Even though the foreman was the court-appointed “leader” of the jury, he did not exhibit any real leadership throughout the discussion. At first, he loosely tried to establish procedures for deliberation, however his actual role throughout the film was as a gate-keeper for voting. This allowed space for another leader to emerge organically, but not without considerable struggle. I instinctively want to point to Juror #8 as the group’s appointed leader, however I think the leadership role in this setting was fluctuating constantly. Perhaps that is the poetry of #8’s leadership role–he lead by example and invited others to follow of their own accord.
No formal procedures dictated who spoke, although the foreman did suggest that the jurors go around the table and each express his opinion on the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Even with this structure in place, the discussion often broke away from this format, with the loudest man telling men he disagreed with or perceived to be weaker to be quiet. Since there was no clear structure, the discussion quickly devolved into one where the loudest voices and peer-pressure prevailed. This format, employed in the beginning by the majority, did not withstand the rational, calm arguments of the few. As a model to use for other discussions, I don’t think the “12 Angry Men approach” is productive the majority of the time. In this case, however, the discussion had an unseen moderator: American, white-male centered worldviews. Since they all shared this worldview in one way or another, they were able to govern themselves and the discussion productively. If any or some of the jurors had a drastically different worldview from the others, I believe the discussion would have been wildly counterproductive.
I completely agree with what you said about the 8th Juror leading by example. His initiative paved the way for other jurors to speak up .I also agree with the idea of peer pressure leading jurors like the 12th to vote in favor of whoever seemed to assert the most power. It’s interesting what happens in a group setting like this. With regards to the diversity of the group, I would argue that their worldviews may not be the same. They all came from different backgrounds with regards to age, class and education.