walber

MBA523 Negotiation & Interpersonal Skills for Managers

May 2, 2013

The 1957 film entitled 12 Angry Men revolves around a jury deliberation of a case based on the premise of reasonable doubt. The case, in which a Puerto Rican boy is arrested on strong evidence for the murder of his father, puts to test the principles of “presumption of innocence” and “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Known for its exclusive utilization of a one-room set, its in-depth look into the American judicial system and its simplistic entertainment value, 12 Angry Men investigates many different negotiation styles and tactics as well as the complexities of a multi-party negotiation. To negotiate and ultimately reach a unanimous decision, the jurors all present their thoughts, opinions, and arguments throughout the course of the movie.

The initial overall interests and needs of the group were to get to the 'obvious' guilty vote and to avoid any lengthy deliberations, with the exception of Jurors #3 and #8 which will both be discussed in detail later in the analysis. For this multi-party negotiation, the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) was a hung-jury, most likely resulting in a re-trial. For the overall group, the initial target point was reaching a guilty verdict, again with the exception of Juror #8.

The overall type of negotiation throughout the film may be classified as distributive, as each juror essentially claimed their ground in the settlement zone by voting guilty or not guilty. However, the negotiation soon develops into a complex multi-party negotiation with moderate levels of conflict amongst the different characters and their beliefs. Although is it a distributive negotiation, integrative tactics were certainly used when more and more parties in the negotiation began developing relationships, asking important questions, creating a moral value within the decision-making,...