The 5 Cs of Leadership: Why They Matter, But Aren’t the Whole Picture

Another 'C' for Leadership?

Leadership models love the letter "C."

Over the years, we’ve seen dozens of frameworks built around a handful of powerful words that start with that single letter. From classrooms to boardrooms, the "5 Cs of Leadership" have become something of a default. They’re easy to remember, visually clean on a slide, and they carry a sense of credibility.

But here’s the challenge. There isn’t just one version of the 5 Cs. In fact, depending on which article, book, or speaker you come across, the five qualities may be completely different.

Take Indra Nooyi, the former CEO of PepsiCo. Her leadership model includes Competency, Courage, Communication, Consistency, and Compass (which she uses to describe a values-driven approach to decision-making).

Now compare that with the model put forward by W. James Weese, a respected academic in leadership development. His list includes Character, Competence, Commitment, Compassion, and Communication.

Both models are thoughtful. Both have clearly been shaped by experience. And both are trying to guide leaders toward something meaningful.

But when two widely respected figures offer two different versions of what leadership looks like, and only one word overlaps, it raises a bigger question.

Are we oversimplifying something that is, by nature, complex and context-specific?

Two Models, Two Lenses

Let’s look at both sets of Cs a little more closely.

• Indra Nooyi’s 5 Cs

• Competency – You need to be capable and knowledgeable in your domain.

• Courage – Leadership sometimes requires difficult decisions and bold action.

• Communication – Clear, respectful, two-way dialogue is essential.

• Consistency – People want to know what to expect from you.

• Compass – A strong sense of integrity should guide your choices.

• ·W. James Weese’s 5 Cs

• Character – Ethics and trustworthiness are the foundation of influence.

• Competence – Leaders must be skilled, prepared, and credible.

• Commitment – A sense of purpose and perseverance is key.

• Compassion – Leading with empathy matters.

• Communication – Once again, the ability to connect through dialogue shows up.

It’s clear that both models aim to outline the traits of an effective leader. There is a shared belief that communication is critical, and both highlight the importance of technical and interpersonal capability. But each version reflects a different lens, shaped by different environments, industries, and priorities.

And this is where we start to see the limits of formulaic leadership thinking.

If you were to take either model and apply it directly to a team, without considering the context or the people involved, you might be missing more than you realize.

The C Explosion: 24 Cs and Counting

If Nooyi and Weese disagree on the five most essential leadership traits, what happens when we widen the lens?

Across books, coaching frameworks, and leadership seminars, the list of “C” qualities has grown well beyond five. Some sources now reference anywhere from 12 to 24. Here's a selection of what's been put forward over the years:

The 24 Cs of Leadership:

• Communication

• Confidence

• Connection

• Commitment

• Competence

• Clarity

• Collaboration

• Compassion

• Common Purpose

• Care

• Consistency

• Creativity

• Coaching and Collaboration

• Capability

• Compass

• Conflict

• Communication Skills

• Charisma

• Credibility

• Composure

• Courage

• Character

• Coachability

• Curiosity

It’s an impressive list. But it also tells a story.

The variety reflects the different ways we’ve tried to make sense of what leadership is meant to be. Some Cs focus on performance and authority, like competence and credibility. Others emphasize emotional intelligence, such as compassion, care, and connection. Some promote structure and order, like consistency and composure, while others encourage exploration and growth, such as curiosity and creativity.

Each one, on its own, has value. But when they are stacked together and presented as simultaneous expectations, they begin to conflict. And that can create confusion.

Take, for example, a mid-level leader in a fast-scaling organisation. Let’s call her Lena. Her company’s values reference many of the Cs: courage, compassion, consistency, curiosity, and composure among them. Recently, Lena had to lead her team through a tough transition, merging two departments with different working cultures. She was expected to take decisive action (courage), stay open to feedback (curiosity), manage emotional tension (composure), remain fair in her decisions (consistency), and show care for staff facing redundancy (compassion).

Each expectation was valid. But they clashed in practice.

When Lena leaned into composure, some saw her as detached. When she showed too much compassion, others questioned her objectivity. Curiosity looked like indecision. Consistency was interpreted as inflexibility when she tried to apply a standard process across teams with very different needs.

The issue wasn’t her ability. It was the lack of guidance on which values should take priority at each stage. No leadership model helped her make sense of those tensions in real time. And no static list could.

Leadership is not about applying every quality equally. It’s about knowing which ones matter most in a given moment, and being able to shift when the situation changes.

When teams and leaders are expected to demonstrate all of these qualities at once, without help in interpreting them, the result is often pressure, hesitation, or misalignment. The risk is a culture that expects people to be everything to everyone, rather than effective for the reality they are facing.

When you review your organisation’s leadership frameworks, are you asking people to develop everything equally? Or are you helping them understand when to use which strengths, and why?

The Risk of Literal Leadership

Leadership models are useful. They give people language, structure, and focus. But they also come with a risk.

When taken too literally, models like the 5 Cs can start to function more like checklists than guides. Instead of supporting development, they can restrict it. Instead of sparking curiosity, they can limit it. In high-pressure environments, especially, they can encourage leaders to perform traits rather than develop meaningful responses to real situations.

This happens when a leadership framework becomes a set of fixed expectations rather than a conversation starter. And it’s easy to see why. Models simplify complexity. They feel safe, digestible, and measurable. But the real world isn’t a model. The real world is teams in flux, people in motion, and problems that don't always align with the categories we’ve been taught to use.

Let’s go back to Lena.

In her case, the organisational language around courage, compassion, and consistency was meant to guide her. But instead, it created tension she wasn’t sure how to resolve. With no space for interpretation, she felt torn between multiple “right” answers. She wasn’t failing to lead. She was trying to satisfy a set of values that were clashing under pressure.

This is a common scenario in team dynamics. When we give leaders a toolkit full of good ideas but no framework for when and how to use them, we risk burnout and misalignment. Leaders begin to second-guess themselves. Teams become confused about what’s expected. And wellbeing quietly slips while performance becomes the only visible measure.

The impact is subtle but serious.

Some teams begin to perform at the cost of trust or psychological safety. Others protect wellbeing but avoid necessary conflict or accountability. Both extremes lead to dysfunction, even if no one is calling it that.

This is why leadership must be taught in context, not just in frameworks. It’s why development needs to be linked to real teams, not just individual traits. And it’s why models like the 5 Cs should be viewed as starting points, not scorecards.

True leadership is adaptive. It’s relational. And it’s deeply situational.

Context is King: Leadership in Real Teams

Most leadership models are built around individuals. They describe what a person should be like in order to lead effectively. But leadership doesn’t happen in isolation. It happens in conversation, in conflict, in collaboration. It happens in teams.

That’s where many models begin to fall short. They tell us what a good leader should be, but they don’t help us understand how those traits should show up in different environments. They don’t prepare leaders to navigate messy team dynamics or adapt to rapidly changing contexts. And they rarely help people make sense of what happens when values compete, or when the “right” answer depends on who is in the room.

That’s why context is everything.

The kind of leadership that works in a crisis won’t be the same as the kind needed to nurture innovation. What a remote-first product team values might be very different from a hybrid HR function. A high-performing executive team might need challenge and directness. A cross-functional delivery team might need safety and inclusion.

Traits like courage, compassion, or composure don’t mean much unless they’re applied in ways that fit the team’s needs and goals. A leader with too much confidence and not enough curiosity might silence useful dissent. Another might over-index on care and avoid making hard decisions. The outcome depends on context, not just intent.

What many leadership frameworks miss is that people don't lead into thin air. They lead into systems made of personalities, priorities, histories, and habits. That’s why team development and relationship intelligence are so important.

When we work with teams, we often see breakthroughs happen not because someone "added" another leadership trait, but because they gained a clearer understanding of how their behaviour affected others. They started to notice patterns. They learned to shift their approach. They built shared language and trust. That’s where real performance change starts; not with more theory, but with more awareness.

Context brings meaning to leadership. It helps teams move from vague alignment to real effectiveness. And it’s what turns a set of Cs into something you can actually use.

From Models to Meaning: The Human Element

If leadership models give us a vocabulary, context gives us understanding. But understanding alone isn’t enough. What really matters is what we do with it.

Too often, leadership development focuses on adding more traits, more Cs, more labels, more competencies. The assumption is that if a leader can just acquire a long enough list of attributes, they’ll be effective. But most seasoned leaders know that real change doesn’t happen through accumulation. It happens through insight, feedback, and practice.

In other words, through experience, and through relationship.

We’ve worked with teams where leaders didn’t need more training on compassion or curiosity. They needed help seeing how their version of those traits landed with others. One manager’s attempt at “clarity” came across as micromanagement. Another’s effort at “consistency” was viewed as inflexibility. In both cases, they weren’t lacking traits. They were missing the tools to interpret their own impact.

This is where relationship intelligence comes into play.

When leaders and teams develop a better understanding of how they work together – what builds trust, what creates friction, what helps performance – they become more adaptable. They make better choices. They know when to lean into courage and when to pause for care. They begin to build shared norms and healthier accountability.

And importantly, they start to notice when the expectations placed on them are out of sync with reality.

That’s why we believe in shifting the focus from models to meaning. From static leadership traits to dynamic team behaviours. From theory to interaction.

Great leadership doesn’t live on posters. It lives in the quality of conversations. It shows up in how decisions are made, how feedback is given, how tension is handled, and how aligned people feel.

And that’s not something you fix with another framework. That’s something you grow with time, attention, and the right support.

Real Teams. Real Context. Real Leadership.

Leadership isn’t a fixed set of traits. It’s a series of choices made in context, shaped by people, pressure, values, and goals. The 5 Cs, or even 24 of them, can be helpful prompts. But on their own, they are not enough.

What matters most is how those traits are applied. How they land in real conversations. How they shift as the environment changes. And how leaders and teams make sense of those shifts together.

This is where meaningful development happens; not in isolation, but in relationship. Not in models, but in motion.

If you're leading learning or HR strategy, the challenge is not just to teach leadership traits. It's to create space for people to understand how leadership really shows up in your teams – where it’s strong, where it’s struggling, and where it needs support.

Because when leadership becomes too rigid, people burn out. When it becomes too vague, performance stalls. But when it's shaped in context, with care and clarity, teams grow in ways that models alone can’t deliver.

If you're ready to ensure your teams aren't sacrificing wellbeing for performance, or the other way around, we'd love to talk.

Together, we can move beyond the list and focus on what really drives change: relationships, dynamics, and meaning.