在电影中，陪审员3号和10号的情况并非如此，他们展示了在这种情况下最不道德的领导风格——独裁主义。虽然有时独裁主义是必要的，而且会起作用，但在陪审团审议中却不是其中之一。这些人只有一个目标，那就是把他们的信念和信念强加给在场的其他人，尤其是那些容易被操纵的陪审员。这两个人允许他们的偏见阻止他们履行公民义务这导致他们试图灌输其他陪审员像他们一样思考;他们拒绝听取其他陪审员提出的任何合理的质疑。在第八章中，鲍伊写到了这种不道德的领导风格，以及伯恩是如何拒绝第三条和第十条对房间里的追随者所做的事情。鲍伊写道:“(伯恩)对教化的拒绝表明他尊重追随者的自主性。”当涉及到人在任何情况下，自我价值和自尊是至关重要的一个人的自主权，应该受到其他人的尊重。在电影中，陪审员#3和#10经常使用不道德的威权领导，以防止其他陪审员有任何能力自行决定。这样一来，方达和他的道德领导风格就被取代了。
加拿大paper代写:不道德的领导风格
In the movie, this was not the case with juror’s #3 & #10, which demonstrated the most unethical leadership style for that situation, the authoritarian. Although there are times when authoritarian is needed and will work, in a jury deliberation is not one of them. These men had one goal, and that was to impose their beliefs and convictions upon others in the room, especially the jurors who were easily manipulated. These two men allowed their biased views to prevent them from doing their civic duty which leads to their attempt to indoctrinate the other jurors into thinking like them; they refused to listen to reason or consider any reasonable doubt presented by the other jurors. In chapter eight, Bowie wrote about this unethical leadership style and how Burn’s rejects what #3 and #10 were doing to the followers in the room. Bowie writes, “[Burn’s] rejection of the indoctrination shows that he respects the autonomy of the followers,” (Bowie pg.142) whereas #3 & #10 do not. When it comes to people in any situation, self-worth and self-respect are vital to one’s autonomy and should be respected by other people. In the movie, juror #3 & #10 routinely use unethical authoritarian leadership to prevent other jurors from having any capacity to decide for themselves. By doing so, it gives way to Fonda and his ethical leadership style.
