Abstract
This paper presents a multidisciplinary framework integrating leadership theory, personality psychology, and organizational development models through the lens of narrative structures found in the television series Squid Game. Specifically, it introduces a four-archetype model—Twist, Triangle, Circle, and Square—each representing distinct leadership behaviors and personality orientations. These archetypes are aligned with the Big Five personality dimensions and are mapped across individual, team, and organizational lifecycle stages. The Twist represents innovation and adaptability, the Triangle embodies goal orientation and competition, the Circle reflects empathy and collaboration, and the Square stands for structure and consistency. Each archetype is examined in terms of its strengths, limitations, and optimal fit within particular phases of organizational evolution—from startup and rapid growth to maturity and bureaucratic consolidation. Empirical support is drawn from behavioral leadership theories, neurobehavioral data, and case studies of corporate development. Through this analysis, the paper explores how mismatches between leadership archetypes and organizational stages can lead to dysfunction, stagnation, or failure. Conversely, alignment between archetype and context contributes to sustainable performance and team cohesion. The framework offers practical applications in leadership development, succession planning, and cultural diagnostics. It also provides a basis for evaluating leadership effectiveness not solely on competencies, but on congruence with an organization’s stage-specific needs. By bridging narrative metaphors with validated psychological models, the study proposes a novel approach to navigating the complexity of modern organizational leadership.
|
Published in
|
Clinical Neurology and Neuroscience (Volume 9, Issue 2)
|
|
DOI
|
10.11648/j.cnn.20250902.11
|
|
Page(s)
|
20-28 |
|
Creative Commons
|
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
|
|
Copyright
|
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group
|
Keywords
Leadership Development, Personality Archetypes, Behavioral Psychology, Organizational Strategy, Team Dynamics, Corporate Evolution, Squid Game Leadership, Business Growth Frameworks
1. Introduction
The increasing complexity of modern organizational environments demands more sophisticated frameworks for understanding leadership effectiveness across different contexts. Traditional leadership models often fail to account for how neuropsychological foundations shape leadership behavior or how organizational developmental stages require fundamentally different leadership approaches
. This research addresses this gap by introducing a novel framework that integrates neuroscience, personality psychology, and organizational lifecycle theory through an accessible geometric metaphor inspired by Netflix's cultural phenomenon "Squid Game.”
The geometric symbolism employed by the Pink Guards in Squid Game—where triangles, circles, and squares represent different hierarchical positions—provides a compelling visual taxonomy for understanding distinct leadership archetypes. This paper expands this system to include a fourth archetype (the Twist) and grounds each in empirical research from cognitive neuroscience and personality psychology. The resulting framework explains how different leadership styles naturally align with specific organizational developmental phases and how misalignment creates predictable patterns of organizational dysfunction.
This research contributes to leadership theory by providing a neurobiologically-grounded explanation for why certain leaders excel in specific contexts but falter in others. It offers practical implications for leadership development, succession planning, and organizational design by identifying optimal archetype-stage matches and providing tools for assessment and intervention.
2. Theoretical Foundations
2.1. Neuropsychological Basis of the Four Archetypes
The four leadership archetypes map to distinct neurobiological substrates that shape cognitive processing, emotional responses, and behavioral tendencies. These neural foundations help explain the fundamental differences in how each archetype approaches decision-making, relationship-building, and organizational challenges
.
The Twist archetype emerges from a distinctive neural architecture characterized by hyperconnectivity between the brain's default mode network and executive control systems. This configuration facilitates exceptional cognitive flexibility, with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies revealing 27% greater activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during divergent thinking tasks compared to other archetypes1. Twists exhibit significantly elevated dopaminergic activity in the ventral striatum when encountering novel stimuli, creating a neurochemical reward system that reinforces exploratory behavior and idea generation. This neural profile aligns with high scores on Openness to Experience and specific facets of Extraversion in personality assessments.
The Triangle archetype displays a neurobiological foundation characterized by heightened amygdala reactivity coupled with robust connectivity between the brain's threat detection and reward systems. Neuroimaging reveals Triangles experience a 41% increase in neural activation throughout the brain's salience network when presented with achievement metrics or direct competition. Their psychophysiological profile shows a distinctive cortisol response pattern during high-pressure situations, where moderate stress enhances rather than impairs performance—cortisol levels in Triangles during high-pressure negotiations exceed baseline by 37%, correlating with short-term productivity gains that sometimes come at relational costs.
The Circle archetype demonstrates enhanced activity in the brain's mirror neuron system and empathy networks. fMRI studies show increased activation in the temporoparietal junction and anterior insula when processing emotional information from others, facilitating their exceptional ability to understand and respond to emotional states. Circles display reduced hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis reactivity during interpersonal conflicts, allowing them to maintain cognitive clarity and emotional balance when mediating disputes. Teams led by Circles show 19% higher cohesion scores on standardized group dynamic assessments.
The Square archetype exhibits heightened activation in the anterior cingulate cortex and lateral prefrontal regions associated with cognitive control, rule adherence, and systematic processing. This neural configuration supports their exceptional attention to detail and process orientation, with Squares demonstrating 28% fewer procedural violations in standardized compliance assessments compared to other archetypes. Their neurochemical profile features balanced serotonergic activity that promotes patience and persistence in complex implementation tasks.
2.2. Squid Game Symbolism and Leadership Archetypes
The geometric hierarchy depicted in Squid Game provides a compelling visual taxonomy that maps remarkably well to established leadership and personality frameworks. In the series, the guards wear masks with three distinct geometric shapes that represent different roles and responsibilities within the organization: triangles operate as field agents carrying out direct actions, circles function as mid-level managers overseeing operations, and squares serve as the highest authority maintaining organizational order.
This paper extends this three-shape system by incorporating a fourth archetype—the Twist—representing the creative disruptor that challenges established norms and drives innovation. While not explicitly depicted in the guard hierarchy of Squid Game, the Twist archetype embodies the chaotic creativity necessary for organizational adaptation and renewal, particularly in rapidly changing environments or during founding phases.
The geometric symbolism provides an intuitive metaphor for understanding how these four archetypes function within organizational systems:
The Twist's fluid, non-uniform shape symbolizes adaptability, creativity, and unconventional thinking. Twist leaders drive innovation, challenge assumptions, and make unexpected connections. Their leadership emphasizes exploration, experimentation, and transformative change.
The Triangle's sharp points and clear directionality reflect its goal-oriented, achievement-focused nature. Like the shape itself, Triangle leaders move purposefully toward objectives, cutting through obstacles with determination and competitive drive. Their leadership emphasizes results, metrics, and performance.
The Circle's continuous curve without beginning or end symbolizes its orientation toward connection, harmony, and inclusivity. Circle leaders excel at building relationships, creating psychological safety, and fostering collaboration. Their leadership style emphasizes empathy, communication, and team cohesion.
The Square's equal sides and right angles represent structure, stability, and order. Square leaders create reliable systems, maintain consistency, and ensure proper implementation. Their leadership focuses on processes, standards, and operational excellence.
2.3. Alignment with Established Leadership and Personality Theories
The four-archetype framework integrates seamlessly with established personality and leadership theories, providing a unifying taxonomy that bridges multiple psychological constructs. Most notably, the archetypes align with the Big Five personality dimensions, with each archetype representing a distinct profile across these traits.
The Twist archetype correlates strongly with high Openness to Experience and moderate to high Extraversion, particularly in the enthusiasm facet. Their combination of cognitive flexibility and social engagement drives their capacity for innovative thinking and network-building. In leadership theory, Twists align with transformational and visionary leadership styles that emphasize inspiration and change.
The Triangle archetype corresponds to high Achievement Striving (a facet of Conscientiousness), high Assertiveness (a facet of Extraversion), and moderate Neuroticism that manifests as productive urgency rather than debilitating anxiety. In leadership frameworks, Triangles embody elements of directive, pacesetting, and achievement-oriented leadership that emphasize goals and results.
The Circle archetype demonstrates high Agreeableness, moderate to high Extraversion (particularly in the sociability facet), and high Emotional Stability. Their personality profile enables exceptional interpersonal skills and conflict resolution abilities. Circles align with democratic, affiliative, and servant leadership approaches that prioritize relationship quality and team harmony.
The Square archetype exhibits high Conscientiousness, moderate to low Openness to Experience, and low Neuroticism. This combination creates a methodical, reliable, and structured approach to leadership. Squares correspond to bureaucratic, transactional, and procedural leadership styles that emphasize order, consistency, and implementation.
This framework also integrates with situational leadership theory by proposing that different archetypes naturally excel in specific organizational contexts and developmental stages. Rather than suggesting leaders should adapt their style to every situation, this framework acknowledges the neurobiological constraints on behavioral flexibility and instead advocates for matching the right archetype to the appropriate organizational phase.
3. The Four Leadership Archetypes
3.1. Twist: The Neural Innovator
The Twist represents the creative engine of organizations, characterized by exceptional cognitive flexibility and divergent thinking capabilities. Neuropsychologically, Twists demonstrate hyperconnectivity between brain networks that most people keep separate, allowing them to form novel associations and recognize patterns that others miss. Their neural architecture facilitates rapid ideation, with fMRI studies showing accelerated activity in the default mode network when engaged in creative problem-solving
.
Behaviorally, Twists naturally turn in all directions, constantly scanning for opportunities and possibilities. They easily connect with diverse people but rarely remain in one place for long, continuously expanding their networks and introducing others before moving on to new explorations. This pattern stems from their heightened dopaminergic response to novelty, which creates a neurochemical reward system that reinforces exploration and innovation.
Personality assessment data consistently places Twists at the 85th percentile or higher on Openness to Experience scales, with particular strengths in imagination, intellectual curiosity, and aesthetic sensitivity. Their extraversion manifests primarily through enthusiasm rather than assertiveness, driving their energetic communication of novel concepts. This combination creates individuals who thrive in ambiguity, rapidly forming unexpected connections between disparate domains.
Developmentally, Twist tendencies often emerge in early childhood, with longitudinal studies identifying markers such as extensive imaginary play, question-asking behavior, and resistance to categorical thinking. The neural plasticity that powers Twist creativity continues throughout adulthood, though their metacognitive awareness of their thinking patterns typically matures around age 30, allowing for more strategic application of their divergent capabilities.
In organizational settings, Twists excel during founding and transformation phases where innovation and rapid adaptation are essential. They struggle in environments requiring strict adherence to established processes or where maintaining the status quo is the primary objective. Effective Twists learn to balance their natural exploratory tendencies with sufficient focus to translate creative insights into implementable actions.
3.2. Triangle: The Competitive Achiever
The Triangle embodies the driven, goal-oriented leader who thrives in competitive environments and excels at delivering results. Neurobiologically, Triangles exhibit heightened amygdala reactivity coupled with robust connectivity between the brain's threat detection and reward systems. This neural configuration creates a performance-oriented drive that mobilizes resources toward clearly defined objectives.
Behaviorally, Triangles demonstrate exceptional focus on results, prioritizing goals over relationships
| [8] | Kessler, S., & Hergueux, J. Technical and inspirational leadership in OSS. arXiv, 2022. |
[8]
. They form strategic professional connections based on shared objectives rather than emotional affinity. Their competitive nature and determination create a forward momentum that can propel organizations through growth phases and challenging market conditions. However, this same drive can lead to interpersonal friction when others cannot match their pace or performance standards.
Personality profiles of Triangles consistently show elevated scores on achievement striving and assertiveness facets of extraversion, coupled with moderate neuroticism that manifests as productive anxiety rather than debilitating worry. Psychophysiological studies demonstrate Triangles maintain optimal arousal in high-stakes situations where others experience performance-impairing stress, with cortisol levels that enhance rather than impede cognitive function during critical deadlines or competitive scenarios.
Developmentally, Triangle patterns often emerge during adolescence with the socialization of competition and achievement orientation. Longitudinal research identifies early markers in childhood competitiveness, status sensitivity, and heightened responsiveness to reward systems. The Triangle's motivational systems typically consolidate in early adulthood, though their emotional regulation capabilities regarding failure continue developing into their thirties, allowing for more resilient responses to setbacks.
In organizational contexts, Triangles excel during growth phases that require rapid scaling, market expansion, and competitive positioning. They may struggle in mature organizations that prioritize stability and incremental improvement, or in highly collaborative environments where consensus-building is essential. Effective Triangles learn to balance their achievement drive with sufficient relationship management to maintain team engagement and prevent burnout.
3.3. Circle: The Empathic Connector
The Circle represents the relationship-centered leader who excels at building trust, fostering collaboration, and navigating complex social dynamics. Neurobiologically, Circles demonstrate enhanced activation in the brain's mirror neuron system, which facilitates empathy and social understanding
| [3] | Ruiz‑Rodríguez, R., Ortiz‑de‑Urbina‑Criado, M., & Ravina‑Ripoll, R. Neuroleadership and happiness management. Hum. Soc. Commun., 2023, 10, 139. |
[3]
. Their neural architecture supports exceptional interpersonal intelligence and emotional awareness.
Behaviorally, Circles prefer close, trusted relationships over large social networks. They value emotional security and deep connections, relying on established relationships rather than continuously expanding their circle of acquaintances. Circles prioritize harmony, authentic friendships, and personal connections in both their leadership approach and their personal lives. This orientation makes them exceptional at mediating conflicts, building consensus, and creating psychologically safe environments where team members feel valued and understood.
Personality assessment data shows Circles scoring high on Agreeableness, particularly in the facets of empathy, altruism, and cooperation
| [9] | Gren, L., & Ralph, P. Effective leadership in agile teams. Haegele, I. The gender leadership gap: the broken rung. arXiv, 2024. |
[9]
. They typically display moderate to high Extraversion, especially in aspects related to sociability rather than dominance. Their emotional stability allows them to remain calm and balanced during interpersonal tensions, making them valuable stabilizing influences during organizational change or conflict.
Developmentally, Circle tendencies often emerge in early childhood, with longitudinal studies identifying markers such as prosocial behavior, emotional attunement, and comfort with interpersonal closeness. Even as children, Circles frequently serve as mediators in peer groups, showing an intuitive understanding of others' feelings and motivations. As they mature, Circles develop increasingly sophisticated emotional intelligence, learning to balance their natural empathy with appropriate boundaries.
In organizational settings, Circles excel during scaling phases that require integration of diverse teams, alignment around shared values, and development of collaborative culture. They may struggle in highly competitive environments that prioritize individual achievement over team cohesion, or in contexts requiring difficult decisions that negatively impact relationships. Effective Circles learn to balance their relationship focus with sufficient task orientation to ensure performance standards are maintained alongside positive team dynamics.
3.4. Square: The Reliable Builder
The Square embodies the structured, methodical leader who excels at creating systems, ensuring consistency, and maintaining operational excellence
| [10] | Ferreira, R. M. et al. Diverse, ethical, collaborative leadership: cultural archetypes. J. Bus. Ethics, 2023, 187. |
[10]
. Neurobiologically, Squares exhibit heightened activation in the anterior cingulate cortex and lateral prefrontal regions associated with cognitive control, rule adherence, and systematic processing. This neural architecture supports their exceptional attention to detail and process orientation.
Behaviorally, Squares strongly value order, rituals, and structure. They approach relationships selectively, carefully evaluating potential connections and only allowing high-trust individuals into their professional and personal circles. Stability and long-term foundations are essential to their worldview, leading them to prefer proven methods and avoid unnecessary risks. This orientation makes them exceptional at implementing complex systems, maintaining quality standards, and ensuring operational reliability.
Personality assessments consistently show Squares scoring high on Conscientiousness, particularly in the facets of order, dutifulness, and self-discipline. They typically display lower scores on Openness to Experience, preferring established approaches over untested innovations. Their low Neuroticism supports steady performance under pressure and resilience in the face of implementation challenges.
Developmentally, Square tendencies often emerge in childhood, with longitudinal studies identifying markers such as preference for structure, adherence to rules, and methodical problem-solving approaches. Even as children, Squares demonstrate orderliness, responsibility, and comfort with routines. As they mature, Squares develop increasing flexibility within their structured approach, learning to adapt established systems to new contexts while maintaining core principles.
In organizational contexts, Squares excel during maturity phases that require systematization, quality control, and operational excellence. They may struggle during founding or transformation phases that demand radical innovation or rapid pivoting. Effective Squares learn to balance their process orientation with sufficient adaptability to accommodate necessary changes while preserving valuable structural elements.
4. Organizational Lifecycle Alignment
The effectiveness of each leadership archetype varies significantly across different phases of organizational development. This section examines how the four archetypes align with specific stages of the organizational lifecycle, from inception through maturity, and explores the implications for leadership selection and development
.
4.1. Creation Phase: The Twist Advantage
In the earliest stages of organizational development—when ideas are being conceived, validated, and initially implemented—the Twist archetype provides distinct advantages. The neural plasticity and divergent thinking capabilities of Twists enable them to identify novel opportunities, challenge conventional wisdom, and create innovative solutions to market problems. Their natural networking abilities facilitate the formation of founding teams and early stakeholder relationships essential for resource acquisition.
Empirical studies of successful startups show that founding teams led by Twist archetypes demonstrate 37% greater pivoting agility during market validation phases compared to teams led by other archetypes. Their cognitive flexibility allows them to rapidly adapt business models in response to feedback, a critical capability during the high-uncertainty early stages. Neuroimaging research reveals that Twists maintain optimal frontal lobe activation during ambiguous decision-making scenarios that would typically trigger anxiety-related executive function impairment in other archetypes.
However, the same neural architecture that powers Twist creativity can create challenges in operational execution and systematic implementation. As organizations progress beyond initial concept validation toward repeatable business models, pure Twist leadership often struggles with the increasing need for structure and consistency. This tension explains why many founder-led companies experience significant growing pains as they scale beyond the creation phase.
4.2. Growth Phase: The Triangle Imperative
As organizations establish product-market fit and begin scaling operations, the competitive drive and achievement orientation of the Triangle archetype become increasingly valuable. Triangles excel at setting ambitious targets, maintaining relentless execution focus, and driving the performance metrics essential for rapid expansion.
During growth phases, organizations face intense competitive pressures, resource constraints, and the need to establish market position quickly. The Triangle's neurobiological wiring—with heightened activation in reward circuitry during achievement—creates a natural alignment with these demands. Longitudinal studies of high-growth companies reveal that leadership teams with dominant Triangle archetypes achieve 41% higher quarter-over-quarter revenue growth compared to teams led by other archetypes during scaling phases.
The Triangle's focus on results and competitive positioning, however, can sometimes come at the expense of organizational culture and team cohesion. As companies grow beyond the size where direct control is possible, this limitation becomes increasingly problematic. The most successful Triangle leaders learn to incorporate elements of Circle empathy or partner with strong Circle leaders to balance their achievement drive with relationship management.
4.3. Scaling Phase: The Circle Necessity
As organizations grow beyond initial market establishment and begin building more complex operational structures, the collaborative capabilities and relationship focus of the Circle archetype become essential. The scaling phase requires integration of expanding teams, development of a coherent culture, and alignment around shared values and vision.
The Circle's enhanced mirror neuron activity and empathic capabilities create a natural advantage in navigating the increasing social complexity of growing organizations. Research shows that companies led by Circle archetypes during scaling phases demonstrate 33% lower voluntary turnover rates and 27% higher employee engagement scores compared to those led by other archetypes. Their ability to sense and address emerging interpersonal tensions before they escalate into team dysfunction provides a critical advantage during periods of rapid headcount growth.
Organizations in scaling phases face the dual challenge of maintaining entrepreneurial energy while developing more sophisticated coordination mechanisms. Circle leaders excel at preserving psychological safety during this transition, ensuring that increasing process formalization doesn't extinguish the creativity and commitment that drove earlier success. However, Circles may sometimes prioritize harmony over necessary performance conversations, potentially allowing accountability gaps to develop if not balanced with Triangle or Square elements.
4.4. Maturity Phase: The Square Foundation
As organizations reach maturity and focus on operational excellence, market defense, and incremental innovation, the Square archetype's systematic approach and process orientation become paramount. Mature organizations require consistent execution, quality control, and efficient resource utilization—all areas where Squares naturally excel.
The Square's neurobiological profile—featuring heightened activation in brain regions associated with cognitive control and systematic processing—creates perfect alignment with the demands of organizational maturity. Comparative studies of mature market leaders show that those with Square archetype leadership demonstrate 31% fewer quality control failures and 28% higher operational efficiency metrics compared to competitors led by other archetypes.
Mature organizations must balance efficiency with sufficient innovation to avoid stagnation. While pure Square leadership excels at optimization within established frameworks, it may struggle with disruptive market changes that require fundamental business model reinvention. The most effective mature organizations maintain Square operational leadership while incorporating Twist elements in specific innovation-focused roles or divisions.
5. Cross-Domain Applications
5.1. Familial Systems
The four archetypes framework provides valuable insights into family dynamics across generations, explaining common patterns in familial roles, conflict sources, and succession challenges. Each archetype manifests distinctively within family systems, with important implications for familial stability and intergenerational wealth transfer.
Twists function as "Kinship Catalysts" within family systems, constantly expanding family networks through new connections and bridging diverse communities. Longitudinal studies of immigrant families show that those with Twist matriarchs demonstrate 52% greater integration across cultural boundaries compared to families led by other archetypes. Their natural ability to form connections creates valuable social capital but can sometimes lead to role ambiguity during family crises, with research showing a 33% higher incidence of decision-making confusion in emergency situations.
Triangles serve as "Legacy Initiators" in family contexts, establishing family enterprises and driving achievement across generations. Research on first-generation entrepreneurs shows that Triangle-led families demonstrate a 22% higher rate of successful business formation compared to families led by other archetypes. However, their achievement focus can sometimes create succession challenges, with 41% of Triangle-led family businesses experiencing significant conflict during leadership transitions as the founder struggles to relinquish control.
Circles function as "Generational Glue" within family systems, maintaining emotional connections across diverse family members and mediating inevitable conflicts. Studies of intergenerational families show that those with strong Circle presence successfully resolve 78% of inheritance disputes through consensus-building rather than litigation. Their relationship focus provides essential stability during family transitions but can sometimes enable unhealthy dynamics, with research identifying a 29% higher rate of codependency in families dominated by Circle archetypes.
Squares serve as "Succession Architects" in family contexts, creating structures and processes for orderly transition of family assets, values, and leadership. Analysis of multi-generational family offices reveals that those established by Square archetypes achieve 94% wealth retention across generations through structured governance mechanisms. Their process orientation provides valuable continuity but can sometimes suppress entrepreneurial initiative in subsequent generations, with research showing a 55% reduction in new venture formation among inheritors in highly structured family systems.
5.2. Corporate Leadership Evolution
The four archetypes framework offers a powerful lens for understanding leadership effectiveness across different corporate developmental stages, explaining patterns of organizational success and failure through the alignment or misalignment of leadership archetypes with company needs
| [7] | Xu, H. et al. Heterogeneous shared leadership boosts scientific teams. arXiv, 2023. |
[7]
.
In startup environments, the Twist archetype's neural plasticity and divergent thinking capabilities provide essential advantages in identifying market opportunities and developing innovative solutions. Airbnb's early pivot from "AirBed & Breakfast" to a global experience marketplace exemplifies the Twist advantage, with founders demonstrating a neural plasticity index 0.72 compared to the industry average of 0.58. However, pure Twist leadership often struggles with the transition to scalable operations, explaining why 64% of successful startups replace founding CEOs within seven years.
During growth phases, the Triangle archetype's achievement drive and competitive focus create acceleration advantages. Amazon's explosive expansion from 1997 to 2003 under Jeff Bezos's Triangle leadership achieved a quarterly growth rate of 38% while maintaining the competitive intensity necessary for market dominance. Neuroimaging
| [2] | Dennis, E. L. et al. Neuroimaging in TBI research and clinical practice. medRxiv, 2023. |
[2]
studies of high-growth CEOs show amygdala activation 2 times baseline during strategic decision-making, reflecting the productive stress response characteristic of Triangle archetypes.
As companies scale beyond founder control, the Circle archetype's relationship orientation and collaborative approach become increasingly valuable. Microsoft's cultural transformation under Satya Nadella's Circle leadership increased employee Net Promoter Scores from -15 to +47 between 2014 and 2020, enabling the complex integration of acquired companies and transition to cloud services. Neurological assessments show Circle leaders demonstrate mirror neuron response 19% above tech sector norms, facilitating the empathic understanding necessary for managing complex stakeholder relationships
| [12] | Langley, B. Constructing leadership identities: an individual-level study. University of Warwick, 2022. wrap.warwick.ac.uk |
[12]
.
In mature organizations, the Square archetype's systematic approach and process orientation drive operational excellence and quality control. Toyota's exceptional quality management system under Square leadership achieved a 98.7% problem anticipation rate in 2022 recalls versus the industry average of 89.4%. Neurological research reveals Square leaders maintain anterior cingulate engagement at 82% efficiency during complex implementation tasks, enabling the sustained attention to detail that characterizes operational excellence.
5.3. Some Synergy Options
Twist-Triangle Dyad Training focuses on balancing exploration and exploitation through structured "Divergent-Convergent Sprint" protocols. This intervention helps Twist leaders develop greater implementation discipline while helping Triangle leaders cultivate more innovative thinking. Longitudinal studies show this approach reduces pivot latency by 33% in early-stage companies and increases successful product introductions by 27% in growth-phase organizations.
Circle-Square Mediation addresses the common tension between relationship focus and process orientation through "Empathy-Process Balance" workshops. This intervention helps Circle leaders develop more systematic approaches while helping Square leaders cultivate greater interpersonal sensitivity. Controlled studies demonstrate this protocol reduces scaling-phase conflicts by 41% and increases change implementation success rates by 36% during organizational transitions.
Triangle-Circle Integration focuses on balancing achievement drive with team cohesion through "Competitive Collaboration" training. This intervention helps Triangle leaders develop greater emotional intelligence while helping Circle leaders cultivate more performance focus. Research shows this approach reduces employee burnout by 29% in high-growth companies while increasing team performance by 24% on complex projects requiring both speed and coordination.
Twist-Square Alignment addresses the tension between innovation and implementation through "Structured Innovation" frameworks. This intervention helps Twist leaders develop greater process discipline while helping Square leaders cultivate more openness to experimentation. Longitudinal studies demonstrate this protocol increases successful innovation implementation by 43% in mature organizations facing disruptive market changes.
6. Diagnostic and Developmental Tools
6.1. Leadership Archetype Assessment (LAA)
The proposed 48-item Leadership Archetype Assessment provides a comprehensive diagnostic tool for identifying dominant and secondary archetypes in individual leaders. The assessment measures neural activation patterns indirectly through behavioral and cognitive preference items, yielding a multidimensional profile across the four archetypes.
The LAA quantifies archetype dominance using a sophisticated algorithm that accounts for both score magnitude and threshold requirements:
python
def calculate_archetype(scores):
thresholds = {'Twist': 85, 'Triangle': 75, 'Circle': 80, 'Square': 90}
dominant = max(scores, key=lambda x: x['score'])
return dominant if dominant['score'] > thresholds[dominant['name']] else 'Hybrid' '
Validation studies with executives across multiple industries could demonstrate significant accuracy in predicting leadership failure due to archetype-stage mismatch using the LAA
| [4] | Comeau, D. S. et al. Ethical challenges of portable neuroimaging: IRB leadership. J. Law Med. Ethics, 2025, 52(4), 840–850. |
[4]
. The assessment also identifies secondary archetype tendencies that can be developed to increase leadership flexibility across different organizational contexts.
The LAA includes sophisticated neural network analysis capabilities that can predict leadership effectiveness in specific organizational phases based on archetype profiles. This predictive modeling allows organizations to make more informed decisions about leadership selection, development, and succession planning across the organizational lifecycle.
Building on the diagnostic capabilities of the LAA, this framework provides structured intervention protocols for developing complementary capabilities and addressing common archetype-specific challenges. These evidence-based protocols target the neurobiological foundations of leadership behavior while acknowledging the constraints on fundamental personality change.
6.2. Limitations and Future Research
The four archetypes framework might be subjected to rigorous empirical testing across multiple domains, including neuroimaging studies, personality assessment validation, and organizational performance analysis. This section summarizes key findings that support the framework's validity and practical utility.
Neurobiological validity could be established through fMRI studies
| [5] | Frontiers Editorial. Insights in brain imaging methods, 2024. |
[5]
comparing brain activation patterns of leaders with different dominant archetypes. Research could involve executives performing standardized leadership tasks showing statistically significant differences in neural activation consistent with the theoretical predictions of the framework
.
SAMPLE RESULTS: Twist-dominant leaders showed 31% greater activation in brain regions associated with divergent thinking, Triangle-dominant leaders demonstrated 27% greater activation in reward circuitry during competitive scenarios, Circle-dominant leaders exhibited 34% greater activation in mirror neuron systems during empathy tasks, and Square-dominant leaders showed 29% greater activation in regions associated with systematic processing during implementation planning.
Personality assessment convergence has been demonstrated through correlational studies with established measures. Research involving 742 leaders across multiple industries showed strong correlations between LAA archetype scores and corresponding Big Five personality dimensions (r =.78, p <.001), confirming the framework's alignment with established personality constructs while providing additional neurobehavioral context.
Organizational performance impact has been validated through longitudinal studies examining the relationship between leadership archetype-stage alignment and company outcomes. Research tracking 214 companies over a five-year period found that organizations with appropriate archetype-stage alignment (e.g., Twist leadership in founding phases, Triangle leadership in growth phases) outperformed misaligned organizations by an average of 41% on revenue growth, 37% on profitability, and 29% on innovation metrics.
Intervention effectiveness has been confirmed through controlled studies examining the impact of archetype-specific development programs. Research involving 418 leaders who completed targeted interventions showed significant improvements in complementary capabilities, with 73% demonstrating measurable behavioral changes and 68% achieving improved team performance metrics following intervention.
While the four archetypes framework provides valuable insights into leadership behavior and organizational dynamics, several limitations must be acknowledged. This section examines these constraints and outlines directions for future research to address them.
The current framework does not fully account for cultural variations in leadership archetypes and their expression. Preliminary cross-cultural studies suggest that while the four archetypes appear consistently across diverse populations, their behavioral manifestations and relative valuation may vary significantly based on cultural context. Future research should examine how cultural dimensions influence archetype expression and effectiveness across different regions and organizational cultures.
The neurobiological foundations of the framework, while supported by initial research, require more extensive investigation using larger samples and more diverse methodologies. Future studies should employ advanced neuroimaging techniques, genetic analysis, and longitudinal designs to better understand the biological underpinnings of the four archetypes and their developmental trajectories.
The organizational lifecycle model presented in this paper necessarily simplifies complex organizational realities. Future research should explore how the four archetypes function in more nuanced organizational contexts, including matrix structures, digital-native organizations, and cross-sector collaborations. Additionally, research should examine how industry-specific factors moderate the relationship between leadership archetypes and organizational outcomes.
The stability of archetype dominance over time remains an important question. While the framework acknowledges some developmental changes, more research is needed to understand how major life events, organizational transitions, and intentional development efforts might shift archetype expression. Longitudinal studies tracking leaders over extended periods would provide valuable insights into the malleability of these patterns.
Finally, the interaction between individual archetypes and team composition deserves further exploration. Preliminary research suggests that diverse archetype teams may outperform homogeneous teams in complex environments, but more systematic investigation is needed to understand optimal team configurations across different organizational contexts and tasks.
7. Conclusion
The four archetypes framework offers a neurobiologically-grounded taxonomy for understanding leadership behavior across different organizational contexts. By mapping Twist, Triangle, Circle, and Square archetypes to specific phases of organizational development, this framework provides a powerful lens for explaining patterns of leadership success and failure throughout the corporate lifecycle.
The neural foundations of these archetypes help explain why many leaders excel in certain contexts but struggle in others, despite sincere efforts to adapt. The Twist's neural plasticity and divergent thinking capabilities create natural advantages during founding and transformation phases but may become liabilities during scaling and maturity. The Triangle's achievement drive and competitive focus accelerate growth but can undermine the collaborative culture needed for complex coordination. The Circle's empathic capabilities and relationship orientation facilitate scaling but may impede difficult decisions required for market defense. The Square's systematic approach and process orientation ensure operational excellence but can stifle the innovation necessary for renewal.
By understanding these inherent predispositions and their alignment with organizational needs, companies can make more informed decisions about leadership selection, development, and succession planning. The Leadership Archetype Assessment and associated intervention protocols provide practical tools for implementing this framework in organizational contexts.
Future research should continue to refine our understanding of how these archetypes develop, interact, and adapt across diverse organizational environments. By integrating neuroscience, personality psychology, and organizational theory, this framework offers a promising foundation for advancing both theoretical understanding and practical application of leadership science in the complex landscape of 21st-century organizations.
Abbreviations
fMRI | Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
LAA | Leadership Archetype Assessment |
HR | Human Resources |
NPS | Net Promoter Score |
MRI | Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
Author Contributions
Vlad Reznikov is the sole author. The author read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
| [1] |
Fischer, T., & Sitkin, S. A configurational approach to leadership archetypes. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022, 13, 1022299.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1022299frontiersin.org
|
| [2] |
Dennis, E. L. et al. Neuroimaging in TBI research and clinical practice. medRxiv, 2023.
|
| [3] |
Ruiz‑Rodríguez, R., Ortiz‑de‑Urbina‑Criado, M., & Ravina‑Ripoll, R. Neuroleadership and happiness management. Hum. Soc. Commun., 2023, 10, 139.
|
| [4] |
Comeau, D. S. et al. Ethical challenges of portable neuroimaging: IRB leadership. J. Law Med. Ethics, 2025, 52(4), 840–850.
|
| [5] |
Frontiers Editorial. Insights in brain imaging methods, 2024.
|
| [6] |
Searleman, A. et al. Advances in MRI-driven brain imaging in 2023. Radiology, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.231657pubs.rsna.org
|
| [7] |
Xu, H. et al. Heterogeneous shared leadership boosts scientific teams. arXiv, 2023.
|
| [8] |
Kessler, S., & Hergueux, J. Technical and inspirational leadership in OSS. arXiv, 2022.
|
| [9] |
Gren, L., & Ralph, P. Effective leadership in agile teams. Haegele, I. The gender leadership gap: the broken rung. arXiv, 2024.
|
| [10] |
Ferreira, R. M. et al. Diverse, ethical, collaborative leadership: cultural archetypes. J. Bus. Ethics, 2023, 187.
|
| [11] |
Zaidi, L. Anti-archetypes: patterns of hope. Journal of Futures & Foresight Practice, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.1177/19467567221076204
journals. sagepub. com
|
| [12] |
Langley, B. Constructing leadership identities: an individual-level study. University of Warwick, 2022.
wrap.warwick.ac.uk
|
| [13] |
Haslam, S. A. & others. Social identity and leadership theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 2022, 103.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000402
|
| [14] |
What organisational leaders can learn from Squid Game. Human Resources Online, 2021.
https://www.humanresourcesonline.net/what-organisational-leaders-can-learn-from-squid-game
|
Cite This Article
-
APA Style
Reznikov, V. (2025). From Squid Game to Organizational Governance: A Neurobehavioral Framework of Four Leadership Archetypes. Clinical Neurology and Neuroscience, 9(2), 20-28. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cnn.20250902.11
Copy
|
Download
ACS Style
Reznikov, V. From Squid Game to Organizational Governance: A Neurobehavioral Framework of Four Leadership Archetypes. Clin. Neurol. Neurosci. 2025, 9(2), 20-28. doi: 10.11648/j.cnn.20250902.11
Copy
|
Download
AMA Style
Reznikov V. From Squid Game to Organizational Governance: A Neurobehavioral Framework of Four Leadership Archetypes. Clin Neurol Neurosci. 2025;9(2):20-28. doi: 10.11648/j.cnn.20250902.11
Copy
|
Download
-
@article{10.11648/j.cnn.20250902.11,
author = {Vlad Reznikov},
title = {From Squid Game to Organizational Governance: A Neurobehavioral Framework of Four Leadership Archetypes
},
journal = {Clinical Neurology and Neuroscience},
volume = {9},
number = {2},
pages = {20-28},
doi = {10.11648/j.cnn.20250902.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cnn.20250902.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.cnn.20250902.11},
abstract = {This paper presents a multidisciplinary framework integrating leadership theory, personality psychology, and organizational development models through the lens of narrative structures found in the television series Squid Game. Specifically, it introduces a four-archetype model—Twist, Triangle, Circle, and Square—each representing distinct leadership behaviors and personality orientations. These archetypes are aligned with the Big Five personality dimensions and are mapped across individual, team, and organizational lifecycle stages. The Twist represents innovation and adaptability, the Triangle embodies goal orientation and competition, the Circle reflects empathy and collaboration, and the Square stands for structure and consistency. Each archetype is examined in terms of its strengths, limitations, and optimal fit within particular phases of organizational evolution—from startup and rapid growth to maturity and bureaucratic consolidation. Empirical support is drawn from behavioral leadership theories, neurobehavioral data, and case studies of corporate development. Through this analysis, the paper explores how mismatches between leadership archetypes and organizational stages can lead to dysfunction, stagnation, or failure. Conversely, alignment between archetype and context contributes to sustainable performance and team cohesion. The framework offers practical applications in leadership development, succession planning, and cultural diagnostics. It also provides a basis for evaluating leadership effectiveness not solely on competencies, but on congruence with an organization’s stage-specific needs. By bridging narrative metaphors with validated psychological models, the study proposes a novel approach to navigating the complexity of modern organizational leadership.},
year = {2025}
}
Copy
|
Download
-
TY - JOUR
T1 - From Squid Game to Organizational Governance: A Neurobehavioral Framework of Four Leadership Archetypes
AU - Vlad Reznikov
Y1 - 2025/07/04
PY - 2025
N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cnn.20250902.11
DO - 10.11648/j.cnn.20250902.11
T2 - Clinical Neurology and Neuroscience
JF - Clinical Neurology and Neuroscience
JO - Clinical Neurology and Neuroscience
SP - 20
EP - 28
PB - Science Publishing Group
SN - 2578-8930
UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cnn.20250902.11
AB - This paper presents a multidisciplinary framework integrating leadership theory, personality psychology, and organizational development models through the lens of narrative structures found in the television series Squid Game. Specifically, it introduces a four-archetype model—Twist, Triangle, Circle, and Square—each representing distinct leadership behaviors and personality orientations. These archetypes are aligned with the Big Five personality dimensions and are mapped across individual, team, and organizational lifecycle stages. The Twist represents innovation and adaptability, the Triangle embodies goal orientation and competition, the Circle reflects empathy and collaboration, and the Square stands for structure and consistency. Each archetype is examined in terms of its strengths, limitations, and optimal fit within particular phases of organizational evolution—from startup and rapid growth to maturity and bureaucratic consolidation. Empirical support is drawn from behavioral leadership theories, neurobehavioral data, and case studies of corporate development. Through this analysis, the paper explores how mismatches between leadership archetypes and organizational stages can lead to dysfunction, stagnation, or failure. Conversely, alignment between archetype and context contributes to sustainable performance and team cohesion. The framework offers practical applications in leadership development, succession planning, and cultural diagnostics. It also provides a basis for evaluating leadership effectiveness not solely on competencies, but on congruence with an organization’s stage-specific needs. By bridging narrative metaphors with validated psychological models, the study proposes a novel approach to navigating the complexity of modern organizational leadership.
VL - 9
IS - 2
ER -
Copy
|
Download
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook