"12 Angry Men" is a gripping take of jurors struggling to determine if a young man is guilty of murdering his father, its ethical emphasis are fairness, respect and citizenship.
Leadership.
The foreman, a high school assistant head coach, doggedly concerned to keep proceeding formal and maintaining authority; easily frustrated and sensitive when someone objects to his control: inadequate to the job as a foreman, not a natural leader and over shadowed by juror #8 natural leadership. The movie clearly depict that leaders are born not made. The foreman was a relationship-motivated leader and he really did not care about the task to be completed but concerned about the group members doing it their way. He was easily convinced and clearly gave it up when he stated at the beginning "You fellows can handle this thing anyway you want to", it doesn't sound as if its coming from a leader.
Participation.
The juror's participation was effective but limited to some of the juror's. Juror #8 proposed ideas and suggestions, he also provided the direction to "Not Guilty". Juror #3 was more of an aggressor and his ideas were opinion based and biased. Juror #5 was frightened and did not really say much, #7 just wanted to get it over with to leave. Juror #12 was a disruptive member at the beginning, he was drawing and writing during the session. Though most of the members had their own agenda all the group members managed to participate in the discussion and came to a final conclusion.
Climate.
The communication climate at the beginning was smooth and calm. It later on became an argument after juror #8 began to convinced some of the group members that the accused is not quilty.
Conflict.
There were more of affective conflicts than substantive and procedural. Juror #8 believed that the accused was not guilty and they should revise their approach; that was a substantive conflict. An example of a procedural conflict will be the fact that juror #8 wanted to discuss the situation while others wanted to get it over with.