Back in August, MAGA world took to social media to cast shade on podcaster Joe Rogan, culminating in Donald Trump’s post on Truth Social: “It will be interesting to see how loudly Joe Rogan gets BOOED the next time he enters the UFC Ring??? MAGA2024.” Just ten weeks later, Trump would appear on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast and secured Rogan’s endorsement. Ten weeks is a long time in a presidential, but not that long. So what happened?
The short answer is: Trump’s campaign adapted. A pivotal moment came when Trump welcomed the endorsement of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the formation of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. Unlike traditional campaigns, Trump didn’t absorb Kennedy and MAHA into MAGA’s core structure. Instead, he gave them the freedom to campaign independently, allowing them to speak directly to liberty-minded voters in ways that resonated authentically. This marked a stark contrast to Kamala Harris’s centralized, insular approach, which constrained even her most prominent allies within a tightly controlled framework.
The contrast between these two strategies offers a critical lesson for political campaigns and complex organizations: distributed leadership creates the adaptability and growth needed to succeed in a fast-changing environment. Distributed leadership decentralizes authority, empowering leaders to operate independently and connect authentically with their audiences while contributing to shared goals. By contrast, centralized structures are top-down organizations where a narrow set of leaders drive all key decisions and distribute tasks rather than authority, often narrowing external boundaries and limiting flexibility.
Trump’s Campaign: Empowering Independent Leaders
Early in the race, Trump’s campaign faced difficulties connecting with some liberty-minded voters drawn to figures like Kennedy, Tulsi Gabbard, and Elon Musk. These voters shared certain values with MAGA—skepticism of centralized authority and an emphasis on personal freedom—but often felt alienated by MAGA’s “all-or-nothing” tone. The messaging often implied that you were either fully aligned with MAGA or you didn’t belong.
This dynamic began to shift when Kennedy endorsed Trump in late August. Kennedy didn’t simply join MAGA’s ranks — instead, his endorsement came with the creation of the MAHA movement, which focused on issues like health freedom and personal autonomy that weren’t central to the MAGA agenda. MAHA operated independently from MAGA, crafting its own messaging and strategies to appeal to its unique audiences.
Trump’s strategy went beyond MAHA. Figures like Gabbard and Musk, while independent of both MAHA and MAGA, played a similar role. Gabbard’s ability to connect with anti-war voters and Musk’s appeal to tech-savvy optimism added dimensions to Trump’s coalition that MAGA’s core structure couldn’t fully address. Crucially, Trump didn’t try to control their messaging or subsume their voices into his campaign. Instead, he encouraged them to advocate for him on their terms, speaking authentically to their audiences.
This distributed leadership approach empowered independent leaders and movements to campaign in ways that resonated authentically with voters outside MAGA’s traditional base. By maintaining their distinct voices, these leaders expanded Trump’s appeal and infused his campaign with fresh energy. Pundits initially dismissed Kennedy’s endorsement, arguing that his low polling numbers wouldn’t matter. But this analysis missed the larger strategic impact: Trump’s campaign didn’t just add votes — it created a multidimensional coalition that engaged a broader range of voters, reframing the campaign as more inclusive and adaptable to diverse perspectives.
The strategy paid off when Trump appeared on Rogan’s podcast in late October, securing a widely viewed interview and the host’s endorsement. In just 10 weeks, the campaign went from criticizing the world’s most popular podcaster to earning his enthusiastic support—a shift made possible with a fundamental change in strategy. By embracing distributed leadership, Trump’s campaign unlocked the adaptability and openness needed to expand its coalition and augment its appeal in record time.
Harris’s Campaign: The Constraints of Centralized Control
In contrast, Kamala Harris’s campaign exemplified the risks of a centralized, insular model. Centralized structures, like Harris’s campaign, are characterized by a narrow group of decision-makers who retain control over all key strategies, delegating tasks but not authority. A New York Times profile of Harris’s inner circle described it as a tightly knit group of experienced strategists, entertainment industry figures, and close allies. While these advisors brought political expertise, none appeared to have roots in or a deep understanding of the working-class, industrial Midwest—the demographic Harris needed to win over.
This lack of diversity within her team shaped key decisions, often to disastrous effect. One glaring example was Harris’s selection of Tim Walz as her running mate. Her advisors believed Walz’s “flannel shirt” aesthetic would resonate with blue-collar men. But to many, Walz came across as the kind of candidate only those unfamiliar with working-class communities would assume they’d like. Despite his outward credentials, Walz failed to connect authentically with these voters, and the Harris-Walz ticket even lost Walz’s home county.
Harris’s centralized approach also constrained her ability to engage prominent allies effectively. Liz Cheney, a Republican neocon, was brought in to signal bipartisanship but was primarily used to echo Harris’s anti-Trump messaging with a Republican bullhorn. Her role was tightly scripted, treating Cheney as an extension of Harris’s command structure rather than an independent voice.
This limited Cheney’s ability to articulate her distinct worldview, centered on American military internationalism, which could have broadened Harris’s appeal to coveted “Nikki Haley” voters prioritizing national security. By confining Cheney’s involvement to reinforcing existing campaign themes, Harris’s campaign underscored the rigidity of centralized structures.
The Lesson: Distributed Leadership as a Model for Growth
The contrasting strategies of Trump and Harris reveal a fundamental truth about organizational design: distributed leadership creates the adaptability necessary for growth and success in complex, fast-changing environments. By empowering independent leaders like Kennedy, Gabbard, and Musk to make their own decisions and connect authentically with diverse audiences, Trump’s campaign expanded its reach and reinvigorated its core message. Harris’s centralized command structure, by contrast, relied on rigid control and narrow assumptions, leading to missed opportunities and stagnation.
This dynamic was perhaps best illustrated by Rogan’s endorsement of Trump following his widely viewed interview with Musk. Rogan tweeted, “The great and powerful @elonmusk. If it wasn’t for him we’d be f**ked. He makes what I think is the most compelling case for Trump you’ll hear, and I agree with him every step of the way.”
The 2024 presidential demonstrates that campaigns—and perhaps organizations more broadly—thrive when they embrace distributed leadership. Leaders who decentralize authority and trust their teams to innovate can engage new audiences and establish broader organizational growth. In a world that demands flexibility and authenticity, distributed leadership is more than a strategy—it’s a necessity.
Philippe Melin is an advocacy and political consultant based in Lake Forest, Illinois.
