Ek Ruka Hua Faisla free essay sample

Power Of Communication Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is a movie about 19 years 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. It was the 12th Juror, who did not agree to this decision. He declared that he did not imply that the accused was innocent. His only argument was that one cannot simply jump to any conclusion without examining all the data and assess the truth. We will write a custom essay sample on Ek Ruka Hua Faisla or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page He justified that a person’s life was at stake and jurors should discuss all the factors associated with the case. He was interrupted by most of the jurors as some of them were in a hurry. Almost everybody had some excuse or other for going home or elsewhere. How the jurors arrived at the final decision after volatile interactions is what the movie is about. In â€Å"Ek Ruka Hua Faisla†, the focus is on the ‘process’ – it is not what happens but how it happens. The main aspect that is highlighted is how our mental models influence our data selection, understanding and actions. Although we assert that our perspectives and decisions should be based on data / information, even the data or information we select and what meanings we give them also depends on how we have grown up and our past experiences. The 12th Juror began the whole process of re-examination of available evidences in the case using the Socratic Method. He kept giving his arguments and tried to re-consider all the facts related to the case and many jurors started taking interest in his arguments. One-by-one he brought up each evidence and through questioning the veracity of the observations, he established that most of the conclusions were based on assumptions and beliefs and thereafter the conclusions themselves were corrected. (â€Å"Socratic Method† provides the appropriate framework to ask the right questions and debate on all available data and their interpretation. The Socratic method is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. Below is the different management functions/activities elaborated based on observation: 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 led to discussion. 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 and discussion. 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 to reach to one particular conclusion. 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. Different Personalities Observed: Active: A person active by nature always have the quality of initiating. In this movie we observe few active personalities, amongst one who was the initiator for the discussion. Other active members supported the initiative taken by that individual. 1) Active-Constructive† Active-Constructive people are those who are active in a constructive way. They are initiatives and ideas have a constructive thought in their mind. Relating this to the movie, we see that after the initiative of one individual was supported by few active-constructive personalities. Mr. K. He initiated the discussion and he had supportive ideas. His arguments were more logical, practical and more based on reasoning. In the entire decision making process he was very patient and calm. In the end he convinced all his committee members who were against, with his practical approach. Mr. Anu Kapoor and Mr. S. M. Zaheer were also active-constructive by nature as they brought many strong points during the discussion. 2) Active-Destructive: Active-destructive are those people who have their original active ideas but supported by destructive behavior. These personalities are bias by nature and at times the personalized approach leads to destructive behavior. In the movie we see Mr. Pankaj Kapoor as an active-destructive personality. He was over emotional and he took the case very personally. He was very active in the decision making process but in a destructive way. Looking to some other Active-Destructive personality Mr. Subiraj was also a perfect example. He was active but he had community bias. Due to this bias behavior verbal conflicts arise amongst committee members and that situation leads the process to aggressive path. Passive: Individuals with passive personalities are those who never take initiatives and are least bothered about the situation around them. 1) Passive-Constructive: Individuals who are passive-constructive by nature do not take any initiative but when a suggestion is asked they have wide and constructive ideas to share. In the movie we find Mr. Subhash Udgate, Mr. Shailendra Goyal, Mr. Amitabh Shrivastav and Mr. Hemant Mishra with this kind of personality. This individuals were not initiative takers but when they were asked to support the case, they had very unique ideas and with that they supported the decision making process in constructive way. Passive-Destructive: Individuals with this personality never take any initiative and even when asked for the suggestions they always have the destructive ideas. Never supportive in any situation. Mr. M. K. Raina is the best suited example for this personality. He was least bother in the decision making of one individual’s life. His personal affairs were more important to him than the life of that boy. He didn’t show any active support in decision making. He was highly influenced by majority. Mr. Azeez Kureshi is also had this kind of personality. Least concerned of the situation and enjoying personal leisure. Conclusion: This movie needs to be viewed from time-to-time to help us reflect and examine how we perceive and deal with our issues and learn to keep the spirit of ‘Inquiry’ always alive within us to question our perceptions and get to the truth. Thus, coming to the conclusion of the movie we saw that a person with active constructive personality is always a good leader and we saw various other personalities and other management fundaments used in this movie.