After examining these articles, the meaning and types of leadership have been integrated more thoroughly. I am under the impression that transactional leadership is something that comes along with a confusing connotation. In the article it states that a charismatic leader is different from a transformational type of leader. In my opinion, I think that these type of leaders must show some signs of charisma. This is because if you are in a high position of leading then you are, in some way, exibiting charisma as you must have to command the group of followers and command them to do what you wish. If you are making them do what you wish them to do then you are making your followers experience charisma.
This article really made me side towards transformational leadership. This is because, in the article it stated something along the lines of transactional leaders not rewarding personal gains in personality. This is not a positive trait to attain in leadership because followers want to be rewarded with positive deeds that they commit.
I agree with your point that transformational leadership is the more effective option, but I understand the usefulness of transactional leadership in certain fields. In results driven fields, like certain business or the military, it is useful to be a transactional leader. In the end though, I think it’s best if a leader has some components of both types of leadership.
I agree that after reading these articles, transformational leadership seemed a lot more appealing to me but I also think it is important to have both concepts. After all, transformational leaders must also be transactional leaders.
Interesting point about the benefits of being charismatic in addition to one of the two leadership types. I agree, leading with transactional or transformational styles can definitely be more effective. I also think that the personal reward system in transformational is often more effective.