“…We list the most important of these schools given that we used them to estimate their impact on citations of quantitative articles. Relying on previous reviews (Bass & Bass, 2008;Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, & Cogliser, 2010;House & Aditya, 1997;Lowe & Gardner, 2000;Van Seters & Field, 1990), Day and Antonakis (2012) classified leadership schools into the following parsimonious categories: (a) trait, focusing on stable and personal attributes (e.g., personality) of leaders (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002;Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986); (b) behavioral, which studies behavioral styles of leaders, usually looking at social support (consideration) or task (initiating structure) orientation (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004), or other behavioral aspects of leadership; (c) contextual, which models how context affects the leadership phenomenon (Liden & Antonakis, 2009;Osborn, Hunt, & Jauch, 2002;Porter & McLaughlin, 2006); (d) contingency, which seeks to model how situational demands affect the impact of behavioral styles on outcomes (Fiedler, 1967;House & Mitchell, 1974); (e) relational, which focuses on quality of relations between leaders and followers (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975;Graen & Uhl-bien, 1995); (f) information processing, which employs a cognitive perspective of leadership (Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984;Lord & Maher, 1991); (g) the "new" leadership, which focuses on visionary, values-centered, and charismatic aspects of leadership and related perspectives (Bass, 1985;House, 1977); (h) biological and evolutionary perspectives, which take a genetic, neuroscientific, "hard"-science, or evolutionary approach to leadership (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008;Waldman, Balthazard, & Peterson, 2011). They also defined the "skeptics" school, which treats leadership as a social construction (Eden & Leviatan, 1975;Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985), though they have suggested that this school is mostly subsumed in the information processing perspective.…”