Leadership in the Movies: Applying a Trait-Based Model
When it comes to leadership, most of us are consistent
with Justice Potter Stewart’s famous quote about pornography – it is difficult
to define, but we know it when we see it.
The January 2007 issue of the American Psychologist tackled the
leadership definition challenge with traits (Zaccaro, 2007), situations (Vroom
& Jago, 2007), and systems (Sternberg, 2007) all being offered as
leadership variables. Here the first of
these models, a trait-based perspective, is applied to a classic film, one
rated the 13th best movie of all time on the Internet Movie Database (2007)
website.
The 1957 film 12 Angry Men is a goldmine of psychological
material with an impressive cast, including Henry Fonda, John Fiedler (of Mr.
Peterson fame from the original Bob Newhart Show), and a quite young Jack
Klugman. This drama follows the jury
deliberation of a homicide case involving a Hispanic teenager in New York
City. The jurors are not known by name,
but by number. Fonda, Juror #8, is an
architect who at first is reserved, detached from the others, soft-spoken. He is the sole juror to vote not-guilty in
the first round of voting. The other 11
then set out to convince him that he is wrong, and to do it quickly. The room is hot, one juror has tickets to the
ballgame that night, another has a terrible cold; the sentiment among most of
the others is let’s be done with it and get out of here.
Applying Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader’s model of leader
attributes and leader performance (as cited in Zaccaro, 2007) to the Fonda
character, demonstrated first are what would be considered distal attributes,
those enduring traits that are at play in any situation. These include personality, cognitive
abilities, and motives/values. Fonda’s
personality is adaptable, likeable, open to the opinions of others. He does not emphatically state that the
verdict should be not guilty; instead, he frequently demonstrates his
uncertainty: “I don’t know; it’s
possible.”
He clearly is bright and logical, traits not lost on the
other jurors: “You’re a pretty smart
fella, aren’t ya!” His method of
introducing doubt about the uniqueness of the murder weapon demonstrates
creativity, as well as his calculating the time it took for a witness to reach
the door of the apartment.
Perhaps the most important distal leadership trait at
play in this film is Fonda’s motivation for socialized power, where the goal is
to build up others to allow them to succeed.
He does not seek status or ego enhancement, as would be seen in a leader
with a personalized power orientation.
Rather, Fonda works to encourage the others to think rationally, to put
aside their personal biases and selfish motivations, and to take seriously
their responsibility as jurors. He
strives for group success.
The Zaccaro et al. leadership model also includes the exhibition
of proximal attributes. These traits are
omnipresent in the individual, but only exhibited when the situation dictates,
including expertise/tacit knowledge, problem-solving skills, and social
appraisal skills.
At first, Fonda’s specific expertise as an architect may
not seem relevant. Throughout, though,
he demonstrates his ability to think creatively, to have cognitive
flexibility. Repeatedly he offers
alternate hypotheses. He can visualize
space, such as imagining the view out an eyewitness’s window. Just as an architect might mentally walk
through and around a blueprint, Fonda views the evidence from different angles,
juxtaposing witness testimony, considering the physics involved in the angle of
the stab wound.
Fonda also models problem-solving skills. For some jurors, his logic and abstract
reasoning are enough to lead to opinion change.
Others, perhaps not having reached the formal operational stage of
cognitive development, have to reason on a more concrete level, such as Juror
#5. Fonda asks him, “Suppose you were
the man on trial?” and he replies, “I’m not used to supposing. I’m a working man, my boss does the supposing.” Through Socratic questioning, though, Fonda
is able to lead him and others to analyze the evidence in a concrete manner and
to then reach informed conclusions, seemingly through their own efforts. As
time passes, other jurors adopt his strategies, employing these same
problem-solving methods.
Just as Fonda’s need for socialized power is the most
prominent distal leadership trait in the film, his social appraisal skill is
his strongest proximal trait. Much like
a boxer circling his opponent in the first round, Fonda stays away from the others
upon first entering the deliberation room, letting them talk, perhaps
appraising each man and his particular traits.
After the initial vote, when he is alone 11-1, each juror in turn tries
to convince him that he is wrong. He
counters each argument with facts, logic.
He watches how the jurors interact with one another, how they respond to
what is said. Indeed, he has such
confidence in his appraisal skills that he calls for another vote: “You 11 men vote again, this time by secret
written ballot. I won’t vote. If you all vote guilty, I will go along with
you and we take the verdict to the judge.
If anyone votes not guilty, we stay here and work it out.” As he no doubt anticipated, one juror
switches his vote. One by one, Fonda
brings jurors over to his side. He
observes, for example, how meek Juror #2 is being bullied by another. How his opinions are not valued. When Juror #2 offers others a cough drop and
no one accepts, Fonda readily asks for one.
Thereafter, Juror #2 stays by his side.
He also reads the biases in other jurors, but only once is he overt in
his challenging. Fonda leads each of
these jurors to the point where his own words incriminate himself, illustrate
his biases, and, fortunately, result in his “doing the right thing.”
In summary, 12 Angry Men is a terrific film. It can be viewed as an illustration of
leadership, as an exploration of personal bias and prejudice, and as a film
classic which is as relevant and enjoyable today as it was 50 years ago.
References:
Internet Movie Database (2007). Top 250 movies as voted by our users. Retrieved October 13, 2007, from the Internet
Movie Database Web Site:http://imdb.com/chart/top.
Sternberg, R. (2007).
A systems model of leadership.
American Psychologist, 62, 34-42.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 17-24.
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007).
Trait-based perspectives of leadership.
American Psychologist, 62, 6-16.
Image Source: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/973228
Post a Comment