DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

PAPER/SUB. :

MBA CP 107 : BUSINESS ETHICS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

ASSIGNMENT ON :-
“EK RUKA HUA FAISALA”
BY

Alekha Niranjan Sahu

Name:Alekha Niranjan Sahu

DEPT.: Department Of Business Management.
Enrollment ID : 16/06 /DBM/01
UNIVERSITY : CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF ORISSA
INTRODUCTION:

‘Ek ruka hua faisla’ is a bollywood drama movie written by ‘Ranjit Kapur’ , produced
and directed by ‘Basu Chaterji’ in 1986. It is a remake of the golden bear winning , American
motion picture ‘12 angry men’(1957) which was directed by ‘Sidney lumet’.

This is a movie about 19 year old boy who was a suspect for murder of his father. There
was a committee of 12 people assigned to decide whether boy was culprit or not. This is a movie
about different organizational behavior. In this movie we observe the entire decision making
process. Where each individual had different perception and different behavior in particular
situation. their personal opinion leads them to one wrong decision first but later on with just one
leading, convincing, neutral and practical individual, they were able to think on the other side of
the case and finally they reached to right conclusion.

The nature of each character is slowly revealed through the process of the discussions
and this is a reflection of their personal beliefs, convictions, notions, idiosyncrasies, prejudices,
and cultural& social backgrounds. And this is done without even identifying any of them as
belonging to anyrace or religion, to the extent that they are just referred to as jury one, jury two
and so on. So, there are these 12 unnamed characters, somehow symbolic of the unnamed &
unknown boy accused of killing own father, and these ordinary 12 people discover their own set
of beliefs and thought processes as they try to unravel the same for the accused. Each is trying
to convince the rest about their viewpoint, even as slowly people start moving their vote from
guilty to not guilty. And finally they are able to convince everyone else and reach an undisputed
decision.Another impressive aspect of the movie is its attention to detail, as each and every small
and sometimes unimaginable nuance of the case is analyzed and debated upon, and yet the script
and dialogues keep engage and attention till the very end.

1.PLANNING:

The discussion was planned in the mind of initiator. There was no intention to discuss the
case in the committee, but this initiator planned this strategy accordingly and the strategy
ledtodiscussion.

2.ORGANIZING:

After the strategy of discussion was implemented the person who was handling and
controlling the committee organized the entire discussion. He organized the voting process
anddiscussion.

3.LEADING:
We observed that there was one person who was disagree initially with the decision
because the proof for the decision making was not satisfactory to him. This dissatisfaction leads
him to convince the other team mates to discuss more about this case and he required many
logical points toreach tone particular conclusion.

4.CONTROLLING:

One more observation about other personality was controlling by nature. This individual
was the one who was handling the whole decision making process. Controlling always leads to
aggression. So we saw that the person who was controlling and handling the committee was
aggressive often.

1.2 12 PEOPLE AND THEIR LEADERSHIP STYLE TAKING ANY

LEADERSHIP MODEL-:

1.2.1 Juror-1 - Deepak kajariwal-Moderator/Mentor:

He displays the regulating behaviour in the respect that he engages in oneway

communication, spells out the group members roles, Do‟s & Do Not‟s and closely supervises the group
members.He attempts to keep order and procedure in group discussion. His mainrole is to maintain
the correctness of group discussion and stop the groupmembers into getting into irrelevant discussions.
He is a person who is active personality by his role and nature. Other members of the group support the
initiative taken byhim.

1.2.2 Juror -2 - Amitabh Srivastava:

He is a timid personality and not confident as this is his first assignment

in jury procession. He is easily influenced and commendable. Even though initially he is not an
active initiator, but later on he actively participates in the discussion and confronts the elder
group member about their view points. He got good analytic skills and came up with valid points about t he
time taken by lady witness. He is good listener and follower and gives up most respect to elders. In respect
of situational theory of Leadership, he displays consulting style.

1.2.3 Juror –3 - Pankaj Kapoor:

He is the most criticizing member of the group. Initially he plays the role of most angry
character and he is falsely convinced that the accused is a murderer based on his personal experiences
with his son who deserted him. His relationship with his son makes him feel angry towards all young
people thereby influencing his vote. As the time goes by, he becomes more personally involved. His behavior is
that of a rigid proud person who never takes the others view/points in positive way. He is very active
in decision making but in destructive way and he wants to dominate the younger members of the
group. His logical thinking is constrained by his emotional aggressiveness. He displays the Leadership style.
1.2.4 Juror –4 - S.M.Zaheer ( Stock Broker by profession):

He is decent, well dressed and unemotional who seems to base his decision on solid facts and
logic. He is well disciplined and guides the group members whenever they are engaged in irrelevant
discussions. During the entire discussion, he is very calm, composed and patient. He shows the supportive
style of leadership and provides a great deal of direction based on facts and logic. He accepts the
counter arguments based on the analysis and strength. He proves to be a good team member and all team
members accepts his logic and rationale.

1.2.5 Juror –5 - Subash Udagane:

He has spent his earlier life in slums same as accused and understands the position of the
accused. He does not react to the adverse preconceived notions of the other group members about the
accused. He is a good listener in the group and stays cool and composed. He analyzed the
situation very carefully and proved that the accused couldn’t have killed his father in the manner as
believed by the other group members. He displays the nurturing style of leadership as he listens and
facilitates the decision making process.

1.2.6 Juror –6 - Hemant Mishra:

Initially he seems to very passive in group discussion and does not show much contribution
in decision making process. He does not shy away from voicing his opinion and regulates other group members
when they try to show disrespect to the eldest group member. Even though he was convinced that the accused
is a murderer, but later on he changes his position based on the arguments of K.K.Raina.

1.2.7 Juror - 7 - M.K.Raina (Sales man by profession):

He is always shows his joyous character and initially seems to be uninterested in the
discussion. He lacks the focus on the assignment and seems to be interested in
entertainment/personal interests. He is a self-cantered person who is worried about his own
likings. His personal affairs are more important than the life of the employ thus showing
his character of irresponsibility towards society. He acts like a child and does not actively supports
the decision making process. He displays the delegating style of leadership.

1.2.8 Juror –8 - K.K.Raina (Architect by profession):

He is a composed, self-disciplined and strong character who believes in logical reasoning

and is not afraid of voicing his opinion in the group even though opposed by the group members. He is
very constructive in nature and understands the role as jury member and realizes that the life of a boy is the
hands of Jury member’s final decision. He is a good listener and analyses the every argument carefully.
He presents his points very boldly in front of the group with solid facts and great conviction. Initially,
though the group members hasn’t shown interest in his views, he went on convince the group members about
the need for thorough considerations of the issue which later on were accepted by the group members. He displays
the nurturing style of leadership.

1.2.9 Juror –9 - Anu Kapoor:

He is the oldest person in the group who seems to very wise and experienced. He displays deep
understanding and helps the group members to realize that the lady witness was not telling the
truth. He is a good judge of character and reads people very fast. He is very patient but sometimes gets
agitated by inappropriate behavior of the group members. Though he is very old, still takes
active participation in arguments and decision making. He displays the supportive style of Leadership.

1.2.10 Juror –10 - Subhi Raj:

He is the most destructive member of the group and has very fixed opinions which are
highly biased and prejudiced. His arguments lack logic, analysis and thorough analysis. His mind
is present and not opens to other members arguments. He is not a good team member and often verbally
abuses the group members. He displays the destructive regulating style.

1.2.11 Juror –11 - Shailendra Goel:

He comes as one of the most matured character who seems to be in control of him almost all the
time. Initially he does not seem to be contributing too much to the discussion but whenever he argues; his
arguments are based on fact and conviction. He disapproves the uncultured behavior of the sum
of group members in very cultured and decent way. He displays the delegating style of life style.

1.2.12 Juror –12 - Aziz Qureshi ( Advertising is the profession):

His character is very unique and indifferent compared to tha t of the other group members. Most of
the times, he is busy in solving puzzles and doesn’t actively participate in the discussions. He is
not serious about his role and doesn’t realise that this assignment is very important for saving the life of the
boy. He displays passive delegate style of leadership.

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF WATCHING MOVIE-:

The main objective of watching “Ek Ruka Hua Faisla”is to identify and analyze the
implications and implementation of different concepts, aspects and theories of managerial
communication .This movie is probably the best medium for us to know about subject matters of
organizational behavior topics like perception, attitude, behavior, leadership, team formation, nor
ming andstorming of team work, group dynamics, motivation, conflict management, personality
easily in an entertaining way within short period of time. The movie also taught us how to work
out best from the worst situation.
1.4 ANALYSIS OF THE MOVIE-:

The movie “Ek Ruka Hua Faisla” is about how a person can change the mind of a
wholecrowd,by sticking to his convictions backed up by rationale thinking. The protagonist appr
oaches the subject of capital punishment with caution and wants the other member of jury to
convince him, that convicted person is guilty. In this whole process of discussion and heated
arguments we can observe so many facets of human behavior. A few in the room have "don't
care" type of attitude, who just happened to be there on the Jury. Then a few are there who are
of the type "I am always right". They have some prejudices and they want to stick to it.
There are also a few who have good analytical skills and have conjured up lots of facts and
data. What differentiates all these men from the protagonist (Jury No. 8 played by K.K. Raina) is
the way he draws his inferences using various analytical tools and proving if something is
universally accepted, it doesn't have to be always correct.Hence, these twelve people discover
their own set of beliefs and thought processes as they try to unravel the same for the accused.
Each is trying to convince the rest about their viewpoint, evenas slowly people start moving their
vote from guilty to not guilty and vice versa. Another impressive aspect of the movie is its
attention to detail, as each and every small and sometimes unimaginable nuance of the case is
analyzed and debated upon, and yet the script and dialogues keep you engrossed all the time. It’s
almost like we are a part of the jury, presented with a case,and discover for ourselves what could
be the reality.

1.5 LEARNING FROM THE MOVIE-:

We can classify some other learning into following categories:

*Conflict, Power & Politics: There were many examples of conflicts between the jurors. These
conflicts occur when there is a difference between information, beliefs, values interest desires
etc. these could also be defined as rivalries in which one person or group competes with other.
Next is Power which the capacity Juror 8 showed to change other juror’s decision. Last is
politics which was displayed by Juror 3 & juror 10 as an attempt to influence the distribution of
favors within the group.
* Prejudice: The last person who changed his opinion that the accused was not guilty was
actually having a perceptual error of stereotyping. In the past, his son, a teenager once had
(physical) fight with him & because of this incident he made a general perception that all
teenagers are irresponsible & could indulge in crime very easily.
*Halo Effect: One of the juror (second from the last to change his opinion) exhibited sign of halo
effect, where he was overwhelmed with one aspect of evidence (such as the boy didn't remember
character from the film that he watched that night) This juror continued to focus on only one or
two aspect of evidence & missed on other aspects which he later realized & changed his opinion.
*Perception: One of the jurors had a very selective perception he just accepted the evidence on
its face value & made up his mind which was easier for him to believe. He considered the
evidence were sufficient enough to term the boy guilty without giving any proper thought on
evidence as a whole.
*Projection: According to one of the juror (seconded by several other others too) the accused
comes from slum & poor background. The boy also had a history where hewas involved in
some kind of theft etc. Hence according to these jurors in light of available evidence the boy is
guilty for sure. They projected the slum backgroundas most of the criminals come from poor &
slum background.

*Self fulfilling prophecy: One of the jurors had his own self fulfilling prophecy that ,given the
testimony by witness &the boy once told he will kill his father. According to him it is enough &
reasonable proof to consider him guilty.