Angry Men Depicted A Newly Formed Working Group ✓ Solved

```html

12 Angry Men depicted a newly formed working group – a

12 Angry Men depicted a newly formed working group – a collection of men from disparate walks of life, education levels, and ages who had nothing in common with one another except for the fact that they had all been selected to sit on this particular jury. The men did not even know one another’s names. In contrast, the men in Apollo 13 had been working together for years. They worked so closely that Tom Hanks, as Jim Lovell on film, at one point brags that the men can anticipate one another’s movements. Let’s identify how the two films highlight small group development and compare and contrast the effectiveness of an immature group to a more mature one.

To prepare for this assignment, please review the stages of small group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning in “40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman's model of small group development.” Please answer the following in a well-written essay of no fewer than 750 words, in APA format: How do the two groups (the jury in 12 Angry Men and the men from NASA in Apollo 13) illustrate the concepts we have learned regarding small group development? Compare and contrast the groups depicted in the two films. What advantages does a mature group have, and what examples can you point to from each film that illustrate those advantages?

Paper For Above Instructions

The dynamics of small group development are pivotal in understanding how different groups function and achieve their objectives. In this essay, I will analyze the jury in "12 Angry Men" and the NASA team in "Apollo 13" to illustrate Tuckman’s stages of small group development: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning. By comparing these two groups, we can see the marked contrast between a newly formed group grappling with personal biases and a seasoned team that functions with a greater degree of maturity and cohesion.

Forming Stage

In the "12 Angry Men," the jury enters the forming stage with a lack of familiarity among its members. Each individual comes with preconceived notions and biases regarding the case they are about to deliberate. The initial discussions are characterized by reluctance, as most jurors prefer to avoid confrontation. This uncertainty reflects Tuckman’s definition of the forming stage, where group members are typically polite and cautious as they start to understand each other and the task at hand. In stark contrast, the team in "Apollo 13" displays an immediate understanding of roles and responsibilities, a byproduct of their established histories. Their familiarity allows for open communication that helps streamline their focus on the urgent mission, indicating they have moved beyond the forming stage.

Storming Stage

The storming phase is significant for both groups. In "12 Angry Men," the storming stage manifests as heated arguments and disagreements as individual personalities clash. The jurors find themselves in a contentious debate over the facts of the case, reflecting their personal biases, such as prejudice and apathy, which disrupt the group’s peace. A notable example occurs when Juror #3’s emotional investment in the case leads to aggressive outbursts, jeopardizing group cohesion. Conversely, in "Apollo 13," the storming is less about interpersonal conflict and more about problem-solving under pressure. Although there is tension as they navigate life-or-death scenarios, their conflicts are generally productive, aimed at finding solutions to the technical challenges they face.

Norming Stage

The norming stage offers a turning point for both films. In "12 Angry Men," this stage is reached when some jurors begin to listen to Juror #8’s rationale, promoting a collaborative atmosphere. The jurors start establishing a set of norms that emphasize mutual respect and a fair evaluation of the evidence. As they navigate through differing opinions, they gradually start to develop relationships, as evidenced by Juror #8’s ability to encourage open dialogue among skeptics. In "Apollo 13," the norming phase is characterized by a quick adaptation to the crisis. The astronauts and mission control establish norms centered around safety, clarity, and teamwork as they brainstorm effective solutions that will ensure their survival. Their prior experiences together allow them to coordinate their efforts efficiently.

Performing Stage

During the performing stage, the effectiveness of a mature group becomes evident. The team in "Apollo 13" showcases remarkable collaboration as they execute complex tasks in high-pressure environments. Their ability to anticipate one another’s actions results in smooth operations and effective decision-making, highlighting the significance of maturity in teamwork. For example, when faced with technical malfunctions, they collectively brainstorm solutions that demonstrate trust and competence in each other's capabilities. Meanwhile, in "12 Angry Men," the jury's performance fluctuates, as some members still struggle with personal biases that cloud judgment. However, they ultimately come together to reach a consensus, showcasing that even an initially immature group can grow by leaning into their differences and embracing teamwork.

Adjourning Stage

The adjourning stage reflects the dissolution of the group after achieving their tasks. In "12 Angry Men," this stage is characterized by a newfound sense of closure among the jurors, despite initial disagreements, as they leave the courtroom having reached a unanimous decision. The experience has shaped their perspectives on justice and collaboration. Conversely, in "Apollo 13," the adjourning stage occurs when the astronauts return safely to Earth, concluding their mission. The camaraderie and professional bonds fostered during their ordeal illustrate the lasting impact of their experience on team dynamics.

Conclusion

In comparing the two films, "12 Angry Men" and "Apollo 13," it becomes evident that mature groups possess several advantages, including efficient communication, effective problem-solving, and greater resilience in the face of challenges. The jury in "12 Angry Men," despite demonstrating growth, still struggles with individual biases that hinder their performance initially. In contrast, the NASA team’s maturity allows them to excel under pressure, showcasing the power of collaboration in achieving shared goals. These contrasts reveal the complexities of small group development and underscore the importance of acknowledging individual differences while striving for collective success.

References

• Tuckman, B.W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. Prentice Hall.
• Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-290.
• Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. E. (1986). Interpersonal processes in the workplace. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 245-307.
• McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22(2), 147-174.
• Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a ‘Big Five’ in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555-599.
• Druskat, V.U., & Wolff, S.B. (2001). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review.
• LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273-307.
• Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 307-338.

```