participatory vs charismatic leader styles

The speaker discusses the difference between charismatic and decentralized leadership styles in organizations. They mention that the charismatic style, like that seen at the well, emphasizes the influence of a central teacher and creates a cohesive identity. However, it may risk dependence on one person's charisma. On the other hand, the decentralized style, exemplified by student-led initiatives, promotes participatory leadership and adaptability to diverse needs. The speaker suggests a dynamic combination of the two styles, with one leader and a participatory governance structure, to benefit from both approaches. So I wanted to discuss the difference in leadership styles and sort of what are the pros and cons in the different leadership styles between a charismatic leader hub style like we see typified in the well versus this decentralized participatory governance type of leadership model that we see these college student organizers exemplifying in their organizations. And so I'm just thinking about how organizational leadership can play a pivotal role in really shaping the character and the vibrancy of our communal spaces. And the well, which was really founded on this charismatic person model, it's built around a particular person with that person as a base and as a root, and it emphasizes this influence of a central teacher. And in some ways, that is within the lineage and the style of typically, you know, typical Jewish institutions. Whereas in contrast, the decentralized nature of student-led initiatives, like the ones on the college campuses, it really emphasizes participatory leadership. And there are strengths in each model, and both are essential for cultivating vibrant Jewish spaces that can cater to these diverse needs and preferences. And I'm just intensively thinking about how we can have durable spaces that can adapt over time. And I do think that participatory leadership that we see in these student-led initiatives is really critical because it fosters a sense of empowerment and inclusivity and changeability as the individuals who make up these organizations actively contribute to the shaping of the community's direction. Decentralization can allow for this diversity of ideas and perspectives to promote adaptability and responsiveness to these evolving needs. On the other hand, this more charismatic hub, like we see at the well, gives a focal point for community members. It gives a boundary. It helps create a cohesive identity and a shared sense of purpose. What are we about? What are the limits of this? And it might risk dependence on the charisma of one individual. So I think if you're going to go that route, you really need to think about how do you build and change within that leadership position so that the organization can continue to develop and adapt and change over time. And in my own work in nonprofits, I see that when there are really strong central leaders who can lead from behind and really support the staff, those organizations often can go further because they, in some ways, in that they have this clarity built in. Ultimately, when there's a hard decision, we have a place to go. And I see in movement spaces and social justice movement spaces intensely right now, there's a lot of lack of clarity about how decisions are going to get made when they're fully participatory and it's just this all voices all the time. On the other hand, they really, they are less stymied by one person's individual holdups or limitations as a leader. So I think that the two have a lot to bring and offer organizational life. And I'm sort of curious about a really dynamic marriage of the two where there would still be one leader, but there would also be a really intensively clarified participatory governance structure of a board or of membership decisions so that the two styles could sort of engage and get the benefits of both while still getting the, while still not like over, over falling into the issues of either.