A Day in the Life of a School Principal

Tweet Share20
15 Comments

Featured Author:

Victor Lana

Victor Lana is a native of New York City, where he has studied acting, writing, and literature.
He received a doctorate in English from St. John's University, New York, and has taught at every
level in education. Many of his stories and articles have been published in print and online
magazines. He has authored A Death in Prague (2002), Move (2003) and The Savage Quiet
September Sun: A Collection of 9/11 Stories. His new novel, Like a Passing Shadow is now
available. Please check out his blog here.

More articles from this author:

 A Nation Still at Risk: Real Education Reform Needed Now

 Teacher Accountability Does Not Equal Evaluations Tied to Test Scores
 New NYC Chancellor Has No Ed Background

Victor Lana

I read the news today, oh boy,

About a lucky man who made the grade.
-”A Day in the Life” by the Beatles

When I think about the iconic song from the Beatles legendary album, Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely
Hearts Club Band, that opening line has always stuck in my mind. Of course, as I approach
writing about “a day in the life” of a school principal, the lyrics seem especially apropos
considering the part about “made the grade.” What do school principals do but make the grade,
go beyond the grade, and live for the grade?

Being a school principal is a twenty-four hour job because the school is constantly in your
thoughts. It has to be because, as the leader, you are responsible for faculty, staff and, most
importantly, the students. Sometimes you lay awake at night thinking through a difficult
problem; other times something prevents you from sleeping well or enters your dreams.

In many ways you are always “on the job” even when you are off or away on vacation, but to
maintain your sanity and a healthy family life you must make every effort to draw a line in the
sand, delineate work from home, and make time for your family, especially doing things to let
your own children know that they are just as important (and hopefully more important) than
those kids at school.

Original Articles

Effects of support on stress and burnout in

school principals
Simon Beausaert, Dominik E. Froehlich, Christelle Devos & Philip Riley
Pages 347-365 | Received 17 Dec 2015, Accepted 27 Jul 2016, Published online: 19 Aug 2016

 Download citation
 https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2016.1220810

In this article

 Abstract
 Introduction
 Burnout
 Social support
 Stress
 Purpose of the study
 Method
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Disclosure statement
 References










Abstract
Background: More than ever before, school principals are dealing with stress and burnout,
resulting from increasing role demands and decreasing decision latitude and autonomy.
Following the Demand–Support–Constraints model, reasons for stress and burnout can be found
in the lack of social support in the environment.

Purpose: This longitudinal study investigates whether changes in social support from
colleagues, supervisors and/or the broader community affect levels of principal stress and
burnout.

Sample: Approximately 26% of Australia’s school principals took part (N = 3572): primary
(n = 2660) and secondary (n = 912) spread across all Australian states and territories. Age ranged
between 46 and 55 years, and mean leadership experience was 12 years.
Design and methods: Since stress and burnout are psychological phenomena that develop over
time, a longitudinal approach was adopted. Data were collected across four waves, spread over
four years, from 2011 to 2014.

Results: It was found that social support predicts decreased stress and in turn burnout in school
principals, however differences were found according to the type of social support. The data
provide strong evidence for a positive effect of stress on burnout (e.g. the more stress at time 2,
the more burnout in principals at time 3) and partial support for indirect negative effects of social
support on burnout (e.g. the more support from colleagues at time 2, the less burnout in
principals at time 3). However, we also found two instances of positive effects of social support
from the broader community on burnout. This suggests that the more support principals receive
from the broader community, the more likely they are to show burnout symptoms. This might be
explained as the ‘the downside of empathy’, where principals who are strongly supported by
their community might also feel more connected to that community. When their community is
struggling, they are probably struggling as well.

Conclusions: The findings highlight the positive impact the wider school community can play in
providing supplementary professional support to the principal. Unbundling or repackaging the
job responsibilities with an administrative team that shares the leadership of the school, could be
part of the solution.

Keywords: Social support, stress, burnout, principals, demand–support–constraints model

Introduction
The tasks school principals11. Terminology is varied and in some countries this job is referred to
as ‘head teacher’ or similar. Also, the specific job responsibilities of the school principal or head
teacher do vary between educational systems.View all notes have to deal with are varied and
numerous. They are responsible for managing the school, coordinating and guiding the teaching,
networking with external partners and communicating with the parents. In addition, they are
usually in charge of the administration and finances, personnel management and legally
responsible for all issues that arise in their schools. Finally, they have a pedagogical role.
Generally, they are accountable for the coherence between didactical methods and student
learning, competency development and graduation profiles and evaluation. They must
collaborate with education bureaucracies, undergo regular inspections and connect with other
supporting services beyond the school itself and have a leading role in implementing innovations
(Friedman 2002 Friedman, I. A. 2002. “Burnout in School Principals: Role Related
Antecedents.” Social Psychology of Education 5: 229–251.[Crossref], [Google Scholar]; Engels
et al. 2008 Engels, N., G. Hotton, G. Devos, D. Bouckenooghe, and A. Aelterman. 2008.
“Principals in Schools with a Positive School Culture.” Educational Studies 34 (3): 159–
174.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]).

Next to this long, but by no means complete, list of tasks, many governments and jurisdictions
are introducing policies that lead to greater standardisation. Often, high stakes national and state-
wide tests are implemented in a drive towards continuous school improvement and
accountability. There is also a move towards decentralisation and more autonomy, although it
has been argued that the necessary resources are not always provided (Engels et al. 2008 Engels,
N., G. Hotton, G. Devos, D. Bouckenooghe, and A. Aelterman. 2008. “Principals in Schools
with a Positive School Culture.” Educational Studies 34 (3): 159–174.[Taylor & Francis Online],
[Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Riley 2014 Riley, P. 2014. “The Complexities of School
Leadership: Many Boundaries to Cross.” In Boundary-Spanning in Organizations: Network,
Influence, and Conflict, edited by J. Langan-Fox and C. L. Cooper, 185–205. London:
Routledge. [Google Scholar]). This increased autonomy brings higher demands and more
responsibility and, it is argued, these can negatively impact principals’ well-being (Friedman
2002 Friedman, I. A. 2002. “Burnout in School Principals: Role Related Antecedents.” Social
Psychology of Education 5: 229–251.[Crossref], [Google Scholar]; Engels et al. 2008 Engels, N.,
G. Hotton, G. Devos, D. Bouckenooghe, and A. Aelterman. 2008. “Principals in Schools with a
Positive School Culture.” Educational Studies 34 (3): 159–174.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web
of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Olsen and Sexton 2009 Olsen, B., and D. Sexton. 2009.
“Threat Rigidity, School Reform, and How Teachers View Their Work inside Current Education
Policy Contexts.” American Educational Research Journal 46: 9–44.[Crossref], [Web of Science
®], [Google Scholar]; Riley and Langan-Fox 2013 Riley, P., and J. Langan-Fox. 2013.
“Bullying, Stress and Health in School Principals and Medical Professionals: Experiences at the
‘Front-Line’.” In Human Frailties: Wrong Turns on the Road to Success, edited by R. Burke, C.
L. Cooper, and S. Fox, 181–200. London: Gower. [Google Scholar]). It is evident that good
teachers do their best work in a school with good leadership (Leithwood, Louis, and Anderson
2012 Leithwood, K. A., K. S. Louis, and S. E. Anderson. 2012. Linking Leadership to Student
Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]). So when evidence emerges that
leaders are under considerable strain from rapidly changing roles and increased accountability,
this gives real pause for thought (Matthews, Moorman, and Nusche 2008 Matthews, P., H.
Moorman, and D. Nusche. 2008. “Building Leadership Capacity for System Improvement in
Victoria, Australia”. In Improving School Leadership. Volume 2: Case Studies on System
Leadership, edited by Beatriz Pont, Deborah Nusche, and David Hopkins, 179–213.
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/44375122.pdf. [Google Scholar]; Riley 2014 Riley, P. 2014.
“The Complexities of School Leadership: Many Boundaries to Cross.” In Boundary-Spanning in
Organizations: Network, Influence, and Conflict, edited by J. Langan-Fox and C. L. Cooper,
185–205. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]; Riley and Langan-Fox 2013 Riley, P., and J.
Langan-Fox. 2013. “Bullying, Stress and Health in School Principals and Medical Professionals:
Experiences at the ‘Front-Line’.” In Human Frailties: Wrong Turns on the Road to Success,
edited by R. Burke, C. L. Cooper, and S. Fox, 181–200. London: Gower. [Google Scholar]).

Since the 1970s, research attention has been paid to the antecedents and consequences of stress
and burnout. Consequences of burnout include reduced productivity and working efficacy,
presenteeism and absenteeism (PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia 2014 PricewaterhouseCoopers
Australia. (2014). Creating a Mentally Healthy Workplace: Return on Investment Analysis.
http://www.headsup.org.au/creating-a-mentally-healthy-workplace/the-business-case. [Google
Scholar]), illness, casualties, psychopathology, and deterioration in social and family
relationships (van Dick and Wagner 2001 van Dick, R., and U. Wagner. 2001. “Stress and Strain
in Teaching: A Structural Equation Approach.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 71:
243–259.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). If, as some researchers
argue, school leaders are the second biggest influence on student outcomes behind the teacher
(Day et al. 2008 Day, C., P. Sammons, D. Hopkins, K. Leithwood, and A. Kington. 2008.
“Research into the Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes: Policy and Research
Contexts.” School Leadership and Management 28 (1): 5–25.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Google
Scholar]; Leithwood and Day 2008 Leithwood, K., and C. Day. 2008. “The Impact of School
Leadership on Pupil Outcomes.” School Leadership and Management 28 (1): 1–4.[Taylor &
Francis Online], [Google Scholar]), when the leader is not functioning well, arguably the whole
school suffers. In other words, ‘If good leadership is at the heart of every good school, then a
leader who is both mentally and physically unwell could have a potentially disastrous impact on
the well-being of a school and those within it’ (Phillips and Sen 2011 Phillips, S., and D. Sen.
2011. “Stress in Head Teachers.” In Handbook of Stress in the Occupations, edited by J. Langan-
Fox and C. L. Cooper, 177–201. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.[Crossref], [Google Scholar], 180).

The antecedents of stress and burnout are categorised in two ways: individually and contextually
related variables. Some of the individual variables studied are demographic, such as age, gender
or marital status, personality, coping strategies or perceived self-efficacy. The most considered
contextual variables are working or organisational characteristics, such as role stressors, working
conditions, students behaviour, the need for professional recognition or prestige, level of
specialisation, teacher–student ratio, lack of resources, relationship with colleagues and social
support (Cano-García, Padilla-Muñoz, and Carrasco-Ortiz 2005 Cano-García, F. J., E. M.
Padilla-Muñoz, and M. Á. Carrasco-Ortiz. 2005. “Personality and Contextual Variables in
Teacher Burnout.” Personality and Individual Differences 38: 929–940.[Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Social support has been shown to buffer stress, depression and
burnout. For example, Sánchez-Moreno et al. (2014 Sánchez-Moreno, E., I. N. D. L. F. Roldán,
L. P. Gallardo-Peralta, and A. B. L. de Roda. 2014. “Burnout, Informal Social Support and
Psychological Distress among Social Workers.” British Journal of Social Work 45: bcu084.[Web
of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) analysed the relationship between burnout, informal social
support and psychological distress in a sample of social workers in Spain. Their results
confirmed the importance of informal social support as a variable negatively related to distress,
even in the presence of burnout. In contrast, organisational variables were not related to distress.
Similarly, Ju et al. (2015 Ju, C., J. Lan, Y. Li, W. Feng, and X. You. 2015. “The Mediating Role
of Workplace Social Support on the Relationship between Trait Emotional Intelligence and
Teacher Burnout.” Teaching and Teacher Education 51: 58–67.[Crossref], [Web of Science
®], [Google Scholar]) tested structural equation models and found significant negative relations
between workplace social support and teacher burnout among 307 Chinese middle school
teachers; concluding that social support can protect teachers from burnout. However, both
studies had a cross-sectional design and were conducted with social workers and teachers and not
with principals. In addition, social support is often measured in a more general way, not making
a distinction between the types of social support offered by different groups of people.

Therefore, this longitudinal study aimed to examine how the contextual factor ‘social support’,
or, more precisely, social support from colleagues, supervisor(s) and the broader school
community, influenced stress and burnout in primary and secondary school principals. The data
were collected across four waves, equally spread over four years (2011–2014). The research
questions were: (1) How does social support from colleagues, supervisors and the community (at
t1) influence the level of burnout (at t2, t3 and t4)? (2) How does social support from colleagues,
supervisors and the community (at t1) influence the level of stress (at t2, t3 and t4)? (3) Does
stress mediate the relation between social support and burnout? In contrast with previous
research that focused on stress and burnout in teachers using cross-sectional designs, this study
focuses on principals and takes a longitudinal approach. While school principals are similar to
teachers working in the same high-demand, dynamic environment, they deal with quite different
responsibilities and tasks. Therefore, research results on stress and burnout in teachers cannot be
easily generalised to principals. In addition, the longitudinal approach allows us to study burnout
over time and to get insight into how social support influences stress, feelings of depression and
burnout over time. As burnout is a state of physical, mental and emotional exhaustion that
develops over time, because of long-term involvement in work situations that are emotionally
demanding (Evers, Tomic, and Brouwers 2005 Evers, W. J., W. Tomic, and A. Brouwers. 2005.
“Constructive Thinking and Burnout among Secondary School Teachers.” Social Psychology of
Education 8: 425–439.[Crossref], [Google Scholar]), a longitudinal approach across four years is
an appropriate methodological approach. Finally, we wanted to examine separately different
kinds of social support experienced by school principals: support from colleague principals,
supervisor(s) and from the larger school community.

Burnout
A decade ago the OECD (2005 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development). 2005. Teaching Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers.
Accessed October 27, 2005. http://www.oecd.org/edu/teacherpolicy [Google Scholar]) indicated
that maintaining high-quality teachers in the profession was one of the biggest concerns for
policy-makers across 25 countries. In the intervening years this concern has increased in many
countries (OCED 2014 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development).
(2014). TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, TALIS.
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/education/talis-2013-results_9789264196261-
en. [Google Scholar]). This has increased the performance pressure on teachers, which in turn
leads to increases in perceived stress and burnout. In the Netherlands, for example, the
prevalence of burnout is higher in the educational sector than in other sectors such as the hotel
and catering industry, general industry, transport, the caring professions and the building
industry (Evers et al. 2001 Evers, W. J., A. Brouwers, W. Tomic, and H. van Alphen. 2001.
“Self-efficacy en burnout bij leraren in het Studiehuis.” [Self-efficacy and Burnout among
Teachers of the Study-home]. Pedagogische Studiën 78: 169–183. [Google Scholar]). In the UK,
stress levels among educators are thought to be the highest of all professions (Phillips and Sen
2011 Phillips, S., and D. Sen. 2011. “Stress in Head Teachers.” In Handbook of Stress in the
Occupations, edited by J. Langan-Fox and C. L. Cooper, 177–201. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.[Crossref], [Google Scholar]). In general, researchers agree that burnout is a common
psychological negative phenomenon (Maslach 1982 Maslach, C. 1982. “Understanding Burnout:
Definitional Issues in Analyzing a Complex Phenomenon.” In Job Stress and Burnout, edited by
W. S. Paine, 29–40. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]; Farber 1984 Farber, B. 1984.
“Teacher Burnout: Assumptions, Myths, and Issues.” The Teachers College Record 86 (2): 321–
338.[Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). One of the most cited definitions is Maslach and
Jackson’s (1985 Maslach, C., and S. E. Jackson. 1985. “The Role of Sex and Family Variables in
Burnout.” Sex Roles 12: 837–851.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar], 837):
‘Burnout is a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal
accomplishment that can occur among individuals who do “people work” of some kind.’
Emotional exhaustion entails a lack in energy. Depersonalisation refers to a detached attitude
towards the job itself and/or the colleagues, sub- and super-ordinates. Reduced personal
accomplishment indicates a decrease in feelings of achievement and competence. For example,
increased emotional exhaustion in principals might result in a lack of energy needed for doing
their job. Consequently, they may develop a cynical attitude, (depersonalisation) towards their
colleagues and their work and/or become dissatisfied with their performance on the job (reduced
personal accomplishment: Fernet et al. 2012 Fernet, C., F. Guay, C. Senécal, and S. Austin.
2012. “Predicting Intraindividual Changes in Teacher Burnout: The Role of Perceived School
Environment and Motivational Factors.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (4): 514–
525.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]).

Other definitions of burnout, while not dissimilar, add to the overall picture. For example, Farber
(1991 Farber, B. A. 1991. Crisis in Education: Stress and Burnout in the American Teacher. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]) described burnout as a work-related syndrome
where individuals perceive a significant discrepancy between effort (input) and reward (output),
and which is related to physical exhaustion and different psychological symptoms such as
irritation and lower self-esteem. Another conceptualisation of burnout was developed and
validated by Demerouti et al. (2001 Demerouti, E., A. B. Bakker, F. Nachreiner, and W. B.
Schaufeli. 2001. “The Job Demands-resources Model of Burnout.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 86 (3): 499–512.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar], 2003
Demerouti, E., A. B. Bakker, I. Vardakou, and A. Kantas. 2003. “The Convergent Validity of
Two Burnout Instruments.” European Journal of Psychological Assessment 19: 12–
23.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). In line with Maslach’s conceptualisation
of ‘Emotional exhaustion’ and ‘Depersonalization’ they made a distinction between exhaustion
and disengagement. However, Zapf et al. (1999 Zapf, D., C. Vogt, C. Seifert, H. Mertini, and A.
Isic. 1999. “Emotion Work as a Source of Stress: The Concept and Development of an
Instrument.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8 (3): 371–400.[Taylor
& Francis Online], [Google Scholar]) argue that those conceptualisations and related
questionnaires take the amount of empathy and emotional involvement at work as given and that
the questionnaires do not directly question these emotional aspects. This is problematic, since
burnout might affect people’s empathy and emotional involvement and both concepts should not
be ignored when studying burnout. Therefore, in this study, we chose measures that included
empathy and emotional involvement (see measures).

Social support
There are many antecedents of burnout that also require careful attention alongside stress
(Friedman 2002 Friedman, I. A. 2002. “Burnout in School Principals: Role Related
Antecedents.” Social Psychology of Education 5: 229–251.[Crossref], [Google Scholar]).
Previously it was concluded that job and environment-related factors are often more strongly
related to burnout than personal-related antecedents (e.g. Maslach 1999 Maslach, C. 1999.
“Progress in Understanding Teacher Burnout.” In Understanding and Preventing Teacher
Burnout, edited by R. Vandenberghe and A. M. Huberman, 211–222. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.[Crossref], [Google Scholar]). The Demand–Support–Constraints model (DSC
model; Payne 1979 Payne, R. L. 1979. “Demands, Supports, Constraints and Psychological
Health.” In Response to Stress: Occupational Aspects, edited by C. J. Mackay and T. Cox, 85–
105. London: International Publishing Corporation. [Google Scholar]) focuses on two of those
environment-related factors, namely job demands and social support, to explain the origin of
stress and burnout. According to the framework, a lack of support and resources in a demanding
work setting leads to stress (Friedman 2002 Friedman, I. A. 2002. “Burnout in School Principals:
Role Related Antecedents.” Social Psychology of Education 5: 229–251.[Crossref], [Google
Scholar]). In general, social support can be provided by different people both within and outside
of the workplace. In this study, a distinction is made between three different sources of support:
colleagues inside and outside the school; supervisor(s) and the broader school community,
including parents, alumni, community leaders and school board members. In this context,
‘colleagues outside the school’ refers to other principals. In this study, supervisors are defined as
the principals’ line manager, usually in a regional office, but may also include the board chair for
independent (private, fee paying) school principals. The broader community refers to the wider
professional network of the principal mentioned above, including other principals, but also
teachers, counsellors, parents and community leaders.
Similar to the DSC model, the Job Demands–Resources model (JD-R) also emphasises job
demands and social support (Schaufeli and Bakker 2004 Schaufeli, W. B., and A. B. Bakker.
2004. “Job Demands, Job Resources, and Their Relationship with Burnout and Engagement: A
Multi-sample Study.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 25 (3): 293–315.[Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]). However, they refer to broader categories of job demands and job
resources. Demands are ‘those physical, social, or organisational aspects of the job that require
sustained physical and/or psychological (i.e. cognitive or emotional) effort and are therefore
associated with physiological and psychological costs’ (Demerouti et al. 2001 Demerouti, E., A.
B. Bakker, F. Nachreiner, and W. B. Schaufeli. 2001. “The Job Demands-resources Model of
Burnout.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (3): 499–512.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar], 501). These include several aspects such as work overload, role
problems, deficient equipment, school policies and climate, interpersonal conflicts, and student
behavioural problems. Job resources are ‘aspects of the job that may enhance motivation and
performance. These function in at least one of three ways: by buffering job demands, supporting
the achievement of work-related goals, or fostering learning and development’ (Klusmann et al.
2008 Klusmann, U., M. Kunter, U. Trautwein, O. Lüdtke, and J. Baumert. 2008. “Engagement
and Emotional Exhaustion in Teachers: Does the School Context Make a Difference?” Applied
Psychology 57 (s1): 127–151.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar], 130). For
example, job resources refer to flexible schedules, skill utilisation, participation in decision-
making, decision latitude, levels of autonomy, professional development, coaching, and support
from colleagues (Fernet et al. 2012 Fernet, C., F. Guay, C. Senécal, and S. Austin. 2012.
“Predicting Intraindividual Changes in Teacher Burnout: The Role of Perceived School
Environment and Motivational Factors.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (4): 514–
525.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Both the DSC and the JD-R model have
been criticised for not making a more detailed distinction between different types of demands
and support, as highlighted in job stress and burnout literature (Kahn and Byosiere 1992 Kahn,
R. L., and P. Byosiere. 1992. “Stress in Organizations, Vol 3.” In Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, edited by M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough, 571–650. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. [Google Scholar]; Lee and Ashforth 1996 Lee, R. T., and B.
E. Ashforth. 1996. “A Meta-analytic Examination of the Correlates of the Three Dimensions of
Job Burnout.” Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (2): 123.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science
®], [Google Scholar]).

Researchers have been validating the previously mentioned models by studying job demands
(overload/workload, student behaviour, physical environment, role conflict, and role ambiguity)
and relations with co-workers or social support on the job and their relation with burnout in
various professions. However, only a few scholars have been studying these models in
educational contexts. These few studies mostly tried to confirm the hypothesis that a school
embedded in a broader community, characterised by supportive colleagues and cooperative
relationships, might avoid burnout in teachers, in contrast with high job demands which are
significantly negatively related to burnout (see the section on burnout and social support).
Similarly, Maslach (1982 Maslach, C. 1982. “Understanding Burnout: Definitional Issues in
Analyzing a Complex Phenomenon.” In Job Stress and Burnout, edited by W. S. Paine, 29–40.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]) indicated that a lack of positive feedback and
recognition might develop burnout. Furthermore, only a few studies have been looking into the
relations between demands, support, stress and burnout in principals, discussed in the next
paragraph.

Burnout and social support

In the few studies that examined the relationship between social support and burnout in
principals, it was found that those who are less isolated are less likely suffer from burnout
(Tomic and Tomic 2008 Tomic, W., and E. Tomic. 2008. “Existential Fulfillment and Burnout
among Principals and Teachers.” Journal of Beliefs and Values 29: 11–27.[Taylor & Francis
Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Stephenson and Bauer 2010 Stephenson, L. E.,
and S. C. Bauer. 2010. “The Role of Isolation in Predicting New Principals’ Burnout.”
International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 5 (9): 1–17.[Crossref], [Google
Scholar]). Başol (2013 Başol, G. 2013. “A Comparison of Female and Male School
Administrators’ Burnout Levels Controlling for Perceived Social Support.” Education and
Science/Egitim Ve Bilim 38 (169): 3–18.[Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) compared levels
of burnout among 306 school administrators in Turkey according to their gender and with social
support as a covariate. The study concluded that social support explained the difference in
burnout levels among administrators. Specifically, increased social support led to a decrease in
occupational burnout. Stephenson and Bauer (2010 Stephenson, L. E., and S. C. Bauer. 2010.
“The Role of Isolation in Predicting New Principals’ Burnout.” International Journal of
Education Policy and Leadership 5 (9): 1–17.[Crossref], [Google Scholar]) looked at the
mediating role of isolation between social support and burnout in 196 elementary and secondary
school principals in Louisiana. They found that isolation did mediate social support and therefore
levels of physical and emotional burnout.

Similarly, in a study of teachers, Kahn et al. (2006 Kahn, J. H., K. T. Schneider, T. M. Jenkins-
Henkelman, and L. L. Moyle. 2006. “Emotional Social Support and Job Burnout among High-
school Teachers: Is It All due to Dispositional Affectivity?” Journal of Organizational Behavior
27 (6): 793–807.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) examined the relationship
between the contents of emotional social support and job burnout among 339 high-school
teachers in the US. They found that as positive emotional social support increased, emotional
exhaustion and cynicism decreased, and professional efficacy increased. In contrast, when
negative emotional social support increased, emotional exhaustion and cynicism also increased.
Other researchers also found that perceived social support in general was associated with a
lowered degree of burnout among elementary school teachers in Korea (Kim, Lee, and Kim 2009
Kim, M. Y., J. Y. Lee, and J. Kim. 2009. “Relationships among Burnout, Social Support, and
Negative Mood Regulation Expectancies of Elementary School Teachers in Korea.” Asia Pacific
Education Review 10 (4): 475–482.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Given
these previous studies, the DSC model and the JD-R model – which both see social support as a
contextual condition that positively influences psychological well-being – it is hypothesised that
the more social support a principal experiences, the fewer burnout symptoms the principal will
subsequently show.

H1: Social support (from colleagues, supervisor(s) and the larger community) reduces burnout in
school principals.

Stress
The process of burnout begins with prolonged exposure to job demands, which are then
interpreted by individuals as stress (Farber 1983 Farber, B. A. 1983. “A Critical Perspective on
Burnout.” In Stress and Burnout, edited by B. A. Farber, 1–22. New York: Pergamon. [Google
Scholar]; Friedman 1995 Friedman, I. A. 1995. “Student Behavior Patterns Contributing to
Teacher Burnout.” The Journal of Educational Research 88: 281–289.[Taylor & Francis Online],
[Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter 2001 Maslach, C., W. B.
Schaufeli, and M. P. Leiter. 2001. “Job Burnout.” Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1): 397–
422.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). The Principal Health and
Wellbeing Surveys (www.principalhealth.org) indicated that in Western countries such as
Australia and Ireland, school leaders are under significantly more stress than the general
population. In the US, for example, the National Association of Elementary School Principals
reported that 75% of principals experience stress-related symptoms that can affect their physical,
emotional, and mental health (Queen and Schumacher 2006 Queen, J. A., and D. Schumacher.
2006. “A Survival Guide for Frazzled Principals”. Principal: 18–23.
https://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Principal/2006/N-Dp18.pdf. [Google Scholar]). To put this in
a broader context, the APA (2010 APA (American Psychological Association). 2010. Stress in
America Findings. http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/national-report.pdf. [Google
Scholar]) reported that approximately 70% of Americans are stressed due to their work. Statistic
Canada (2009 Statistic Canada. (2009). Environmental and Workplace Health.
http://www.statcan.gov.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.htm. [Google Scholar]) reported that 39% of
employees are slightly stressed; 25% are somewhat stressed and 5% are extremely stressed at
work.

Previously, also in an educational context, job stress in teachers has been defined as ‘the
experience by a teacher of unpleasant emotions, such as tension, frustration, anxiety, anger and
depression, resulting from aspects of his work as a teacher’ (Kyriacou 1987 Kyriacou, C. 1987.
“Teacher Stress and Burnout: An International Review.” Educational Research 29: 146–152.
doi:10.1080/0013188870290207.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google
Scholar], 146). Gold and Roth (2013 Gold, Y., and R. A. Roth. 2013. Teachers Managing Stress
& Preventing Burnout. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar], 17) introduce three major
aspects of stress: ‘(1) stress is triggered and sustained by the intellectual or cognitive processes a
person chooses to use, (2) it is affected by the emotions we experience, and (3) it affects our
physical condition or health’.

Stress is to be distinguished from eustress and distress. Selye (1964 Selye, H. 1964. From
Dream to Discovery. New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]) was one of the first to discuss
the difference between the three forms. While he defined stress as ‘…the non‐specific response
of the body to any demand placed upon it.’ (Selye 1987 Selye, H. 1987. Stress without Distress.
London: Transworld. [Google Scholar], 17), distress occurs when the body can no longer cope
with the physiological and/or psychological demands. In other words, in the case of distress the
employee needs to deal with too much or too few demands. In contrast, eustress refers to the
optimal amount of stress, not too much and not too little. In sum, all stress is either distress or
eustress. It is the degree of demand that determines if distress or eustress occurs (Le Fevre,
Matheny, and Kolt 2003 Le Fevre, M., J. Matheny, and G. S. Kolt. 2003. “Eustress, Distress, and
Interpretation in Occupational Stress.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 18 (7): 726–
744.[Crossref], [Google Scholar]).

Although the definitions of stress and burnout are related, previous research found that stress and
burnout are distinguishable concepts. Pines and Keinan (2005 Pines, A. M., and G. Keinan.
2005. “Stress and Burnout: The Significant Difference.” Personality and Individual Differences
39 (3): 625–635.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) found that burnout and strain
are both adverse responses to job stressors, but that they have different antecedents, correlates
and consequences. They conducted a path analysis based on a data-set with 1182 Israeli police
officers, finding that job stressors were more highly correlated with stress than with burnout,
while it was the other way around for job importance. Finally, burnout was more highly
correlated with outcome variables such as job disatisfaction, desire to leave the job, physical and
emotional symptoms and perceived performance.

Stress, social support and burnout

Various researchers have been studying the antecedents of stress, and the impact of resources
such as social support on the consequences of stress, such as burnout (Friedman 2002 Friedman,
I. A. 2002. “Burnout in School Principals: Role Related Antecedents.” Social Psychology of
Education 5: 229–251.[Crossref], [Google Scholar]). Theoretical models of stress claim that the
perceptions of resources, such as social support, along with the level of demand predict the
experience of stress. For example, the cognitive transaction model of Lambert and McCarthy
(2006 Lambert, R. G., and C. J. McCarthy. 2006. Understanding Teacher Stress in an Age of
Accountability. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. [Google Scholar]) focused on teachers
specifically. They argue that teachers evaluate stressful demands according to the available
resources under their control. Also other theoretical models have been used to discuss the
determinants of stress, such as the person–environment fit theory (Edwards et al. 1998); the
cybernetic theory (Cummings and Cooper 1998 Cummings, T. G., and C. L. Cooper. 1998. “A
Cybernetic Theory of Organizational Stress.” In Theories of Organizational Stress, edited by C.
L. Cooper, 101–121. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]) and the control
theory (Spector 1998 Spector, P. E. 1998. “A Control Theory of the Job Stress Process.” In
Theories of Organizational Stress, edited by C. L.Cooper, 153–169. New York: Oxford
University Press. [Google Scholar]; for a summary, see the article of Le Fevre, Matheny, and
Kolt 2003 Le Fevre, M., J. Matheny, and G. S. Kolt. 2003. “Eustress, Distress, and Interpretation
in Occupational Stress.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 18 (7): 726–744.[Crossref], [Google
Scholar]). Across many nations, these theories have been studied in educational contexts,
generally with teachers not principals (Ullrich, Lambert, and McCarthy 2012 Ullrich, A., R. G.
Lambert, and C. J. McCarthy. 2012. “Relationship of German Elementary Teachers’
Occupational Experience, Stress, and Coping Resources to Burnout Symptoms.” International
Journal of Stress Management 19 (4): 333–342. doi:10.1037/a0030121.[Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]). More generally, previous studies found that social support has a
positive influence on both the organisation and the psychological traits of the employee. At the
same time support reduces the impact of negative factors (Marshall, Michaels, and Mulki 2007
Marshall, G. W., C. E. Michaels, and J. P. Mulki. 2007. “Workplace Isolation: Exploring the
Construct and Its Measurement.” Psychology and Marketing 24 (3): 195–223.[Crossref], [Web
of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Sawyer and Rimm-Kaufman 2007 Sawyer, L. B. E., and S. E.
Rimm-Kaufman. 2007. “Teacher Collaboration in the Context of the Responsive Classroom
Approach.” Teachers and Teaching 13 (3): 211–245.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Google
Scholar]). Previous studies involving teachers and professionals in other sectors indicate that
supportive informal social networks that offer guidance and reassure colleagues from time to
time, can reduce professionals’ level of stress, especially in rural areas where individuals might
be more isolated (Russell, Altmaier, and Van Velzen 1987 Russell, D. W., E. Altmaier, and D.
Van Velzen. 1987. “Job-Related Stress, Social Support, and Burnout among Classroom
Teachers.” Journal of Applied Psychology 72 (2): 269–274. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.72.2.269.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Marshall,
Michaels, and Mulki 2007 Marshall, G. W., C. E. Michaels, and J. P. Mulki. 2007. “Workplace
Isolation: Exploring the Construct and Its Measurement.” Psychology and Marketing 24 (3):
195–223.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Sawyer and Rimm-Kaufman 2007
Sawyer, L. B. E., and S. E. Rimm-Kaufman. 2007. “Teacher Collaboration in the Context of the
Responsive Classroom Approach.” Teachers and Teaching 13 (3): 211–245.[Taylor & Francis
Online], [Google Scholar]).

With respect to the relationship between stress and burnout, in a schooling context, McCormick
and Barnett (2011 McCormick, J., and K. Barnett. 2011. “Teachers’ Attributions for Stress and
Their Relationships with Burnout.” International Journal of Educational Management 25 (3):
278–293.[Crossref], [Google Scholar]) investigated the link between burnout and Australian
high-school teachers’ perceptions of job stress (n = 416). They found that stress was mostly
caused by the disruptive behaviour of students. Other sources of stress were related to the task
(e.g. administrative paperwork), school (e.g. sense of community) and/or the larger system (e.g.
reorganisations). Given previous research and the previously discussed DSC model and the JD-R
model on the one hand, and the theoretical models on stress on the other, it is hypothesised that:

H2: Stress increases burnout in school principals.

H3: Social support (from colleagues, supervisor(s) and the larger community) reduces burnout
indirectly by decreasing stress.

Purpose of the study

This study examines how social support (from colleagues, supervisors and the broader
community) influences the level of stress and burnout in principals. The central research
questions are: (1) How does social support from colleagues, supervisors and the community (at
time 1 (t1)) influence the level of burnout (at time 2 (t2), time 3 (t3) and time 4 (t4))? (2) How
does social support from colleagues, supervisors and the community (at t1) influence the level of
stress (at t2, t3 and t4)? and (3) Does stress mediate the relation between social support and
burnout? Given previous research, mostly with teachers, it is hypothesised that:

(1) Social support negatively influences burnout in principals.

(2) Social support negatively influences stress in principals.
(3) The relation between social support and burnout is mediated by stress. Higher levels of
social support will influence principals’ experience of stress and in turn, they will
exhibit fewer burnout symptoms.
Since stress and burnout are psychological phenomena that develop over time, a longitudinal
approach was adopted. Data were collected across four annual waves, spread over four years,
from 2011 to 2014.

Method
Participants

Over the four years of the panel survey, responses have been collected from 3675 principals and
deputy or assistant principals working in primary and secondary schools spread over all
Australian states and territories. It is worth noting that not every school has a deputy/assistant
principal, and many large schools have more than one. Our data include 10–15 schools each year
where more than two leaders participated in the same year and 160–170 schools where two
leaders (one principal and one deputy) participated. While, according to multilevel approaches,
these responses are not termed ‘independent’, in this study design, we treated multiple responses
from the same school as if they were independent in order to capture the personal perception of
the support received that influences an individual’s level of (mental) well-being. The collected
data represent approximately 26% of all principals in the country with 20–25% completing the
survey each year. Very low rates of panel attrition have occurred across the study for the
principals remaining in the role, which equals a retention rate of approximately 90%. However,
there are high rates of retirement due to the high mean age of the cohort.

The sample for the study consisted of 3572 primary (n = 2660) and secondary (n = 912) school
principals spread over all Australian states and territories at t1. Women represented 58% of the
primary school principals and 50% of the secondary school principals. Most were aged between
46 and 55 (male and females 45%) or 56–65 (36 and 41%, respectively). On average, primary
school principals had been in a leadership position (deputy/assistant or principal) for 13 years
(SD = 8); secondary school principals for a slightly shorter length of time (M = 12,
SD = 8 years). They were mainly working in Governmental schools (primary: 69%, secondary:
81%), but also in Catholic (primary: 16%, secondary: 9%) and independent schools (primary:
15%, secondary: 11%). Their schools were fairly well distributed over the ten deciles of the
national socio-economic index, i.e. the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas, which ranks areas in
Australia according to their relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage. The schools
were mostly situated in suburban (primary: 40%, secondary: 38%), rural (primary: 27%,
secondary: 20%), and urban locations (primary: 17%, secondary: 25%).

Procedure

The present study is drawn from a larger project investigating the health and well-being of
Australian school principals (including deputy/assistant principals).22. Details on the whole
project, annual reports and the complete survey can be found at www.principalhealth.org.View
all notes Participants voluntarily provided contact details to the researchers to be used for
subsequent invitations. The invitations and reminder emails were sent out two weeks apart while
the survey was open. The survey website opened for twelve weeks to collect each wave of data,
from April to July in 2011 and from early July to late September in 2012–2014. All principals
who completed the survey in Year 1 were invited in the subsequent years to complete an update
survey.

Instruments

The scales used in the present study are presented below. All scales were taken from the
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ-II; Pejtersen et al. 2010 Pejtersen, J. H., T.
S. Kristensen, V. Borg, and J. B. Bjorner. 2010. “The Second Version of the Copenhagen
Psychosocial Questionnaire.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 8–
24.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). COPSOQ-II assesses a range
of dimensions of the working psychosocial environment and the person’s well-being. The
psychometric qualities of this questionnaire have been demonstrated among large sample of
participants from numerous occupations and countries (Nübling et al. 2006 Nübling, M., U.
Stößel, H. M. Hasselhorn, M. Michaelis, and F. Hofmann. 2006. “Measuring Psychological
Stress and Strain at Work-evaluation of the COPSOQ Questionnaire in Germany.” GMS Psycho-
Social Medicine 3: 1–14. [Google Scholar]; Albertsen et al. 2010 Albertsen, K., R. Rugulies, A.
H. Garde, and H. Burr. 2010. “The Effect of the Work Environment and Performance-based
Self-Esteem on Cognitive Stress Symptoms among Danish Knowledge Workers.” Scandinavian
Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 81–89.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]; Bjorner
and Pejtersen 2010 Bjorner, J. B., and J. H. Pejtersen. 2010. “Evaluating Construct Validity of
the Second Version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire through Analysis of
Differential Item Functioning and Differential Item Effect.” Scandinavian Journal of Public
Health 38 (3 Suppl): 90–105.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]; Burr et al. 2010 Burr, H.,
K. Albertsen, R. Rugulies, and H. Hannerz. 2010. “Do Dimensions from the Copenhagen
Psychosocial Questionnaire Predict Vitality and Mental Health over and above the Job Strain and
Effort – Reward Imbalance Models?” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 59–
68.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]; Nuebling and Hasselhorn 2010 Nuebling, M., and H.
M. Hasselhorn. 2010. “The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire in Germany: From the
Validation of the Instrument to the Formation of a Job-specific Database of Psychosocial Factors
at Work.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 120–124.[Crossref],
[PubMed], [Google Scholar]; Pejtersen, Bjorner, and Hasle 2010 Pejtersen, J. H., J. B. Bjorner,
and P. Hasle. 2010. “Determining Minimally Important Score Differences in Scales of the
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl):
33–41.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]; Thorsen and Bjorner 2010 Thorsen, S. V., and J.
B. Bjorner. 2010. “Reliability of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire.” Scandinavian
Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 25–32.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Google Scholar]; Dupret et
al. 2012 Dupret, E., C. Bocerean, M. Teherani, M. Feltrin, and J. H. Pejtersen. 2012.
“Psychosocial Risk Assessment: French Validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial
Questionnaire (COPSOQ).” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 40 (5): 482–490.[Crossref],
[PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]).

We gauged three dimensions to measure social support resources: social support from colleagues
(inside and outside school), from supervisors and from the broader community. Social support
from colleagues inside the school refers to all other workers in the school: from the leadership
team through to the school caretaker. Social support from colleagues outside the school refers to
other principals, from other schools. In Australia there are regular regional/cluster group
meetings and principals build strong networks among these colleagues. The broader community
scale refers to the broader professional network, not only including other principals, but also
teachers, counsellors, parents, and community leaders. We measured social support from
colleagues (inside and outside the school) with six items (e.g. ‘How often do you get help and
support from colleagues outside your school?’) on a 5-point Likert-scale (1 = ‘Never/Hardly
Ever’ to 5 = ‘Always’). At t1, three items that did not discriminate whether the source was inside
or outside or school were used. Over all years, the scale achieved acceptable reliability
(α = 0.76–0.77). Support from supervisor and support from the broader community were
measured with three items each (e.g. ‘How often is your nearest superior willing to listen to your
problems at work?’ and ‘Do you feel part of a community at your place of work?’, respectively).
Both scales were measured on a 5-point Likert-scale (1 = ‘Never/Hardly Ever’ to 5 = ‘Always’)
and achieved good reliability in all years (α = 0.87–0.88 and 0.80–0.83, respectively).

We measured burnout (e.g. ‘How often have you been emotionally exhausted’) and stress (e.g.
‘How often have you had problems relaxing?’) with four items each. While the stress scale
measured how tense, irritable and stressed people where, the burnout scale studied physical and
emotional exhaustion and how often people felt tired. Both scales were answered using a 5-point
Likert-scale (1 = ‘Not at all’ to 5 = ‘All the time’). The scales achieved excellent reliability in all
years (α = 0.91 and 0.88–0.92, respectively).

Analyses

We tested the hypotheses using a latent variable cross-lagged panel model approach using
Maximum Likelihood estimation in Mplus 7.11 (Muthén and Muthén 2012 Muthén, L. K., and
B. O. Muthén. 2012. Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén. [Google
Scholar]). In total, we checked three competing models. We assessed model fit using chi square
divided between degrees of freedom (χ2/df, acceptable if between 2 and 3) root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA, acceptable if ≤ 0.08; Browne and Cudeck 1993 Browne, M.
W., and R. Cudeck. 1993. “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit.” In Testing Structural
Equation Models, edited by K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long, 136–162. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage. [Google Scholar]), comparative fit index (CFI, acceptable if ≥ 0.90), and standardised root
mean squared residuals (SRMR, acceptable if ≤ 0.08; Hu and Bentler 1999 Hu, L., and P. M.
Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional
Criteria versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6
(1): 1–55.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Byrne 2010 Byrne,
B. M. 2010. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming. 2nd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis Group. [Google Scholar]). Missing data
were handled using full information maximum likelihood estimation (Enders 2010 Enders, C. K.
2010. Applied Missing Data Analysis. New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]), which is a
common method in structural equation modelling (Dong and Peng 2013 Dong, Y., and C.-Y. J.
Peng. 2013. “Principled Missing Data Methods for Researchers.” SpringerPlus 2 (222): 1–
17.[PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]).
Results
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of all concepts under study and the correlations
between them. While all of the relationships are statistically significant, we observe stronger
relationships of the variables with themselves across time (autocorrelation, e.g. colleaguet1 and
colleaguet2: r = 0.49, p < 0.01) and between burnout and stress (e.g. stresst1 and burnoutt1:
r = 0.74, p < 0.01).

Table 1. Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and relationships between

variables.

CSVDisplay Table

We tested three models. For all models, the error terms between the measures over time were
allowed to correlate. Model 1 contains autoregressive paths only. Model 2 adds social supportt
(from colleagues; supervisor(s); and the broader community) as predictors for stresst+1 and
burnoutt+1. Model 3 builds on Model 2 and adds stresst as a predictor of burnoutt. The models are
summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Overview of the models tested.

Display full size

As shown in Table 2, Model 3 achieved the best model fit (χ2/df = 2.24, RMSEA = 0.026 with
90% CI [0.026, 0.027], CFI = 0.950, SRMR = 0.077, TLI = 0.945) and was used to test the
hypotheses. All standardised factor loadings of the measurement model were ≥0.60.

Table 2. Fit indices for the different models.

CSVDisplay Table

Table 3 shows the path coefficients for Model 3. In general, the model explains a large part of
the variance of burnout across the measurement points for both primary (R2 = 0.64–0.72) and
secondary school principals (R2 = 0.68–0.70). We found strong autoregressive effects among all
variables. Additionally, we noted negative cross-lagged relationships of social supportt on
stresst+1.

Table 3. Path estimates of the structural equation model.

CSVDisplay Table

As hypothesised in Hypothesis 1, we found small negative relationships of social support from

colleagues (at t2) on burnout (at t3) for both primary (β = −0.05, p ≤ 0.01) and secondary school
principals (β = −0.13, p ≤ 0.01). However, these relationships were not significant for any other
measurement point. We found positive relationships between social support from the broader
community and burnout at t1 (primary school principals: β = 0.07, p ≤ 0.05), t2 (primary school
principals: β = 0.08, p ≤ 0.01; secondary school principals: β = 0.12, p ≤ 0.01), and t3 (primary
school principals: β = 0.06, p ≤ 0.05). This positive relationship, instead of a negative one, which
is more pronounced for primary school principals than for secondary school principals, does not
support the hypothesis.
In support of Hypothesis 2, we found strong positive relationships between stresst and burnoutt
for both primary and secondary school principals across all points of measurement (stresst2 →
burnoutt2 (β = 0.65, p ≤ 0.01; β = 0.57, p ≤ 0.01, respectively), stresst3 → burnoutt3 (β = 0.65,
p ≤ 0.01; β = 0.56, p ≤ 0.01, respectively), and stresst4 → burnoutt4 (β = 0.59, p ≤ 0.01; β = 0.53,
p ≤ 0.01)).

In partial support of Hypothesis 3, we found small negative indirect relationships between social
supportt and burnoutt+1 via stresst+1. Specifically, social supportt from the broader community
showed significant negative indirect relationships with burnoutt+1 at time 1 (primary school
principals: β = −0.06, p < 0.01; secondary school principals: β = −0.10, p < 0.01) and time 2
(primary school principals: β = −0.05, p < 0.01). Furthermore, social support from colleagues at
time 3 had a significant negative relationship with burnout at time 4 among the secondary school
principals (β = −0.07, p < 0.01).

Discussion
Burnout in principals is a well-known problem in the educational sector, sometimes with extreme
consequences. It leads to a reduced performance, reduced initiative and creativity and increased
drop-out and absenteeism (Timms, Brough, and Graham 2012 Timms, C., P. Brough, and D.
Graham. 2012. “Burnt‐out but Engaged: The Co‐existence of Psychological Burnout and
Engagement.” Journal of Educational Administration 50 (3): 327–345.[Crossref], [Google
Scholar]). In the past, researchers tried to identify factors influencing teachers’, and to a lesser
extent, principals’ risk of burnout with an eye to prevention. Maslach (1999 Maslach, C. 1999.
“Progress in Understanding Teacher Burnout.” In Understanding and Preventing Teacher
Burnout, edited by R. Vandenberghe and A. M. Huberman, 211–222. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.[Crossref], [Google Scholar]) distinguished between individual and contextual
determinants, concluding that the contextual determinants might negatively influence burnout.
As suggested in literature and in line with the Job Demands–Constraint model, this study took
previous research a step further by focusing on one specific environmental condition, namely
social support. In addition, this study unravelled multiple facets of social support by making a
distinction between support from colleagues both inside and outside the school, and support from
supervisors and the broader community. Finally, we took a longitudinal perspective, since
burnout is assumed to develop over time, measuring all variables under study at four different
points in time, spread across four years.

We hypothesised that social support would have both direct effects (Hypotheses 1 and 2) and
indirect effects via stress on burnout (Hypothesis 3).

The data provide strong evidence for a positive effect of stress on burnout and partial support for
indirect negative effects of social support on burnout. As hypothesised in Hypothesis 1, a
negative effect of social support from colleagues (at t2) on burnout (at t3) was found, for both
primary and secondary school principals. In line with Hypothesis 2, there were strong positive
effects of stresst on burnoutt across all points of measurement. Finally, in partial support of
Hypothesis 3, a negative indirect effect of social supportt on burnoutt+1 via stresst+1 was
confirmed.

In general, these results are in line with the DSC model (Payne 1979 Payne, R. L. 1979.
“Demands, Supports, Constraints and Psychological Health.” In Response to Stress:
Occupational Aspects, edited by C. J. Mackay and T. Cox, 85–105. London: International
Publishing Corporation. [Google Scholar]) and the JD-R model that states that the lack of
support in a high-demanding environment leads to stress and burnout (Friedman 2002 Friedman,
I. A. 2002. “Burnout in School Principals: Role Related Antecedents.” Social Psychology of
Education 5: 229–251.[Crossref], [Google Scholar]). This study supported the findings by Fernet
et al. (2012 Fernet, C., F. Guay, C. Senécal, and S. Austin. 2012. “Predicting Intraindividual
Changes in Teacher Burnout: The Role of Perceived School Environment and Motivational
Factors.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (4): 514–525.[Crossref], [Web of Science
®], [Google Scholar]) on teachers, as we found that when principals lack or lose social support
from colleagues, they will be more likely to burnout over time. However, at the same time our
findings suggest that social support might also buffer burnout. Similarly, previous research on
burnout among teachers found that greater co-worker support lead to decreased depersonalisation
and increased feelings of accomplishment (Greenglass, Burke, and Konarski 1997 Greenglass, E.
R., R. J. Burke, and R. Konarski. 1997. “The Impact of Social Support on the Development of
Burnout in Teachers: Examination of a Model.” Work and Stress 11 (3): 267–278.[Taylor &
Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Betoret (2009 Betoret, F. D. 2009.
“Self‐Efficacy, School Resources, Job Stressors and Burnout among Spanish Primary and
Secondary School Teachers: A Structural Equation Approach.” Educational Psychology 29 (1):
45–68.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) also researched 724
primary and secondary school teachers in Spain and found that job stressors have a significant
positive effect on teachers’ burnout. Finally, our findings are in line with previous longitudinal
studies (e.g. Fernet et al. 2012 Fernet, C., F. Guay, C. Senécal, and S. Austin. 2012. “Predicting
Intraindividual Changes in Teacher Burnout: The Role of Perceived School Environment and
Motivational Factors.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (4): 514–525.[Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]) looking into how burnout in teachers develops over time. As with
teachers, burnout in principals can be predicted by how they perceive social support from
colleagues.

However, in contrast to Hypothesis 1, social support from colleagues on burnout was not
significant for any other measurement point, but for t2 (support from colleagues) and t3
(burnout). These results seem to suggest that social support from colleagues cannot always buffer
burnout in principals and might interact with other contextual and individual factors, such as
national policy, job pressure, task demands and motivation. Trépanier et al. (2014 Trépanier, S.
G., C. Fernet, S. Austin, J. Forest, and R. J. Vallerand. 2014. “Linking Job Demands and
Resources to Burnout and Work Engagement: Does Passion Underlie These Differential
Relationships?” Motivation and Emotion 38: 353–366.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google
Scholar]), for example, identified a significant relationship between job demands and burnout in
teachers. In addition, it was found that passion (i.e. both harmonious and obsessive passion)
partially mediates the relationship between demands and burnout. Another study conducted by
Fernet et al. (2012 Fernet, C., F. Guay, C. Senécal, and S. Austin. 2012. “Predicting
Intraindividual Changes in Teacher Burnout: The Role of Perceived School Environment and
Motivational Factors.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (4): 514–525.[Crossref], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]), also focussing on teachers, indicated that autonomous motivation
negatively predicts emotional exhaustion, one of the three burnout components. Self-efficacy
predicted all three components of burnout significantly negatively.

An interesting finding was two instances of positive effects of social support from the broader
community on burnout. This suggests that the more support principals receive from the broader
community, the more likely they are to show burnout symptoms. This finding stands in contrast
to previous findings with teachers (e.g. Fernet et al. 2012 Fernet, C., F. Guay, C. Senécal, and S.
Austin. 2012. “Predicting Intraindividual Changes in Teacher Burnout: The Role of Perceived
School Environment and Motivational Factors.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (4): 514–
525.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) and our hypothesis. A possible
explanation for this unexpected finding might be what we call ‘the downside of empathy’.
Principals who feel supported by their community might also feel more connected to that
community and therefore more vulnerable to the stresses of that community. If circumstances
mean the community is struggling, the principal is perhaps more likely to be struggling as well.
The fact that this effect is stronger for principals working in primary than secondary schools
seems to support our hypothesised explanation. Often primary principals are part of a smaller
community than secondary principals. When you are part of a smaller community, you might
more easily feel connected to the community and consequently be more easily affected by their
struggles.

Finally, concerning the mediation effect, social support from the broader community showed
significant negative indirect relationships with burnout at time 1 (in primary and secondary
education) as well as at time 2 (in primary education). Next, social support from colleagues at
time 3 had a significant negative relationship with burnout at time 4 among the secondary school
principals. However, while stress is significantly negatively related to burnout at all times (for
both primary and secondary principals), this is not the case for the paths going from social
support to stress. Also this finding might suggest that stress cannot be buffered by social support
alone, but also depends on other contextual and individual factors. It might be the case that some
years were more stressful than others because of innovation, policy changes, personal
circumstances, etc. In line with previous remarks and although significantly negative relations
were found, the effect sizes were rather small, perhaps due to some of the confounding variables
that we could not control in this research.

Limitations of the current study and pathways for future research

This study has several findings that lead to suggestions for future research. First, since previous
research indicated the importance of focusing on specific determinants, we decided to study
different types of social support. Our study found differential effects for three types of social
support on stress and burnout in principals. This seems to indicate that making a distinction
between different types of social support to predict burnout is relevant. The results show that
support from colleagues and to a lesser, but still significant extent, support from supervisors
might buffer stress and burnout in primary and secondary school principals. In contrast, feeling
strongly connected to a broader community might even negatively predict stress and burnout in
principals. Future qualitative research could study the underlying reasons for the results we
found in more detail. For example, how is it possible that principals who feel connected to a
broader community feel more stressed and show more burnout, when social support predicts
lowering of both?

Second, future research could take this study one step further by studying, for example, the role
of other resources of social support such as social support from parents of children in the school.
Future studies could also further unravel other antecedents and examine different types of job
demands, i.e. quantitative, emotional, and cognitive demands. Also, other environment-related
antecedents could be studied, such as educational policy, to have a more complete picture of
environmental antecedents of burnout in principals.

In addition, it might be the case that the influence of particular antecedents on burnout is
different depending on the burnout component. We used the COPSOQ II questionnaire for
measuring burnout, including emotional exhaustion. The COPSOQ II contains a one-
dimensional, shorter questionnaire than the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI: 1996). However,
it is not able to make a distinction between the three dimensions of burnout: emotional
exhaustion, depersonalisation and personal accomplishment. Future research could repeat our
study and make use of the MBI for measuring burnout to study the relationship between the three
dimensions.

Third, the questionnaire measuring social support wanted to map principals’ resources for social
support (e.g. ‘How often do you get help and support from colleagues outside the school?’).
However, it is possible that participants who were in need of support and therefore made more
use of these resources, responded more positively than principals who did not really feel the need
and did not look for support, although they are people with a high social capital and high support
resources. In other words, it is possible that the scale measured if participants take advantage of
available support rather than if they can rely on support resources. In future studies a more
explicit distinction could be made.

Fourth, the study is based on a large sample of 3572 Australian principals in primary and
secondary schools, which make the findings applicable to the target population. However, the
question remains whether the findings may be also generalised to principals in other countries.
Since each country has its own set of educational policies and systems, this requires further
testing. Therefore, we suggest that future research might replicate this study in other countries.

Practical implications

The multiple and various demands on principals, in combination with the dominating image that
principals have to carry all the burdens of managing a school, make it seem an impossible, often
isolated job (Grubb and Flessa 2006 Grubb, W. N., and J. J. Flessa. 2006. “A Job Too Big for
One: Multiple Principals and Other Nontraditional Approaches to School Leadership.”
Educational Administration Quarterly 42 (4): 518–550.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google
Scholar]). Therefore, having some emotional and task-related support in the environment might
be welcome. The results of this study highlight the importance of having social support from
colleagues to deal with the daily burden of work and prevention of burnout in the long run. This
could be achieved by investing in the set-up or maintenance of (online) communities of
principals in which task- and emotional-related support can be found. Another way of addressing
the increased demands could be by restructuring principals’ tasks. Pounder and Merrill (2001
Pounder, D. G., and R. J. Merrill. 2001. “Job Desirability of the High School Principalship: A
Job Choice Theory Perspective.” Educational Administration Quarterly 37 (1): 27–57.[Crossref],
[Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) argue that unbundling or repackaging the job
responsibilities with an administrative team that shares the leadership of the school could be a
solution. In light of these suggestions they talk about ‘co-principalship’ in which leadership is
shared between two people. While this might appear to be an expensive solution, it may turn out
to be the only real way to deal with the ever-increasing demands and complexity of the role.

Conclusion
This longitudinal research with four measurements, spread over four years, studied the effect of
social support from colleagues, supervisors and the larger educational community on stress and
burnout in school principals. It was relevant to study multiple facets of social support, since
results differ according to the type of support. It was hypothesised that social support would have
both direct effects on stress and burnout (Hypotheses 1 and 2) as indirect effects via stress on
burnout (Hypothesis 3). The data provide strong evidence for a positive effect of stress on
burnout and partial support for indirect negative effects of social support on burnout. Future
qualitative research is needed to explain further the relationships found.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes
1. Terminology is varied and in some countries this job is referred to as ‘head teacher’ or similar.
Also, the specific job responsibilities of the school principal or head teacher do vary between
educational systems.

2. Details on the whole project, annual reports and the complete survey can be found at
www.principalhealth.org.

References
 Albertsen, K., R. Rugulies, A. H. Garde, and H. Burr. 2010. “The Effect of the Work
Environment and Performance-based Self-Esteem on Cognitive Stress Symptoms among
Danish Knowledge Workers.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 81–
89.

[Crossref], [PubMed]

[Google Scholar]

 APA (American Psychological Association). 2010. Stress in America Findings.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/national-report.pdf.

[Google Scholar]

 Başol, G. 2013. “A Comparison of Female and Male School Administrators’ Burnout

Levels Controlling for Perceived Social Support.” Education and Science/Egitim Ve
Bilim 38 (169): 3–18.

[Web of Science ®]
 ,

[Google Scholar]

 Betoret, F. D. 2009. “Self‐Efficacy, School Resources, Job Stressors and Burnout among
Spanish Primary and Secondary School Teachers: A Structural Equation Approach.”
Educational Psychology 29 (1): 45–68.

[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Bjorner, J. B., and J. H. Pejtersen. 2010. “Evaluating Construct Validity of the Second
Version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire through Analysis of Differential
Item Functioning and Differential Item Effect.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
38 (3 Suppl): 90–105.

[Crossref], [PubMed]

[Google Scholar]

 Browne, M. W., and R. Cudeck. 1993. “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit.” In
Testing Structural Equation Models, edited by K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long, 136–162.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

[Google Scholar]

 Burr, H., K. Albertsen, R. Rugulies, and H. Hannerz. 2010. “Do Dimensions from the
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire Predict Vitality and Mental Health over and
above the Job Strain and Effort – Reward Imbalance Models?” Scandinavian Journal of
Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 59–68.

[Crossref], [PubMed]

[Google Scholar]

 Byrne, B. M. 2010. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts,

Applications, and Programming. 2nd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

[Google Scholar]

 Cano-García, F. J., E. M. Padilla-Muñoz, and M. Á. Carrasco-Ortiz. 2005. “Personality

and Contextual Variables in Teacher Burnout.” Personality and Individual Differences
38: 929–940.

[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]
 Cummings, T. G., and C. L. Cooper. 1998. “A Cybernetic Theory of Organizational
Stress.” In Theories of Organizational Stress, edited by C. L. Cooper, 101–121. New
York: Oxford University Press.

[Google Scholar]

 Day, C., P. Sammons, D. Hopkins, K. Leithwood, and A. Kington. 2008. “Research into
the Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes: Policy and Research Contexts.”
School Leadership and Management 28 (1): 5–25.

[Taylor & Francis Online]

[Google Scholar]

 Demerouti, E., A. B. Bakker, F. Nachreiner, and W. B. Schaufeli. 2001. “The Job

Demands-resources Model of Burnout.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (3): 499–512.

[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Demerouti, E., A. B. Bakker, I. Vardakou, and A. Kantas. 2003. “The Convergent

Validity of Two Burnout Instruments.” European Journal of Psychological Assessment
19: 12–23.

[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 van Dick, R., and U. Wagner. 2001. “Stress and Strain in Teaching: A Structural
Equation Approach.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 71: 243–259.

[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Dong, Y., and C.-Y. J. Peng. 2013. “Principled Missing Data Methods for Researchers.”
SpringerPlus 2 (222): 1–17.

[PubMed], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Dupret, E., C. Bocerean, M. Teherani, M. Feltrin, and J. H. Pejtersen. 2012.

“Psychosocial Risk Assessment: French Validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial
Questionnaire (COPSOQ).” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 40 (5): 482–490.

[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]

 ,

[Google Scholar]

 Edwards, J. R., R. D. Caplan, and R. Van Harrison. 1998. “Person-environment Fit

Theory: Conceptual Foundations, Empirical Evidence, and Directions for Future
Research.” In Theories of Organizational Stress, edited by C. L. Cooper, 28–67. New
York: Oxford University Press.

[Google Scholar]

 Enders, C. K. 2010. Applied Missing Data Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

[Google Scholar]

 Engels, N., G. Hotton, G. Devos, D. Bouckenooghe, and A. Aelterman. 2008. “Principals

in Schools with a Positive School Culture.” Educational Studies 34 (3): 159–174.

[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Evers, W. J., A. Brouwers, W. Tomic, and H. van Alphen. 2001. “Self-efficacy en

burnout bij leraren in het Studiehuis.” [Self-efficacy and Burnout among Teachers of the
Study-home]. Pedagogische Studiën 78: 169–183.

[Google Scholar]

 Evers, W. J., W. Tomic, and A. Brouwers. 2005. “Constructive Thinking and Burnout
among Secondary School Teachers.” Social Psychology of Education 8: 425–439.

[Crossref]

[Google Scholar]

 Farber, B. A. 1983. “A Critical Perspective on Burnout.” In Stress and Burnout, edited by

B. A. Farber, 1–22. New York: Pergamon.

[Google Scholar]

 Farber, B. 1984. “Teacher Burnout: Assumptions, Myths, and Issues.” The Teachers
College Record 86 (2): 321–338.

[Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]
 Farber, B. A. 1991. Crisis in Education: Stress and Burnout in the American Teacher.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[Google Scholar]

 Fernet, C., F. Guay, C. Senécal, and S. Austin. 2012. “Predicting Intraindividual Changes
in Teacher Burnout: The Role of Perceived School Environment and Motivational
Factors.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (4): 514–525.

[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Friedman, I. A. 1995. “Student Behavior Patterns Contributing to Teacher Burnout.” The

Journal of Educational Research 88: 281–289.

[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Friedman, I. A. 2002. “Burnout in School Principals: Role Related Antecedents.” Social

Psychology of Education 5: 229–251.

[Crossref]

[Google Scholar]

 Gold, Y., and R. A. Roth. 2013. Teachers Managing Stress & Preventing Burnout. New
York: Routledge.

[Google Scholar]

 Greenglass, E. R., R. J. Burke, and R. Konarski. 1997. “The Impact of Social Support on
the Development of Burnout in Teachers: Examination of a Model.” Work and Stress 11
(3): 267–278.

[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Grubb, W. N., and J. J. Flessa. 2006. “A Job Too Big for One: Multiple Principals and
Other Nontraditional Approaches to School Leadership.” Educational Administration
Quarterly 42 (4): 518–550.

[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]
 Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure
Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1): 1–55.

[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Ju, C., J. Lan, Y. Li, W. Feng, and X. You. 2015. “The Mediating Role of Workplace
Social Support on the Relationship between Trait Emotional Intelligence and Teacher
Burnout.” Teaching and Teacher Education 51: 58–67.

[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Kahn, R. L., and P. Byosiere. 1992. “Stress in Organizations, Vol 3.” In Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough,
571–650. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

[Google Scholar]

 Kahn, J. H., K. T. Schneider, T. M. Jenkins-Henkelman, and L. L. Moyle. 2006.

“Emotional Social Support and Job Burnout among High-school Teachers: Is It All due
to Dispositional Affectivity?” Journal of Organizational Behavior 27 (6): 793–807.

[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Kim, M. Y., J. Y. Lee, and J. Kim. 2009. “Relationships among Burnout, Social Support,
and Negative Mood Regulation Expectancies of Elementary School Teachers in Korea.”
Asia Pacific Education Review 10 (4): 475–482.

[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Klusmann, U., M. Kunter, U. Trautwein, O. Lüdtke, and J. Baumert. 2008. “Engagement

and Emotional Exhaustion in Teachers: Does the School Context Make a Difference?”
Applied Psychology 57 (s1): 127–151.

[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Kyriacou, C. 1987. “Teacher Stress and Burnout: An International Review.” Educational

Research 29: 146–152. doi:10.1080/0013188870290207.
 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Lambert, R. G., and C. J. McCarthy. 2006. Understanding Teacher Stress in an Age of

Accountability. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

[Google Scholar]

 Le Fevre, M., J. Matheny, and G. S. Kolt. 2003. “Eustress, Distress, and Interpretation in
Occupational Stress.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 18 (7): 726–744.

[Crossref]

[Google Scholar]

 Lee, R. T., and B. E. Ashforth. 1996. “A Meta-analytic Examination of the Correlates of

the Three Dimensions of Job Burnout.” Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (2): 123.

[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Leithwood, K., and C. Day. 2008. “The Impact of School Leadership on Pupil
Outcomes.” School Leadership and Management 28 (1): 1–4.

[Taylor & Francis Online]

[Google Scholar]

 Leithwood, K. A., K. S. Louis, and S. E. Anderson. 2012. Linking Leadership to Student

Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[Google Scholar]

 Marshall, G. W., C. E. Michaels, and J. P. Mulki. 2007. “Workplace Isolation: Exploring

the Construct and Its Measurement.” Psychology and Marketing 24 (3): 195–223.

[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]

[Google Scholar]

 Maslach, C. 1982. “Understanding Burnout: Definitional Issues in Analyzing a Complex

Phenomenon.” In Job Stress and Burnout, edited by W. S. Paine, 29–40. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
 [Google Scholar]

 Maslach, C. 1999. “Progress in Understanding Teacher Burnout.” In Understandi

  eacher Burnout, edited by R. Vandenberghe and A. M. Huberman, 211–222.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 [Crossref]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Maslach, C., and S. E. Jackson. 1985. “The Role of Sex and Family Variables in
Burnout.” Sex Roles 12: 837–851.
 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Maslach, C., W. B. Schaufeli, and M. P. Leiter. 2001. “Job Burnout.” Annual Review
of Psychology 52 (1): 397–422.
 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Matthews, P., H. Moorman, and D. Nusche. 2008. “Building Leadership Capacity for
System Improvement in Victoria, Australia”. In Improving School Leadership. Volume 2:
Case Studies on System Leadership, edited by Beatriz Pont, Deborah Nusche, and David
Hopkins, 179–213. http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/44375122.pdf.

 [Google Scholar]
  McCormick, J., and K. Barnett. 2011. “Teachers’ Attributions for Stress and Their
Relationships with Burnout.” International Journal of Educational Management 25 (3):
278–293.
 [Crossref]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Muthén, L. K., and B. O. Muthén. 2012. Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén and Muthén.

 [Google Scholar]
  Nübling, M., U. Stößel, H. M. Hasselhorn, M. Michaelis, and F. Hofmann. 2006.
“Measuring Psychological Stress and Strain at Work-evaluation of the COPSOQ
Questionnaire in Germany.” GMS Psycho-Social Medicine 3: 1–14.

 [Google Scholar]
  Nuebling, M., and H. M. Hasselhorn. 2010. “The Copenhagen Psychosocial
Questionnaire in Germany: From the Validation of the Instrument to the Formation of a
Job-specific Database of Psychosocial Factors at Work.” Scandinavian Journal of Public
Health 38 (3 Suppl): 120–124.
 [Crossref], [PubMed]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2014). TALIS
2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, TALIS.
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/education/talis-2013-
results_9789264196261-en.

 [Google Scholar]
  OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2005. Teaching
Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Accessed October 27,
2005. http://www.oecd.org/edu/teacherpolicy

 [Google Scholar]
  Olsen, B., and D. Sexton. 2009. “Threat Rigidity, School Reform, and How Teachers
View Their Work inside Current Education Policy Contexts.” American Educational
Research Journal 46: 9–44.
 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Payne, R. L. 1979. “Demands, Supports, Constraints and Psychological Health.” In
Response to Stress: Occupational Aspects, edited by C. J. Mackay and T. Cox, 85–105.
London: International Publishing Corporation.

 [Google Scholar]
  Pejtersen, J. H., J. B. Bjorner, and P. Hasle. 2010. “Determining Minimally Important
Score Differences in Scales of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire.”
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 33–41.
 [Crossref], [PubMed]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Pejtersen, J. H., T. S. Kristensen, V. Borg, and J. B. Bjorner. 2010. “The Second
Version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire.” Scandinavian Journal of Public
Health 38 (3 Suppl): 8–24.
 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Phillips, S., and D. Sen. 2011. “Stress in Head Teachers.” In Handbook of Stress in the
Occupations, edited by J. Langan-Fox and C. L. Cooper, 177–201. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
 [Crossref]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Pines, A. M., and G. Keinan. 2005. “Stress and Burnout: The Significant Difference.”
Personality and Individual Differences 39 (3): 625–635.
 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Pounder, D. G., and R. J. Merrill. 2001. “Job Desirability of the High School
Principalship: A Job Choice Theory Perspective.” Educational Administration Quarterly
37 (1): 27–57.
 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia. (2014). Creating a Mentally Healthy Workplace:
Return on Investment Analysis. http://www.headsup.org.au/creating-a-mentally-healthy-
workplace/the-business-case.

 [Google Scholar]
  Queen, J. A., and D. Schumacher. 2006. “A Survival Guide for Frazzled Principals”.
Principal: 18–23. https://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Principal/2006/N-Dp18.pdf.

 [Google Scholar]
  Riley, P. 2014. “The Complexities of School Leadership: Many Boundaries to Cross.”
In Boundary-Spanning in Organizations: Network, Influence, and Conflict, edited by J.
Langan-Fox and C. L. Cooper, 185–205. London: Routledge.

 [Google Scholar]
  Riley, P., and J. Langan-Fox. 2013. “Bullying, Stress and Health in School Principals
and Medical Professionals: Experiences at the ‘Front-Line’.” In Human Frailties: Wrong
Turns on the Road to Success, edited by R. Burke, C. L. Cooper, and S. Fox, 181–200.
London: Gower.

 [Google Scholar]
  Russell, D. W., E. Altmaier, and D. Van Velzen. 1987. “Job-Related Stress, Social
Support, and Burnout among Classroom Teachers.” Journal of Applied Psychology 72
(2): 269–274. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.269.
 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Sánchez-Moreno, E., I. N. D. L. F. Roldán, L. P. Gallardo-Peralta, and A. B. L. de
Roda. 2014. “Burnout, Informal Social Support and Psychological Distress among Social
Workers.” British Journal of Social Work 45: bcu084.
 [Web of Science ®]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Sawyer, L. B. E., and S. E. Rimm-Kaufman. 2007. “Teacher Collaboration in the
Context of the Responsive Classroom Approach.” Teachers and Teaching 13 (3): 211–
245.
 [Taylor & Francis Online]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Schaufeli, W. B., and A. B. Bakker. 2004. “Job Demands, Job Resources, and Their
Relationship with Burnout and Engagement: A Multi-sample Study.” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 25 (3): 293–315.
 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Selye, H. 1964. From Dream to Discovery. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 [Google Scholar]
  Selye, H. 1987. Stress without Distress. London: Transworld.

 [Google Scholar]
  Spector, P. E. 1998. “A Control Theory of the Job Stress Process.” In Theories of
Organizational Stress, edited by C. L.Cooper, 153–169. New York: Oxford University
Press.

 [Google Scholar]
  Statistic Canada. (2009). Environmental and Workplace Health.
http://www.statcan.gov.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.htm.

 [Google Scholar]
  Stephenson, L. E., and S. C. Bauer. 2010. “The Role of Isolation in Predicting New
Principals’ Burnout.” International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 5 (9): 1–
17.
 [Crossref]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Thorsen, S. V., and J. B. Bjorner. 2010. “Reliability of the Copenhagen Psychosocial
Questionnaire.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 25–32.
 [Crossref], [PubMed]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Timms, C., P. Brough, and D. Graham. 2012. “Burnt‐out but Engaged: The Co‐
existence of Psychological Burnout and Engagement.” Journal of Educational
Administration 50 (3): 327–345.
 [Crossref]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Tomic, W., and E. Tomic. 2008. “Existential Fulfillment and Burnout among
Principals and Teachers.” Journal of Beliefs and Values 29: 11–27.
 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
   Trépanier, S. G., C. Fernet, S. Austin, J. Forest, and R. J. Vallerand. 2014. “Linking
Job Demands and Resources to Burnout and Work Engagement: Does Passion Underlie
These Differential Relationships?” Motivation and Emotion 38: 353–366.
 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Ullrich, A., R. G. Lambert, and C. J. McCarthy. 2012. “Relationship of German
Elementary Teachers’ Occupational Experience, Stress, and Coping Resources to
Burnout Symptoms.” International Journal of Stress Management 19 (4): 333–342.
doi:10.1037/a0030121.
 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®]
 ,
 [Google Scholar]
  Zapf, D., C. Vogt, C. Seifert, H. Mertini, and A. Isic. 1999. “Emotion Work as a
Source of Stress: The Concept and Development of an Instrument.” European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology 8 (3): 371–400.
 [Taylor & Francis Online]
 ,
 [Google Schola

How can teachers avoid burnout?

859 45 20 1 2154

By Agi Enyedi
08 May 2015 - 10:34

'The more serious the burnout, the stronger the isolation becomes.' Image ©

rana ossama licensed under CC-BY-SA and adapted from the original.

What are the signs of burnout and how can we avoid it? Teacher trainer Agi Enyedi looks
at the issues and provides some advice ahead of her related webinar on 15 May 2015 .

What is burnout?

All of us feel tired, even exhausted at times, but this is perfectly normal if you have a full
schedule. Some of us may also have felt like calling in sick and staying in bed on a rainy Friday
morning, just before a lesson with a challenging group. That’s also understandable. But when the
sun is shining and you have a lesson with a motivated group of learners, but still feel unable to
face the day, then you are probably on the way to burnout.

Professional burnout is not simply the result of being overworked and underpaid. It can be the
result of prolonged stress, and emotional fatigue, feeling isolated and not respected. The
condition affects job performance and it is contagious; it may even result in physical illness.

It is not a happy topic but one that we need to talk about if we are to fight it.

Why do teachers suffer burnout?

Burnout often affects people in helping professions: lawyers, doctors, social workers, managers
and teachers, among others. For teachers, working with students means constantly trying to
respond to their needs while simultaneously meeting the various demands of the organisation.
When teachers feel that there is a mismatch between all these demands and the available
resources they have for coping with them, stress is induced. The usual culprits mentioned are:
lack of time, ideas, materials, expertise and support.

While short periods of intensive work resulting in success and acknowledgement rarely lead to
burnout, chronic stress does. It undermines one’s self-worth, reduces the sense of
accomplishment, and uses up emotional resources. It builds a wall between a teacher and the
professional environment that could otherwise energise them and provide the support they need.

It is a vicious circle: the more serious the burnout, the stronger the isolation becomes. The
chances of reintegrating into a healthy professional context diminish as a result.

What are the signs of burnout?

The Maslach Burnout Inventory was created to measure the degree of burnout. It looks into three
areas associated with this condition: emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation, (negative relation
to) personal accomplishment.

In the case of a teacher, the symptoms of emotional exhaustion would include frustration, a lack
of interest in teaching, a reluctance to try out anything new, and the blaming of students or the
institution for the lack of success.

Depersonalisation is marked by cynicism, poor attitudes towards students, colleagues and the
school itself, a lack of contact with others, and growing isolation. Teachers on the road to
burnout may not greet their colleagues. They might avoid eye contact, choose not to share their
classroom experiences or make no time for socialising.

Teachers suffering from burnout view personal accomplishment negatively: they don't set goals,
and have low self-confidence. Professional jealousy adds to the frustration. Relationships suffer,
not only professionally – a burned-out person often has an empty private life.

However, it is not easy to spot teachers who are beginning to burn out, for the simple reason that
they tend to hide their condition, or because they are not themselves aware of what is wrong with
them.

Recognising the early signs of burnout can be vitally important in a good school community.
Prevention is always a better route than treatment later on.

What are the effects of burnout?

Burnout is not simply a mood or a psychological state. Emotional, cognitive and physical
exhaustion is common among people suffering from burnout, often leading to physical and
health-related consequences. The loss of sleep is perhaps the most typical example, but
there may be more serious consequences that need medical treatment.
The social effect is also important. Burnout is not an individual problem, it is contagious: a
burned-out teacher in the staff room will affect others. Moaning and groaning, not getting
involved in activities going on around them – this way of behaving can become accepted,
influence others and eventually come to define the climate of the staff room. Engagement and
burnout are two sides of the same coin: the more teachers positively engage with their work and
those around them, the less chance there is for professional burnout.

What can teachers do about this problem?

In business institutions, burnout is clearly a management issue. In well-managed companies,

employee engagement is regularly measured and if the results are poor, human resources step in.
Employees are rarely left to sort out this problem by themselves. They are offered more support,
more involvement in decision-making, a different system of incentives, coaching, training, and
opportunities for growth. These are just some of the ways professionals could receive support,
but these solutions might seem less feasible in a school context.

The truth, however, is that school management can play an important part. Rationalising
administrative duties, creating a time slot for teachers to share ideas and learn from each other,
encouraging teacher co-operation, initiating and valuing innovations, setting up a mentor system
for new colleagues – all these are possible in a well-managed educational team.

Creating a good staff room climate is crucial for teachers to stay motivated and positively
involved. Teaching is a solitary job. Although we are with our students all the time, it is not our
students but our colleagues who form our professional community. Their ideas are important and
their appreciation counts. So what makes a good staff room?

When entering a good staff room, one feels a sense of energy. Teachers greet each other, discuss
classes and other matters. There is co-operation between teachers in various forms: sharing ideas,
teaching materials, successes and problems. Teachers pay attention to each other; they listen and
give acknowledgement and feedback. A good staff room often has a meaningful message board
(personal, helpful messages, not just announcements). Perhaps most importantly, there is a
relaxed atmosphere and there seems to be time for people.

Teachers can also do their part by drawing on one of their professional skills, namely
an ability to engage with people. If we can manage our students’ involvement in their own
learning, and help them set goals and stay motivated, then it should be possible for teachers to
help each other in the same way, and, by doing so, avoid burnout. It means practising what we
preach, doing what we require our students to do, and using some of our class management skills
in the staff room as well.

Take the following instructions which we say in class on a daily basis: work in pairs or groups,
ask questions, listen again, revise, check your work, evaluate yourself, and so on.

These are the techniques we use to create a motivated, focused and co-operative classroom
environment. Using the same techniques in the staff room can have the same effect.

Understanding professional burnout can help us see the first signs while it is still relatively easy
to prevent it at more serious stages. A good professional community is the most powerful tool for
helping teachers avoid burnout. Building such communities is the shared responsibility of school
management and teachers, and can lead to the benefit of all.

Teachers and education professionals, register for Agi Enyedi's webinar How to avoid
teacher burnout , to take place on 15 May 2015.

You might also be interested in:

Principal stress: Overworked principals are

burned-out and 'just surviving'
25 Jan, 2017 6:00am
6 minutes to read

The vast majority of primary school principals are working large amounts of overtime, struggling
with limited resources and huge demands. Picture / 123RF

By: Patrice Dougan

Reporter, NZ Herald
patrice.dougan@nzherald.co.nz @PatriceDougan

The vast majority of primary school principals are working large amounts of overtime, struggling
with limited resources and huge demands, and some are "just surviving".

Levels of stress and burn-out among school leaders are higher than the general population. Many
are working extra hours with no pay, working through the holidays and struggling to sleep
because of the demands of the job - all putting their health and personal lives at risk, a new report
released today said.

The Principal's Health and Well-being Survey 2016, commissioned by primary sector union the
New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI), spoke to 398 principals (20 per cent) across the
country, and 14 deputy and assistant principals.

It found 72 per cent work more than 51 hours per week, and 25 per cent work more than 61
hours during term time.

And contrary to popular opinion about teachers and their excess holidays, 92 per cent reported at
least 10 hours, and half of respondents reported working more than 25 hours, during school
holidays.
"Anyone who thinks that teachers are in it for the holidays is absolutely totally wrong," NZEI
president Lynda Stuart said.

"If that was the case we would have a queue of people miles long to do the job, and [the media]
wouldn't be reporting staff shortages."

Principals "spend a vast amount of that time doing the work they need to do for their pupils", she
said, including training and preparing for the term ahead.

Most teachers and principals will have been back at work for two weeks, she said.

Advertisement
Advertise with NZME.

The report found burn-out was 1.7 times the general population, and work-family conflict 2.2
times higher. This rose higher again in rural and isolated areas where less professional support is
available.

Principals pointed the finger at the sheer quantity of work they have to do as the main cause of
their elevated stress levels, followed by a lack of time to focus on teaching and learning - a key
Government focus - and the impact of Government initiatives.

"[Principals] spend very long hours at work, both during term time and during term breaks," the
report said.

"The number of hours worked appears to have no relation to salary."

School leaders seemed driven by a desire to see schools running effectively, it said.

However, some in the job were "just surviving".

"Principals experience high levels of emotional demands and emotional labour when compared
to the general population," the report said.

"This correlated with higher levels of burnout and stress symptoms."

Stress was reported at 1.8 times the general population, and problems sleeping reported at 2.4
times higher.

Women in particular reported "significantly higher" rates of burnout and problems sleeping than
their male counterparts.

However, it noted that most principals and school leaders had a healthy alcohol intake, and did
not take to the bottle to manage stress.

"Too many participants are working too many hours," the report concluded, adding that it was
having the greatest toll on their families.

"This level of demand is dangerous to the long-term health and well-being of principals who find
consistently that the resources available to them are not concomitant with the demands," it said.

"The cost to the nation of the mental health challenges produced by this kind of work culture is
high."

The results were worrying, Stuart said.

"The report found that school leaders face considerable pressure in their roles, most often from
increasing workload caused by new Government initiatives," she said.

"The stress of trying to budget to meet the needs of every student despite increasingly inadequate
funding must also play a part."
The situation was "not sustainable", Stuart said, and was "now a major health and safety risk the
Government must address".

Karl Le Quesne, acting head of early learning and student achievement at the Ministry of
Education said there had been a "significant increase in support" for principals this year.

The Communities of Learning initiative, in which schools collaborate, was helping to form
professional support networks, he said.

"Principals in Communities of Learning are now able to have access to an educational expert
who can act as a support, mentor or adviser.

"And we're offering support to first time principals with 20 fulltime mentors available across the
country."

Workload 'relentless' and Govt demands keep us from teaching - principal

Dressed in his DIY clothes, Peter Hopwood, principal at Donovan Primary School in
Invercargill, is busy fixing the radiators before term starts next week.

Related articles:
NEW ZEALAND

Heads speak up on 'teacher crisis'

2 Jul, 2016 5:00am
3 minutes to read
NEW ZEALAND

Training school 'failed to meet standards'

24 Jan, 2017 3:16pm
2 minutes to read
NEW ZEALAND

Maria Johnson: Not all childcare up to scratch

24 Jan, 2017 5:00am
4 minutes to read
NEW ZEALAND

Support for school after 10-year-old's death

31 Jan, 2017 5:56pm
2 minutes to read
Peter Hopwood Prinicpal of Donovan Primary School in Invercargill. Picture / Supplied

Doing jobs that are not teaching is a regular occurrence, he says, describing himself as an
accountant, social worker and property maintenance worker.

"We're trying to raise [student] achievement, and some days that's the last thing on your mind
because we're dealing with social problems, and behaviour problems and we're social workers
for many families," he said.

Hopwood can relate to the findings in the report, saying it's difficult for principals to juggle all
the demands expected of them, including budgeting, payroll, health and safety, and
implementing new Government policies, as well as teaching and leading the school.

His role should be teaching children how to be successful in today's modern world and helping
their teachers be the best they can be, he said, "not working out how I can replace the roof above
them".

He described the job as "relentless", and said it's "not uncommon" to hear of principals leaving
the profession because of the high workload and stress levels.

"I think all the things in the report are real. We hear and see very sad stories of burned-out
principals, people leaving the profession."

He could easily work more than 50 hours a week, Hopwood said: "Some weeks I could have
done 40 hours before we get to Wednesday."

Support networks with other principals were "invaluable to me", Hopwood said.

This problem was even greater for rural principals, he said, who struggled with isolation and
tight budgets that made it even more difficult to attend professional development or networking
and support events.

He called for the job to be made more attractive - better remuneration and support, particularly
for rural schools - to encourage younger people to see the job as a career.

A slowdown in Government initiatives was also at the top of his list.

"It's just been constant over the last five, six years since National Standards came in," he said.
"It's been like a steamroller."

In addition, he wanted to see more collaboration between the ministry and schools when it came
to developing new initiatives, so they could be more tried and tested before being rolled out
nationally.

"Together we could probably have worked out better solutions."

Burnout in School Principals: Role Related

Antecedents
 Authors
 Authors and affiliations

 Isaac A. Friedman

 Isaac A. Friedman
o 1

1. 1.The Henrietta Szold Institute, The National Institute for Research in the Behavioral
SciencesJerusalemIsrael

Article

 526 Downloads
 20 Citations

Abstract
The school principal's professional world is characterized by overwhelming responsibilities,
information perplexities, and emotional anxiety. The main purpose of this study was to map the
common work-related stressors encountered by principals and to assess their relative weight in
terms of predicting school principal burnout. A sample of 821 elementary and secondary, male
and female school principals participated in the study. They completed a self-report
questionnaire containing two scales: a burnout scale (measured as a three-dimensional concept
consisting of exhaustion, depersonalization, and accomplishment), and a role-pressures scale.
Multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA), multiple linear regression, and discriminant function
analysis were used in data processing. Findings show that burnout was affected mostly by
pressures stemming from teachers and parents, and to a lesser extent, from overload (qualitative
and quantitative). Differences between elementary and secondary school principals were noted.
The findings imply that principals who feel that their leadership is challenged or rejected feel
strongly stressed and eventually burned-out.

THE BLOG
05/08/2014 12:31 pm ET Updated Jul 08, 2014

Understanding Stress: Beyond Reduction,

Management and Coping

By David Bedrick






Sometimes it appears as if “stress” is the cause for all that ails us. We are told everything from
sleep and laugh more to get massages, exercise, and deep breathe. So how come we’re all still so
stressed?

Everyone’s talking about stress these days. Each day I hear people say “I’m so stressed,” and it is
one of the most written about areas in psychology today. Listening and reading, we could easily
conclude that stress is the cause for all that ails us. Feeling physically ill? Stress. Not sleeping?
Stress. Having relationship problems? Stress. Forgetting things? Stress. Feeling depressed?
Stress. Eating, drinking, drugging too much? Stress.

The literature is more than ample with research, implication, and assertion strengthening this
assumption. Accordingly, stress can make us ill, weaken our immune systems, make it hard to
manage our emotions, damage our relationships, cause us to drink, smoke and use substances,
cause us to age more quickly, impair our memory, keep us awake at night, bring on anxiety,
depression, and anger, and interfere with our sex life. [1] It wouldn’t be too much to say that
stress kills.

Not to worry — the cure is nearby waiting to descend on anyone open to “getting help” from
their friends, blogs, writers, counselors, and more. I am reminded of that old adage, “If all we
have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Well, if the notion of “stress” dominates our
diagnosis and understanding of everything that ails us, we shouldn’t be surprised to find
indicators of stress everywhere we look. All we need now is the “cure” for stress and we’d all
feel a lot happier.

The so-called “cures” are indeed prevalent. We are told to unwind with friends, sleep more,
change our diets, laugh, think positively, get massages, meditate, take more quiet time, exercise,
pray, practice yoga, listen to relaxation tapes, and deep breathe. [2]

The advice from the literature is essentially the same, telling us how to calm down, relax, and
take it easy. This counsel is packaged in the notions and language of “stress reduction,” “stress
management,” and “coping with stress” — all phrases that assume that the stress itself has little
or no usefulness or is not in need of deeper understanding and transformation. Stress is to be
gotten rid of like an illness. [3]

This bias, however, has serious drawbacks to it, causing us to misunderstand the background
psychological process and dynamics of stress.

First, some stress needs to be amplified rather than relieved, and the power behind the
stressor needs to be integrated. For example, while teaching a psychology class to massage
school students, I asked them what they would do with the tension in my shoulders. One after
another they came over to me and rubbed my shoulders in order to relax them. In response to
some students, I eased my shoulders, allowing them to drop; for other students I moved my
shoulders around as if I were almost stretching them mostly pushing them up against their hands.
For people who would simply automatically relax, their interventions were just right. But there is
another kind of person whose tension indicates that they have more energy in their shoulders and
selves and they may need to use that energy in order to later relax. The same is true for people in
more psychological areas of their lives. Some need to relax, take it easy, or be gentler with
themselves. But others need to push back and really use the power and force that is in them. For
the second kind of person, stress “reduction” in the form of advice to take it easy and relax will
be unsuccessful. If you try to relieve this stress, the stress will simply re-arise because the person
needs to learn to use the energy in their system instead of letting it go.

Secondly, some stress is caused by a background neglect of something — a calling, a

project, or a passion. For example, consider a client who had a big dream for his life, but after
entering a serious and committed relationship began to let go of his dream so that he could be
more present and available to his partner. This man described himself as incredibly stressed out;
it would be easy for most people to quickly jump in and try to help him manage and reduce his
stress. However, pregnant in the energy of what he called “stress” was a power and desire to go
back to his dream and work to fulfill it. This general principle is true for many of us. Most
people are not free to be as powerful, direct, and intense as they really are. When this is the case,
this energy becomes somatized and psychologized — meaning it feels in our bodies like tension
and often gets labeled as “stress.” This man didn’t need to relax more, he needed to use the
tension inside of him to resist a patriarchal role in relationship and take on the heavy lifting of his
deeper dreams. Relieving his stress will not be sustainable because what he considers “stress” is
actually the result of something in his life that is not getting attention.

Finally, stress reduction and stress management may not be the best ways to address the
specific things that people are actually stressed about (the content of their stress). For
example, people report being the most stressed by lack of sleep and concern for their weight. Is
stress reduction and management the best medicine for these ills? As for concerns about sleep,
we know that at least 40 million Americans each year suffer from chronic, long-term sleep
disorders each year, and an additional 20 million experience occasional sleeping problems.
About 60 million Americans a year have insomnia frequently or for extended periods of time,
which leads to even more serious sleep deficits. Insomnia tends to increase with age and affects
about 40 percent of women and 30 percent of men. It is often the major disabling symptom of an
underlying medical disorder. Will advising people to relax, cope, or reduce their stress help them
sleep? Most experts in this area recommend consistent sleep schedules, watching what we eat
and drink, creating nighttime rituals, exercising during the day, and not taking naps. Stress can
be important, but it’s rarely on top of the list.

How about worrying about weight? Will telling people to relax offer any solace? First, it is
important to note that people only sustain weight loss about 5-10 percent of the time despite it
being a $60 billion industry. In addition, research indicates that people, especially women, are
regularly cruel to their bodies. In my own research, I have learned that loving one’s body is not
about relaxing or taking it easy; instead, it is a difficult confrontation with cultural values,
pressures, and norms as well as real changes in one’s life-relationships, work, and more. In this
case, relaxing will not help; instead we need to either change the culture’s pressures and
criticisms about body image or help people make propound changes in their life. Telling people
to relax is relatively superficial given the dilemma people face and will likely be ineffective.

I have no doubt that some people who are stressed need help to cope, reduce, and manage their
stress. I myself have benefited from this advice at times. However, this orientation risks being
too shallow, dumbing down our understanding. We need more critical and psychological
reflection so that the deep and powerful things people suffer from aren’t made superficial by
quick fix answers like, “Don’t worry, be happy” or “Relax, take it easy, let go, and don’t get so
stressed out.”

References:

[1] Stress symptoms and effects on health: Mayo Clinic and Healthline News

[2] Stress management techniques: The American Institute of Stress and WebMD

[3] See for example, one of the best-studied stress-relievers is the relaxation response, first
described by Harvard’s Herbert Benson, M.D. on The American Institute of Stress website

Follow David Bedrick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lovebasedpsych

David Bedrick
Speaker, Counselor, Author of “Talking Back to Dr. Phil: Alternatives to Mainstream
Psychology”
THE BLOG
10/30/2014 02:53 pm ET Updated Dec 30, 2014
Workplace Stress: Sustainable Solutions for
Stress Management

By Lesia M. Ruglass

Natalie Young via Getty Images






Feeling stressed at work? You are not alone. Studies indicate workplace stress is on the rise
(American Institute of Stress, 204) with increasing pressure to perform, toxic work
environments, and the demands brought on by technological advances and job insecurity.
Workplace stress occurs when the demands of the job are perceived to exceed the available
internal and external resources the employee needs to perform.

Workplace stress is often associated with physical health problems such as headaches, upset
stomach, and muscle tension; and psychological problems such as depression, anxiety, and
burnout. All of which may contribute to overall career frustration. According to the American
Institute of Stress (2014), workplace stress costs organizations over $300 billion annually in lost
productivity due to absenteeism, turnover and healthcare expenditures.

A 2009 survey by the American Psychological Association indicated that 69% of employees
reported that work was a significant source of stress for them and substantially interfered with
their responsibilities at home. Studies indicate that across occupational categories (blue-collar,
white-collar, and helping professions) the social environment of the organization played a
significant role in predicting depression and burnout. Characteristics of such included negative
work relationships, interpersonal conflicts, lack of peer support, and social isolation.
There are several proven strategies that can be implemented to reduce workplace stress and its
associated consequences:

For organizations and managers, creating an environment that is conducive to effectively

coping with work stress results in significant economic benefits to the corporation.

· Reduce workplace stressors such as work overload, job insecurity, and limited resources:

Provide reasonable work demands and manageable work schedules. Increase employee control
over the nature and timing of their work performance as well as decision-making within the
organization. Enhance social support in the workplace; support from both supervisors and
colleagues has been shown to be effective in reducing workplace stress.

· Offer stress management programs that enhance employees’ coping strategies:

Programs designed to teach employees how to implement effective coping strategies in the face
of workplace stress, including time management, conflict resolution, mindfulness meditation,
relaxation and yoga, have been found to be effective.

Researchers from the Schools of Medicine at Duke University and the University of
Pennsylvania argue that “in order for stress management programs to be effective, they have to
be accessible, convenient, and engaging to the employees”, as well as cost-effective and
economically sustainable for the organization. These same researchers conducted a randomized
controlled trial examining the effectiveness of therapeutic yoga and mindfulness-based stress
reduction programs in reducing stress, enhancing emotional well-being and work performance.
The trial enrolled 239 employee volunteers who were randomly assigned to one of three
interventions: yoga, mindfulness meditation, or a control condition that provided the participants
with a list of insurance-provided resources (fitness center discounts, wellness coaching
opportunities etc.) They found that compared to the control condition, the therapeutic yoga and
mindfulness based programs both lead to significant improvements in perceived stress levels and
reduction in sleep problems; suggesting these strategies are viable interventions to implement in
the workplace.

For individuals, enhancing your own coping strategies and resilience in the face of workplace
stress can reduce your risk for depression, anxiety, and burnout.

· Adopt a healthy lifestyle: Under times of stress, a balanced diet, exercise, and sound sleep can
lay the foundation for effective stress management.

· Identify what is stressing you out: Awareness of your triggers, thoughts, and feelings when
stressed is a first step towards taking action to control or manage your stress.

· Avoid or learn how to manage stress more effectively: Some stressors are under your control
and can be avoided or changed (e.g., learning how to say to no to unreasonable requests;
prioritizing/managing your time more effectively; or shifting your thoughts/beliefs about the
situation), while others (e.g., an unexpected and urgent deadline) may require acceptance and a
reorganization of your priorities for the week.

· Seek out support: Studies show that support from family, friends, and coworkers can also help
buffer the negative effects of work stress.

· Seek professional help: If you find that your workplace stress is too much to handle on your
own, seeking support from a trained professional can be beneficial. They can help you to identify
the sources of your stress and develop strategies for dealing more effectively with work-related
stress.

Workplace stress takes a significant toll on the health and well-being of employees and
organizations and has far-reaching social and economic consequences. By implementing an
integrated and comprehensive stress-reduction approach that works at the organizational, team,
and individual level, corporations can promote work conditions that foster resilience, well-being
and organizational functioning.
Citations:

· American Psychological Association (2009). Stress in America 2009. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2009/stress-exec-summary.pdf

· American Institute of Stress (2014). Workplace stress. Retrieved from

http://www.stress.org/workplace-stress/

· Colligans, T.W. and Higgins, E. M. (2006). Workplace Stress: Etiology and Consequences.
Journal of workplace behavioral health, 21, 2, 89-97

· Tennant, C. (2001). Work-related stress and depressive disorders. Journal of psychosomatic

research, 51, 697-704.

· Wolever, R. Q., Bobinet, K. J., McCabe, K., Mackenzie, E. R., Fekete, E., Kusnick, C. A., &
Baime, M. (2012). Effective and viable mind-body stress reduction in the workplace: a
randomized controlled trial. Journal of occupational health psychology, 17(2), 246.

Follow Lesia M. Ruglass on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Lesia_Ruglass

Lesia M. Ruglass
Licensed Clinical Psychologist in NYC

Principal time management skills:

Explaining patterns in principals’ time use,
job stress, and perceived effectiveness
Article Options and Tools

View:

 Abstract
 PDF

 References (49)
 Cited by (Crossref, 6)
 Cited by (Scopus, 5)

 Add to Marked List

 Download Citation
 Track Citations


Author(s):
Jason A. Grissom (Department of Leadership, Policy, and Organizations, Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA)
Susanna Loeb (Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
USA)
 Hajime Mitani (Department of Leadership, Policy, and Organizations, Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA)
Citation:
Jason A. Grissom, Susanna Loeb, Hajime Mitani, (2015) "Principal time management
skills: Explaining patterns in principals’ time use, job stress, and perceived
effectiveness", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 53 Issue: 6, pp.773-793,
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2014-0117
Downloads:
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 17482 times since 2015
Abstract:

Purpose

– Time demands faced by school principals make principals’ work increasingly difficult.
Research outside education suggests that effective time management skills may help
principals meet job demands, reduce job stress, and improve their performance. The
purpose of this paper is to investigate these hypotheses.

Design/methodology/approach

– The authors administered a time management inventory to nearly 300 principals in

Miami-Dade County Public Schools, the fourth-largest school district in the USA. The
authors analyzed scores on the inventory descriptively and used them to predict time-use
data collected via in-person observations, a survey-based measure of job stress, and
measures of perceived job effectiveness obtained from assistant principals and teachers in
the school.

Findings

– Principals with better time management skills allocate more time in classrooms and to
managing instruction in their schools but spend less time on interpersonal relationship-
building. Perhaps as a result of this tradeoff, the authors find that associations between
principal time management skills and subjective assessments of principal performance
are mixed. The authors find strong evidence, however, that time management skills are
associated with lower principal job stress.

Practical implications

– Findings suggest that building principals’ time management capacities may be a

worthwhile strategy for increasing time on high-priority tasks and reducing stress.

Originality/value

– This study is the first to empirically examine time management among school
principals and link time management to key principal outcomes using large-scale data.

Keywords:
Stress, Time, Educational administration, Effectiveness, Administrators
Publisher:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Acknowledgments:

This research was supported by a grant from the Institute of Education Sciences at the US
Department of Education (R305A100286). The authors thank the leadership of the
Miami-Dade County Public Schools for their cooperation and assistance with data
collection. The authors are especially thankful to Gisela Feild for making this work
possible. The authors are also grateful to Mari Muraki for excellent data management. All
errors are the responsibility of the authors.
Copyright:
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2015
Published by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Article

In pursuit of a more nuanced understanding of school leadership practice and the connection
between leadership practice and school improvement, several recent studies have focussed on
how principals allocate their time within the work day (e.g. Camburn et al., 2010; Goldring et
al., 2008; Grissom et al., 2013; Horng et al., 2010; Spillane et al., 2007; Spillane and Hunt,
2010). These studies highlight the large and diverse set of school functions with which principals
engage on a daily basis, spanning instruction, personnel, budgeting, student services, external
relations, and a host of other areas. The large set of job responsibilities with which principals are
faced make time a scarce resource – and one that is only becoming scarcer as federal, state, and
district policies create more comprehensive teacher observation and evaluation systems that
require substantial time investment from school leaders (Donaldson, 2011). Given this scarcity,
principals must make decisions about how to allocate their time among competing job demands.
These time-use decisions are important for effective leadership, as evidenced by the relationship
between principal time use and school outcomes (e.g. Grissom et al., 2013; Horng et al., 2010).

The connection between time use and performance motivates the present study. We proceed
from the expectation that some principals have a greater capacity for investing their time on
productive activities. This greater capacity for using time effectively is known both colloquially
and in a relatively large literature in psychology and organizational behavior as time
management. That literature suggests that better time management skills – which include the
ability to set achievable goals, identify priorities, monitor one’s own progress, and remain
organized (Claessens et al., 2007) – can lead to more effective time use and ultimately more
positive outcomes, including reduced job stress and increased job performance, in some settings
(e.g. Britton and Tesser, 1991; Jex and Elacqua, 1999). Time management and its relationship to
time use and other outcomes, however, have largely been ignored in school leadership research.

This paper helps fill this gap by examining principals’ time management skills and their
associations with other outcomes using rich data from Miami-Dade County Public Schools (M-
DCPS), the nation’s fourth-largest school district. In the spring of 2011, we conducted a survey
of M-DCPS principals that included a time management inventory used to measure four
components of principals’ time management skills (n=287). We then merged principals’ scores
on this inventory with several other data sources, including administrative data on personnel and
schools provided by the district, surveys of assistant principals (APs) and teachers, and in-person
observational data we collected for a subset of M-DCPS principals over full days, also in the
spring of 2011.

We use this unique data source to answer four research questions:

RQ1. How are time management skills distributed across M-DCPS principals, particularly with
respect to school and principal characteristics?

RQ2. How do time management skills predict observed principal time use?

RQ3. How are time management skills associated with principal job stress?

RQ4. To what degree, if any, are time management skills predictive of APs’ and teachers’
perceptions of principal effectiveness?

The next section grounds these questions in existing research on time management and the
connections psychologists and scholars of organizational behavior have made between time
management and personal and organizational outcomes. We then describe the data sources,
construction of measures, and empirical approach before presenting our results. The final section
discusses the implications of our results for school leadership practice.

Time management and its link to outcomes

Section:

High demands on one’s time are characteristic of many professions. As Britton and Glynn (1989,
p. 429) put it, “intellectually productive people usually have more things that they would like to
do, or need to do, than they have time.” This description applies to the job of most school
principals, who have responsibility for the time-intensive tasks of managing school operations,
overseeing instructional programs, building relations among staff members, and so forth (Horng
et al., 2010). In such professions, becoming more productive means finding ways to accomplish
more given limited time. Managing one’s time more ably is one way to fulfill this goal.

Time management means those behaviors “that aim at achieving an effective use of time while
performing certain goal-directed activities” (Claessens et al., 2007, p. 262). Although little work
has examined time management in the context of school administration, a relatively large
literature has investigated the concept in the management of organizations more broadly. We
draw on this literature in describing the characteristics of positive time management behaviors in
schools and developing expectations about the role of time management among school principals
in affecting their capacity to promote school improvement.

Components of good time management

Research identifies a number of techniques and behaviors associated with effective management
of time. For example, studies find that one can use time efficiently and productively by setting
short-term and long-term goals, keeping time logs, prioritizing tasks, making to-do lists and
scheduling, and organizing one’s workspace (Claessens et al., 2007; Macan, 1994). These time
management techniques and behaviors tend to share some underlying traits in common and can
be classified into several groups. Britton and Tesser (1991) proposed three facets of time
management: short-range planning, long-range planning, and time attitudes. Short-range
planning is the ability to set out and organize tasks in the short run (e.g. within a day or a week).
Long-range planning is the capacity to manage tasks over a longer time horizon (e.g. in a quarter
or a year) by setting goals, keeping track of important dates, and limiting procrastination.
Positive time attitudes indicate that a person is oriented toward using their time constructively
and maintaining agency over how their time is spent.

Employing a different conceptualization, Macan (1994) identified three components of time

management: setting goals and priorities, mechanics (i.e. making lists and scheduling), and
preference for organization. The first includes such behaviors as setting goals one wants to
accomplish and prioritizing tasks to achieve these goals. The second includes behaviors
associated with managing time such as making to-do lists and scheduling. The final factor
includes one’s preference for organization in his or her workspace and approach to projects.
While this categorization differs somewhat from Britton and Tesser’s (1991), the themes of goal-
setting, prioritization, and organization are common to both schemas.

Studies suggest that people vary systematically in their time management behaviors and
techniques. For example, Macan et al. (1990) compared time management behaviors across
demographic groups in a sample of undergraduate students. While time management behaviors
did not differ by race, older, and female subjects were more likely to be good time managers.
Older students also had greater preference for organization. Other studies of undergraduate
students found similar results (Trueman and Hartley, 1996; Misra and McKean, 2000).
Researchers have also explored the relationship between time management and other
dispositional characteristics such as self-esteem, sense of purpose in life, polychronicity (i.e.
multi-tasking), impatience, and propensity to procrastinate (e.g. Bond and Feather, 1988;
Francis-Smythe and Robertson, 1999). For example, Lay and Schouwenburg (1993) found that
students prone to procrastination exercised fewer time management techniques while also
tending to be further behind on work and to study fewer hours.

Time management and job outcomes

Several studies demonstrate that time management predicts job performance. For example, car
salesmen with better time management skills have higher sales (Barling et al., 1996). College
students with better time management skills report higher grade point averages (Britton and
Tesser, 1991; Macan et al., 1990). County extension directors with better time management
skills are rated higher by their superiors (assistant regional directors) (Radhakrishna et al., 1991).

To understand the association between time management and job performance, researchers have
investigated a series of possible linkages. Most clearly, time management helps improve job
efficiency by enabling professionals to allocate adequate time to their job’s most important tasks
(Hall and Hursch, 1982; Orpen, 1994; Schuler, 1979). This greater attention to high-priority
work areas improves worker outcomes. The expectation that increased time management will
increase worker productivity by enabling employees to “work smarter” has driven widespread
investment in time management training in the private sector (Green and Skinner, 2005).

Studies also suggest that effective time management reduces job stress, which can be an
important impediment to job performance (e.g. Jamal, 1984). An important source of job stress
in the workplace is the perception for an individual that what he or she needs to accomplish
outpaces the time available (Schuler, 1979). Time management can help reduce this discrepancy.
Using path analysis, Macan (1994) found that subjects with better time management skills
perceived that they had greater control over their time and how they spend it, which was in turn
associated with both reduced feelings of job-induced tension and lower reports of somatic
tension, or physical symptoms of stress such as insomnia and headaches. Job-induced stress was
then negatively correlated with self-assessed job performance. Claessens et al. (2004)
documented similar paths from time management to perceived time control to reduced work
strain and higher job performance in a study of engineers in a semiconductor manufacturer.
Other studies have documented the positive association between time management and employee
health, mediated by other factors such as perceived control and conflicts between the demands of
work and family (e.g. Adams and Jex, 1999; Jex and Elacqua, 1999).

Time management is also predictive of other factors that might influence job performance.
Professionals who manage time better report lower emotional exhaustion, the most important
dimension of job burnout (Peeters and Rutte, 2005). They also report higher overall job
satisfaction (Macan et al., 1990). Participants in time management training also report greater
work/home balance (Green and Skinner, 2005). A long literature shows that satisfaction and
satisfaction-related factors contribute to employee performance (see Judge et al., 2001).

Of course, better time management need not lead to better job performance under all conditions.
Increasing job performance requires engaging in more productive behaviors. According to Ajzen
(1991), human behavior is a function in part of how much control one perceives he or she has
over that behavior. Control is constrained by resources, including time and skills; time
management increases perceptions of control by relaxing some of these constraints (Macan,
1994). Workers may face other kinds of constraints on their behavior, however, such as
institutional limits on their autonomy, that time management can do little to address. Moreover,
behavior change requires intent (Ajzen, 1991). If workers do not intend to engage in new
behaviors or do not know which behaviors will be more productive, we would not expect better
time management to enhance performance.

Studies of time in educational administration

Although usually overlooking time management specifically, research in educational

administration has documented the importance of how principals organize and allocate their time
(Martin and Willower, 1981). Studies of principal time use using in-person observations and
daily logs show that principal time spent on organizational management (e.g. personnel,
budgeting) and operations predicts student achievement and other school outcomes (Horng et al.,
2010; May et al., 2012). Studies also find that principals’ time investments in some instruction-
related tasks, including coaching and teacher professional development, are associated with more
positive student outcomes (Grissom et al., 2013). A long literature on instructional leadership
suggests a connection between principals’ involvement in instructional matters in their schools
and positive school performance (see Robinson et al., 2008).

Yet studies also suggest that finding time to devote to tasks more closely associated with
improving student learning is a consistent challenge. The principal work day is hectic, filled with
frequent interruptions and problems that require attention (Blendinger and Snipes, 1996;
Hallinger and Murphy, 2013). Principals are often called on to meet with parents or deal with
parental concerns (Miller, 2001). They spend large portions of their days in planned and
unplanned meetings and on completing administrative duties (Horng et al., 2010; Morris et al.,
1981). Manasse (1985) notes that “the nature and pace of events often appear to control
principals rather than the other way around” (p. 442). Indeed, Hallinger and Murphy (2013)
identify finding time to lead in the face of principals’ job pressures as among the central
challenges of leadership for school improvement.

Given the importance of principal investment in organizational management and instruction for
school performance, a reasonable presumption is that principals who are able to overcome
constraints imposed on their work day by other time demands would reallocate their time toward
these areas. Insofar as greater time management skills provide a strategy for overcoming time
pressures, we hypothesize that time management will be positively associated with time spent on
management and instruction and negatively associated with time allocated to less “productive”
tasks. Following the research reviewed above, we also investigate the hypotheses that better
principal time management is associated with lower job stress and increased job performance, at
least as perceived by others in the school.

Data, measures, and methods

Section:

This study relies on data from an intensive data collection effort undertaken in M-DCPS, a large
urban district educating approximately 350,000 students each year. Nearly two-thirds of the M-
DCPS student population are Hispanic, and three-fourths are eligible for subsidized lunches. The
data include survey responses, time-use data from in-person observations, and administrative
records.

Surveys

We measured principals’ time management skills and job stress using instruments (described
below) embedded in a larger web-based survey of all principals of non-special schools in the
district that we conducted in the spring of 2011. We received responses from 287 principals for a
response rate of 86 percent. Incomplete responses and other missing data further reduced the
analytic sample to 247 principals. A comparison of school and principal characteristics for
respondents and non-respondents showed no evidence of significant differences between the two.

We also conducted surveys of all M-DCPS APs and teachers in conjunction with the principal
survey. We received 411 usable responses to the AP survey for a response rate of 74 percent.
Teacher response rates were much lower; we received partial or full responses from 8,055
teachers, for a response rate of 33 percent; differences across school levels (e.g. elementary)
were minimal, ranging from 32 to 36 percent. Low teacher response rates increase the likelihood
of bias from non-representativeness of the teacher sample. Models utilizing teacher survey
responses include controls for teacher characteristics to partially address biases that might arise
from, for example, more experienced teachers being more likely to respond. We cannot rule out
other potential selection issues, such as, for example, a greater likelihood of responses from
teachers who are more critical of their principals.

We make use of a three-item subjective assessment of the principal’s performance included on

both the AP and teacher survey: “My principal is doing a good job,” “I am pleased with the way
my principal runs this school,” and “I would be happy to continue working with my principal in
the future.” Respondents’ four-point Likert responses (strongly disagree to strongly agree)
showed high inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s α=0.95 for APs and 0.94 for teachers), so we used
factor analysis to extract a single subjective performance factor separately from APs and
teachers; we then calculated factor scores for each principal and standardized them for ease of
interpretation.

Observations

Next, we utilized data from in-person observations of a sample of 98 M-DCPS principals that a
team of observers conducted between late March and early April of 2011. The time period was
chosen to come in the middle of the semester and before the district’s period of intensive
standardized testing and also to coincide with university breaks for the observers, many of whom
were graduate students. The observation sample included principals from each of the district’s
high schools[1] plus a random sample of 30 elementary and 30 middle schools stratified by the
district’s administrative regions. For each of the 98 observed principals, who were instructed to
conduct their day as usual, trained observers used a standardized protocol (available upon
request) to capture time on approximately 50 job-related tasks in five-minute increments over a
full school day. We aggregated the observation data to capture time allocations across five broad
areas according to the classification used by Grissom and Loeb (2011). These areas are:
organizational management, instructional management, administration (e.g. compliance,
scheduling), internal relations (i.e. maintaining positive relationships among staff), and external
relations (i.e. making connections to outside stakeholders, such as parents). We also utilize
measures of time spent transitioning from place to place around the school building and personal
time, or time spent on non-work activities. We then calculated the percentage of the work day the
principal spent in each area. Table I gives descriptive statistics for these variables for the 83
principals who could be matched to other data sources. Principals spent the largest portion of
their day on administration (33 percent), followed by internal relations (22 percent).

Administrative data

Lastly, we use comprehensive administrative data on district personnel and students provided to
us by M-DCPS central staff for the years 2003-2004 to 2010-2011. Administrative data files are
the source of a variety of control variables included in the analysis at both the personnel level
(e.g. gender, race, age, education level, tenure in school) and school level (e.g. percent
free/reduced lunch, percent Hispanic, enrollment size, Florida school accountability grade).
Table I provides descriptive statistics for the 2010-2011 school year for the principals included in
our analysis and the schools in which they work (accountability grades are from the prior year).

Measuring principal time management

To assess principals’ time management skills, our principal surveys included a modified version
of Britton and Tesser’s (1991) Time Management Questionnaire (TMQ). The TMQ was
developed to measure time management among college students, so we adjusted the wording of
some items and dropped two others to make the instrument appropriate for school principals. In
Britton and Tesser’s (1991) study, factor analysis of the TMQ identified three dimensions of
time management: short-range planning, long-range planning, and time attitudes. Hypothesizing
that principals’ positions as managers mean that – unlike college students – they may use
delegation of tasks to others as a strategy for managing their time, we also added four original
items to capture this construct. The 21 items were preceded by the prompt, “How frequently
would you say you do each of the following?” Principals responded on a four-point scale (never,
sometimes, frequently, always). Table II shows the items and their means.

Exploratory factor analysis of principals’ responses showed evidence of four underlying factors.
Given low correlations among the factors (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2012), we used varimax
rotation to assess patterns in the factor loadings; differences in the item patterns from those
described by Britton and Tesser (1991) necessitated a renaming of our constructs. The first factor
aligns closely with Britton and Tesser’s (1991) short-range planning factor, so we maintain this
nomenclature. The items that load highest on this factor are planning your day before you start it
(factor loading=0.83), making a list of the things you have to do each day (0.82), and making a
schedule of the activities you have to do on work days (0.82).

We label the second dimension poor time consciousness. These items relate to not approaching
time as a resource to be actively managed, such as finding yourself working on assignments or
reports the night before they are due or finding yourself being late for a meeting or event. This
dimension comes closest to what Britton and Tesser (1991) describe as time attitudes.

The third factor is a new factor, delegation, and all four survey items meant to measure the factor
loaded well, as we expected. Among the items, three have factor loadings greater than 0.6:
asking your AP to handle a situation so you can direct your attention elsewhere (0.81),
delegating minor issues to an administrative assistant or other staff (0.79), and relying on an
administrative assistant to screen out less important issues before they reach your desk (0.62).
The final factor, which we label focus, reflects the degree to which principals are able to
maintain concentration and control over how their time is spent. The items that load most highly
onto this factor are keeping your desk clear of everything other than what you are currently
working on, making the most constructive use of your time, feeling you are in charge of your
own time, and, negatively, finding yourself getting diverted from the task at hand. Each of these
items loads onto this factor at approximately 0.6.

We also created an overall summative time management measure via factor analysis with a
single-factor solution. The single-factor solution assumes time management skills are
unidimensional. Inter-item reliability for this scale was high (Cronbach’s α=0.76). Loadings for
this measure are shown to the right in Table II.

Job stress measures

Studies of psychological and biological stressors suggest that job stress is associated with four
situational characteristics: lack of control, unpredictability, social-evaluative threat (i.e. the
prospect of being evaluated by others), and novelty or change, which are more likely to cause job
stress (Averill, 1973; Dickerson et al., 2004, 2009; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Masserman,
1971; Nicolson, 2008). To operationalize principals’ job stress, we designed a short survey
instrument to measure these four predictors of job stress based on a teacher stress survey
developed by National Union of Teachers (2007). Their survey was designed to measure six key
job stressors: demands, control, support, relationships, role, and change. These concepts overlap
a great deal in three of the above four predictors (i.e. lack of control, unpredictability, and
novelty/change), so we selected survey items that closely aligned and then edited them
appropriately for school principals. We added three original items to capture social-evaluative
threat. In total, we included 12 job stress items, shown in Appendix Table AI. Principals’
agreement with each item was elicited via a four-point scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree,
strongly agree).

Exploratory factor analysis of the 12 stress items (and analysis of accompanying scree plot)
uncovered only one clear job stress factor. We used the resulting factor scores to construct a
single job stress variable (Cronbach’s α=0.79), which we standardized to ease interpretability.

Methods

The three research questions we ask require a mix of analytical approaches. For the first
question, which asks how time management skills are distributed with respect to school and
principal characteristics, we conduct t-tests for differences in time management skills by these
characteristics. For the remaining questions, which ask how time management skills predict time
allocation and whether time management skills are associated with principal job stress and
subjective assessment of principal job performance by teachers and APs, we use a multivariate
regression approach. In particular, we model outcomes – either time allocation, job stress, or
subjective assessment – as a function of time management and a set of school and principal
control variables (shown in Table I) obtained from administrative data. In this way, we ask
whether similarly situated principals who are better at time management allocate their time
differently, have differential stress, or are assessed differentially by their teachers and APs.

Examining time management across principals and schools

Section:

Principals’ time management behaviors could be different among principals with different
personal characteristics or in different job settings (Claessens et al., 2007). For example, more
experienced principals may have better time management practices as they have had more time
to adjust to job demands. Similarly, principals in more difficult school environments may have
adapted different time management practices to cope with job demands. To test for such
differences, we conducted simple two-sided t-tests to compare principals’ scores on each of the
five time management measures (the overall scale and the four subscales) by selected principal
and school characteristics. Table III displays the results. The first column reports the result for
the overall time management factor, while the remaining four columns report the findings for the
subscales.

Among principal characteristics, only gender shows significant differences for the summary time
management measure, with men reporting lower time management scores than women.
However, using the subscales, while men score lower on short-range planning, they score higher
on delegation. There are no significant differences in the subscales by race. Principals with only
bachelor’s degrees score lower on focus relative to higher levels of education. Interestingly, a
longer tenure in the same school is associated with higher degrees of delegation, whereas it is
also associated with less short-range planning behavior.

Among school characteristics, we find no significant differences by past school performance (as
proxied by the school accountability grade) or student demographics (not shown), though there
are some differences by school level and size. In particular, principals in elementary schools and
smaller schools report better time management. Elementary and middle school principals report
more short-range planning behavior than do high school principals. Small school principals
report greater task focus, while principals at mid-size school score higher on short-range
planning.

Time management as a predictor of principal time allocation

Section:

To investigate whether principals with better time management skills allocate their time
differently across different areas of job demands – and specifically toward areas more closely
associated with school performance – we rely on the in-person observation data. We ran separate
regression models with the percentage of time spent in each of the seven time-use categories
(e.g. organizational management, instructional management) as the dependent variable and
including time management measures and school and principal controls as regressors. Table IV
gives the results for the overall time management score. Each model includes school and
principal characteristics.

Our main interests are in time spent on organizational management and instruction, as prior work
has connected investments in those areas to student outcomes. Results for the former show no
evidence that principals exercising greater time management spend more time on organizational
management tasks. They do, however, appear to spend more time on instruction in their schools.
This category of tasks includes coaching, classroom walk-throughs, and planning teacher
professional development. A 1-SD increase in time management skills is associated with an
increase of about 2 percent of the day spent on instruction management. Given that only about 13
percent of the average principal’s day is spent on instruction-related tasks, this association is
both statistically significant and practically meaningful.

In contrast, we find that a 1-SD increase in time management is associated with 3 percent less of
the work day spent on internal relations in the school, suggesting internal relations is the area
that the increase in instructional time is traded off against. Tasks in this category include
interacting socially with staff, attending school activities, and counseling staff and/or students. It
may be that principals with poorer time management practices are pulled into internal relations
tasks when they mean to be focussing more on instruction. Time management is not significantly
correlated with time use for other task categories.

We next investigated the relationship between time management and instructional management
and internal relations further by re-running the models replacing the time management summary
measure with the four subscale measures. Table V provides the results. The table shows that a 1-
SD improvement in time consciousness is associated with an increase of 2.3 percentage points in
instructional time, which is an increase of approximately 18 percent. We also find evidence that
short-range planning skills are associated with more time on instruction. The other two subscales
(delegation and focus) are found to be uncorrelated with instructional time, although the sign of
both coefficients are positive. For internal relations, short-range planning skills primarily drive
the decrease in time spent on internal relations (β=−2.54, p < 0.10). On the other hand,
improvement in time consciousness reduces the time spent on internal relations. Delegation and
focus are also negatively associated with time on internal relations tasks but are not statistically
significant at conventional levels[2].

The positive association between time management and overall time spent on instructional tasks
raises the question of which areas of principal instructional investments are driving this
relationship. To answer this question, we disaggregated the instructional management category
into six subcategories: classroom observations; evaluation of teachers, curriculum, and
educational programs; coaching teachers; developing educational programs; professional
development for teachers; and other instructional tasks (e.g. reviewing student data, fulfilling
special education duties). We then ran separate models for each of these variables. The results,
which are omitted for brevity, suggest that better time management is positively associated with
time spent on the “other instructional tasks” category (β=1.2, p < 0.05). The time management
coefficient is also positive in the models for classroom observations, evaluation, coaching, and
developing educational programs, and although these coefficients are not statistically significant
at conventional levels, their relatively low p-values, especially those on evaluation and coaching
– 0.20 and 0.13, respectively – are suggestive of a relationship that might be more apparent in a
larger sample.

As an additional look at principal time use, we also ran models examining principal location,
which observers coded throughout the observation period. Prior studies have found that the
average principal spends more than 50 percent of the day in his or her office, which may be
inconsistent with a hands-on instructional leadership role (e.g. Horng et al., 2010). In our sample,
principals spent about 41 percent of their day in their offices and 10 percent in classrooms. We
broke location down into principal’s office, classrooms, and other locations and estimated
models of time spent in each one. Although again omitted for brevity, results show that
principals with 1-SD higher time management scores spend 4.6 percentage points less time in
their offices (p < 0.10). Their time in classrooms is higher (1.1 percentage points), as is their time
elsewhere (approximately 4 percentage points).

Time management and job stress

Section:

Research outside education suggests that good time management helps reduce the job stress that
accompanies the pressures of needing to accomplish more than can be done in the time available
(Jex and Elacqua, 1999). We test this hypothesis for principals by estimating models of job stress
as assessed by the stress inventory we included in the principal surveys. Table VI reports the
results. The first two columns show models using the summary time management measure, and
the next two columns show models for the four time management components. Even-numbered
models include principal characteristics.

Our hypothesis is strongly supported by the data. Principals with strong time management skills
report much lower job stress, regardless of whether or not we control for principal
characteristics. A 1-SD improvement in time management skills is associated with a reduction in
job stress of about a fourth of a standard deviation (p < 0.01). Models 3 and 4 show that better
short-range planning and focus are negatively associated with job stress, while poorer time
consciousness predicts greater stress. Only delegation is uncorrelated with the stress measure.
We caution, however, that common-source bias may inflate the correlations among the time
management and job stress measures.

Is time management correlated with perceived effectiveness?

Section:

Differences in time allocation and job stress for principals with strong time management skills
suggest that time management can play a role in how the principal runs the school. Time
management may thus help explain principal job performance. Although objective measures of
job performance are unavailable, we investigate the hypothesis that time management positively
predicts performance by estimating models of job performance as assessed by APs and teachers.
Table VII displays the results. The AP assessment results are shown in the upper rows, and the
teacher assessments in the lower rows. In each case, we show results first for all schools
combined, then separately for elementary/middle schools and high schools. All models include
controls for characteristics of schools and APs or teachers, though these coefficients are omitted
from the table for brevity.

The coefficients reveal a nuanced pattern of results. Model 1 suggests that, on average, principal
time management is associated with negative assessments of principal effectiveness from their
APs (β=−0.13, p < 0.10). Splitting the schools by level, however, we see that, in fact, the
association is positive for high school principals (β=0.17, p < 0.10), where the complexity of the
work environment makes principal time management arguably more important. The negative
association is driven by elementary and middle principals (β=−0.27, p < 0.01). In analysis of the
subscale measures (not shown), we find that this negative association results from a negative
association with short-range planning, while the positive association for high schools comes
primarily from an association with delegation skills.

The results for teachers’ subjective assessments show no evidence of an association between
time management and principal performance in the sample of all schools, but, as with the AP
assessments, pooling the schools masks a positive association for high schools. For these
schools, a 1-SD increase in the time management factor is associated with a 0.10-SD increase in
the subjective assessment (p < 0.05). The point estimate for the sample of elementary and middle
schools is negative but not statistically significant. Secondary analysis (not shown) suggests that
high school teachers’ positive assessments are most clearly correlated with short-range planning.

Discussion and conclusions

Section:

Research outside of education has shown that time management skills can provide professionals
in demanding workplaces with strategies for making more out of scarce time resources, allowing
them to focus attention on high-priority matters in ways that may improve their overall job
performance (Claessens et al., 2007). The goal of this study was to assess whether these claims
apply to school leaders, a group for whom increasing job demands and expectations is? Raising
concerns that “the job simply is not doable” (Institute for Educational Leadership, 2000, p. 12).

Modifying an instrument used in numerous prior settings to assess time management capacities
(Britton and Tesser, 1991), we find principal time management to be arguably multidimensional,
encompassing skills and behaviors related to short-range planning, time consciousness,
delegation, and focus. Moreover, better time management is associated in some ways with what
prior studies might describe as more “productive” time investments (Grissom et al., 2013; Horng
et al., 2010; Robinson et al., 2008). In particular, principals capable of managing their time
better spend more time on instruction and less time on internal relations in their schools. The
connection between time management and instruction supports the idea that principals consider
instruction their highest priority area, on average; principals with the skills to prioritize and
“find” time within their work day typically allocate those found resources to instructional
leadership tasks.

We also examined whether good time management skills are associated with lower principal job
stress, finding strong evidence of a relationship. Our results are consistent with previous studies
that found that good time management leads to perceived time control, which leads to less job-
induced stress (Claessens et al., 2004; Macan, 1994). Job stress is important both as a predictor
of performance and other outcomes, such as turnover (Jamal, 1984).

Whether better time management ultimately translates into better job performance is a
challenging question to answer, in part because reliable measures of principal job performance
are difficult to construct. Our results might therefore best be described as suggestive. Subjective
job assessments from APs and teachers show positive correlations with time management for
high school principals. In contrast, for elementary and middle principals, associations are null or
even negative. It may be that time management is more important for high school principals who
face a larger number of competing time demands. The inconsistency of this result mirrors the
mixed evidence on the time management-job performance link in other research (e.g. Barling et
al., 1996; Macan, 1994). Job performance is a function of a large number of factors, many of
which are difficult to observe, and may be especially difficult to measure in a profession in
which the influence of one’s performance on outcomes are mediated and indirect (Hallinger and
Heck, 1998).

Still, the themes of the findings we present – that principal time management is associated with
more productive work behaviors and positive assessment of job performance – provide initial
evidence that time management matters for principal work. One reason this connection deserves
further attention is that time management is a relatively straightforward set of skills that can be
learned and developed (Macan et al., 1990). A large number of training modules and workshops
are available and have been widely utilized in the private sector, though these programs vary in
their efficacy (Claessens et al., 2007). With relatively small time and resource costs, even modest
benefits of time management training for school principals can make such investments worth
consideration.

Several limitations of this study should be underscored. Perhaps most important is the issue of
measurement error, present to some degree in each of the main variables utilized in this analysis.
For example, self-ratings on the time management instrument are likely to be imperfect
assessments of actual time management skills and behaviors, raising the potential for bias. As
another example, subjective assessments of principal performance by others in the school may be
colored by interpersonal relationships or the fact that APs and teachers cannot observe every
dimension of their principal’s work. Similarly, our measures of time use are based single-day
snapshots of principal activities. Given day-to-day and seasonal variation in principals’
leadership activities (Camburn et al., 2010) and the possibility that principals altered their time
use on the day of the observation, our measures may not necessarily represent principal
behaviors on other days. Although measurement error in dependent variables generally is less
concerning, these examples nonetheless suggest some caution in interpreting the results. Also,
the study focusses on a single school district with unique demographic characteristics, and we
cannot be sure that our findings would generalize to principals in other contexts.

For these reasons, further exploration of the role of time management in the work of school
administrators using more refined or validated time management instruments, alternative
outcome measures, and larger samples would be worthwhile. Future research might also consider
factors mediating the relationship between time management and outcomes (e.g. Macan, 1994)
or examine whether time management is more closely associated with outcomes under some
conditions. Workload and job autonomy, for example, may influence the degree to which time
management skills are useful (Claessens et al., 2007).

Development and Validation of the Work

Role Motivation Scale for School Principals
(WRMS-SP)
Claude Fernet
First Published November 2, 2010 Other
Download PDF Article information

Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a scale to assess work role
motivation in school principals: the Work Role Motivation Scale for School Principals (WRMS-
SP). The WRMS-SP is designed to measure intrinsic motivation, three types of extrinsic
motivation (identified, introjected, and external), and amotivation with respect to three work
roles (administrative, instructional leadership, and informative). Research Design: Data were
gathered via a sample of 570 French Canadian school principals who completed an online
questionnaire. Findings: Confirmatory factor analyses support (a) the 15-factor scale structure (5
types of motivation × 3 roles), (b) factor structure invariance over gender and job position, and
(3) construct validity through a multitrait-multimethod matrix method analysis, which confirms
the convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs and supports simplex patterns with
respect to the roles, as well as intercorrelations between subscales and external criteria.
Conclusions: The WRMS-SP is a promising instrument that could deepen our understanding,
both theoretical and applied, of the professional functioning of principals and the repercussions
on school success and improvement.

Keywords motivation, school principals, scale development, self-determination theory (SDT)

Baard, P.P., Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. ( 2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis
of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34,
2045-2068. Google Scholar, Crossref
Bentler, P., & Wu, E. ( 1998). EQS for Windows [Computer software]. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software. Google Scholar
Blais, M.R., Brière, N.M., Lachance, L., Riddle, A.S., & Vallerand, R.J. (1993). L’inventaire
des motivations au travail de Blais [The Blais Work Motivation Inventory]. Revue Québécoise
de Psychologie, 14, 185-215. Google Scholar
Blais, M.R., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., & Brière, N.M. (1989). L’échelle de satisfaction de
vie: Validation canadienne-française du "Satisfaction With Life Scale" [French Canadian
validation of the Satisfaction With Life Scale]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21,
210-223. Google Scholar, Crossref
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. ( 1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. Google Scholar, Crossref,
Medline
Cattonar, B., Lessard, C., Blais, J.-G., Larose, F., Riopel, M.-C., Tardif, M., et al. (2007).
School principals in Canada: Context, profile and work. Pancanadian Surveys of Principals and
Teachers in Elementary and Secondary Schools (2005-2006) (Report: Current Trends in the
Evolution of School Personnel in Canadian Elementary and Secondary Schools). Montreal,
Canada: Université de Montréal . Google Scholar
Chapman, J.D. ( 2005). Recruitment, retention, and development of school principals
(Education Policy Series). Paris: UNESCO. Google Scholar
Cheung, G.W., & Rensvold, R.B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling Journal, 9(2), 233-255. Google
Scholar, Crossref
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. ( 1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Platinum. Google Scholar, Crossref
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. ( 2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-
being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23. Google Scholar, Crossref
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512. Google Scholar,
Crossref, Medline
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. ( 1985). The Satisfaction With Life
Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-76. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
Dussault, M., Fernet, C., & Frenette, É. (2010). The Transformational Leadership Scale (TSL):
Validation of a new self-report leadership scale. Manuscript submitted for publication. Google
Scholar
Faragher, E.B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C.L. ( 2005). The relationship between job satisfaction
and health: A meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62, 105-112. Google
Scholar, Crossref, Medline
Fernet, C., Austin, S., & Dussault, M. ( 2009, November). L’importance de la spécificité des
rôles professionnels lors de l’évaluation de la perception d’efficacité personnelle des directions
d’école [The importance of specific professional roles in the assessment of school principals’
self-efficacy]. Paper presented at the 31st meeting of L’Association Pour le Développement des
Méthodologies d’Évaluation en Éducation, Quebec, Canada. Google Scholar
Fernet, C., Guay, F., & Senécal, C. (2004). Adjusting to job demands: The role of work self-
determination and job control in predicting burnout . Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1),
39-56. Google Scholar, Crossref
Fernet, C., Guay, F., Senécal, C., & Austin, S. ( 2010). Predicting intraindividual changes in
teacher burnout: The role of perceived work environment and motivational factors. Manuscript
submitted for publication. Google Scholar
Fernet, C., Senécal, C., Guay, F., Marsh, H., & Dowson, M. ( 2008). The Work Tasks
Motivation Scale for Teachers (WTMST) . Journal of Career Assessment, 16(2), 256-279.
Google Scholar, Link
Friedman, I.A. ( 1995). Measuring school principal-experienced burnout. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 55(4), 641-651. Google Scholar, Link
Gagné, M., Chemolli, E., Forest, J., & Koestner, R. ( 2008). The temporal relations between
work motivation and organizational commitment. Psychologica Belgica, 48(2-3), 219-241.
Google Scholar, Crossref
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M.-H., Aubé, C., Morin, E., & Malorni, A. ( 2010). The
Motivation at Work Scale: Validation in two languages . Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 70, 628-646. Google Scholar, Link
Guay, F., Marsh, H.W., Dowson, M., Larose, S., & Boivin, M. ( 2005). Academic motivation
among young elementary school children: Factor structure, age and gender effects. Paper
presented at the conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, University
of Western Sydney, Australia. Google Scholar
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. ( 1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191. Google
Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. ( 1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Google Scholar, Crossref
Iannone, R. ( 1973). What motivates principals? Journal of Educational Research, 66(6), 260-
262. Google Scholar, Crossref
Jamshidian, M., & Bentler, P.M. ( 1999). ML estimation of mean and covariance structures
with missing data using complete data routines. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 24(1), 21-41. Google Scholar, Link
Jöreskog, K., & Goldberger, A. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and
multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 10,
631-639. Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. ( 1999). An extension of the propensity score adjustment method for the analysis of
group differences in MIMIC models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 467-492. Google
Scholar, Crossref, Medline
Kottkamp, R.B., & Derczo, M.T. ( 1986). Expectancy motivation scales for school principals:
Development and validity tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 46, 425-432.
Google Scholar, Link
Lee, R.T., & Ashforth, B.E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three
dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123-133. Google Scholar,
Crossref, Medline
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. ( 2005). A review of transformational school leadership research
1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 177-199. Google Scholar, Crossref
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. ( 2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions
of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496-528. Google Scholar, Link
Marsh, H.W., & Hau, K-T. ( 1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable ?
Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 364-390. Google Scholar, Crossref
Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., & Grayson, D. ( 2005). Goodness of fit evaluation in structural
equation modeling . In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. McCardle (Eds.), Contemporary
psychometrics: A festschrift to Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275-340). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Marsh, H.W., Martin, A.J., & Hau, K-T. ( 2006). A multiple method perspective on self-
concept research in educational psychology: A construct validity approach. In M. Eid & E.
 Diener (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 441-456).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association . Google Scholar
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. ( 1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
538-551. Google Scholar, Crossref
Meyer, J.P., Becker, T.E., & Vandenberghe, C. (1993). Employee commitment and motivation:
A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991-1007.
Google Scholar, Crossref
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 61(1), 20-52. Google Scholar, Crossref
Mitchell, T.R., & Daniels, D. ( 2003). Motivation. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J.
Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 225-254). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Google Scholar, Crossref
Peugh, J.L., & Enders, C.K. ( 2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of
reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74(4),
525-556. Google Scholar, Link
Pinder, C.C. ( 1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
Richer, S.F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R.J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2089-2113. Google Scholar, Crossref
Ryan, R.M. ( 1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal
of Personality, 63, 397-427. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
Ryan, R.M., & Connell, J.P. ( 1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57, 749-761. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline
Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. ( 1996). Maslach Burnout
Inventory-General Survey. In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson , & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), The Maslach
Burnout Inventory: Test manual (3rd ed., pp. 22-26). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press. Google Scholar
Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. ( 1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling
. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Su, Z., Gamage, D., & Mininberg, E. ( 2003). Professional preparation and development of
school leaders in Australia and the USA. International Education Journal , 4(1), 42-59. Google
Scholar
Tremblay, M.A., Blanchard, C.M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L.G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its value for organizational research. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 41(4), 213-226. Google Scholar, Crossref
Vallerand, R.J. ( 1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In
M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 271-360). New York:
Academic Press. Google Scholar, Crossref
Vallerand, R.J., Blais, M.R., Brière, N., & Pelletier, L.G. (1989). Construction et validation de
l’Échelle de Motivation en Éducation (EME) [Development and validation of the Academic
Motivation Scale]. Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 2(3), 323-349. Google
Scholar, Crossref
Vallerand, R.J., & Halliwell, W.R. (1983). Toward a cross-cultural validation methodology for
psychological inventories: Implications in sport psychology. Canadian Journal of Applied
Sport Sciences, 8, 9-18. Google Scholar, Medline

Vol 47, Issue 2, 2011

Table of Contents

Article Metrics
 

Related Articles

Cite

Permissions

Share

Download PDF
SAGE Recommends
Close
Sort by
What is this?

 Fetching related content...

SAGE Video
Streaming video collections

SAGE Knowledge
The ultimate social sciences library

SAGE Research Methods

The ultimate methods library

SAGE Stats
Data on Demand

CQ Library
American political resources

SAGE Journals
About
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Contact Us
Help

Browse
Health Sciences
Life Sciences
Materials