To be an effective leader, one must influence followers to work towards a common goal regardless if it is a company, a sports team, or a murder trial. In my experience, how this is achieved is through empowerment of your people. By doing so, you create an ethical environment that allows the people to grow both professionally and personally because they feel that they are part of the team. When it comes to human nature, everyone wants to belong and feel important in some way, that is why you praise in public and reprimand in private. When you value the opinions of people, it creates a high degree of respect within the group that brings out the best in people. That is why Henry Fonda was such a great ethical leader. He sat quietly and listened while observing how the others acted and what they said. By sitting quietly, Fonda noticed that only three people were doing most of the talking and how they were trying to persuade the other jurors. In Fonda’s case, he brought forth a different perspective, one that was unbiased. In fact, he repeatedly stated that he has no idea if the boy was guilty or innocent, but it was his social responsibility to ask questions to determine that answer. He was not going to allow other individuals to persuade him or his ethical beliefs.Â In fact, when he asked the other jurors, who felt pressured by the authoritarian group what they thought, he was demonstrating effective leadership. By valuing their opinion, he empowered them to open up and provide their perspective, and by doing so, he made them feel important which in turn made them more willing to contribute. For example, Juror #9, Joe Sweeney is the one that provided critical information, the eyeglasses, that no one had ever thought as being relevant or important, turned out to be the key to finding the boy innocent. If it were not for Fonda’s ethical leadership and belief in autonomy, Juror #9 might not have spoken up like he did. Fonda use of transformational leadership helped the other men look at the case from a perspective of serving justice by appealing to their higher values. His goal was simple, bring everyone onboard so they could deliberate through participation. By doing so, he explains that the jury should have some form of human dignity and use rational moral decision making to collaborate to determine the boy’s fate. By doing so, he empowers the weaker jurors to voice their opinion.