Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men is an award-winning courtroom drama about the deliberations of 12 jurors in reaching a verdict in a murder case. The judge has instructed the jurors that their verdict must be unanimous. Underlying the basic plot of the movie is a compelling portrayal of how one juror changes the minds of the others and reverses what otherwise would have resulted in a conviction. It's a lesson in consensus-building for those involved in selecting new corporate directors.
The film takes place almost entirely in a cramped and overheated New York City jury room. Each juror comes to the table with their own personal biases, backgrounds and inclinations. One perceives the defendant's strained relationship with his father as similar to his own. Another juror has baseball tickets and is inclined to reach a quick verdict so he can see the game. Others are likely to give short shrift to the deliberation for their own reasons.
The similarities between what transpires in a jury room and a boardroom become apparent. Jurors and directors alike have defining personality traits and socioeconomic DNA that influences their decision-making processes. Predicting how people think and behave in a group setting is key to selecting a jury member or a board member. How prone is any board member or juror to having his or her mind changed? Conversely, is he or she an influencer?
In 12 Angry Men, the defendant is a young boy accused of stabbing his father to death. At first, it appears that he is guilty. The jury foreman, played by Henry Fonda, first asks for a straw poll, in which all but he votes guilty. As the movie unfolds, he skillfully manages to get each juror to reexamine how he arrived at his initial decision. In the process, biases and emotions are laid bare and, in the cold light of day, the jurors — one by one — are made to realize that there is reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the murder. In the end, the foreman has masterfully turned around the entire jury, and they vote to acquit.
In doing so, the foreman has not once engaged in confrontation, instead using his persuasive powers buttressed by fact-based logic to win them over.
What's the Takeaway?
When new board members are sought, particularly in a situation wherein it's critical to reevaluate or remediate a questionable corporate strategy, it's essential to put people on the board who are capable of persuading the incumbent directors to rethink their gameplan, just as the jury foreman did in 12 Angry Men.
What Defines Such Influencers?
In 12 Angry Men, leadership becomes obvious at the outset, and a foreman is chosen quickly by the group based on consensus. Conversely, the board and its nom/gov committee must carefully discern the requisite qualities in a prospective director that will enable him or her to persuade a perhaps strong-willed incumbent board to consider a different approach. Such persuasive skills entail several qualities. Foremost is the ability to understand and empathize with the directors who need to become more open-minded. Without that, a winning argument can't be crafted. Additionally, the new director needs to be adept at gauging group dynamics, must be verbally adroit and has to debate successfully without resorting to confrontation.
How Can You Successfully Identify Influencers?
Of course, board candidates need to be interviewed, preferably face-to-face. All too frequently, doing so in person is deemed impractical. That is a mistake. An experienced interviewer should have the intuition and experience to judge how persuasive or, at worst, persuadable the prospect is. Trial lawyers adept at the voir dire process are similarly skilled and will invoke peremptory challenges accordingly. The interviewer should also speak with or, better yet, meet several references who are in a position to opine on how persuasive, or unpersuasive, the prospective nominee has been in similar boardroom or group situations. This is critical.
How Do You Ferret Out Reliable References?
People who will be objective about a potential director include fellow board members, former bosses, colleagues, subordinates or anyone who has observed firsthand how the director has prevailed as a lone dissenter in a group. This doesn't have to take place in a boardroom. Indeed, even without corporate board experience, someone with superior persuasive abilities can overcome groupthink.
Sometimes, the vetting process is too focused on industry background, prior public board experience or ESG. It may be better to forgo these in favor of recruiting a proven influencer.
A reliable reference should be able to cite examples of how the potential director attained success, even though outnumbered. To be avoided at all costs is a new board member with a reputation for “going along to get along.”