对于这两种领导风格的后果，方达的伦理领导风格启发了其他人去坚持正确的事情，而不是屈服于别人的压力。对我来说，最受方达启发的陪审员是第11任陪审员乔治·沃斯科维奇。当沃斯科维奇终于忍无可忍时，他开始站出来反对独裁主义者，因为有些人并没有认真考虑这个问题，他告诉他们，倾听所有事实并做出公正的裁决是我们的公民义务和社会责任，而不是基于偏见。方达的灵感点燃了沃斯科维奇内部的火焰，并最终引发了一场大火，最终蔓延到整个房间，并使这些人能够在混乱的经历中感知伦理真理。然而，3号和10号陪审员的情况并非如此，他们不道德的威权领导风格和彻底的偏执观点，曾经不受大多数陪审员质疑，但最终却像香烟一样被扼杀了。在影片一开始，那些曾经是独裁领导下的牺牲品的冷静而胆小的陪审员们再也无法被摆布，他们背对10号陪审员，让他像一个吓坏了的小男孩一样蜷缩在角落里。
北美留学生论文代写:两种领导风格
In regards to the consequences of the two leadership styles, Fonda’s ethical leadership style inspired others to stand up for what was right and not give in to the pressure of others. For me, the one juror that was most inspired by Fonda was George Voskovec, juror #11. When Voskovec finally had enough, he began to stand up against the authoritarian figures because some were not taking this deliberation serious, telling them that it is our civic duty and social responsibility to listen to all the facts and give a fair verdict, not one based on biased prejudice. Fonda’s inspiration ignited a flame within Voskovec, and that erupted into an inferno that eventually spread throughout the room and gave the men an ability to perceive ethical truths during a chaotic experience. However, this was not the case for jurors #3, and #10, their unethical authoritarian leadership style and outright bigoted views that were once unchallenged by most of the group were eventually smothered like a cigarette. The once calm and timid jurors that were easy prey for the authoritarian leadership at the beginning of the film could not be pushed around anymore and turned their backs on juror #10 and left him cowering in the corner like a scared little boy.
