This essay examines unconventional leadership as depicted in Sidney Lumet's Twelve Angry Men (1957) and Peter Weir's Dead Poets Society (1989), using Peter Northouse's Leadership: Theory and Practice and Machiavelli's The Prince as theoretical lenses. The paper argues that effective leadership cannot be defined by a single objective standard, as demonstrated by Juror #8's emergent leadership in the jury room and Professor Keating's transformational approach in the classroom. Both figures succeed by prioritizing justice and personal inspiration over conformity, illustrating that leadership exercised outside conventional authority can be more powerful than leadership imposed through institutional position.
The paper uses textual and cinematic evidence to test theoretical claims — a technique common in humanities-based leadership analysis. Rather than summarizing the films, the writer applies Northouse's concept of emergent leadership and transformational leadership to specific character choices, showing how theory illuminates narrative and vice versa.
The essay opens with a framing argument about the subjectivity of leadership before moving to a detailed analysis of Juror #8 in Twelve Angry Men, covering his initial dissent, the social risks he faces, and his strategic use of additional ballots. It then shifts to Professor Keating in Dead Poets Society, contrasting him with the authoritarian Mr. Nolan and analyzing his transformational methods. A brief concluding section unifies both figures under the theme of morally motivated, unconventional leadership.
This essay examines leadership as it is expressed through the motion pictures Twelve Angry Men (1957) and Dead Poets Society (1989). Peter G. Northouse's Leadership: Theory and Practice (Fifth Edition) and Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince both attempt to describe effective leadership and the many factors that shape it. As shown in these two films, leadership cannot be described from a purely objective point of view, given that it has no single standard everyone can agree on. John Keating and Juror #8 succeed in demonstrating that leadership does not necessarily have to exist in accordance with any particular set of prescribed elements.
Leadership typically involves mobilizing people with the purpose of having them agree with, or act upon, what the person who assumes the role of leader wants. The masses are accustomed to encountering traditional approaches to leadership, with innovative approaches being either ignored or marginalized. The influence of leadership is especially pronounced when it is exercised by an individual or group that would not ordinarily be expected to occupy a leadership position.
The choice Juror #8 makes when he decides to stand against the majority at the first ballot is certainly surprising — both for the audience and for the other characters in the film. Most people would consider this choice irresponsible and contrary to what seemed like the natural course of action. Given that eleven individuals, all presumably prepared to handle such a situation, had already settled on a particular verdict, the outcome appeared to be a foregone conclusion. In order to challenge what seemed like a clear result, one obviously has to employ considerable leadership ability — particularly since it would, in most circumstances, be unusual and even ethically fraught for an individual to assume a leadership role within a jury.
In its basic form, leadership is a way of bettering "personal, social, and professional lives" (Northhouse, 1). It would therefore be out of character to adopt morally driven behavior merely as a means of becoming a leader, since the three areas Northouse describes are unlikely, on their own, to produce conduct grounded in moral reasoning. Juror #8 managed to impose his standpoint through emergent leadership — he was not initially expected to demonstrate any leadership qualities at all. Even if he had been expected to express such attributes, the context was one in which their implementation seemed highly unlikely.
Given that all of the jurors shared a roughly similar social status, it would have been natural for each of them to conform to the behavior of those around him. For any one of them to contradict the others was to invite harsh resistance — to risk being overruled and compelled to accept the majority verdict regardless of the circumstances. Juror #8 demonstrated his leadership from the very outset by choosing to behave differently from the rest, even though he indirectly risked social and professional exclusion in doing so. Being a member of a group and deliberately acting against its consensus makes one vulnerable to personal attacks; it is therefore essential for such an individual to possess the skills needed to withstand those pressures. Juror #8 was immediately condemned for his position, since it seemed absurd that he would want to obstruct the verdict when all available evidence pointed toward the defendant's guilt.
Aware of the pressure bearing down on him, Juror #8 again demonstrated exceptional leadership by calling for two additional ballots. It is normal for leaders to take actions that serve the broader purpose of their group. However, in pursuing that collective good, Juror #8 directly put himself at risk, since it was very likely that the others would dismiss — or even condemn — his line of argument. His clear intention was to bring the entire jury around to his position. He did not merely want to influence their conclusion; he wanted them to abandon their existing opinions in favor of his own, even knowing that the majority was still likely to hold firm.
It is particularly important for a leader to know how far he or she can go when assuming that role (Northhouse, 280). Juror #8 was certainly daring, but his ability to gauge the intensity of his actions prevented him from pushing so hard that the others would become entirely unwilling to consider his point of view. Although the conventional image of a leader includes a degree of sensitivity to criticism, Juror #8 did not allow himself to become a victim of the mockery directed at him by the rest of the jury. He chose instead to maintain his beliefs and to explain them as clearly as possible.
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.