The Leadership Circle. Why Your Team Scores Low on Creative Leadership—And Stays There.
Your leadership team just completed the Leadership Circle Profile. The results came back in that distinctive circular visualisation: creative competencies at the top, reactive tendencies at the bottom.
Your VP of Operations has a strong negative correlation with effectiveness (-0.751). Your CFO lives in Protecting. Your Head of Product shows elevated Complying patterns.
The debrief was clear. Bob Anderson's framework laid it out: these reactive tendencies limit access to creativity, authenticity, and systems intelligence.
Six months later, your VP of Operations is still micromanaging. Your CFO is still risk-blocking every decision. Your Head of Product is still awaiting approval.
The circle didn't shift.
The LCP is the most robust leadership diagnostic for corporate use—backed by decades of research and the world’s largest leadership effectiveness database. The correlations are mathematics, not opinion. Controlling behaviour = -0.751 to overall effectiveness.
The problem is what the data reveals, but traditional development can't touch: unconscious core beliefs.
The Beliefs Driving the Circle.
Bob Anderson describes it clearly: "The structure of our identity determines how we show up as a leader, how we deploy ourselves into circumstances."
That structure isn't built from skills. It's built from core beliefs—most unconscious, most formed early, many no longer accurate.
A leader with Controlling tendencies isn't lacking delegation skills. They're operating from an unconscious belief: "If I don't control it, it will fail." That belief drives the grip. The grip shows up as Controlling on the LCP.
A leader elevated in Protecting isn't missing strategic thinking. They're running the line: "It's not safe to be vulnerable." That belief generates the armour. The armour reads as Protecting.
A leader high in Complying doesn't need assertiveness training. They're carrying: "My value depends on pleasing others." That belief creates the accommodation. The accommodation shows as Complying.
The LCP measures the structure these beliefs create. Traditional leadership development tries to remodel the house without addressing the foundation.
The Standard Path Doesn't Work.
Research combining data from Gallup, SHRM, McKinsey, and The Leadership Circle shows how reactive leadership creates measurable drag.
For a $10M revenue organisation, a single senior leader operating primarily in a reactive mode typically generates 3.5-5% annual revenue drag. That's $350,000-$500,000 in organisational friction.
The cost shows up as:
Controlling leaders create bottlenecks and drive attrition
Protecting leaders is blocking innovation and slowing decisions
Complying leaders avoid conflict and create accountability gaps
A C-suite of five leaders operating reactively: 15-25% of organisational revenue leaking through behaviours the LCP identified, but the 12-month development program couldn't shift.
Anderson's research is detailed: "Reactive tendencies limit access to creativity, authenticity, and systems intelligence. They keep leaders locked in familiar but ineffective strategies."
The LCP shows you the lock. Traditional development tries to pick it. The unconscious beliefs are the lock.
The ROI.
Traditional model: LCP ($3,000) + 12 months of coaching ($25,000) = $27,000 per leader, billed quarterly.
SSC model: LCP ($2,000) + single session (~$3,500) = $5,500 per leader, results in weeks.
But the real value isn't cost savings—it's speed. When a Controlling leader releases the grip, execution velocity increases immediately. When a Protecting leader drops the armour, strategic opportunities stop getting blocked. When a Complying leader finds their voice, accountability gaps close.
Your LCP showed you the structure. Anderson told you it's driven by unconscious beliefs. Traditional development tried to change behaviours without touching beliefs.
The question is whether you can afford to keep operating with belief systems that the LCP revealed, but your development program couldn't shift.
What Disrupts Beliefs.
Single Session Coaching traces reactive patterns to the unconscious beliefs that drive them—and directly disrupts those beliefs. In 90 minutes.
When a leader's LCP shows elevated Controlling, it’s for a reason. Usually, it solves a problem that no longer exists. Early contexts where control was genuinely necessary. Environments where loss of control meant actual failure.
The belief formed: "If I don't control it, it will fail."
That belief made sense when it formed. The environment changed. The belief kept running. Legacy code in the operating system.
Traditional development tries to install new behaviours on top: "Practice delegation. Build trust. Develop your team."
That's writing new code while the core belief remains unchanged. The moment pressure is applied, the system takes over control.
SSC identifies the belief, traces its systemic origins, and disrupts it at the source. The Controlling pattern no longer needs to be "managed" because the belief that generated it has shifted.
The LCP circle moves—not because the leader practised creative competencies, but because the reactive foundation collapses.
Why Development Can't Touch Beliefs.
The Leadership Circle framework is clear: reactive tendencies are strategies, not deficits. Controlling isn't a lack of delegation skills. Protecting isn't missing vulnerability training. Complying isn't an assertiveness gap.
They're protection systems. Elegant solutions to earlier problems.
Traditional development treats them as competency gaps. But you can't develop your way out of a belief that relating isn't safe. You can practice relating behaviours, and the unconscious belief will override them the moment a real threat appears.
That's why LCP scores often don't shift significantly even after extensive development programs. The behaviours are downstream from beliefs. Changing behaviours without addressing beliefs is temporary at best.
Anderson: "When we step into positions of leadership, we make a whole set of promises we may not know we are making."
Those promises are encoded in unconscious beliefs. The LCP measures their effects. Traditional development tries to fulfil new promises without renegotiating the old ones.
SSC renegotiates the foundational agreements. The circle shifts naturally