Reactive to Creative Leadership in Org Topologies

TL;DR

In modern organizations, leadership style and organizational design are deeply interconnected.

When we talk about Org Topologies (Resource, Delivery, Adaptive), we usually think of structure. However, structure doesn’t shift without leadership shifting as well.

The Leadership Circle gives us a useful lens here:

• Reactive leadership is fear-driven. It leans on control, compliance, and protecting one’s image. It stabilizes, but it stifles learning.

• Creative leadership is purpose-driven. It emphasizes vision, trust, collaboration, and systemic improvement. It unlocks adaptability and innovation.

Org Topologies show us the organizational side:

• Resource Topology is siloed and efficiency-focused.

• Delivery Topology is cross-functional and output-focused.

• Adaptive Topology is versatile, outcome- and learning-focused.

Now put them together:

• Resource Topology runs on Reactive leadership – command, compliance, and tight control.

• Delivery Topology needs a blend – Creative “achieving” combined with just enough Reactive discipline to keep flow predictable.

• Adaptive Topology thrives only under Creative leadership – visionary, empowering, learning-oriented.

  
  

This article examines two frameworks – The Leadership Circle (which differentiates leadership styles, notably Creative vs Reactive orientations) and the Org Topologies model that describes different organizational design archetypes. We first summarize each framework’s core components, then map how various leadership styles align with each type of organizational topology.

Finally, we discuss how leadership development needs to evolve as an organization shifts from one topology to another.

The Leadership Circle Framework: Creative vs. Reactive Leadership

The Leadership Circle framework (often delivered via a 360° Profile assessment) divides leadership behaviors into two primary categories: Creative Competencies and Reactive Tendencies.

The Leadership Circle is a model that maps leadership behaviors and mindsets into two overarching orientations – Reactive and Creative – each of which represents a distinct way of leading organizations and people. Like Org Topologies, it offers a map of different archetypal patterns.

Each half contains specific dimensions that capture a leader’s internal assumptions and outward behaviors:

• Creative leadership is characterized by effective, growth-oriented behaviors. Leaders high in Creative Competencies “achieve results, bring out the best in others, lead with vision, act with integrity and courage, and improve organizational systems”. For example, creative dimensions include Relating (building teams, developing others) and Achieving (setting vision and accomplishing strategic goals)  . These competencies stem from inner confidence and a focus on purpose rather than fear. Notably, leaders who score high on the creative scale tend to be far more effective. High Creative leadership correlates strongly with better leadership performance and business outcomes.

• Reactive leadership is associated with self-limiting or fear-driven behaviors that can constrain effectiveness. The Reactive Tendencies reflect inner beliefs that limit a leader’s authentic expression and impact. Examples include Controlling (a tendency to micromanage, push for perfection, and derive self-worth from being in charge or “on top”) and Complying (a tendency to seek others’ approval and follow others’ expectations to feel secure). Such leaders often emphasize caution, control, or defending their image over innovation and engagement. In the Leadership Circle Profile, high reactive scores are inversely correlated with leadership effectiveness (often coinciding with low creative scores). In short, a predominantly reactive “command and control” style may undermine a leader’s impact, whereas a creative, empowering style enhances it.

In summary:

• Reactive leadership optimizes for safety and control.

• Creative leadership optimizes for trust, learning, and purpose.

The Org Topologies Framework: Organizational Design Archetypes

Org Topologies is a framework for strategic organizational design that maps out archetypal ways to structure an organization. It introduces a visual mapping technique using two key dimensions of org design and defines multiple archetypal unit types.

Sixteen base archetypes (team or department patterns) are categorized into four groups, and, importantly, these are distilled into three distinctive organizational “topologies” – common overarching patterns of how work and authority are organized . Each topology represents a fundamentally different organizational ecosystem with particular characteristics and fit-for-purpose use cases . The three topologies are summarized below:

• Resource Topology: A siloed, efficiency-oriented design with frozen functional roles and high specialization. Here, work is divided among specialized units (e.g., separate functional departments), and resources are managed to be 100% utilized. Leadership in this topology relies on top-down coordination – managers (or project management offices) plan work, allocate tasks, and monitor utilization across narrow skill silos. Because each group only performs a fragment of the process, extensive handoffs are needed for end-to-end delivery. Learning and innovation are limited; improvement tends to occur only within one’s specialization rather than through new discovery . Use case: Resource Topology fits stable environments where maximizing resource efficiency and specialization is the primary goal (e.g., a project-based organization hiring specialists for defined tasks).

• Delivery Topology: A fast-flow, output-focused design that upgrades to cross-functional teams delivering value with fewer dependencies. Compared to Resource Topology, work in Delivery Topology is organized into independent delivery units (e.g., feature teams) that can produce “completely done” increments with minimal handoffs. This is often likened to a “feature factory” – teams churning out a steady stream of features for a product. There is a strong focus on outputs and local efficiency (throughput of features), and teams are kept narrow in scope so they can deliver quickly and predictably. High-level analysis or product decisions are still handled by “directing” roles or upstream units (product managers, analysts), meaning discovery of what to build remains somewhat separate from delivery . This topology excels when the challenge is not figuring out what to build (the requirements are known and of proven value) but rather delivering it rapidly at scale. Use case: Delivery Topology is well-suited for environments where predictable, speedy delivery of features is critical and the market/problem is well-understood (for example, a software company rolling out frequent minor enhancements or a restaurant kitchen executing a set menu) .

• Adaptive Topology: A highly adaptive and innovative design that merges directing, doing, and delivering into unified, empowered teams. In Adaptive Topology, traditional functional boundaries are dissolved; instead of silos, the organization might form a “team-of-teams” or network of multi-skilled teams that work in unison across the entire value stream  . The goal of this topology is to maximize adaptiveness – enabling easy, continuous change based on learning, and true customer-centric innovation . Teams (and individuals) in an adaptive org are expected to collectively discover what customers need and deliver solutions rapidly, adjusting course as necessary. This requires a culture of continuous learning, high autonomy, and synchronous collaboration (often supported by real-time data and AI tools to inform decisions). The design makes it “cheap and easy” to pivot strategy because teams are broadly skilled and tightly aligned with the overall purpose, not confined to narrow tasks. Use case: Adaptive Topology is fit for dynamic, uncertain environments where innovation and agility are paramount – for example, product R&D groups, startups, or market disruptors that must rapidly experiment, learn, and respond to change. It promotes long-term business resilience by enabling higher-impact outcomes and continuous adaptation.

In summary, each topology serves a different strategic goal and entails a distinct organizational structure: Resource topology optimizes for resource utilization and specialization, Delivery topology for fast flow of outputs, and Adaptive topology for rapid learning and innovation (outcomes). These differences in structure and goal create different demands on leadership style, as we explore next.

Mapping Leadership Styles to Organizational Topologies

The effectiveness of a leadership style is often context-dependent. A leadership approach that succeeds in a tightly controlled, efficiency-driven organization may falter in a fast-changing, innovative company, and vice versa. The Leadership Circle’s distinction between Reactive and Creative orientations provides a useful lens to map leadership styles onto the needs of each Org Topology.

Broadly, as an organization’s design shifts from Resource → Delivery → Adaptive, the leadership culture must shift from predominantly Reactive (command-and-control, cautious, task-focused) to increasingly Creative (visionary, empowering, collaborative) to support the organization’s purpose.

The table below summarizes this alignment:

Organizational Topology	Best-Suited Leadership Style (Leadership Circle)	Organizational Needs & Rationale
Resource Topology Goal: maximize efficiency & specialization	Predominantly Reactive – directive, controlling style focused on stability and compliance.	This topology’s siloed, plan-driven structure requires leaders who tightly coordinate and enforce standard processes. Reactive leadership tendencies (e.g., emphasizing control and risk-aversion) align with the need for predictability and utilization in a Resource topology, ensuring everyone follows the plan and stays “100% busy.” However, this can limit flexibility and innovation.
Delivery Topology Goal: fast, predictable delivery of outputs	Balanced/Transitional – leaning Creative (achievement-oriented) but with some Reactive discipline.	Delivery topology introduces cross-functional teams and faster flow, so leaders must empower teams to own delivery while still maintaining focus on output targets . A Creative leadership approach that drives results and continuous improvement (high on the “Achieving” competency) suits this environment. Leaders foster collaboration and adaptiveness within teams, yet may retain Reactive elements like process control to ensure reliability and alignment with product requirements.
Adaptive Topology Goal: continuous adaptation & innovation	Predominantly Creative – visionary, empowering, and facilitative style.	An adaptive organization needs leaders who inspire purpose, trust, and innovation. Creative leaders excel here by providing vision and strategy while empowering teams to experiment, learn, and self-organize towards outcomes. In this high-change ecosystem, reactive, control-oriented management would be counterproductive – as research notes, truly adaptive/agile cultures “require Creative Leadership”, and reactive leadership cannot easily usher in the needed innovation and engagement. Leaders must cultivate a culture of trust, agility, and learning, embodying competencies like Relating, Self-awareness, and Systems Thinking to enable the organization to thrive in uncertainty.

As the table illustrates, leadership style and organizational topology need to be in sync. A mismatch can create friction – for example, a purely reactive, micro-managing leader will likely stifle an Adaptive topology that demands empowerment and quick learning, while a purely visionary, hands-off leader may struggle in a Resource-focused bureaucracy that expects tight control. In practice, organizations often evolve through these topologies, and leadership mindsets must evolve in tandem.

Evolving Leadership Development as Topologies Shift

Shifting an organization’s topology (e.g., moving from a Resource model to a more Adaptive model) is not just a structural change – it is a cultural and leadership transformation. Leaders must develop new skills and mindsets to support the new way of working. Below are some insights on how leadership development needs to evolve when an organization transitions from one topology to another:

• From Resource to Delivery Topology: Leaders need to shift from micro-management to empowerment as the organization moves toward cross-functional teams and faster delivery cycles. In a Resource topology, leaders were accustomed to detailed upfront planning, strict role boundaries, and ensuring compliance with plans. To succeed in a Delivery topology, they must unlearn the overreliance on rigid plans and resource control. This means developing more Creative behaviors: trusting teams to self-organize within their scope, encouraging collaboration across functions, and focusing on outputs/outcomes rather than hours worked. Leaders should practice delegating decision-making to teams and fostering a culture of continuous improvement. In short, they transition from being task masters to being enablers – providing clarity and removing obstacles, while allowing teams more autonomy. This can be challenging, as it requires overcoming reactive impulses (e.g., the need to control every detail), but it is crucial for faster flow. By “supporting testing of new approaches and learning from quick adjustments, instead of sticking strictly to preset plans,” leaders create an environment of trust and motivation in the Delivery context.

• From Delivery to Adaptive Topology: This shift demands an even deeper leadership transformation – from a results-oriented agile mindset to a truly innovative and learning-focused mindset. In moving to an Adaptive topology, leaders must fully embrace Creative leadership. They need to cultivate qualities like visionary thinking, humility, curiosity, and systemic awareness. Practically, this involves encouraging experimentation and accepting the risks of failure as opportunities to learn. Leaders must focus on outcomes and customer impact over output, which means guiding teams with a compelling vision and then giving them freedom to discover solutions. Developing a culture of empowerment and trust is paramount: agile/adaptive leaders “cultivate a culture of trust and empowerment, encouraging team members to take initiative and innovate,” which fosters an environment where experimentation thrives. Many traditional management habits (e.g., top-down decision making, extensive upfront analysis) must be shed in favor of facilitative leadership, coaching, and adaptation. According to Anderson and Adams (creators of the Leadership Circle), the “innovative, agile, adaptive” organizational cultures of the future require Creative leadership – reactive, compliance-driven leadership cannot generate the level of engagement and innovation these organizations need. Thus, leadership development efforts should focus on building creative competencies (such as relationship building, strategic foresight, and self-awareness) and transforming leaders’ mindsets from controlling to inspiring. This often involves personal development work, coaching, and hands-on experience in agile ways of working. As leaders grow into this new mindset, they enable their organizations to fully realize the benefits of an Adaptive topology.

Conclusion

Aligning leadership style with organizational topology isn’t optional — it’s decisive for performance.

Shifting from Resource → Delivery → Adaptive is never just about moving boxes on a chart. It also demands a parallel shift in leadership: Reactive → Creative. The two evolutions are inseparable.

Organizations that chase adaptability without Creative leadership will stall. Leaders who try to operate creatively inside a rigid Resource structure will suffocate. Both maps — the Leadership Circle and Org Topologies — point to the same truth: you can’t elevate the system without elevating how you lead.

The takeaway is clear: as companies push toward greater agility and innovation, they must invest in Creative, growth-oriented leadership at every level. Leaders who learn to act from purpose and vision, not fear and control, create the conditions for truly Adaptive organizations — ones capable of sustaining high performance in a world of constant change.

Sources

• The Leadership Circle – Overview of Creative Competencies vs. Reactive Tendencies
  

• The Leadership Circle – Reactive and Creative Leadership Definitions
  

• Anderson & Adams – “Reactive to Creative Leadership” (Mastering Leadership excerpt)  (emphasizing need for creative leadership in adaptive cultures)
  

• Kestria Insights – “Adaptable leaders: Embracing agility and lifelong learning”   (on empowering leadership in agile transformations)