Power is Transferring in 2026 and Business Leaders Need to Be Ready

This article is written for founders, executives, investors, and operators who feel the widening gap between what is happening in the world and what is expected of them at work. It is for people who recognize that something fundamental is shifting but have not yet been given a clear way to understand it or respond.

Its purpose is threefold.

First, to name what many people are experiencing but rarely say out loud. We are living through daily political, economic, and social upheaval while being asked to operate as if nothing unusual is happening. This dissonance is not a personal failure or a lack of resilience. It is a predictable human response to prolonged instability.

Second, to explain why 2026 is not just another year, but a historic moment of power transfer already underway across business, capital, and leadership. Choosing not to engage with that shift does not make anyone neutral. It makes them unprepared.

Third, to train business leaders to recognize where power already lives in their daily decisions and how to ethically, strategically, and deliberately exercise that power in 2026 without posturing, burnout, or waiting for permission.

If you read this fully, you should walk away with language for what you have been feeling, clarity about why business is malfunctioning, a concrete understanding of where your power actually sits, and practical ways to begin using it immediately.

What follows is not a rant or a call to panic. It is a leadership framework for a year when power is already moving.

There Is a Quiet Contradiction Playing Out in Business Every Day

There is a quiet contradiction many people in business are carrying right now, and it is exacting a real cost that often goes unnamed.

Every day, people are exposed to mass harm, democratic erosion, economic instability, attacks on civil rights, and deepening inequality. These are not abstract headlines. They affect personal safety, family stability, healthcare access, financial security, and the future people are planning for themselves and their children. At the same time, the professional expectation remains unchanged. Show up. Lead teams. Close deals. Raise capital. Hit growth targets. Maintain composure.

The contradiction is not subtle.

The world is visibly unstable, yet the workplace insists on continuity.

Meetings continue. Performance reviews proceed. Earnings calls remain upbeat. Language stays polished. Concern is compartmentalized. The professional norm is to behave as if external conditions do not meaningfully affect decision making, productivity, or leadership capacity.

For many people, this creates a cognitive and emotional split.

They are asked to suppress what they are seeing and feeling in order to remain employable, promotable, or fundable. Over time, that suppression becomes normalized. What would once have been acknowledged as destabilizing is reframed as background noise.

At the same time, it is important to name another reality that often goes unspoken.

Not everyone experiences the current moment as destabilizing.

Some people are benefiting from what is happening politically, economically, or socially. Others feel insulated from its impacts. For them, the world may appear to be working as intended or at least not threatening their safety, rights, or economic position. As a result, they do not feel the same urgency, fear, or moral dissonance that others do.

This difference in lived experience creates a widening empathy gap inside organizations.

Leaders who do not feel personally affected may genuinely struggle to understand why others are anxious, distracted, or distressed. Some interpret these reactions as overreactions, political distractions, or signs of weakness rather than as rational responses to real conditions. In many cases, the intent is not malicious. The impact, however, is significant.

When leaders fail to acknowledge or empathize with what a large portion of their workforce is experiencing, resentment builds quietly. Employees begin to feel unseen or dismissed. Trust erodes. Psychological safety weakens. People stop sharing concerns. They disengage emotionally long before they disengage professionally.

Over time, this gap shows up in very practical ways. Commitment drops. Collaboration suffers. Innovation slows. High performers begin to look elsewhere not because of compensation alone, but because they no longer trust leadership to understand reality or act in their best interests.

This dynamic is not a culture problem. It is a leadership problem.

It is also not because people do not care or are too sensitive. It is because the human nervous system is not designed to sustain constant instability without response.

When instability is prolonged, people adapt in order to function. Emotional regulation becomes a survival strategy. Attention narrows. The brain limits how much threat it can process at once. Repeated exposure leads to desensitization. Social cues reinforce silence. Treating extraordinary circumstances as routine becomes the only way to keep going.

In professional environments, this adaptation is often rewarded. Those who appear unaffected are labeled resilient. Those who name discomfort or risk are seen as disruptive. Organizations unintentionally train people to disconnect from context.

That adaptation keeps systems running, but it carries a hidden cost. When harm is normalized, standards erode. When silence is rewarded, accountability weakens. When leaders do not acknowledge the reality many employees are living in, power consolidates in fewer hands and goes largely unquestioned.

People who hold influence underestimate it. Others convince themselves they have none at all. Decision making becomes narrower. Ethical considerations are deferred. Business begins to drift away from its purpose.

This psychological and organizational context explains why so many capable people feel exhausted, disengaged, or numb despite being competent and committed. It also explains why 2026 is not simply another year on the calendar.

Because while this contradiction leaves many people feeling stuck, power is not static.

It is already moving.

Why So Many Capable People Feel Numb, Exhausted, or Disconnected at Work

When instability is prolonged, the human nervous system adapts in order to function. This is not a weakness. It is a survival response.

Emotional regulation becomes a daily strategy rather than an occasional skill.

People learn to compartmentalize what they are seeing and feeling in order to stay productive. The brain limits how much threat it can process at once, prioritizing immediate tasks over long-term meaning. Repeated exposure to harm, conflict, and uncertainty leads to desensitization, not because people stop caring, but because constant alertness is unsustainable.

Over time, this adaptation shows up as numbness, exhaustion, or a sense of detachment. Many capable professionals report feeling flat rather than motivated, busy rather than purposeful, and productive without feeling effective. They continue to perform, but the work feels heavier and less connected to values or impact.

Social dynamics reinforce this state. When peers and leaders avoid acknowledging what is happening outside the workplace, silence becomes the norm. People take cues from those in power about what is acceptable to name and what should be ignored. Expressing concern can feel risky. Staying quiet feels safer. Treating extraordinary circumstances as routine becomes the price of belonging.

This pattern is often mistaken for disengagement or lack of resilience. In reality, it is the opposite. It is what resilience looks like when people are asked to carry too much for too long without acknowledgment or agency.

The cost of this adaptation is not immediately visible, but it is significant.

When harm is normalized, standards erode. What would once have triggered ethical concern becomes background noise. When silence is rewarded, accountability weakens. Decisions become narrower, focused on short-term stability rather than long-term consequence. People who hold real influence begin to underestimate their power or distance themselves from it because using it feels risky, exhausting, or futile.

Others internalize the opposite message and conclude they have no power at all. They disengage not because they lack commitment, but because they no longer believe their actions matter. Over time, this creates organizations filled with capable people who feel stuck, cautious, and disconnected from the impact of their work.

This psychological and organizational context is not incidental. It explains why so many leaders and high performers feel depleted despite being skilled and successful. It also explains why frustration, resentment, and attrition often appear without a single triggering event.

Most importantly, it explains why 2026 is not simply another year on the calendar.

Because while many people feel frozen inside this adaptation, power is not static.

It is already moving.

For some readers, simply recognizing this pattern can be a turning point. Awareness interrupts resignation. When people understand that their numbness or exhaustion is not a personal failure but a predictable response to prolonged instability, something shifts. The fog lifts just enough to see that they are not powerless, disconnected, or irrelevant. They have been adapting.

And with that awareness comes an important realization. Many people in business do, in fact, have power and platform. They influence capital flows, hiring decisions, culture, policy conversations, and public narratives every day. Recognizing the survival state they and others have been operating in can prompt a necessary reassessment of how that power has been used and how it should be used going forward.

For ethical leaders, this is often the moment when strategy changes. Not toward performative action or saviorism, but toward intentional use of influence on behalf of those who are absorbing the greatest harm. Awareness creates choice. Choice creates responsibility. And responsibility, when taken seriously, becomes leadership.

That is why understanding this psychological context is not just validating. It is catalytic.

Because once people see it, they can no longer pretend they do not have a role to play.

And that is where the work of 2026 truly begins.

Business Is Not Neutral and Right Now It Is Malfunctioning

Business has never been neutral. It is one of the primary systems through which societies solve problems, allocate resources, create opportunity, skill communities, and grow or hollow out the middle class.

When business is functioning well, prosperity expands outward. When it malfunctions, wealth concentrates, innovation narrows, labor erodes, and entire populations are excluded from progress.

In 2025 and 2026, the signs of malfunction are unmistakable.

• Women founders received roughly 2% of venture capital, with women of color receiving less than half of one percent.

• Market concentration increased across technology, healthcare, agriculture, and finance, reducing competition and suppressing innovation. Worker productivity rose while real wages stagnated, breaking a decades long economic relationship.

• Burnout reached record levels among high performing professionals, particularly women and caregivers.

• Trust in senior leadership declined around ethics, transparency, and truth telling. Small and minority owned businesses faced reduced access to capital amid political and regulatory instability.

• Companies continued to reward abusive managers despite higher turnover, disengagement, and legal risk.

When more people are suffering, disengaging, or dying while wealth and power consolidate at the top, business is not succeeding.

It is failing its purpose.

That failure cannot be separated from how capital has been allocated.

Business Is Not Neutral. Right Now, It's MALfunctioning.

Business has never been neutral. It is one of the primary systems through which societies solve problems, allocate resources, create opportunity, skill communities, and grow—or hollow out—the middle class.

When business is functioning well, prosperity expands outward. When it malfunctions, wealth concentrates, innovation narrows, labor erodes, and entire populations are excluded from progress.

In 2025 and 2026, the signs of malfunction are unmistakable:

• Women founders received roughly two percent of venture capital, with women of color receiving less than half of one percent.

• Market concentration increased across technology, healthcare, agriculture, and finance, reducing competition and suppressing innovation.

• Worker productivity rose while real wages stagnated, breaking a decades-long economic relationship. Burnout reached record levels among high-performing professionals, particularly women and caregivers.

• Trust in senior leadership declined around ethics, transparency, and truth-telling. Small and minority-owned businesses faced reduced access to capital amid political and regulatory instability.

• Companies continued to reward abusive managers despite higher turnover, disengagement, and legal risk.

When more people are suffering, disengaging, or dying while wealth and power consolidate at the top, business is not succeeding. It is failing its purpose. That failure cannot be separated from how capital has been allocated.

Why Capital Must Move and Why It Has Not Yet

Money flows toward what decision makers understand, identify with, and have historically rewarded. That is why women and minority founders remain underfunded. Not because they lack capability, but because they are solving different problems, in different ways, for markets that have been systematically ignored.

Women founders are disproportionately building companies in healthcare delivery, mental health, childcare and eldercare, workforce infrastructure, climate resilience, and education. These are not niche markets. They are structural markets essential to economic stability and human well being.

When capital bypasses these founders, it is not being conservative. It is being inefficient, short sighted, and poorly informed.

This matters now because capital is about to move whether leaders intend it to or not.

2026 Is the Year of the Power Transfer

Several forces are converging at once, and together they are reshaping who holds influence, who sets priorities, and who determines what happens next in business and society.

For decades, power has been concentrated in predictable places. The same generation, the same leadership profiles, the same institutions, and the same capital allocators have dominated decision making across government, corporations, and finance. That concentration is now breaking apart.

Baby Boomers are exiting long held positions of authority at scale. This is happening across elected office, corporate leadership, boards, advisory roles, and informal centers of influence. As they step back or leave entirely, they take with them institutional memory, decision making power, and gatekeeping authority that shaped entire industries.

At the same time, the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in history is accelerating. Trillions of dollars are moving from one generation to the next, and a significant portion of that wealth is moving into the hands of women. This is not a symbolic shift. It is a structural one. Who controls capital determines which problems are prioritized, which businesses are funded, which communities are resourced, and which futures are made possible.

Alongside these changes, workers across industries are reassessing their relationship to work itself. Loyalty is no longer assumed. Authority is increasingly questioned. Meaning matters in ways it did not when stability felt guaranteed. Many people are quietly deciding what they will tolerate, what they will no longer accept, and where they will invest their energy. This reassessment is not always loud, but it is widespread.

Technology has accelerated all of this. Tools that once required permission, proximity, or institutional backing are now accessible to individuals and small teams. Founders can build without traditional gatekeepers. Investors can organize outside legacy structures. Leaders can speak directly to audiences without relying on official platforms. Power that once required scale now often requires clarity and coordination.

Taken together, these forces signal something important.

Power does not disappear when one generation leaves.

It relocates.

What makes this moment particularly consequential is that the relocation of power is not happening only at the top. It is happening throughout systems. It is happening inside companies, organizations, and professional networks every day.

Every person in business occupies dozens of decision points, whether they recognize them as such or not. Decisions about who gets hired or promoted. Who gets funded or introduced to capital. Who gets invited into meetings, strategy sessions, or informal conversations where influence is built. Who gets recognized publicly and who is credited privately. Who gets protected when harm occurs and who is expected to absorb it quietly.

These are not neutral decisions. They shape careers, markets, and lives.

Power in this moment is not centralized in a single office, institution, or political role. It is distributed across thousands of seemingly ordinary choices made by founders, executives, investors, managers, and operators every day.

That distribution is precisely why so many people fail to see it.

Most people have been taught to think of power as something external. Something held by elected officials, billionaires, or distant executives. Something formal, visible, and explicit. This framing makes it easy to overlook the power embedded in everyday professional behavior.

In 2026, power will be shaped less by singular authority and more by accumulation. By the patterns leaders reinforce every day and the consistency with which they choose action over avoidance.

They will come from leaders who decide where money moves, who gains access, whose voice is amplified, whose harm is acknowledged, and whose humanity is taken seriously. They will come from people who understand that influence does not require a title if it is exercised deliberately.

This is why awareness matters so deeply.

Once leaders recognize that power has already shifted closer to them, the question changes. It is no longer whether they have power. It is how they are using it, what they are reinforcing through their choices, and who bears the consequences of their inaction.

For ethical leaders, this recognition often triggers a strategic reassessment. It becomes clear that continuing to operate as if power still lives elsewhere is no longer accurate or responsible. The work is not to wait for new authority, but to use existing influence more intentionally, especially on behalf of those who are absorbing the greatest harm during this transition.

That is why 2026 is not simply a year of change.

It is a year of accountability.

Because power is already moving. The only question left is who will notice, who will adapt, and who will use it with purpose.

And that is where the real work begins.

The Real Work of 2026 Is Learning to Use Power Deliberately

This moment does not require louder opinions. It requires trained execution.

For founders, investors, and executives, exerting power ethically in 2026 begins with recognizing that power already exists in daily decisions. The work is not to acquire power, but to use the power you already have with intention, consistency, and discipline.

Below are the concrete ways that work shows up in every day practice.

1 - Reallocate Capital You Already Control. Power shows up first in where money moves. Leaders should immediately audit where revenue, reserves, and discretionary budgets are currently going and redirect spend toward women owned, minority owned, and mission aligned businesses. This includes banks, law firms, consultants, insurers, software vendors, and marketing agencies. Capital allocation is policy in practice. It does not need permission to move. It needs leadership.

2 - Change Who Has Access to Decision Making Rooms. Power is reinforced by proximity. Founders decide who advises them. Executives decide who sits at strategy tables. Investors decide who joins investment committees. When rooms are homogenous, power is being recycled rather than transferred. Expanding who gets early access to information, influence, and training is one of the fastest ways to change outcomes without waiting for structural reform.

3 - Name and Enforce Leadership Standards Explicitly. Ethical leadership requires clear, enforceable standards about who is fit to hold authority. Leaders are entrusted with judgment, not just power, and dismissing the demonstrated business value of diversity, equity, and inclusion reflects a failure to engage with evidence, risk, and complexity, not a political stance. Claims of “political neutrality” in the workplace do not eliminate bias; they avoid responsibility for managing it, since values are always expressed through decisions about hiring, promotion, protection, marketing, sponsorship and accountability. Choosing not to act in the face of visible harm or exclusion signals an inability to lead through complexity. Standards that are not articulated cannot be enforced, and standards that are not enforced are not standards at all.

4 - Stop Protecting and Rewarding Harmful Behavior. Organizations undermine themselves when they tolerate or reward leaders who deliver short-term results while engaging in intimidation, harassment, retaliation, or chronic disrespect. This includes excusing abusive communication as “high standards,” overlooking discriminatory behavior because a person is a top performer, ignoring repeated complaints to avoid disruption, or promoting individuals who create fear rather than accountability. The measurable consequences are consistent: increased turnover, suppressed reporting of risk, reduced collaboration, and escalating legal exposure. Protecting harmful behavior is not pragmatism. It is a governance failure. Leaders who fail to intervene are not preserving performance; they are institutionalizing fear and eroding the system’s capacity to operate effectively over time.

5 - Recognize How Everyday Interactions Signal Power. Power is communicated less through titles than through daily interactions like: who is interrupted, whose expertise is questioned, who is asked to explain themselves unnecessarily, and who is deferred to. Mansplaining, often framed as being “helpful,” is a common example: it signals assumed authority, diminishes credibility, and reshapes who feels confident contributing. Over time, these patterns determine whether meetings surface insight or suppress it, whether employees speak up or disengage, and whether talent stays or leaves. Leaders who notice and correct these behaviors early create more effective, trustworthy teams.

6 - Replace “Culture Fit” With Contribution-Based Questions. Instead of asking whether someone is a “culture fit,” leaders should ask questions that test contribution, judgment, and integrity. Useful questions include: Does this person improve the quality of decisions, especially when they disagree? Do they challenge ideas without diminishing people? Do they share credit and create space for others to contribute? Do they uphold ethical boundaries under pressure, even when it costs them influence or speed? Do they strengthen the organization’s ability to adapt rather than preserve personal comfort? Replacing vague fit language with explicit criteria makes values enforceable, reduces bias, and ensures that hiring and promotion decisions reward behavior that actually strengthens the organization.

7 - Use Procurement as a Strategic Lever. Procurement is one of the most underutilized tools leaders have to shape risk, resilience, and values simultaneously. Every contract signals which business practices are rewarded and which are excluded. Founders set patterns early by diversifying vendors before convenience hardens into dependency. Executives have the authority—and responsibility—to reevaluate long-standing relationships when suppliers create reputational, legal, or operational risk, even if those relationships are familiar or “easy.” Investors can reinforce this discipline by asking procurement and supplier-concentration questions during diligence, not as a social exercise but as a measure of governance quality and resilience. Supply chains are not neutral infrastructure; they reflect incentives, concentrate power, and determine who benefits from growth. Treating procurement as leverage improves risk management, strengthens continuity, and aligns day-to-day spending with long-term enterprise health.

8 - Prepare the Workforce for Ethical Artificial Intelligence Use. Artificial intelligence is already reshaping how decisions are made, work is evaluated, and resources are allocated. Leaders have a responsibility to ensure their workforce understands not only how to use AI tools, but where they fail, who they disadvantage, and when human judgment must override automated output. Ethical AI preparedness includes training teams to recognize bias, validate data sources, protect privacy, and escalate concerns when AI systems produce harmful or misleading results. Organizations that invest in this education reduce legal and reputational risk, improve decision quality, and preserve employee trust. Founders establish expectations early. Executives fund training and governance. Investors reinforce discipline by asking how AI tools are audited, governed, and corrected over time. Treating AI education as infrastructure, not optional up-skilling, protects both people and enterprise value.

9 - Reclaim Political Power as Employers and Voters. There are moments when political issues stop being abstract and begin to directly affect a company’s ability to hire, retain, and protect its workforce. When public policy threatens employees’ bodily autonomy, access to healthcare, workplace dignity, or personal safety, neutrality becomes a position—and often a costly one. Businesses have a responsibility to speak when laws undermine reproductive freedom, diversity, equity, and inclusion, gender-affirming healthcare, voting access, disability rights, or the safety of immigrant and mixed-status families. Engaging elected officials through town halls, testimony, op-eds, and direct meetings is not political theater; it is risk management and workforce stewardship. Elected officials are accountable to voters, and employers have standing to name the economic and human consequences of harmful policy. This is not asking for favors. It is exercising oversight.

10 - Call Out Unethical Behavior Early and Skillfully. Ethical leadership means intervening when conduct violates standards or causes harm. This includes addressing patterns like discriminatory hiring or promotion decisions, harassment or intimidation framed as “culture fit,” misinformation presented as strategy, retaliation against whistleblowers, or policies that disproportionately endanger certain employees. Effective leaders anchor feedback to documented behavior and measurable impact, not intent; they record incidents, escalate concerns through formal channels, and respond proportionally rather than explosively. Discomfort is part of leadership, not a signal to retreat. Silence is not neutral. It consistently advantages the most powerful actor in the room and allows harm to compound.

11 - Show Up in Person When It Matters. There are moments when leadership cannot be delegated. When policies, public debates, or community decisions directly affect employees, customers, or the long-term viability of the business, senior leaders need to be physically present, not represented by a business development or communications proxy. Showing up to listen at town halls, community forums, legislative hearings, and internal employee meetings signals accountability and respect. It allows leaders to hear unfiltered concerns, understand second-order impacts, and build credibility that cannot be achieved through statements or intermediaries. Delegating presence may be efficient, but it often communicates distance. In high-stakes moments, trust is built by leaders who are willing to be seen, to listen without defensiveness, and to absorb complexity firsthand.

12 - Respond to Political Pressure With Evidence. When public policy intersects with business operations, leaders have a fiduciary responsibility to evaluate decisions using data rather than personal ideology. Relevant inputs include workforce demographics, hiring and retention trends, healthcare utilization and costs, legal and regulatory exposure, insurance risk, and customer impact. Evidence-based decision-making reduces volatility, limits unanticipated liabilities, and preserves institutional credibility with employees, investors, and regulators. In some cases, the data may point toward actions that differ from individual leaders’ personal beliefs. For example, regardless of personal views on abortion, if evidence shows that access to reproductive healthcare materially affects employee safety, retention, and cost exposure, leadership has a duty to address that risk and engage policymakers accordingly. Board-level leadership requires following the evidence where it leads in order to protect the long-term health of the enterprise.

Why Community and Infrastructure Are Non Negotiable

None of the work described in this article can be done in isolation, and that is not a moral statement. It is a structural one.

Periods of power transfer are destabilizing by nature. They reward coordination over individualism, pattern recognition over impulse, and sustained effort over one-off action. Leaders who attempt to navigate these moments alone tend to misjudge risk, underestimate their own influence, and retreat when pressure rises. Isolation does not create independence. It creates fear.

Community, by contrast, creates calibration.

Leaders who exert power ethically must be surrounded by other leaders who are values aligned, intellectually serious, and willing to act. These relationships provide reality checks, shared language, and reinforcement when decisions are difficult or unpopular. They make it easier to see patterns rather than isolated events and to act consistently rather than sporadically.

This is why ecosystems like The Startup Ladies matter. The Startup Ladies is not simply a networking group. It is an infrastructure that educates founders, investors, and executives on how capital actually moves, how power shows up in business systems, and how to use that power to fund women-owned businesses, strengthen communities, and grow the middle class. In a moment when many leaders feel disoriented, it provides shared frameworks, trusted relationships, and a place to practice ethical leadership in real time.

The same is true for organizations like the Indiana Black Chamber of Commerce and the Indiana Rainbow Chamber of Commerce. These chambers are not symbolic. They are economic engines. They support Black-owned and LGBTQ-owned businesses through advocacy, access to capital, procurement opportunities, and policy engagement. They help entrepreneurs navigate systems that have historically excluded them, and they strengthen local economies by ensuring more businesses survive, scale, and employ people.

In a year when power is decentralizing, these organizations function as stabilizers. They concentrate knowledge, coordinate action, and ensure that opportunity does not remain siloed among those who already have it.

Community also extends beyond business ecosystems into the civic infrastructure that protects democratic participation and civil rights. Staying informed and materially supporting organizations doing this work is not separate from ethical leadership. It is part of it.

• The American Civil Liberties Union is actively litigating to protect voting rights, bodily autonomy, free speech, and due process.

• The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks extremist activity, challenges discriminatory laws, and provides data that helps communities understand emerging threats.

• Planned Parenthood delivers healthcare, education, and legal advocacy that millions rely on, particularly as access becomes more uneven.

• The 50501 Movement and Indivisible coordinate lawful civic action, helping ordinary people engage elected officials and defend democratic norms.

• MadVoters focuses on mobilizing younger voters and building long-term civic participation at a time when disengagement would have generational consequences.

Together, these organizations provide legal frameworks, research, organizing capacity, and civic infrastructure that individual leaders cannot replicate on their own. Reading their work, sharing their analysis, and funding their efforts strengthens the systems that ethical business leadership depends on.

In 2026, power will not be exercised only through individual conviction. It will be exercised through coordinated action across business, civic, and community institutions. Leaders who understand this will not ask whether community matters. They will ask which communities they are accountable to and how they are contributing to their durability.

Because when power is moving, infrastructure determines where it lands.

Window of Exponential Change

From Tuesday, March 3 through Tuesday, November 3, 2026, the direction of democracy and the economy will be visibly shaped. Midterm elections are not isolated events. They are performance reviews for the systems that govern our lives and the leaders who claim to represent us.

By the time people step into a voting booth or submit a ballot, most of the meaningful work has already been done. Voting is not the beginning of civic power. It is the outcome of months of preparation, attention, and support.

Throughout 2026, power will be exercised in quieter but more consequential ways. In who takes the time to understand what policies actually do. In who pays attention to local and state races rather than only national headlines. In who learns how candidates are funded, who they are accountable to, and whose interests they consistently serve. In who donates early, volunteers strategically, and helps ethical candidates build credibility long before election season peaks.

This is where the themes of this article converge.

Leaders who have begun to recognize their power at work are often surprised to realize how transferable that power is. The same skills used to evaluate a business opportunity apply to evaluating candidates. The same discipline used to allocate capital responsibly applies to political contributions. The same expectation of transparency, ethics, and accountability that leaders demand in business must also be demanded in governance.

For founders, executives, and investors, civic preparation means more than voting personally. It means using platform, networks, and credibility to support candidates who demonstrate integrity, competence, and a genuine commitment to democratic norms. 

It means refusing to disengage simply because the process is frustrating or imperfect. It means understanding that choosing not to participate does not create neutrality. It creates space for others to decide the outcome.

This preparation also requires resisting the temptation to treat politics as episodic. Democracy does not operate on a single day. It is shaped by sustained engagement, consistent pressure, and informed participation. Leaders who wait until late fall to pay attention have already ceded influence to those who organized earlier.

In a year of power transfer, the visible moment matters precisely because it reflects everything that came before it. By November 2026, the cumulative effect of daily decisions will be clear. Who was paying attention. Who invested time and resources. Who supported ethical leadership. Who remained silent.

Power will move dramatically in 2026. That movement will not be random.

It will follow preparation, coordination, and intentional action taken throughout the year by people who understood that leadership does not pause at the office door.

And for those willing to prepare, this window is not just something to watch.

It is something to shape.

Why Unethical Attempts to Seize Power Will Fail

It is important to be honest about this moment. Unethical actors will attempt to exploit the power transfer underway. They already are.

They will adopt the language of leadership without the discipline it requires. They will frame self-interest as strength and cruelty as efficiency. They will hoard power rather than distribute it, suppress dissent rather than engage it, and rely on fear, bullying, coercion, and misinformation to maintain control. In the short term, some of these tactics can appear effective. They can create noise, compliance, and the illusion of dominance.

But unethical power has a built-in flaw.

It is brittle.

Power that depends on fear cannot scale trust. Power that cannot listen cannot adapt. Power that hoards control chokes innovation and repels talent. Over time, people leave, systems hollow out, and decision-making becomes increasingly detached from reality. What looks strong from the outside requires constant enforcement from within.

Unethical power also collapses under complexity. Modern economies, organizations, and societies are too interconnected to be controlled through intimidation alone. The more complex the system, the more it relies on cooperation, information flow, and mutual accountability. Unethical actors struggle in these environments because they confuse obedience with alignment and silence with stability.

By contrast, ethical power compounds.

Ethical leadership attracts capable people who want to build rather than survive. It creates institutions that can absorb pressure rather than fracture under it. It adapts faster because it welcomes feedback. It endures because it distributes responsibility rather than centralizing fear.

This is not idealism. It is pattern recognition.

Across history, moments of power transfer always generate attempts at capture. Those attempts often create disruption and anxiety. But they rarely prevail over time. They exhaust themselves. They overreach. They lose legitimacy. And they are ultimately replaced by systems that are more resilient, more inclusive, and better aligned with reality.

That is why this moment, despite how heavy it feels, contains real grounds for hope.

Ethical leaders do not need to out-shout unethical ones. They need to outlast them. They do that by preparing, coordinating, and acting consistently rather than reactively. They do it by investing in people, institutions, and communities that can sustain pressure. They do it by understanding that power exercised with care is not weaker, it is stronger.

History does not reward those who are merely aggressive. It remembers those who are prepared, principled, and persistent.

2026 will make that difference visible.

The question is no longer whether unethical actors will try to seize power. They will.

The real question is whether ethical leaders will recognize their power, use it deliberately, and stay the course long enough to shape what comes next.

Because when they do, unethical power does not win.

It fades.

And something more durable takes its place.

What Comes Next Is Not Abstract. It Is Up to Us.

By this point, a few things should be clear.

If you have felt exhausted, disconnected, or conflicted at work, it is not because you lack resilience or commitment. It is because you have been operating inside a prolonged period of instability while being asked to pretend that nothing fundamental is changing. That response is human. It is also shared by far more people than are willing to say it out loud.

You have also seen that business is not neutral. It shapes how resources move, whose problems get solved, and who benefits from growth. When business malfunctions, inequality deepens and trust erodes. When it functions ethically, it stabilizes communities, expands opportunity, and strengthens democracy itself.

You have learned that 2026 is not just another year. It is a visible phase of a power transfer already underway. Power is relocating across generations, institutions, and systems. It is decentralizing. It is showing up in everyday decisions made by founders, executives, investors, managers, and operators.

Most importantly, you have been reminded of something many people forget.

You already have power.

It shows up in where money moves, who gets access, which standards are enforced, whose voices are amplified, and whose dignity is protected. It shows up in how you lead, what you tolerate, and what you choose to challenge. It shows up in how you engage civically, who you support early, and whether you treat democracy as episodic or ongoing work.

None of this requires waiting for permission or perfect conditions. Preparation begins now. Awareness changes strategy. Strategy shapes action. Action compounds when done collectively.

This is where hope lives, not in denial or optimism, but in coordination.

When ethical leaders recognize one another, build community, and act with consistency, power becomes durable rather than reactive. When business leaders align capital with values, set clear standards, and refuse to normalize harm, business begins to function as it should. When civic participation is treated as a responsibility rather than a burden, democracy strengthens.

Preserving democracy and resetting business will not happen because a single leader gets it right. It will happen because enough people decide to use the power they already have, at the same time, in the same direction, for long enough to matter.

That work is already beginning.

The question is not whether change is possible. It is whether those who understand this moment will step into it fully.

Because when ethical leaders act together, power does not fragment. It coheres. And when it coheres, it does not just preserve what matters. It builds something better.