10.

1177/1052562903251354
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003
McCambridge / A STUDY IN DIALOGUE
ARTICLE
12 ANGRY MEN:
A STUDY IN DIALOGUE

Jim McCambridge
Colorado State University

This article describes the use of selected vignettes from the updated version of
the film 12 Angry Men in a facilitated discussion to teach the principles of dia-
logue. Dialogue is a process for transforming traditional conversation—char-
acterized by defensive routines, agendas, and ineffective listening practices—
into a communication strategy that can help individuals and organizations.
The exercise may be tailored for use with undergraduate and graduate stu-
dents, as well as practicing managers and executives, to illustrate barriers to
effective communication and decision making and to identify strategies to
overcome those barriers.

Keywords: dialogue; communication; decision making; group dynamics;

video clips

The purpose of this article is to acquaint management instructors and

executive educators with the concept of dialogue, which, according to Isaacs
(1993), is “a discipline of collective thinking and inquiry, a process for trans-
forming the quality of conversation, and in particular, the thinking that lies
beneath it” (p. 24). I begin by discussing two important aspects of communi-
cation: talking and listening. Then I distinguish dialogue from normal

Author’s Note: The author acknowledges the contributions provided by Carole Napolitano,
Springfield, Virginia, and Robert Husbands, Ph.D., Urbana, Illinois, for their insights into the
development and application of dialogue principles. Please address correspondence to Dr. Jim
McCambridge, Associate Professor of Management, Department of Management, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523; phone: 970-491-7633; fax: 970-491-3522; e-mail:
Jim.McCambridge@business.colostate.edu.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, Vol. 27 No. 3, June 2003 384-401
DOI: 10.1177/1052562903251354
© 2003 Sage Publications

384

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

 McCambridge / A STUDY IN DIALOGUE 385

conversation, consensus, debate, and negotiation. Finally, I describe how to

use clips from the movie 12 Angry Men (Friedkin & Donnelly, 1997) to create
an exercise that teaches the principles of dialogue to students and executive
education participants. The two-part exercise acquaints all participants with
dialogue principles, provides specific, structured opportunities to analyze the
occurrence of dialogue in the film, and for more advanced participants, cre-
ates a unique opportunity to practice dialogue skills on a topic that is specifi-
cally relevant to the audience. The exercise is both intellectually challenging
and engaging.
According to Dixon (1996), “Talk is the most frequent activity of manag-
ers . . . yet there is a sense that something is wrong with the way people talk to
each other at work—something is artificial, false or at least unsatisfying most
of the time” (p. 1). She suggests that too often in organizations, individuals
are more likely to say what is expected rather than what they actually believe.
Individuals are very careful about what is said and to whom. Such talk pre-
cludes the opportunity for open exchange and often appears to have the goal
of trying to persuade rather than to understand and learn. Isaacs (1993) points
out that “most forms of organizational conversation, particularly around
tough, complex or challenging issues, lapse into debate. One side wins and
another loses; both parties maintain their certainties, and both suppress
deeper inquiry” (p. 24).
Individuals in organizations and organizations themselves have two
important objectives: development (i.e., learning) and growth. For both to
occur, individuals and organizations must have the opportunity to collec-
tively understand and evaluate alternative viewpoints and then use that
mutual understanding to co-create a meaningful future. Lease, McConnell,
and Nord (1999) refer to this process as sensemaking. They conclude that
“language is not merely a conduit to convey meaning, but actively facilitates
substantive, positive change among stakeholders who collaborate in the pro-
cess . . . . Learning how to talk is critical; learning how to talk with under-
standing is the real value of dialogue” (pp. 155-158).
By failing to be authentic at work—saying nothing, saying more than they
know, or misleading others in what they say—Dixon (1996) suggests that
individuals significantly limit their own potential to grow and learn and, by
the same token, limit the capabilities of the organization to develop as well.
Sensemaking, in the truest meaning of the word, does not occur.
The opportunity for organizational development is also limited, because
the exploration of the full range of possible alternatives cannot be achieved.
By limiting inputs on the front end and by considering only limited alterna-
tives or only those proffered by a select sample of stakeholders, a comprehen-

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

386 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

sive set of alternatives will not be developed. Therefore, talk in organizations

needs to be accomplished in a more effective manner.
Effective listening is also a critical component of communication.
Although active listening or empathic listening principles (Stewart &
Thomas, 1995) offer useful strategies for increasing one’s focus on what is
being said in any context, there are some serious drawbacks to these
approaches. Stewart and Thomas argue that these traditional approaches to
listening processes are often flawed, calling for individuals to put aside their
values and views and “get inside the other person’s awareness” (p. 186). Most
of us cannot successfully put aside our values as we listen to what another is
saying. We interpret what we hear in the context of our value perspective.
Furthermore, no one can really know what another person is feeling, seeing,
or interpreting—we are never quite sure that what is being understood is actu-
ally what is intended.
Leidtka (2001) suggests that this lack of listening for understanding may
be traced, in part, to the educational experiences individuals have. She points
out that a major emphasis of the case methodology is to help students become
debaters and assessors, to learn how to be better at advocacy, rather than
inquiry and increased understanding. Although the former is a worthy goal,
she also states, “I have come to suspect that unchecked, this quality [the ten-
dency to listen only to evaluate] will not make effective managers and change
agents, let alone inspiring and imaginative leaders” (p. 420).
Such an approach results in individuals who may fail to listen for under-
standing, are prone to rush to judgment, and arrive at conclusions that may be
based on faulty assumptions about their own objectives, as well as those with
whom they are in conversation. When such attributes characterize talk, the
opportunity for personal development and learning is significantly limited.
What is needed is a strategy for creating more effective discourse and the
development of a corresponding set of skills that will enable the involved par-
ties to more effectively communicate with each other. Lease et al. (1999)
point out that the core of the organizational change process resides in man-
agement discourse. Effective discourse (i.e., the way we think and talk about
issues) has two components: language and dialogue. According to Lease
et al. (1999),

Language creates structures for individuals and organizations by providing

frameworks that establish a context for all the fragmentary, disjointed experi-
ences that make up the day-to-day life in organizations. In addition, language
works as a system of words that paint pictures of an organization’s reality, a
unique point of view that captures and reflects values, principles and attitudes
that imbue the culture of an organization. These views of language focus on

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

 McCambridge / A STUDY IN DIALOGUE 387

constructs through which individuals (and organizations) create meaning.

(pp. 156-157)

What Is Dialogue?

The word dialogue is derived from two roots: dia, which means “through,”
and logos, which means “the word” or, more particularly, “the meaning of the
word” (Bohm, Factor, & Garrett, 1991, p. 3). Dialogue is the process through
which meaning is created—the kind of talk described by Dixon (1996) and
referred to by Lease et al. (1999). Dialogue is defined by Isaacs (1993) as “a
sustained collective inquiry into the processes, assumptions, and certainties
that structure everyday experience” (p. 24). It is characterized by the willing-
ness on the part of participants to suspend their natural tendency toward
defensive posturing and actively attempt to understand the reasons for that
defensiveness. Such posturing, Isaacs suggests, results in the fragmentation
of thought that prevents individuals from thinking and reasoning together
about complex issues.
Isaacs’s (1993) definition of dialogue is quite different from that which
most people call dialogue (i.e., a discussion between two or more individuals
in which each party seeks to defend his views and advance personal inter-
ests). According to Isaacs, dialogue is not the same as consensus building.
Where consensus building often seeks to limit options and find strategies that
are acceptable to most people, dialogue seeks to surface fundamental
assumptions and an understanding of why they arise. Dialogue seeks to
explore, and eventually alter, underlying patterns of meaning. The goal in
dialogue is not to cool differences but to create a super-cooled field where the
differences can exist and be studied, not be ignored or shoved aside to arrive
at something all parties can agree on.
Bohm (as cited in Dixon, 1996) argues that discussions and negotiations
are not dialogue, because each represents a process whereby someone tries to
win or convince others to assume the views of another. Rather, Bohm et al.
(1991) see dialogue as “not concerned with deliberately trying to alter or
change behavior nor to get the participants to move toward a predetermined
goal. Any such attempt would distort and obscure the processes that dialogue
has set out to explore” (p. 3). Rather, dialogue is a way to develop shared
meaning, to uncover new realities. “[Our] thoughts hold all sorts of pre-
suppositions which limit understanding and prevent people from talking
freely. Through dialogue, everyone’s ideas are held by all—a common pool
of information” (Bohm, in Dixon, 1996, pp. 11-12). Dialogue helps to pro-
duce an environment where people are consistently participating in the cre-

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

388 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

ation of shared meaning. Once established, this pool becomes the context
from which particular complex issues can begin to be addressed.
The primary objective in dialogue is not to win but rather to come to
understand the opinions of others. To get to this point, individuals must sus-
pend their own judgments and learn to listen to what is on someone else’s
mind without coming to a conclusion. The environment for dialogue requires
the creation of a container—a place where all participants have the necessary
space to talk. The container (Isaacs, 1993; Dixon, 1996) is not a physical
space as much as a context created by the group members to allow the discus-
sions to occur. Effective dialogue requires all participants to regard one
another as colleagues, leaving status/power/authority differences outside the
container.
It also requires the assistance of a skilled facilitator who can keep the con-
tainer open for the kinds of discussions that need to occur. Dialogue seeks to
enable understanding of others’ assumptions that may not always be main-
stream. The facilitator can assist in helping participants suspend judgments
about assumptions and ensure that each person has the needed space to talk
openly. Most critical to effective dialogue is getting assumptions and the rea-
sons for them expressed by all parties so that common understanding—
although not necessarily agreement—can be achieved. The goal of dialogue
is to enable a decision-making group to act more like a cohesive whole rather
than as separate parts, each of which is advocating its own positions without
fully understanding the perceptions of others. For a more comprehensive dis-
cussion of the theoretical underpinnings of dialogue, see Bohm et al. (1991),
Dixon (1996), and Isaacs (1993).
Stewart and Thomas (1995) contrast dialogic listening with empathic and
active listening. They point out that the former has several key attributes,
including (a) a focus on ours rather than mine or yours—the notion of sculpt-
ing mutual meanings; (b) open-ended and playful—conversation need not
always be certain, controlled, and focused on closure; (c) presentness—focus
on the here and now rather than the future; (d) context building—focus on the
circumstances that surround/relate to the topic rather than the topic itself;
and (e) application—consider the behavioral differences between empathic
listening and dialogue (e.g., attitude, intent, awareness).

Why Is Dialogue Important?

Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, and Smith (1994) assert that team learning
is “a discipline of group interaction” (p. 32). Techniques like dialogue
(Isaacs, 1993) and skillful discussion (Senge et al., 1994) can transform

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

 McCambridge / A STUDY IN DIALOGUE 389

teams through collective thinking and learning. Team members mobilize

their energy and actions to achieve team goals by drawing on a collective
intelligence and ability greater than the sum of each individual’s ability. A
thorough discussion of team goals and what those goals mean to different
group members is essential for a team to be considered high performing
(Wheelan, 1999). In addition, Wheelan states that high performing teams
have an open communication structure in which individuals are listened to
regardless of their age, title, sex, race, ethnicity, profession, or other status
characteristics. Creating high performance teams begins with effective dia-
logue, and dialogue is a set of tools to enable teams to become more effective
by helping them optimize key elements of their team processes.

How Is Dialogue Taught?

The process of dialogue requires that individuals work to create a common

meaning of their interactions with one another. The true challenge of dia-
logue is developing this common framework from which to explore existing
or new ways of looking at issues.
Using film clips is one way to teach dialogue. In this exercise, four clips
from the 1997 version of the movie 12 Angry Men (Friedkin & Donnelly,
1997) are used. In this movie, 12 strangers are brought together to decide the
fate of a young man accused of murdering his father. The film takes place in
the jury room where the accused’s guilt/innocence is discussed and debated.
As the deliberations unfold, jurors’ attitudes are changed as a result of the
skillful application of the key principles of dialogue. Through a series of
questions, the instructor helps participants diagnose the behaviors in the film
that facilitate and inhibit dialogue. After viewing the clips, and depending on
the time available, the students may practice dialogue behaviors by discuss-
ing an issue that is both controversial and relevant to the particular group.
One person per group of six or seven participants may be designated as a pro-
cess observer to help the group debrief how well it practiced dialogue princi-
ples when this component of the exercise is used.
Are video segments an appropriate pedagogical strategy to teach signifi-
cant management concepts? Hunter (1990) points out that “[educational]
video [EV] can enhance the learning process by offering new dimensions on
old subjects, providing meaningful embellishments to current curricula, or
affording educative experiences that no other medium can give” (p. 18). She
also suggests that the appropriate use of educational video quickly captures
viewers’ attention, piques their interest for further study, and is an efficient
way to illustrate important concepts. Gioia and Brass (1985) recommend

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

390 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

“using only selected parts of the film—careful selection of parts of films

often results in captivating examples that really get attention” (p. 16).
Video clips, full-length movies, video cases, and animation are increas-
ingly popular media to illustrate the full spectrum of business-related topics,
including

• general management principles (Marx, Jick, & Frost, 1991; Roth, 2001; Shaw &
Locke, 1993)
• leadership (Buchanan & Hofman, 2000; Champoux, 2001; Comer, 2001)
• the power of partnerships (Leidtka, 2001)
• strategic thinking (Leidtka, 2001)
• corporate restructuring (Graham, Pena, & Kocher, 1999)
• team development (Welch, 1999)
• diversity (Livingstone & Livingstone, 1998)
• motivation and influence strategies (Huczynski, 1994)
• organizational theory (Scherer & Baker, 1999)
• power and leadership (Baker, 1993; Harrington & Griffin, 1989)

This article adds to this developing instructional resource by discussing

the use of clips from 12 Angry Men (Friedkin & Donnelly, 1997) to illustrate
and teach the concept of dialogue (Isaacs, 1993).
An earlier version of the film (Lumet, 1957) has been used in several dif-
ferent contexts to illustrate various organizational phenomena. Proctor and
Adler (1991) and Proctor (1991) discuss the use of the older version to help
teach interpersonal communication and group dynamics. They suggest this
film is particularly valuable for illustrating a variety of group phenomena,
including critical thinking, playing devil’s advocate, gate keeping, reward-
ing, multiple power bases, defensive communication, and principles of argu-
mentation and debate. They also describe in-class exercises to explore those
constructs.
Fried (1998) uses 12 Angry Men (1957 version) to review aspects of social
psychology represented by interaction among the jurors. After having her
undergraduate social psychology students view the entire film, she required
them to tie events and interactions in the film with key social psychological
concepts including conformity, minority influence, attribution, aggression,
social cognition, and perception, among others.
In a recent management education video, Barker, Carey, and Gundermann
(1999) incorporate insights by Dr. Margaret Wheatley, management profes-
sor and author, at various points throughout the film to illustrate several team
effectiveness dimensions.
Beck and Fisch (2000) explore group discussion and decision-making
processes using a multi-level interaction process analysis (MILPA) strategy.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

 McCambridge / A STUDY IN DIALOGUE 391

These authors focused on both the content and behavioral dimensions of the
jurors’ interactions to test the MILPA model’s viability for facilitating an
understanding of the group decision-making process.
McLeod (1999) uses the play 12 Angry Men (Rose, 1955), rather than the
movie, in an imaginative effort to explore the potential contribution of elec-
tronic meeting systems (EMS) technologies to everyday groups functioning
in organizational contexts. Her particular focus is on the potential effect of
EMS technology on the three key influence processes (i.e., persuasion,
minority influence, and social comparison) necessary to arrive at a unani-
mous decision in jury deliberations.

Dialogue in Action

Dialogue serves as a cornerstone for organizational learning by providing

an environment in which people can reflect together and transform the con-
text in which their thinking and acting emerge. According to Isaacs (1993,
p. 32), the initial guidelines for dialogue are as follows:

• suspend assumptions and certainties,

• listen to your listening,
• observe the observer,
• slow down the inquiry,
• be aware of thought, and
• befriend polarization.

These guidelines provide a way for management educators and consul-

tants to prepare people to build teams that are more effective. The goals of this
activity are to distinguish dialogue from other forms of group interaction and
to demonstrate how dialogue can specifically contribute to enhanced team
learning and effectiveness.

Activities and Assignments

This activity provides an excellent introduction to the power of dialogue

as a tool to increase the quality of group communication. The activity is most
successful when used across two 75-minute class periods, in a 3-hour session
or when included as a component of a more lengthy executive education sem-
inar. The length of the exercise may be varied, depending on depth of discus-
sion desired, time available, and number of video clips used. Table 1 provides
suggested timelines for conducting the activity in a 75-minute session, one 3-
hour or two 75-minute sessions, or as part of an executive education seminar.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

392 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

TABLE 1
Class Outlines—12 Angry Men Dialogue Session:
Alternative Session Schedules
Dialogue 75-Min. 3-Hr. Session or Executive
Activity Sessiona Two 75-Min. Sessions Session

Introduction 5 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes

Dialogue overview 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes
Segment 1 & discussion 10 minutes 15 minutes 15 minutes
Segment 2 & discussion 10 minutes 15 minutes 15 minutes
Segment 3 & discussion skip 15 minutes 15 minutes
Segment 4 & discussion 10 minutes 15 minutes 15 minutes
Group practice skip 30-45 minutes 1-4 hours
Summary & take-aways 10 minutes 15-30 minutes 30 minutes

NOTE: If either a 50-minute or 75-minute session is used, participants will see dialogue princi-
ples being applied, but such brief sessions will not provide sufficient time either for thorough dis-
cussion of the principles or for meaningful practice of the skills.
a. Could be adapted to 50-minute session.

In the shorter sessions that severely limit discussion, a meaningful introduc-

tion to dialogue, rather than well-developed dialogue skills, will likely be the
major outcome. Developing dialogue skills cannot be accomplished without
significant practice. To run the dialogue session, the instructor will need the
materials, technology, and facilities described in Appendix A.
I have used this activity equally well with undergraduates, MBAs, and
executives/managers. With undergraduates, I focus on the evolution of the
decision process, identification of barriers to effective communication and
decision making, and delineation of dialogue strategies to help overcome
those barriers. Undergraduates consistently become engrossed in the video
clips and frequently express the desire to see the entire film. The instructor
has an important responsibility to “guard the integrity of the theoretical con-
cept” (Proctor, 1991, p. 397) by continually linking what is happening in the
clips to dialogue.
With MBAs and practicing managers/executives, discussions tend to
focus on how issues illustrated in the vignettes might be applied in familiar
business settings. The objective with these groups is for them to study the
assumptions jurors appear to be making, to key in on the processes they are
using to communicate with one another, and to draw parallels between
behaviors seen in the clips and real-world business practices. Consideration
of the decision-making process is expanded, paying special attention to the
various strategies used by different actors either to deepen the exploration of

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

 McCambridge / A STUDY IN DIALOGUE 393

the facts of the case or to attempt to discourage further discussion. Identifying

those factors in business settings that influence group decision processes and
may function as barriers to team learning are explored, including problem
identification, conflict resolution, team leadership, time, nature of the task,
organizational expectations, and so on. Participants explore ways to help a
group slow down the decision process (i.e., to stay in the question rather than
rushing to judgment), thereby deepening the inquiry.
The instructor may ask the participants to view the entire movie prior to
the session, but that is not necessary (see earlier comments by Hunter, 1990;
Gioia & Brass, 1985). The instructor should provide a 30- to 45-minute
overview/exploration of the principles of dialogue as explained by Isaacs
(1993) and of team learning as discussed by Senge et al. (1994). The four
clips effectively explicate the principles of dialogue. Each film segment is
about 5 to 6 minutes in length. If time is a major concern, one of the video seg-
ments could be excluded from the discussion, but eliminating more than one
would preclude the participants from seeing key principles of the dialogue
process in action. If one must be excluded, I recommend excluding the third
video segment. Appendix C identifies the specific location of each video seg-
ment on the full-length videotape.
The instructor should hand out the worksheets (Appendix D) to the partic-
ipants before watching the video clips. Following each video segment, partic-
ipants use the appropriate worksheet to initiate discussion about the interac-
tions in that segment of the movie. To start discussion at the end of the first
clip, the instructor should ask,

• Who on the jury is acting as a facilitator of the dialogue process?

• Who is beginning to suspend their certainties?
• Which of the jurors want to keep the discussion going? Which do not and why?

Additional questions for use following Segment 1 and each of the subsequent
segments are found in Appendix D.
The questions on the worksheets are designed to facilitate small group dis-
cussions around each of the movie segments and to direct discussion toward
the identification/application of dialogue principles and the team learning
that result as a function of their application. To wrap up the discussion after
all video clips have been viewed, the instructor should ask questions that
encourage students to think of the overall process. Several sample questions
are included in Appendix D, Segment 5. Although most participants are posi-
tive about using the behavior of the jurors to discuss dialogue principles, I
suggest that instructors be prepared for some of the following comments:

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

394 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

• A jury is not like an ongoing team in a corporate environment.

• The dynamics of the jury would be different if women were included.
• The decision has greater implications—guilt or innocence—than most corpo-
rate decisions.

In response, the instructor should focus participant attention on dialogue

principles rather than on the specific team dynamics that are occurring. Dia-
logue is about improving the communication process within groups and
teams, independent of those teams’ makeup or particular agenda.
For some audiences—after all four scenes have been summarized and
debriefed—the instructor may pose a controversial and complex question
specifically relevant to the group. Many undergraduate classes lack the time
or perspective to engage in this part of the activity. However, this part of the
exercise is often the most stimulating for MBAs or executives. Posing a spe-
cific question will enable participants to apply the skills of dialogue using
topics unique to their situation as the medium for the dialogue discussion.
Ideally, the instructor should work with representatives of the participating
group to develop these questions in advance of the session. These questions
should be controversial in nature and without a clear answer (see Appen-
dix E). The instructor should also provide guidelines for the discussion and
debriefing of these questions using the guidelines for conducting a dialogue
session as outlined in Appendix E.
After providing time to practice dialogue, the instructor should summa-
rize the key learning points to be taken from the entire activity and ask the
group to identify several take-aways from the experience. In Appendix C,
Segment 5, I have included a number of the take-aways I recommend to
participants.

Recommended Readings

There are several resources that do an excellent job of explaining the dia-
logue process and its implications for team learning. Appendix B includes a
list of several of those resources. I recommend that “Taking Flight: Dialogue,
Collective Thinking, and Organizational Learning” (Isaacs, 1993) be read by
all participants prior to engaging in the exercise.

Conclusion

Most individuals and organizations can benefit from learning or renewing

their focus on effective communication. This is especially true for teams,
where effective communication leads to better decision making. By truly

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

 McCambridge / A STUDY IN DIALOGUE 395

engaging each other in conversation, we learn about each other and our-
selves, creating the kind of shared meaning necessary for effective communi-
cation. A real strength of the dialogue process—appropriately practiced—is
the discipline it provides those engaged in problem solving and decision
making to help them thoroughly (and collectively) discover the true nature of
their communication practices. Dialogue helps the participants focus on both
talking and listening and on the associated underlying assumptions that truly
drive the development of meaning.
This exercise provides a creative and engaging way for us all to look at our
communications in a new and more inquiring way, to become more authentic
and more insightful. Concurrently, the exercise also helps us learn about and
apply the skills that will enable us to be less biased and more thorough and
informed as we consider decisions that must be made.

Appendix A
Materials, Technology, and Facilities Required

The facilitator will need the following:

• A packet of pre-printed materials with discussion questions for each video seg-
ment for each of the session participants
• A video-cassette player, projector, and TV monitor(s) or screen
• A videotape of four, predefined segments of the 12 Angry Men video (1997 ver-
sion) or the full-length videotape of the movie
• A room with flexible seating or break-out rooms
• Tables and chairs for each group of 6-8 participants
• Flip charts and markers for each group

NOTE: A set of powerpoint slides for use in the overview is available from the author.

Appendix B
Recommended Readings

The following resources will provide additional insight into the processes of dialogue
and team learning:

Isaacs, W. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning.
Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24-39.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth discipline
fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.
• Chapter 12, Team Learning
• Chapter 52, Strategies for Team Learning
• Chapter 56, Designing a Dialogue Session

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

396 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

Dixon, N. (1996). Perspectives on dialogue: Making talk developmental for individuals and
organizations. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Appendix C
Instructions for Using 12 Angry Men as a Study in Dialogue

12 Angry Men is an excellent illustration of the development and effect of dialogue

as a form of group interaction and group conversation. I recommend the most recent
version of the movie (1997, currently out on video).
Rather than using the movie in its entirety, four clips from the movie are used to
effectively explicate the principles of dialogue. Each clip is about 5 to 6 minutes long.
Below is a brief statement about each segment and its start and finish time, identified
in minutes from the point at the beginning of the movie where the film title, 12 Angry
Men, first appears.

SEGMENT 1—the jury is just beginning to convene and determine how it will operate
Start time: Segment begins at 5 minutes 24 seconds (5:24). Scene: elderly man
leaving bathroom and moving toward seat at jury table.
End time: Segment ends at 10 minutes (10:00). Scene: gentleman saying, “I think
we can all act like gentlemen.”

SEGMENT 2—discussion of the boy saying “I’m going to kill you” and his returning
to the scene of the murder
Start time: Segment begins at 48 minutes 46 seconds (48:46). Scene: juror talking
about the phrase, “I’m going to kill you.”
End time: Segment ends at 54 minutes (54:00). Scene: man saying, “I don’t have to
be on anyone’s side, I’m just asking questions.”

SEGMENT 3—when the jury is examining how the knife is used in the murder
Start time: Segment begins at 82 minutes 10 seconds (82:10). Scene: elderly Black
man asking to see the knife.
End time: Segment ends at 88 minutes 35 seconds (88:35). Scene: vote being taken
with the chairman casting ninth vote.

SEGMENT 4—when the jury is discussing the eyewitness not wearing her glasses
Start time: Segment begins at 98 minutes 15 seconds (98:15). Scene: juror saying,
“Let’s go over it again.”
End time: Segment ends at 103 minutes 45 seconds (103:45). Scene: juror saying,
“We want to hear it again, we have all the time you need.”

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

 McCambridge / A STUDY IN DIALOGUE 397

Appendix D
12 Angry Men—Video Segments With Questions

SEGMENT 1:

Interaction Within This Segment

• The first vote—11 guilty; 1 not guilty
• The initiation of the jury’s deliberations

Things to Explore in Your Team

1. What is your general impression of the group interaction?
2. How would you characterize the conversation (i.e., debate, polite discussion,
skillful discussion, or dialogue)? Why?
3. How could this group meeting have been initiated in a more productive man-
ner?
4. Who seems to be contributing most positively to the group interaction? Most
negatively? How and why do you make this assessment?
5. Can you predict from language or behavior which jurors are uncomfortable
with rushing to a decision?

SEGMENT 2:

Interaction Within This Segment

• Later in the jury deliberations
• Conversation on “I’m going to kill you”
• The vote changes to 9 guilty; 3 not guilty
• Conversation about the boy returning to the scene 3 hours later

Things to Explore in Your Team

1. What seems to be the balance of inquiry and advocacy in this segment?
2. Is the group moving any closer to dialogue? How and why do you make your
assessment?
3. Who and what seem to be some of the barriers within the group to moving to-
ward dialogue?
4. Are any of the six conditions necessary for dialogue beginning to develop (i.e.,
suspend assumptions and certainties, listen to your listening, observe the ob-
server, slow down the inquiry, be aware of thought, and befriend polarization)?

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

398 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

SEGMENT 3:

Interaction Within This Segment

• The vote is 6-6
• Conversation about how the stab wound was made
• Interaction around jury member changing vote to not guilty
• The vote becomes 3 guilty; 9 not guilty

Things to Explore in Your Team

1. How are you responding to the individuals? Who seems to be contributing
most to the group? Why? What are they doing?
2. Do you see examples of people’s assumptions being challenged? Explain.
3. What about the different confrontations? Do they contribute or detract from di-
alogue? Why?
4. Would you say the group is in a different place interactionally than when they
first arrived? If so, how? Why?

SEGMENT 4:

Interaction Within This Segment

• Observations related to jury member wearing eyeglasses
• Conversation about woman who testified in court to “seeing” the boy
• Vote becomes 11 not guilty to 1 guilty

Things to Explore in Your Team

1. Where is the group now in their interaction pattern compared to when they first
came together?
2. What seems to be the balance between inquiry and advocacy in this segment?
3. How would you characterize the spirit of inquiry during this conversation?
(Did people seem more prepared to examine, suspend, and challenge their own
and others’ assumptions?)
4. What about the interaction in this segment reflects dialogue as we have been
exploring it?

SEGMENT 5:

Discussion/Debrief/Take-Aways
• Interaction after exercise and practice is completed
• After participants have completed the practice activity, the instructor should
conduct a final debrief of the entire activity, with the purpose of tying the vari-
ous segments together with the practice experiences.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

 McCambridge / A STUDY IN DIALOGUE 399

Consider using these questions as discussion starters:

1. Think back to the first scene: What changed the most in terms of talking and lis-
tening by the last scene?
2. Was each juror included in the discussion in the first scene? Was greater inclu-
sion of the jurors accomplished by the last scene? How?
3. Describe the progression from debate and conflict to ultimate agreement by the
last segment.
4. Which factors contributed most to that progression? Which contributed the
least?
5. As one looks at how the dialogue process unfolded in 12 Angry Men, what par-
allels to business situations can be identified? Discuss.

Consider using these statements as final points (take-aways):

1. The dialogue process can facilitate team learning by opening communication
channels, encouraging alternative viewpoints, and deepening consideration of
difficult issues.
2. Dialogue can help develop the ability to disagree and discuss without derailing
the problem-solving process.
3. Effective dialogue takes practice.
4. The process can be used in any team context.
5. The process builds commitment to a new way of exploring difficult issues, and
the use of a facilitator initially is critical to its success.

Appendix E
Examples of Dialogue Practice Session
Questions and Session Guidelines

Sample Questions (specific to certain audiences):

For certain audiences, a specific set of questions may be developed that will pro-
vide opportunity for participants to practice their dialogue skills. Examples of two
such questions developed for specific groups are listed below:

1. Sample discussion question for an MBA audience: An MBA program faces the
competing curricular demands of breadth and depth. As students nearing the
completion of your program, identify strategies that can meaningfully (and
economically) achieve the optimization of these competing priorities.
2. Sample discussion question for an executive education audience: Our com-
pany is facing the challenge of reduced demand for our products, increasing la-
bor costs, and the fact that our modernization of our manufacturing facilities is
lagging significantly behind those of our competitors. How might we resolve
the serious challenges our company is confronting?

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

400 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION / June 2003

Dialogue Session Guidelines (should be stated prior to beginning the practice activity
component of the exercise):

1. Set some ground rules.

2. Suspend certainties.
3. Listen to your listening.
4. Slow down the inquiry.
5. Balance inquiry and advocacy.
6. Avoid the rush to judgment.
7. Be aware of your thoughts.
8. Develop shared meaning.
9. Maintain peripheral attention.
10. Don’t try to resolve the problem.
11. Consider alternative perspectives.
12. Use the facilitator.

References
Baker, H. E., III. (1993). “Wax on–wax off”—French and Raven at the movies. Journal of Man-
agement Education, 17, 517-519.
Barker, J., Carey, R., & Gundermann, B. (1999). Twelve angry men: Teams that don’t quit. Suc-
cessful Meetings, 48(9), 54.
Beck, D., & Fisch, R. (2000). Argumentation and emotional processes in group decision-
making: Illustration of a multi-level interaction process analysis approach. Group Processes
and Intergroup Relations, 3(2), 183-201.
Bohm, D., Factor, D., & Garrett, P. (1991). Dialogue: A proposal [Online]. Retrieved December
1, 2001, from http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html.
Buchanan, L., & Hofman, M. (2000, March 1). Everything I know about leadership, I learned
from the movies. Inc., 22(3), 58-65.
Champoux, J. E. (2001). Animated films as a teaching resource. Journal of Management Educa-
tion, 25(1), 79-100.
Comer, D. R. (2001). Not just a Mickey Mouse exercise: Using Disney’s The Lion King to teach
leadership. Journal of Management Education, 25(4), 430-436.
Dixon, N. M. (1996). Perspectives on dialogue: Making talk developmental for individuals and
organizations. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Fried, C. B. (1998). Using 12 Angry Men as an integrative review of social psychology. ERIC
Clearing House Accession No. ED4200084, 9 pages.
Friedkin, W. (Director), & Donnelly, T. A. (Producer). (1997). 12 Angry Men [Film]. (Available
from Orion Home Video, 1888 Century Park East, Los Angeles, CA 90067)
Gioia, D. A., & Brass, D. J. (1985). Teaching for the TV generation: The case for observational
learning. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 10, 11-15.
Graham, L., Pena, L., & Kocher, C. (1999). Other people’s money: A visual technology for
teaching corporate restructuring cross-functionally. Journal of Management Education,
23(1), 53-64.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015

 McCambridge / A STUDY IN DIALOGUE 401

Harrington, K. V., & Griffin, R. W. (1989). Ripley, Burke, Gorman and friends: Using the film,
Aliens, to teach leadership and power. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 14, 79-86.
Huczynski, A. (1994). Teaching motivation and influencing strategies using The Magnificent
Seven. Journal of Management Education, 18(2), 273-278.
Hunter, P. E. (1990). A designer’s guide to scriptwriting: Video capabilities and limitations. Per-
formance and Instruction, 29(3), 18-22.
Isaacs, W. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning.
Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24-39.
Lease, J. E., McConnell, R. V., & Nord, M. (1999). Discourse as a catalyst for change in manage-
ment education. Journal of Management Education, 23(2), 154-173.
Leidtka, J. (2001). The promise and peril of video cases: Reflections on their creation and use.
Journal of Management Education, 25(4), 409-424.
Livingstone, L. P., & Livingstone, B. T. (1998). The twilight zone of diversity. Journal of Man-
agement Education, 22(2), 204-207.
Lumet, S. (Producer). (1957). 12 Angry Men [Film]. (Available from Orion Home Video, 1888
Century Park East, Los Angeles, CA 90067)
Marx, R., Jick, T. D., & Frost, P. J. (1991). Management live: The video book. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McLeod, P. L. (1999). A literary examination of the electronic meeting system in everyday orga-
nizational life. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 188-206.
Proctor, R. F., II. (1991). Teaching group communication with feature films. Paper presented at
the 77th Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association.
Proctor, R. F., II, & Adler, R. B. (1991). Teaching interpersonal communication with feature
films. Communication Education, 40(4), 393-400.
Rose, R. (1955). Twelve angry men: A play in three acts [Play]. Chicago: Dramatic Publishing
Co.
Roth, L. (2001). Introducing students to “the big picture.” Journal of Management Education,
25(1), 21-31.
Scherer, R. F., & Baker, B. (1999). Exploring social institutions through the films of Frederick
Wiseman. Journal of Management Education, 23(2), 143-153.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook.
New York: Doubleday.
Shaw, G., & Locke, K. (1993). Using fiction to develop managerial judgment. Journal of Man-
agement Education, 17(3), 349-359.
Stewart, J., & Thomas, M. (1995). Dialogic listening: Sculpting mutual meanings. In J. Stewart
(Ed.), Bridges not walls: A book about interpersonal communication (pp. 184-201). New
York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Welch, S. J. (Ed.). (1999). Business videos for the new millennium. Successful Meetings, 48(9),
13-15.
Wheelan, S. A. (1999). Creating effective teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at University of Texas Libraries on May 1, 2015