Theories of leadership are divided: some underscore the primacy of personal qualities; others stress that systems are all-important. Both interpretations are correct: a larger pool of leaders is desirable all the time (and superleaders are necessary on occasion) but its development must be part of systemic invigoration of leadership in organizations. Leading in the Workplace, available at http://www.adb.org/publications/leading-workplace, covers much related ground.

Dear Janitha,

According to the proponents of Trait leadership approach, leaders are born with certain qualities that propels them to leadership within their group or society. Since such qualities are inborn, others can't be trained to have these qualities and become leaders. Situational leaders are those who use their skills and qualities according to the situation they operate in. It is mostly dependent upon the skills and experience of the followers.

Transformational and transactional leadership are the extreme ends of a continuum. A transformational leader uses his charisma (influence, consideration, motivation and  intellectual stimulation) to raise the motivation level of his followers and himself to a higher level to carry out a task. On the other hand, transactional leader uses rewards and punishment (mostly transactional rewards) to achieve goals.

I would also like to add that none of the leadership models or approaches, including the four discussed here, are universal in nature and work in all circumstances. Successful leadership is highly contextual and the practices of a successful leader depends upon the appropriate reaction of a leader's immediate contextual environment.

Dear Janitha:

I am uncertain as what you mean by "evaluate the relevance" of the various leadership theories you name. Therefore, I will give you guidance from the literature as to some of the basic distinctions among those theories. I will then give you my personal ideas (not based on the literature or research) as to when and where each leadership style might prove most useful.

Distinctions?

In Trait Theory the leader is differentiated from the group by possessing preferred traits of personality and characteristics present from birth (Bass, 1990, p. 38). In Situational Theory leaders are made, not born. The leader emerges due to the experiences he/she was exposed to, and becomes a leader as a result of the time, place, and occurrence (Bass & Stodgill, p. 38).

In Transformational Theory the leader engages the followers in a manner to raise the motivation, productivity, or consciousness for the betterment of the organization (Wren, 1995, p. 101). The leader generates change through the moral and human development of the followers (Wren, p. 103). In Transactional Theory a leader takes the initiative to interact with others in order to enact an exchange for the good of the group (Wren, 1995, p. 101). An exchange relationship between the leader and the follower(s) where the benefits between the two parties are not necessarily equal, but are clearly known.

Relevance?

Trait Theory might best be used when a charismatic appeal needs to be made in order to inspire others to top performance. I think an example is the role played by a team’s coach just prior to the "big game." Situational Theory might best be used when a leader is seeking overtime to increase the knowledge, skills, abilities, and maturity of a work group. The leader’s approach will change based upon the situation/task and the needs of the followers to handle that situation/task. An example might be when an incremental process change is being implemented.

Transformational Theory might best be understood and applied as having value when the organization or profession is undergoing radical and rapid change and commitment to the organization is required. The leader must not only change the tasks but also change the people involved in those tasks. Helping the people to grow and change might be the primary value followed closely by the increasing efficiency of the processes and procedures used to produce the new and improved outputs. An example might be during a massive organizational change. Transactional Theory might be most useful when allegiance and commitment to the leader is required. This need could arise when the tasks are well known and the skills to perform them are present but the danger or difficulty in completing the tasks is high. For example during a grave conflict the colonel needs to have the soldiers follow orders regardless of the personal costs.

I hope that helps you somewhat.

Dr. Jay

Hi Janitha:

Dr. Jay's comment answers your question.

However, I would like to know "why" you want to know this. What is the topic /question you want answered?

Lyle

From a research design approach, you might consider model your inquiry on Graham Allison's "The Essence of Decision Making", applying each of the four theories of leadership to explain a real world leadership case, then determining which of the four theories offers the greatest explanatory power. In a contrasting approach, alternatively, you might consider Garteth Morgan's or the Bolman and Deal approach of applying each leadership frame to show what it explains best.