Applied Structural Power
TN Redistricting and What It Says About The State of Leadership
I spent last week with the Leadership Institute of Seattle practicing self-awareness in conflict resolution. Upon my return to Tennessee, and while catching up on missed news events I learned of the mid-census, pre-mid-term-election redistricting effort currently happening in Tennessee.
The dichotomy between an eclectic group coming together to have fruitful, dare I say, life changing conversation and community —to returning to the algorithmically driven divisiveness of our modern world has been challenging and at times deflating.
Someone in the room described the group last week as diverse due to a blend of “blue collar and white collar” — I loved this description as it had less to do with any personal demographics and simply narrowed in to thought processes, mental frameworks, the lens through which we may view the world through.
Suddenly it was less about what in group we may align with most — and more about our shared humanity — the common experience of living with fears, doubts, insecurities AND hopes, dreams, aspirations. We shared stories about our families, our work, our hobbies AND some of our deepest wounds from childhood and life.
What Does This Have To Do With Business and Leadership?
Misalignment—not talent, effort, or planning—is the root cause of most dysfunction. We’ve been taught to avoid discussing four of the most intriguing topics in society: religion, politics, personal finance, and what happens behind closed doors in a marriage/home.
I often wonder why, and who stands to benefit most from the avoidance of these important topics. I spend even more time thinking about how one influences the other — religion influences personal political beliefs (with increasing ferocity) — personal financial motives influence politics — religion influences perceptions on power and family dynamics, which then influence what happens behind closed doors, and how power is exercised in the public arena.
The recent Supreme Court ruling on Louisiana v Callais has paved the way for pre-1965 Civil Rights behavior to dominate local, state, and federal procedures. Ironically, the party of limited government is demonstrating the length at which they will use structural power to beg, borrow, and steal influence to preserve a selfish perception on what it is that makes America great.
“Republicans and Democrats have been waging a multistate redistricting fight ignited last year by an unprecedented mid-decade effort by Trump to redraw maps in Republican-led states, starting with Texas.” — Reuters, US Supreme Court lets Voting Rights Act ruling take effect ahead of schedule
This is an attempt to secure power for one specific in group — consolidating influence while diluting the collective voice of others. The attempted removal of the last remaining democratic district in Tennessee is the final nail in a 20+ year coffin to dismantle and divide, in an effort to consolidate state and federal power in favor of the richest and most powerful.
Seriously, what does this have to do with business and leadership?
What is happening in Tennessee isn’t just a political issue — it’s a live example of the modern day leadership crises combined with structural power.
It is an example of forced power (control) versus shared power (collective, emergent, co-creative). A small group makes a decision that reshapes representation for thousands — without meaningful input from the people who elected them, without a vote on the maps themselves, and outside of the typical census cycle that is meant to anchor this process in reality.
Power is being exercised in a way that prioritizes preservation over participation. This is more than a procedural deviation — it’s a signal. When that becomes normalized, it doesn’t just change outcomes—it erodes trust, disengages the public, and reinforces the very fragmentation leaders claim to be solving.
This moment reveals what happens when leaders default to consolidation and control over coherence and collective care: the systems they shape begin to mirror that fragmentation. Decisions get made in narrower circles, trust erodes, and the gap between stated values and lived reality widens. When that pattern scales, it doesn’t just distort immediate outcomes it reshapes the rules of the game entirely.
The modern leadership crisis is born from a lack of alignment between inner state and external impact. This prevalence and visibility present an inflection point — the same principle works in reverse: as leaders begin to operate from coherence, systems will begin to reorganize around transparency, trust, and shared power.
There are viable alternatives — transparent, data-driven approaches that shift power from closed-door decisions to public accountability. Independent commissions, ensemble mapping, and open participation models already exist. The issue isn’t about a lack of solutions — it’s a matter of how power is currently being used.
Personal and Collective Leadership
The archetypes presented below offer a lens to describe and assess how leadership shows up under pressure. Each one reflects a different relationship to power, fear, and responsibility. The question isn’t which one exists in the system — it’s which one is currently being leveraged or reinforced — and which one are you operating in. What we normalize — individually and collectively — becomes the structure (system and culture) we operate within.
Detached Driver → Structural Manipulation: prioritizes control and outcome over relationship — emotionally distant, optimization-driven, and willing to reshape systems to preserve advantage.
Protective Achiever → Avoidance: operates from caution masked as responsibility — risk-aware but fear-constrained, defaulting to maintenance over meaningful disruption.
Aligned Activator → Disruption: leads from internal clarity — names what others won’t, challenges misalignment directly, and initiates change without needing permission.
Collective Steward → Systemic Influence: holds power with responsibility — builds trust, distributes ownership, and creates conditions where the system can evolve beyond the individual.
“Not everyone considers themselves a leader. But whether we hold formal positions of power or not, we exist in the world with other people. Our presence naturally carries influence in the spaces we occupy; how we leverage this influence is the exercise of leadership.”
- Samantha Baltadonis, The Quantum Blueprint
Samantha Baltadonis is the author of The Quantum Blueprint: Align Your Energy. Unlock Your Power. Lead With Purpose. She writes weekly on quantum leadership, Energetic Intelligence, and the intersection of personal and collective transformation. Explore organizational work at strivesolutions.ai/insights or connect personally at sbaltadonis.com.