Ek ruka hua faisla

This is quite an intriguing film which exemplifies many tenets of persuasion and the evolution of
group dynamics. The story is set in a jury room where twelve jurors are expected to reach a
guilty/not guilty verdict by consensus. Eleven of them believe it to be an open and shut case and
pronounce the verdict as guilty. As the movie progresses, we see the architect modifying each
persons viewpoint and ultimately the group arrives at a consensus decision of not guilty.
Initially, the group opinion can be attributed in some part to social loafing. At the start of the
movie, eleven people were of the opinion that the under-trial was guilty. They also seemed to
derive conviction from the fact that the others were thinking the same way. In reality, none of the
jurors (barring the architect) has analyses the trial in detail.
The architect starts off not by confronting the others on their guilty decision, but merely asking for
a discussion. As the movie proceeds, he brings his arguments into the discussion, seeks ideas from
others (the consultative approach) and goes on to convert them. Essentially, he positions himself in
a non aggressive, non threatening stance which makes his arguments more acceptable to others
without hurting their egos. This is an important learning in terms for argument positioning.
Throughout the movie, we see the effect of emotion on the decision taken by people. This is very
true of real life situations. These emotions may or may not have a direct bearing on the arguments
being presented, but can drastically alter the way people stand on those issues. At the outset of the
movie, the architect is supported by an elderly gentleman for the sole reason that this elderly man
respected the courage of the architect to stand up to eleven people. Logically, it has no bearing on
the case, but helps shape the decision of the elderly person. Towards the mid of the movie, Pankaj
Kapoors rude behaviour towards this elderly juror prompts another member to take up cudgels
against Pankaj Kapoor, and makes his sympathetic towards the architects arguments.
Pankaj Kapoors character brings to fore the importance of avoiding stereotyping. Pankaj Kapoors
character had a pre conceived perception about the under trial which in itself was based on the halo
effect. Pankaj believed that since his son had slapped him, his son could also have killed him;
similarly, the under trial could have also killed his father.
With regards to stereotyping, as a group we learnt the importance understanding the underlying
factors for the stereotyped perceptions of others. This will help us understand their prejudices and
consequently, figure out ways to get rid of them. As an example, the architect is able to extract
Pankaj Kapoors history to identify the cause of the prejudice and breaks the stereotype by
mentioning He is not your son.
The movie demonstrates how the adult ego state is the most useful ego state foe persuasion and
negotiations. Not only is the adult ego state the most logical, it is also the state which can allow us
to choose another ego state to shift to. The architect uses the adult ego state while persuading
others throughout the movie, but towards the end of the movie, he chooses to shift from the adult
ego state to nurturing parent ego state to console a shattered Pankaj Kapoor.
Overall, it was an extremely useful movie with valuable lessons on people, perceptions, negotiation,
persuasion and group dynamics.