In the 1957 film “12 Angry Men,” a dozen jurors gather in a room to decide the fate of a teenage boy. Eleven of them are prepared to return a guilty verdict, but one juror is not convinced.

The film never leaves that room. The dissenting juror does not claim certainty. He asks questions and revisits evidence, disrupting a process that seemed nearly complete. As the discussion continues, the other jurors begin to reconsider what they assumed was settled.

Getty Images

The film reveals a universal dynamic in group decision-making: the ease of agreement and the difficulty of stopping to examine assumptions.

Jewish schools, communal organizations and foundations do not deliberate over court cases. They do, however, make decisions that shape the experience of the next generation. Those choices influence whether young people feel that they belong and whether Judaism feels relevant in their lives.

In many fields, leaders rely on structured methods to test and strengthen decisions. In boardrooms, the “10th man” is assigned to challenge consensus and surface overlooked risks. In military planning, “red teams” probe strategies for weak points and unintended consequences. In organizational and design thinking, Edward de Bono’s “black hat thinking” requires a focused review of risk, feasibility and relevance before moving forward. Each approach examines a different vulnerability. Taken together, they improve judgment.

With significant geopolitical shifts, changing public attitudes, economic pressures and the profound impact technology has had on how people communicate, sustain attention, relate to one another and even experience mental health, these tools are increasingly relevant to institutional leadership.

Because regardless of external conditions, two essential human needs remain constant.

What changes and what does not

The Yael Foundation recently brought together school and program leaders from 11 countries for a leadership bootcamp. The participants came from different cultural contexts, different community sizes and different educational systems. 

Each arrived with what they believed was their central challenge. They were guided through a structured process to define their problem clearly before proposing solutions. As they refined their statements, a pattern emerged.

Across multiple settings, leaders discovered that their difficulties often traced back to the same underlying concerns. Students did not always feel a strong sense of belonging. Programs that were thoughtfully designed did not always feel relevant to the lives of the people they were meant to serve. While surface circumstances varied drastically, the human needs did not.

Whether in a large urban community or a smaller regional one, whether in a long-established institution or a newer initiative, participants returned to the same themes. People want connection and to feel part of something meaningful. They also want the content, conversations and commitments of Jewish life to speak to their daily reality.

Across different settings and changing conditions, the need for connection and relevance remains steady. Leadership in Jewish education and communal life requires building institutions that deliver both, consistently and deliberately.

‘Red teams’: Testing for connection and relevance

Red teaming is a structured way of examining weaknesses before they become visible. In military planning, red teams probe strategies for gaps and unintended consequences. The same discipline can be applied to Jewish education and communal programming.

A red team exercise in a school or community program asks a direct question: where are we losing connection? Where are we losing relevance? Where do participants disengage? Where does content fail to speak to lived experience?

This process helps leaders see friction clearly and refine programs before attendance drops or culture weakens.

Foundations can apply the same lens when evaluating grants, asking how institutions measure belonging and how they assess whether their content resonates.

The ’10th man’: Protecting sound judgment

The “10th man” is a boardroom discipline. When a group reaches quick agreement, one person is assigned to challenge the assumption.

Consider a board debating a major capital campaign to expand facilities. The proposal is compelling and momentum builds quickly. A designated 10th man would ask whether enrollment projections are conservative enough, whether faculty capacity can match physical growth, and whether investment in infrastructure risks underinvestment in teacher development or Judaic depth.

Jewish communal organizations do not typically assign formal roles for structured dissent. Decision-making often relies on shared assumptions and internal trust. That approach can function smoothly in periods of stability. During times of rapid change, untested assumptions carry greater risk.

The 10th man’s role is to strengthen the decision. By raising difficult questions early, the 10th man helps ensure that growth supports culture and that expansion reinforces belonging. Over time, this discipline builds stronger institutions and more resilient leadership.

The ‘black hat’: Disciplined relevance

Edward de Bono’s black hat thinking is a decision-making discipline that requires leaders to examine risk, weakness and gaps before moving forward. It is a structured way of asking whether a program does what it claims to do.

A program can be well run and appreciated by the families who already participate. That does not guarantee it speaks to students coming of age now, or to families deciding whether to engage.

Consider a graduating senior stepping onto a university campus where conversations about Israel are polarized and Jewish identity is contested. If her education has emphasized ritual practice without developing intellectual confidence or historical depth, that gap will surface quickly.

Black hat thinking asks leaders to look directly at those gaps. It examines whether programs build knowledge, judgment and resilience that carry beyond the classroom and into real life.

Building systems for excellence

Jewish education remains the most consequential lever for long-term communal strength. It shapes literacy, belonging and future leadership. Its impact depends on how institutions are led and how willing leaders are to examine their assumptions.

When leadership relies too heavily on consensus and avoids difficult questions, important gaps can go unexamined. Red teams, 10th men and black hats are practical tools that help institutions test assumptions, sharpen programs and strengthen culture while there is still room to adjust.

Even as external realities continue to shift, Jewish institutions sustain excellence by consistently examining whether people feel they belong and whether what they offer speaks to the lives they are actually living.

In “12 Angry Men,” one juror insisted on testing what others were ready to declare settled. Leadership in Jewish education carries similar responsibility. Because the decisions made by Jewish institutions shape identity, belonging and communal strength, they require the same discipline of careful examination.

Naomi Kovitz is the COO of the Yael Foundation.