Although the 1957 movie "Twelve Angry Men" was not written for this purpose, it serves as an excellent portrayal of small group development. The author, Reginald Rose, had written it after his own personal experience serving as a juror. In "Twelve Angry Men" a young man stands accused of stabbing his own father to death. The jurors must unanimously decide the defendant's guilt or innocence. If found guilty, the accused will be put to death in the electric chair. To eleven of the jurors this is an open and shut case, but one lone juror stands against them to prove there is reasonable doubt.
             As the movie unfolds, you begin to see several group roles emerge. Initially, the jury foreman is filling the role of leader. He has been chosen to tabulate votes, call for evidence, and fulfill other organizational duties during deliberations. Over time, his leadership over the group begins to erode. At the onset, he appears to be a little hesitant, as if not quite sure how to proceed. He makes suggestions and looks for approval from the others. He contributes little to the discussion. As the debate becomes more and more heated, the foreman starts having difficulty maintaining control. In fact, at one point he tries to give up his position altogether, but they assure him that he is doing a fine job and should continue. With his laissez-faire leadership style, he does more following than leading.
             The foreman had been formally chosen to be a leader for the jurors. Two other leaders emerge during deliberations. The first is the character that Henry Fonda plays. While everyone else votes guilty, he is the one man to say he is not sure. Exhibiting a democratic leadership style, he proves to be very effective. He is a reasonable, polite, and open-minded man who does not force his opinion on others. In the end, he convinces all of the jurors to join him in voting not guilty.
             On the other hand, ...