PEOPLE IN ORGANIZATION

ASSIGNMENT: GROUP DYNAMICS

EK RUKA HUA FAISLA
TEAM SIX SIGMA
DEEP MUKHERJEE
RAHUL AUDDYA
TANMOY BISWAS
SUNIL SHAW
SUTAPA MANDAL
SWATI PANDEY

AHMEDABAD

SUBMITTED TO:
PROF. BHUPINDER ARORA

1. In the light of the movie, what factors lead to decision making by consensus?
Putting light into the movie Ek Ruka Hua Faisla, it can be seen that a group of 12 jury
members are set upon deciding the fate of the child accused of killing his father. The flow of
decision making takes into consideration the consensus of all 12 members finally reaching to
a conclusion proving the childs innocence.
The final consensus decision for being reached travels through a path of
a. Groupthink
b. Rational thinking, putting forward facts and figures
c. Getting all people to believe all the evidences and finally,
d. Reaching to a consensus in decision making
Initially, when an open polling was conducted, it was observed that 11 members were in
favour of the accused being guilty. This was a decision reached upon without rational
thinking, understanding the situation, perception of the childs background from where he
came from, his dismal childhood days and the fact that people considered him lying when he
claimed to be present at the movie late night. This is an example of groupthink.
As and when the discussion moved further and various issues were touched upon like
i. The availability of such knifes.
ii. The old man taking more than 40 second to open the door as compared to 15 second as
mentioned in the court room.
iii. The angle at which the father was stabbed by the accused (practically not possible for a
shorter guy).
iv. The aged lady not wearing spectacles as she was moving to bed, the outside also being
dark made it practically impossible for the short eyed lady to spot the crime happening from a
distance almost 60 feet through a small window opening and also a train passing at the same
time.

Taking these arguments into consideration, the 11 jurors who were in favour of guilty,
changed their minds to not guilty but one (juror 3) because they had bought every evidence
put forward by the jury.
Juror 3 had personal issues with his own son which let to the fact of an ill perception
regarding the accused, though nothing personal with the child. Once he vented out all his
anger on his son, he came at par with the others in terms of the decision taken by the rest.
Subsequently all members of the jury agreed of the childs innocence and hence, reached
upon a common decision based on consensus.

2. Groupthink: Justify the statement

Opening scene of the movie Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is a classic example of Groupthink
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the
desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional
decision-making outcome.
In the movie Ek Ruka Hua Faisla, once all the 12 members had assembled in the room and
the door was locked, there was plenty of chaos amongst the people. It is indeed usual
because, neither of the jurors knew each other. All the members were asked to take their
seats, according to the seating arrangement were assigned their juror numbers. Juror1
volunteered to lead the pack of the 12 jurors and hence took the position at the head of the
table. An initial polling was conducted in favour of the decision that the child was guilty of
killing his father. In the open polling, all but one i.e. juror7 had voted in favour of the childs
innocence. When asked upon why, juror7 had considered the child as innocent, he said that he
wasnt sure and would like to have a discussion regarding the life and death decision of the
child who was accused.
In the beginning, it was observed during the open polling that people in favour of guilty was a
majority of 11:1, which meant that the child was set to the gallows of death. Many people had
raised their hands immediately favouring guilt but at the same time there were three odd
members amongst the juror who first observed what the others did and accordingly raised
their hands in favour of guilty. It was a clear majority and the sole reason why many people
raised there hands was because majority of the others did so. Many had not even rationally

gone through the facts and figures but solely responded to the pre notions of the image
created in their heads of the child.
Thus a harmony and conformity in decision making was reached upon by 11 juror members
which was completely irrational and dysfunctional in nature is a classic example of
groupthink and can be clearly seen from the movie, Ek Ruka Hua Faisla.

3. Identify the various stages of Group Formation, Norms and Cohesiveness.

The following are the various stages of group formation that the jurors went through and
finally reaching to a common goal:
1. Forming Stage: The 12 Jurors were put in a closed room to reach upon a final decision on
the life and death of the accused boy charged of stabbing his father to death. When the 12
individuals assembled in the room there was chaos amongst them and there was lack in group
unity. There emerged a group leader in juror1, who took an open polling to see the various
views of the jurors whether the child was guilty or not. The result of the initial polling was 11
to 1 in favour of the child being guilty. The one person who believed that the child was not
guilty was juror7 and he assumed the role of being the protagonist. He took upon himself in a
discussion in arriving at a conclusion whether the accused was actually guilty or not. This is
how the group of 12 members had formed.
2. Storming stage: As the discussion moved forward and every individual juror was asked to
support his point of view with certain justification, members of the jury put forward several
facts and figures in support of the decision. Many members did not have a base supporting
their decision claiming the childs guilt. Juror7 was of the view that the lady who observed
the killing might have been wrong whereas, juror3 claimed that the child could not even
remember which movie he had been to and nobody had seen him at the theatre. Juror6 was
interested in finding the motive of killing. Several sub-groups had formed and when another
voting was taken again in open the results stood at 6:6. This resulted due to brain storming.
3. Norming stage: In this stage, the protagonist presented the idea of the old man, a prime
witness to the murder, would have at least taken 40 seconds to open the door as in
comparison to 15 seconds as said in the court room. Juror2 said it was impossible for the
child to kill his father using the switch knife from that angle as he was shorter than his father.

Listening to these facts, the group stood at 9:3 in favour of the child being not guilty. Further
when the issue of the old lady was discussed as to not wearing her spectacles and would be
difficult in seeing the incident happen, the group further strengthened in favour of the child
being not guilty to 11:1. This showed the group coming as one and we feeling emerge.
This showed cohesiveness in the group.
4. Performing stage: It is observed that the protagonist had successfully changed the mind set
of 10 other members in favour of the child being not guilty. Juror3 was a hard nut to crack as
he had a pre conceived idea of the child being the culprit. This was because of his own
personal issues with his son with whom he did not share a healthy relationship with.
Eventually juror3 broke down claiming that he had nothing personal with the accused and it
was his family that influenced his decision all through. Now that all the 12 members had
reached to a common consensus that the child was not guilty, the group started performing,
hence justifying the group stage.
5. Adjourning stage: The group of 12 members had gone through all the above mention stages
and it was observed that the mindset changed rapidly with the presentation of the facts and
figures. Hence the work was done and the boy was declared innocent. The group walked
away as a team as in comparison to a bunch of 12 individuals in the beginning. Hence the
group adjourned.

4. Site an example of Social Loafing from the movie.

What technique will you use to counter social loafing in your work domain?
Social loafing refers to the concept that people are prone to exert less effort on a task if they
are in a group verses when they are work alone. The idea of working in a group is typically
seen as a way to improve the accomplishment of a task by polling the skills and talent of
individual in that group. But in some group there is a tendency on the part of participants to
contribute less to the groups goal than if they were doing the same task themselves.
In this movie, it has been observed that juror 6 seating opposite to the group leader and right
of the protagonist is a prime example of social loafing. He, from the very beginning truly
never cared of the decision made by the jury regarding the decision taken for the accused. He
was rather interested in the movie for which he had a couple of passes for which he was

running late. Engaging in small talk and forcing the jury to come to a conclusion was his
prime motto. For almost three-fourth of the movie he was in favour of the child being guilty
for which he did not have any strong argument for. Sensing the tide shifting towards the
innocence of the child, he also changed his decision favouring the childs innocence. When
asked upon the reason for his change, he replied that it was his wish and again did not support
with any argument. Hence juror 6 can be seen as a character truly and well involved in social
loafing.
Identifiability - To avoid this tendency, make each member of the team stand out. You can
divide the tasks so that each person has his or her own individual deliverables that are easy to
measure and evaluate.
Diversity- When we form groups or committees that will work on important projects, we
tend to pick the star players or big thinkers. This is especially true in large organizations
that have a lot of talent and manpower to draw from. But having intelligent individuals in a
group doesnt really seem to influence its performance. Also, according to several
experiments, people tend to work harder if they expect some of their colleagues to perform
poorly. So its important to create a group with members that have varying skills and
performance abilities.
Group size- Apart from supporting the points mentioned above, this paper from the Journal
of Management shows that increased group size was related to increase social loafing. Keep
group size to a minimum so that its easier to account for everyones work. The larger the
group, the more each individual can hide behind its size.
Group cohesiveness-Several sources also indicate that increasing the groups cohesiveness
helps to avoiding social loafing. This means that the members of your group should like each
other and want to work together to pursue the same goals. They do not have to be close
friends, but they should experience a feeling of unity that makes them feel that slacking off
would let down the rest of the group.