This paper does not attempt to provide a comprehensive review of the research on transformational leadership, but a limited coverage of the previous research that will help to evaluate how far the concept is a valid construct and applicable in the real world. In this work, Bass’ views and his four dimensions of transformational leadership will be critically evaluated. It will be argued that some important factors have been overlooked in the discussion of transformational leadership. For example, popular or/and successful leaders are not necessarily transformational; they can rather be consequential leaders. The role of Zeitgeist (spirit of the time), as discussed in the empirical section of this paper, is completely ignored by the proponents of transformational leadership. Shamir’s (1999) proposition that charismatic or transformational leaders emerge in a weak psychological situation will be contended. This research will further substantiate the argument of other researchers that the role of transactional leadership in the literature is unnecessarily lowered. Contending with the proponents of transformational leadership, it will be argued that transformational leadership is, to some extent, a non-existent concept. And, if it exists, it has been specifically applied to popular-successful leaders who achieve their one-point agenda by creating a euphoria among their common followers – that achieving one-point agenda would automatically transform the system and bring benefits to all stakeholders. However, there is no surety that a real transformation takes place after achieving the goal. Besides, it is a false assumption in the literature that transformational leaders nurture the competent followers to take the position of leadership. These arguments will be substantiated by using four empirical examples of renowned leaders from South Asia, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Zulfqar Ali Bhutto, and Mujib-ur-Rehaman. A useful implication of this study is that it is important to analyze the achievement and outcomes before determining someones’ leadership style. The proposition of this work is that a popular or transformational leadership may only be good to achieve a specific goal(s); however, change and growth of an organization may not sustain without transactional leadership.