By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
What do we expect of our leaders? If you think about it in a political context, and if you get past your initial cynical thoughts about self-interest and corruption, then perhaps what you hope for is that our leaders make decisions with us in mind: that they think about what a majority of us might want and benefit from. That staple of representative government — the idea that leaders think in terms of the group when making decisions that affect the group — might unfortunately be at odds with human nature. Based on some recent social science, it turns out, your cynical thoughts might have been right after all. The research looks at the way leaders make decisions, and it should influence how we adapt our communication to a group setting like jury persuasion.
The study (Edelson et al., 2018) looked at the decision making of likely leaders in a setting where they had to either make a choice alone or defer to a group. The study that when the results tended to influence the whole group, more people, logically enough, tended to defer that decision to the group. However, those showing the strongest leadership traits, didn’t. As summarized in a piece in National Public Radio, “Leaders make decisions for a group in the same way that they make decisions for themselves. They don’t change their decision-making behavior, even when other people’s welfare is at stake.” What this suggests is that what makes someone a leader is not thinking in terms of what is good for the group. Instead, what makes someone a leader is thinking in terms of yourself, but believing that what is good for you is also good for the group. Of course, that just describes how leadership occurs, it doesn’t differentiate between good or bad leadership. But, for good or for bad, there is going to be leadership in your jury. Understanding that fact means being sensitive to who those leaders might be, and remembering that, ultimately, you are persuading individuals, not a group. In this post, I’ll share a few thoughts on identifying and adapting to leaders.
First, Recognize the Inevitability of Leadership
When picking or assessing juries, some lawyers are nervous about leaders. I suspect that in practice, these lawyers would prefer themselves to be the jury’s leader and don’t want to risk having someone else who might influence them in a different direction. That’s wishful thinking, however. Once they are on their own in the jury room, a leader, or two, will emerge. That leader may or may not be the actual foreperson, but it won’t be you. So, generally, it isn’t a matter preferring either leaders or followers for your jury, it is a matter of assessing who your leaders are likely to be and giving them extra scrutiny to ensure that you really want them on your jury.
Next, Spot Your Leaders
Do so in a few ways:
Look for nonverbal cues. Jurors who are self-assured are more likely to give eye contact to you and to others. They might look more alert and attentive. They might take up more space in the way they are sitting.
Look for experiential cues. What do they do in a normal day? If, in their work, they are likely to organize and direct the activities of others, then they’re more likely to do so on the jury. So look for managers, teachers, and other professionals. Also, look for people who have prior experience as jurors or forepersons.
Study the group interaction. When they’re “at ease” before questioning and during breaks, which ones are talking with each other? Who seems to just be engaged in polite chatter, and who seems to be engaged in actual conversation? And who seems to be off by themselves, and who seems to be a center of attention?
Then, Target Your Appeals
For advocates and witnesses alike, it is important to get past the notion of talking to “the jury.” You aren’t addressing an amorphous collective abstraction. In reality, you’re talking to individuals, and only individuals. What ends up persuading the leader is probably what will end up determining the direction of the group. So witnesses should adapt that focus, consciously directing their testimony and eye contact to individuals within the jury. It helps if you show your own witnesses a seating chart that includes everything we know about each juror so your witness will know a little about who they’re talking to.
And when you have a reasonable basis for predicting who the leader or leaders will be, think about what would make the most sense to them, what they’ll understand and respond to. A good strategy will devote some attention to the question of what appeals will resonate with specific likely leaders based on the attitudes and life experiences of those individuals.
Other Posts on Jury Leadership:
- Consider the Entitled Juror
- Beware of Angry Men (But Angry Women, Not So Much)
- School Your Jury (Like Fish)
- Pay Attention to Minority Influence
Edelson, M. G., Polania, R., Ruff, C. C., Fehr, E., & Hare, T. A. (2018). Computational and neurobiological foundations of leadership decisions. Science, 361(6401), eaat0036.