Qualitative Inquiry into Work-Related Distressing Experiences in Primary School Principals

Abstract

Background: Excessive work-related demands and inadequate support systems are important risks for employees’ health status and quality of life. Although an abundance of data exists about leadership and the occupational health of various vocational groups, there are relatively few studies on leaders’ well-being and related psychosocial hazards in educational organizations, such as primary schools. Methods: Work-related distressing experiences in primary school principals focusing on associated factors and the impact of these experiences on them were investigated. A qualitative methodology with a census and purposeful sampling was applied, utilizing the inductive content analysis approach. Overall, 20 males and 6 females participated, all employed in a rural region of Greece. Following informed consent, data collection was achieved through three focus groups with repetitive interviews. Results: The absence of a robust and well-defined legal framework to govern the authority, duties, and responsibilities of principals, evident in the lack of legally established procedures and protocols, was identified as the root cause of the participants’ distressing experiences. Three distressing phenomena were identified: (a) Challenging interpersonal relations due to lack of a regulatory system regarding school functioning; (b) Current educational policy and legal framework, characterized by too many responsibilities and no adequate power; (c) Irrelevant topics and time frame for continuing education projects toward principals. Conclusions: The study findings highlight the critical challenges faced by primary school principals due to the absence of a clear legal framework and the instability of educational policies. The findings suggest that policy reforms are needed to provide principals with greater clarity in their roles and responsibilities. Additionally, addressing the constant changes in educational policy could help create a more stable and manageable school environment. A participatory action research project, including stakeholders from primary school leaders, managers, pupils, and parents, is proposed, focused on the development of a comprehensive plan to overcome the challenges of the current context, also aiming to enhance empathy in all parties.

1. Introduction

Approximately 60% of the general population worldwide spends almost one-third of their day in work settings, making workplace conditions a vital public health issue [1]. Aligned with this data, the World Mental Health Day celebration topic for 2024 was “Mental Health in the Workplace”, giving emphasis on the importance of the work environment for employees’ mental well-being and psychosocial and physical safety [2]. Research shows that a healthy and safe work environment supports individuals’ mental health, while harmful conditions, including exclusion, stigma, harassment, bullying, and excessive demands without adequate support, pose significant risks to employees’ mental health and quality of life [3,4,5].

Primary school leaders’ well-being is an important parameter for their quality of life and their health promotion and subsequently to occupational health promotion [6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Additionally, given that primary school leaders represent the backbone of educational organizations, their well-being is also essential for their effective functioning and the success of their organizations [13]. Indeed, primary school leaders are deemed as a crucial part of the educational workforce, also important in improving teaching and learning conditions in schools, as well as achieving educational outcomes [14,15,16]; this also adds to the importance of studies on their well-being. Yet, data show that school principals experience high levels of stress and health impairment, while further study is needed to unveil and understand the psychosocial hazards of their role [13,16,17]. Cox and Griffiths described work-related psychosocial hazards as the factors that are associated with the social and organizational context of a workplace that could cause physical or psychological distress to employees [18].

So far, research has identified psychological and mental indicators of exposure to prolonged stress conditions in leaders of educational organizations, including depressive symptoms, anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and emotional labor fatigue [19,20], but there are only a few empirical studies on what may cause work-related distressing experiences in them [17,21]. Subsequently, the context in which phenomena such as high job demands, psychological deterioration, and professional burnout develop in this population is not well understood. Moreover, prior work on school principals’ well-being is limited to studies of small samples with methodological flaws. Especially in many European countries, including Greece, there is a lack of systematic study on school principals’ work-related psychosocial hazards.

Under this scope, a qualitative study was conducted herein, utilizing focus groups as a data collection technique; the aim of this study was to gain a deeper insight into emerging work-related distressing experiences in primary school principals, with a special focus on (a) the factors associated with these experiences and (b) the impact of these experiences on their well-being.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that utilized this technique to create meaning around this topic in school principals of primary education in the south European region, including Greece. Approaching the topic this way, above its novelty and the revelation of data to support the development of targeted intervention studies, might prove beneficial for the participants of the study; sharing their experience with their peers might open channels of communication and support among them.

Literature Review

Work-related psychosocial hazards include increased workload, unhealthy work rhythms, lack of support, and an absence of fair rewards, as well as those that emerge following societal changes, such as harassment, incivility, or bullying [18,22]. Work-related psychosocial hazards are linked to impaired emotional, psychological, and mental well-being. Specifically, data show that chronic exposure to work-related psychosocial hazards is associated, among others, with anxiety, depression, chronic fatigue, and emotional exhaustion [23]. Regarding school principals, Maxwell and Riley [24] underlined that concealing adverse emotions was the only component of emotional labor that predicted emotional exhaustion and well-being in them. Thus, a lack of effective communication and support is deemed an important psychological hazard for the leaders of educational organizations [24].

Nevertheless, school principals are in the center of a community that includes teachers, students, parents, administrative personnel, municipality personnel, and residents who live close to the school as well as other stakeholders. As a result, school principals find themselves ‘at the crossroads of different interests and agendas from different actors in and around the school’ [14,25]. This centrality implies a wide range of work challenges and demands [11,26]. Byrne-Jiménez and Orr [27] have discussed how school principals are required to think in multiple dimensions, moving constantly between the individual, the group, and the organizational level. This multiplicity of internal and external demands can lead to exceeding work-related stressors and potential distressing experiences if these demands are not supported adequately.

The literature has identified a number of factors associated with school principals’ psychological and physiological distress. Sogunro [28], after conducting interviews with school principals in the U.S.A., identified seven causes of distress: (a) unpleasant relationships and conflicts with others, (b) time constraints regarding assigned duties, (c) crises in the school, (d) challenging policy demands and overwhelming mandates from governments, (e) budgetary constraints, (f) fear of failure, and (g) negative publicity and dealing with media. The findings of the study by Klocko and Justis [26], also in school principals in the U.S.A, were different. Specifically, the participants in this study seemed to be less bothered by psychosocial factors, like handling conflicts or teachers’ resistance to change; instead, they were more concerned with personal task management. They reported feeling overwhelmed with increased demands and expectations, loss of personal time, constant interruptions, inability to keep up with email communications, and insufficient time to get the job done. An additional study in the U.S.A revealed that accountability was perceived as the most important issue for school principals, while school safety was rarely reported as an issue that needed their full attention [29]. An emerging stressor for school principals described in studies in Mediterranean areas was increasing parental involvement, which was associated with conflicts between the two parties, mainly due to differences in their prioritization [30,31,32]. An additional stressor highlighted by Mahfouz [33] was the social pressure that school principals receive from their community since they are public figures and their behavior is exposed toward a great number of school stakeholders.

These findings show that data coming from different cultural contexts enable a deeper understanding of school principals’ distressing experiences. Moreover, targeted studies on primary school principals are also important due to their different organizational contexts linked with the different educational levels they serve, possibly leading to different work-related needs.

2. Materials and Methods

A qualitative research methodology was applied, utilizing the inductive content analysis approach. This method is particularly well-suited for investigating phenomena with limited existing data. Notably, the current study represents the first exploration of work-related distressing experiences in primary school principals within the Greek cultural context. Furthermore, relevant data from international studies remain relatively scarce [34].

2.1. Participants

The target population was primary school principals employed in a rural region of Greece. A census sampling methodology was applied according to the following inclusion criteria: (a) primary school principal ranking; (b) full understanding of the aim, objectives and procedures of the study, as it was assured during consent giving process; (c) written informed consent to participate in the study; and (d) participants’ adequate ability to describe and communicate rich informative narratives on psychologically demanding or distressing experiences related to their work life to the researcher. There was no time-specific inclusion criterion regarding the length of work experience as a primary school principal. There were no exclusion criteria. The recruitment of participants was achieved by sending informational material via email to all primary school principals in the region through the primary education service. This material contained all the relevant information regarding participation in the study.

2.2. Instrumentation

Data collection was achieved through focus-group interviews with open-ended questions. The participants were organized into three groups (9-9-8), and two interviews were conducted with each group, two weeks apart, ranging from 1 to 3 h. During the second interview, the emerging themes were confirmed and enriched by the participants. The following interview guide was used: (1) please describe, if any, psychologically distressing situations that you experience as a primary school principal; (2) which factors are associated with these psychologically distressing situations; (3) what is the impact of these experiences on you. Psychologically distressing situations were defined as any emotional and interpersonal demands related to work-life that caused tension to the participants, including any requirements from the organization (Ministry of Education, Division of Primary Education) associated with their vocational position [35].

Prior to the study interview, a 15-min informal meeting with each group took place to achieve some degree of intimacy and reassure confidentiality. Moreover, the participants were encouraged to speak up to the extent that they felt comfortable doing so.

2.3. Procedure and Ethical Issues

The participants were informed both orally and in written form about the purpose and process of the study and confidentiality issues regarding the revealed experiences. A form describing these issues was distributed to the target population and was finally signed by all those who were willing to participate.

Each interview was recorded with the participant’s permission, and they were reassured that no data that could identify them would be reported at any point of the study. At each phase of the study, the participants confirmed their consent to continue contributing to the study with their data.

During the study, a mental healthcare team was assigned to support any participants who would experience psychological distress upon the referral of the research team. No such cases were registered until the end of the study.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data analysis aimed to identify the recurring descriptions (codes) in the participants’ narratives, to organize them into groups of common categories, to identify their meanings, and to further identify common themes among these categories, along with possible links between these themes. The latter process was expected to reveal the core theme. Each researcher analyzed each interview independently; participants’ feelings, experiences, interpretations, and perceptions regarding emotionally charged circumstances or situations, challenging and psychologically distressing or demanding cases within or related to school environment were recorded.

Through teamwork, code groups were established, reflecting common interpretations. This process allowed for categories and themes to emerge and the criteria of data and thematic saturation to be identified. The data saturation criterion was partially assured via the heterogeneity of the sample in relation to participants’ demographics (sex, marital status, age, etc.) and variables related to the phenomenon, e.g., duration of managerial task assignment, number of pupils/schools, etc. Regarding thematic saturation, this was determined by the lack of new codes in the analyzed data [36]. The rigor and trustworthiness of the study were based on the evaluation of the degree to which all nine of Munhall’s criteria of research rigor were successfully applied [36].

3. Results

Following consent, the sample size was determined to be 20 males and 6 females, based on the theoretical and data saturation criteria during the simultaneous data collection and analysis. Participants’ mean age was 55.92 years, and they had been employed as principals for approximately 10.84 years; yet, their average total teaching experience amounted to 30.69 years. Out of the 26 participants, 9 were holders of a master’s degree and 9 of them were graduates of a three-year education program in pedagogy (Diploma holders). The demographic, educational, and work characteristics of the participants are presented in

Table 1. Demographic, educational, and work characteristics of the participants.

	Sex	Age (Years)	Total Work Experience (Years)	Highest Degree	Work Experience as a Principal (Years)
1	Male	49	22	Doctorate diploma	12
2	Male	62	27	Bachelor’s in Pedagogy	10
3	Male	54	30	Master’s degree	16
4	Male	58	34	Diploma in Pedagogy	16
5	Male	55	31	Bachelor’s in Pedagogy	8
6	Female	55	28	Doctorate diploma	12
7	Male	58	34	Doctorate diploma	4
8	Female	59	27	Master’s degree	12
9	Male	55	31	Diploma in Pedagogy	10
10	Male	54	31	Master’s degree	12
11	Female	53	30	Master’s degree	8
12	Male	57	30	Bachelor’s in Pedagogy	16
13	Male	53	29	Master’s degree	4
14	Male	55	33	Master’s degree	16
15	Male	62	38	Diploma in Pedagogy	16
16	Male	47	21	Master’s degree	4
17	Male	56	34	Diploma in Pedagogy	4
18	Male	57	35	Bachelor’s in Pedagogy	14
19	Female	62	34	Bachelor’s in Pedagogy	16
20	Male	60	38	Diploma in Pedagogy	20
21	Male	63	38	Diploma in Pedagogy	20
22	Male	56	31	Master’s degree	8
23	Male	47	16	Master’s degree	4
24	Female	55	29	Diploma in Pedagogy	4
25	Female	56	35	Diploma in Pedagogy	4
26	Male	56	32	Diploma in Pedagogy	12
Mean Value		55.92	30.69		10.84

.

Several codes were identified according to the aim and objectives of the study; these were further grouped into seven themes and three categories, and a core theme was identified (

Table 2. Presentation of the core theme, along with the identified themes and categories.

Core Theme	Categories	Themes
Absence of a robust and well-defined legal framework to govern the authority, duties and responsibilities of principals, evident in the lack of legally established procedures and protocols.	Challenging interpersonal relations: Lack of a regulatory system regarding school functioning.	1. Conflicts with pupils and their parents 2. Conflicts with colleagues and between colleagues. 3. Conflicts with superiors in hierarchy.
	Educational Policy and Legal Framework: Too many responsibilities, lack of adequate power	1. Instability of the work context. 2. Wide-ranged duties and role ambiguity. 3. Too many responsibilities and no authority. 4. Dysfunctional referral procedures.
	Irrelevant topics and time frame for continuing education projects toward principals

). Specifically, the school context in its current form seemed to be lacking a firm and clear legal framework to regulate principals’ authority, as well as their tasks and responsibilities. This was revealed as the core distressing phenomenon for them since the majority of their narratives revolved around this topic. Additionally, a lack of legally established procedures and protocols to underpin school functioning, along with a rigid, motiveless, and constantly changing educational policy, seemed to trigger several stressful and challenging experiences related to participants’ professional role and work life.

3.1. Category I: Challenging Interpersonal Relations: Lack of a Regulatory System Regarding School Functioning

The participants described multitude encounters related to the dynamics of interpersonal relations during their workday; this issue was described as one of the most challenging aspect of their work life: “[…] we are preoccupied on how to deal with (relational) problems within the school unit […] when you are dealing with parents and colleagues; anything that is linked to human behavior, or disrupts school cohesion […]” (P5).

The participants commented on the relationship with pupils, schoolteachers, parents, guardians, administrators, psychologists and social workers, the municipality, and other governmental agencies, as well as with other primary school principals. Interestingly, the participants concisely reported that the most challenging period regarding the quality of interpersonal relationships was the time around school opening, which was described as “a period of high demands” (P5).

Management of the relationships within school context required time, knowledge, patience, and soft skills such as effective communication and negotiation skills: “[…] to deal with and manage people aged 6 years to 62; some of whom are colleagues […] this wide range of psychological responses that you have to deal with every day […]” (P9). Notably, the feeling that the cohesion of the school unit was heavily disrupted in cases of relational problems was also prominent and distressing: “[…] when there is a disturbance of cohesion within the school unit.” (P5). Nevertheless, when relational problems remained unresolved, participants experienced distress, ineffectiveness, and disappointment: “[…] you tried to find a solution and did not succeed […]” (P9).

3.1.1. Conflicts with Pupils and Their Parents

The participants clearly described the relations with pupils and their parents as challenging. They also addressed an abundance of factors linked with conflicts between school principals and pupils’ parents, which, according to the participants, mainly resulted from parents’ attitudes. These factors included biased perceptions and miscommunication by both the pupils and their parents: “[…] a teacher says something to the pupils. Each pupil gets it across to his parents in different ways […] parents come to school, you try to smooth things out, but usually parents tend to be so rooted in their original perception […] there is such a great inflexibility in changing their perceptions […] You say one thing, the next thing is chat over the phone […] this kind of information exchange between them (families) is an issue […]” (P12). Contradicting positions and parents’ lack of willingness to cooperate with teachers were also reported as factors associated with tension between the participants and pupils’ parents. Most importantly, the participants gave emphasis to parents’ intention to take the role of the expert in on effort to act as advocates of their child, denoting an inequality in power regarding the relation between these two parties; this relation seemed to be competitive instead of collaborative: “[…] they (parents) come instructing us, in detail, on how to do our job […] they think that they are psychologists and sociologists. The only thing that’s missing is (to bring) literature references and the minister of education […]” (P11).

Participants underlined the lack of a regulatory internal policy regarding accepted and non-accepted behaviors by pupils and parents within the school context as a major barrier toward smooth relations in the school community, which adversely influenced the relational dynamics between the two parties. In more detail, participants highlighted parents’ inability to comply with the school’s rules and existing framework, even in the current ambiguous status: “[…] parents who think that they are allowed to come in and out from school, at any time, and think that the school is their home […]” (P6). This phenomenon, along with principals’ limited authority to implement any penalties against disruptive behaviors, was described as a highly distressing part of their work life. Nevertheless, the current legal framework was strongly characterized as inadequate. Problems deriving from participants’ limited authority to effectively manage issues related to pupils’ disruptive behavior were further deteriorated due to a lack of trained experienced professionals to handle critical or demanding cases: “[…] in terms of pupils’ discipline, we do not have the legal framework to support our responsibilities […] they talk to us about bullying […] apart from discussing it […] we can’t do anything else […] there should be social services to intervene […] we should have permanent specialized staff […] I want the psychologist, the social worker […] someone who has the power and expertise to intervene.” (P2).

Additional stressors affecting the quality of relations between the participants and pupils parents were pre-existing problems and tension within pupils’ family, especially in case of divorced parents or disturbed family relations: “[…] when there is lack of consensus on visitations […] they (parents) come to school and expel accusations on us because we allowed the father or the mother to visit the child […]” (P6). Cases of learning disabilities and adjustment problems in pupils, especially along with parents’ denial about these problems, were also repeatedly reported: “[…] you will find parents who bring up problems because they don’t accept that their child’s behavior in school is disruptive […] and this affects the relationship of the principal with parents and students, the relationship between teachers and parents, as well as among pupils […] and the kid feels that he is over the rules, even against the interest of others […] I don’t want to do anything which will make parents to press charges on me” (P9).

Participants’ narratives revealed distressing phenomena not only related to pupils’ behaviors but to safety issues as well. The protection of pupils’ physical integrity was put on a high priority: “[…] for me the greatest stress is children’s physical integrity […] to come and leave safe and sound […]” (P11). Notably, parents’ aggressive behavior toward the participants and schoolteachers was also mentioned, bringing up the issue of the physical integrity of the school personnel, too: “There was this person who came to school and said ‘who is the principal to kill him’” (P9).

3.1.2. Conflict with Colleagues and Between Colleagues

Similarly, the participants yield vivid descriptions regarding the quality of relations with their colleagues, as well as among their colleagues, as an issue closely related to distressing experiences. Suspiciousness in colleagues and lack of collegiality were underlined as the main sources of these problems: “[…] when you go to talk about this (a reported problem) with the teacher, you have to manage how he/she will perceive your input […] because if you don’t have a good relationship (with the teacher) […] you’re trying to protect him from an emerging problem, and he thinks that the principal uses the parents as an excuse to tell him what to do and what not to do […]” (P11). Furthermore, dysfunctional organizational culture and lack of a stable, structured framework were the most frequent factors affecting the quality of relations with their colleagues. Similarly, frequent changes in legal frameworks and the establishment of new Acts by the ministry of education were described as major factors associated with tensing experiences, also affecting the quality of relationships within the school context: “suddenly, one day, there is a new Act […] things change all the time; subsequently, relationships change too. There is a pressure from colleagues, from parents; we would know how to manage better if we had a stable work environment […].” (P7).

3.1.3. Conflicts with Superiors in Hierarchy

Conflicts with administrators in upper-level management were also described. Associated factors included the ambiguity of the objectives and process of administrative interventions applied by high-ranking administrators or school consultants. These interventions were sometimes described as inappropriate and ineffective, negatively affecting school functioning: “[…] in relation to the collaboration we have, either with managers or with consultants […] sometimes we have some tensions with high ranking administrators. Great tensions […] generally related to their management style […] some actions taken (by administrators) interfere with school functioning, while there are alternatives that would not bring up any problems […] in the management of staff (sick leave, holiday leave, rotations, etc.)” (P7).

3.2. Category II: Educational Policy and Legal Framework: Too Many Responsibilities, No Adequate Power

According to the participants, the school climate and the cooperation between its members were negatively affected by the lack of a clear national educational policy and constant changes in the law system and relevant Acts, which were both clearly described as the main sources of strain.

3.2.1. Instability of the Work Context

Work-related instability, mainly resulting from the frequent changes in national educational policy and relevant regulations, was associated with a number of adverse implications mainly linked with participants’ difficulty to urgently adapt to the new context and their agony of legal consequences due to inability to apply new directives: “We do not have a stable work environment. Rules and regulations change every year […] if we knew what applies, which are the objectives, how to apply the new rule […] We don’t know anything […] These are things that are overturned constantly […] it’s not easy to adapt to what they ask you to do every time”. (P7).

3.2.2. Wide-Ranged Duties and Role Ambiguity

Difficulties to understand and apply new rules and regulations were accompanied by the wide range of responsibilities and role ambiguity in the participants: “[…] there is role ambiguity […] regarding our responsibilities […]” (P2). A number of dysfunctional bureaucratic processes and unreasonable time pressure to complete indistinct duties following variability of the educational policy were also described: “[…] It brings up a lot of pressure when they put deadlines on me, when I do not expected it […] to be responsible and accountable […] and if you miss it (the deadline) you are accountable and exposed […] just out of the blue.” (P8). In fact, it was recorded that the participants felt completely unprotected, mainly at a high risk for legal implications, as there was an absence of a concise and effective institutional framework to support their role, as well as their professional and personal rights: “We even sign papers that are neither in our role nor in our authority and if something happens […] and in front of the prosecutor there is no one to assure us that we are covered […]” (P2).

Moreover, the participants described their duties not only as wide-ranged but time-consuming too, mainly due to inflexible regulations: “[…] the inflexible working hours we have adopted to respond to our duties […].” (P6).

3.2.3. Too Many Responsibilities and No Authority

The participants underlined an insufficient institutional and legal framework regarding their responsibilities and respective authorities for many of their tasks: “[…] but the principle is always responsible for everything. From alpha to omega, without having any power […]. we are considered the upper level, that we have great power and in fact we have nothing […]” (P2).

3.2.4. Dysfunctional Referral Procedures

An additional distressing phenomenon included dysfunctional referral procedures in relation to pupils with severe behavioral problems and principals’ lack of autonomy to handle these extreme cases in terms of giving options to parents. This was further burdened by excessive documentation, bureaucracy, and non-authorized responsibilities put on the participants by their administrators: “[…] there are children with learning difficulties […] their parents don’t accept these problems […] yet, the current policy doesn’t give the right to teachers to move on with referrals, to endorse a compulsory assessment, even when they see major problems.” (P2)

3.3. Category III: Irrelevant Topics and Time Frames for Continuing Education Projects Toward Principals

Unsuitable time frames and ineffective planning for the implementation of seminars and continuing education projects were described as sources of tension. This issue was brought up since the participants experienced constant disruptions regarding task performance because they had to attend continuing education seminars or relevant actions for which there was last minute notification; yet participation was deemed obligatory: “[…] they invite us to attend some seminars, which take us off our planed daily schedule […] I have five running projects at school and relevant actions to run […]” (P1). As a result, there was not enough time to re-schedule their duties, leading to disturbed school functioning and uncompleted duties. This was described as an intense stressor, which affected the participants mental well-being: “[…] high ranking administrators ask you to attend a seminar, or a project, last minute, without planning, I mean last minute, a short of obligatory attendance, and the current school planning is disrupted […] this is a stressor for principals, which may trigger anxiety symptoms if you are unable to manage it.” (P1). Others mentioned the need to allocate duties to other colleagues, which resulted in confusion and tension in school dynamics. Notably, the participants underlined their difficulty in managing this phenomenon, especially in times of increased workload, such as during school openings or at the end of the school year.

The subject of projects and continuing education seminars was also addressed, since the participants reported a lack of structured context, according to participants’ needs and reported priorities: “[…] there is no structured plan for continuing education programs […] they ask us to attend the seminars […] Whatever the ministry of education or the school counsellor come up with […]” (P1).

4. Discussion

This study revealed work-related distressing experiences in a census sample of primary school principals in an urban region in Greece, the factors associated with these experiences, and the impact of these experiences on them. Specifically, three predominant distressing phenomena were identified: (a) challenging interpersonal relations due to lack of a regulatory system regarding school functioning; (b) educational policy and legal framework characterized by too many responsibilities and lack of power on school principals; and (c) irrelevant topics and time frame for capacity building projects. The participants’ distressing experiences were mainly attributed to the lack of a clear and well-structured legal framework defining the authority, duties, and responsibilities of school principals. This issue was evident in the absence of standardized procedures and official protocols. Additionally, the challenges of managing school operations were further intensified by an inflexible and frequently changing educational policy.

Several of the distressing experiences reported were consistent with those reported in former studies. Specifically, the participants described that they were unable to make decisions and changes about school functioning due to limited power; they had to deal with a heavy workload and ineffective staff or staff shortage; and they had to manage the demanding expectations of parents, pupils, and colleagues [37]. Additional previously described key work-related distressing experiences in school principals included inadequate preparation in tasks where school principals were held responsible, lack of time to manage all issues risen, and task disruption, along with a wide variety of responsibilities and conflicting tasks [15]. Specifically, multiplicity of tasks, combined with time-related constraints and the bureaucratic nature of the job, were previously identified as main stressors for school principals [38] and were similarly addressed in the present study.

Indeed, the work of school principals in many countries is characterized by low authority and autonomy but high accountability and responsibility [39,40], a phenomenon which was clearly described by the participants herein. Nevertheless, this is a situation that combines high demands and low decision latitude, and as such, it has been identified as a critical risk factor for psychological and mental distress [41]. However, this incongruency rarely comes with the proper support; school principals have only recently started developing management skills in Greece, as a few years ago, they lacked proper training [42]. Moreover, at least in Greece, there is a lack of mental and psychological support services linked with public educational organizations. Only in recent times, mainly during the pandemic, were psychologists and social workers employed in public schools; yet their services are in most cases limited to students and their families, while most of them were appointed in more than one school unit. Although research in teachers and school principals has drawn attention to the necessity and importance of such support during previous decades, there are still limited established procedures and policies aiming to alleviate school principals’ distressing experiences [16].

Other researchers have identified feelings of isolation and fear, leading educational leaders to vulnerable situations and severely stressful experiences [43,44]. Although the participants of the present study did not directly address feelings of loneliness and isolation, the concurring theme of a lack of support regarding their professional role may silently reflect latent feelings of loneliness. In line with this, a major distressing experience that the school principals in this study repetitively mentioned was associated with the administration policy and the legal framework of school functioning. The main issue was the frequent changes in the current law system and the participants’ need for constant updating regarding new policies and their unsupported effort to promote these changes in the school system. The participants mentioned that the way their work was organized was problematic. This consequently led to an unstable environment and a sense of twofold uncertainty; on the one hand, they could not plan their work, and on the other hand, they were anxious that they would make mistakes for which they would be held accountable and be reprimanded. Uncertainty resulting from the complexity or from changes in a system’s properties (e.g., law changes) has been identified as a factor adversely influencing school functioning. For instance, Gomes and Wojahn, in their study [45], reported that complexity and uncertainty were related to poor organizational learning mechanisms. It would be expected that more experienced principals would consider their work simpler, but a consistent finding in the literature is that lack of experience is not the definitive factor for feeling overwhelmed and frustrated [45]. Similarly, the participants of the present study did not comment on their experience as a buffer system toward managing uncertainty or work-related complexity. Instead, according to their narratives, work-related uncertainty seemed pervasive and twofold: they were feeling either unequipped with skills and lacking procedures to effectively fulfill challenging duties or they had limited power to do so. A similar experience has been described in other studies [15,46]. Specifically, previous data show that in order to promote the benefit of all parties, there is a continuous need for educational leaders not only to be effective but also to respond quickly to the needs of the pupils and their parents, in response to the challenges and transformations of the educational system and school functioning [15,46]. This goal might be jeopardized if school principals are dealing with psychological challenges and stressful work-related demands that are not supported by suitable resources.

An additional central topic on participants’ narratives was the quality of interaction with pupils’ parents. While family involvement is considered key to student achievement and is thus encouraged through policy and school principals [47], it was deemed by the participants herein as one of the main sources of conflicts and problems that they were confronted with. Previous studies highlighted this issue [47,48]. Specifically, parental involvement has been addressed as a source of conflict between school principals and pupils’ parents, mainly due to the different prioritization of the two parties [30,31,32]. Overall, the participants herein reported that they had to meet with a significant number of people every day and deal with conflicts, either by preventing them or by managing them, and this was an important source of distress. This finding has been previously reported [11,49,50]. Even when interpersonal conflicts are quite uncommon, previous research showed that their occurrence may have a devastating and long-lasting impact on the principal’s work life [7,51]. Moreover, conflict management was described herein as a pattern that was especially difficult during demanding time periods, like the beginning of the school year.

Furthermore, the previous literature has also pointed out that a common source of conflicts was dealing with student behaviors [52]. The school principals in this study mentioned this as an alarming issue, as they thought that their action latitude, especially in terms of difficult situations like bullying, was very limited and that specialized professionals were necessary to manage such cases. Yet, data show that when school principals are empowered to implement preventive strategies toward dysfunctional behaviors, the school environment is experienced as less distressing by those employed in it, as well as by pupils [53]. Thus, the establishment of new regulations and a clear legal framework for principals’ tasks and scope of responsibilities, aiming to reduce bureaucracy and give more autonomy to school principals, is needed [47].

An additional distressing situation reported herein was conflicts with other teachers in the school. Previous data mainly highlight teachers’ lack of competence or unwillingness to deal with difficult students as the source of these conflicts since it was leading to an increase in the workload of school principals [38,54]. This phenomenon was not described herein; instead, the participants mainly addressed suspiciousness in colleagues and a lack of collegiality in managing challenging situations as the main source of conflicts between them.

4.1. Implications for Occupational and Organizational Psychology

The participants herein described their constant effort to solve problems and manage compelling situations with limited resources or support. This has been previously addressed as a major stressor for employees and subsequently as a critical work-related psychosocial hazard [55]. The Job Demands–Resources model (JD-R) [56,57] links work-related psychosocial hazards with employees’ psychological well-being. This model suggests that distress is a response to the imbalance between job demands toward employees and the resources that they are offered to deal with these demands. Job demands may be physical, psychological, social challenges, or challenges related to the organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological effort or skills to be fulfilled [58]. When employees experience high job demands and low job resources, health impairment is likely to occur, even leading to emotional exhaustion and burnout [58,59].

According to the JD-r model, organizational empowerment in primary school principals will be achieved if adequate supportive resources and access to these resources are provided, considering their specific cultural context as described in the present findings [60]. Specifically, the participants herein clearly underlined a lack of the following resources: (a) continuous education (i) in soft skills, mainly regarding effective communication, conflict resolution, and team dynamics (ii) on work process design in relation to the implementation of the changes in the educational law system, (iii) in leadership and managerial skills; (b) access to policy making and participation in decision-making; (c) enhanced autonomy regarding their duties and responsibilities; (d) authorized scientific personnel to provide diagnoses and support for complicated learning or behavioral problems; and (e) functional referral systems,. Overall, interventions prioritizing these topics in terms of providing relevant resources are necessary. Similarly, school principals need to be educated on how to utilize existing or newly introduced resources.

Indeed, the educational system as described herein seems to lack the design of leadership competency models in the sense that there is an absence of a clear understanding of the demands on primary school principals; therefore, there is a lack of understanding of the underlying skills that principals should have or should develop to fulfill their roles. The importance of the development of leadership skills is undermined and must become the center of attention to support school principals in their roles [61].

Other interventions consistent with the present finding may focus on enhancing protective factors in primary school principals, such as cultivation of adaptive coping strategies within a number of compelling scenarios [62], such as conflicting expectations from stakeholders [63]. Additionally, interventions on enhancing principals’ empathy are important, aiming to enhance their understanding of students’ personal and social limitations, to raise concern regarding students’ positive and negative emotions, to respond compassionately without losing the focus on student learning, and to support parents to deal with difficult issues [64]. Similarly, an intervention to improve collaboration and empathy among colleagues is involvement in support groups within the school environment for school principals and teachers [64].

Interventions toward enhancing emotional intelligence may be beneficial in enhancing empathy since it is a skill that can be learned and that can improve leadership capabilities [65,66]. Emotional intelligence can be described as the skills and abilities that make people aware of the feelings of oneself and others [67]. Research by Gómez-Leal et al. [68] revealed a correlation between emotional intelligence and leadership since emotional intelligence was associated with the ability to have increased self-awareness, self-control, and social awareness. These qualities were associated with the ability to build trusting relationships, manage relationships, and cultivate a climate of constructive resolution of conflict and growth. Thus, emotional intelligence may be useful in promoting conflict resolution skills.

Conflict has for many years been perceived as dysfunctional and a phenomenon to be avoided or silenced. However, the latest research on organizational conflict indicates how conflict can be managed in a constructive and creative manner [69]. Results show that the organization can become much more productive and efficient since there is evidence confirming that conflict positively correlates with school productivity and performance [69]. This entails that the school system works as a team rather than the current individualistic approach [31,70,71]. Yet, research confirms that conflict resolution is usually bestowed upon the school leader, leaving little to no time for other organizational tasks [69]. Furthermore, most of the time, conflict management styles seem to be unproductive due to factors such as a lack of common goals and direction, lack of communication, barriers in information sharing, poor quality of decision making, and stress, all leading to ineffective leadership by school principals [10,72]. As described in the current findings, conflict inevitably occurs within the school system when there is a lack of resources, roles are ambiguous, rules are insufficient, and communication is difficult among the members of various groups in the structure. There is an immediate need for collective and team training of the school stakeholders in managing conflict.

Overall, the present findings suggest that the empowerment of primary school principals is necessary for the improvement in their experiences and their services within the educational institution. This empowerment must be directed from external sources where framework and policies must be adjusted to support the diverse responsibilities of school principals. Internally driven empowerment is achieved through principals’ upskilling in various fields of management and leadership to effectively confront work-related demands. This is also expected to equip them with those resources that will help them not simply cope with work-related stressors but further evolve into transformational leaders who will make a difference in the school system. Specifically, Gordon [73] mentioned two types of school principals’ empowerment. In the first mode of empowerment, school principals need to be continuously trained in those skills and resources that are necessary for them to effectively cope, such as communication, negotiation, conflict resolution, and leadership skills. According to the second mode of empowerment, a climate of continuous learning has to be nurtured and valued, aiming to sustainably keep school principals as learners. Through these practices, school principals can reach levels of transformational leadership, which is needed in order to bring changes in their behaviors and coping mechanisms. Overall, empowerment is related to more autonomy, while increased autonomy is linked to improved well-being and reduced ill health symptoms. Autonomy is one of the three basic needs according to the self-determination theory (along with feeling competent and being able to relate to others [74]. Research has shown that the lack of any of these basic needs results in stressful experiences at work, such as the results of this inquiry [59].

Regarding the need for scientific personnel to support advanced learning difficulties or behavioral problems, it is worth noting that teachers and school principals cannot fully provide this service, since they are neither trained to do so nor have the time to fully support the psychosocial development of learners and teachers; and this could be detrimental to the pursuit of quality education [75]. Various data directly or indirectly refer to the need for mental health professionals in school environments, such as mental health nurses. School mental health nurses and school psychologists are providers who may be the first to detect signs and symptoms of students’ and teachers’ mental and behavioral difficulties inside and outside of the classroom [76]. Furthermore, they can provide assessments for referral, as well as structured interventions in the micro-level; training interventions on social skills and problem-solving skills, consultative support, communications skills, management of difficult cases, and conflict resolution in the macro-level; and education in emotional and social interaction skills, interpersonal crisis management, counseling, students’ and teachers’ empowerment [77,78]. In any case, empowerment programs in primary school principals should be implemented considering previous data on the facilitators and barriers of relevant supportive interventions.

Overall, a participatory action research project is proposed, including stakeholders from primary school leaders, teachers, managers, pupils, and parents. Such projects need to focus on the establishment of an interactive dialog on these issues, aiming to develop a comprehensive and concise plan to overcome the limitations and challenges of the current school context. A participatory action research project is expected to enhance participation in decision-making and empathy among stakeholders, a lack of which was clearly addressed by the participants.

Nevertheless, the participants herein provided rich data on the barriers regarding participation and the effectiveness of capacity and resilience-building programs provided to them. The review by Pollock et al. [60] on resilience support, although in a different target population, rigorously identified two main barriers on the implementation of such interventions: (1) lack of awareness on behalf of the organization or employees about their own needs and resources and (2) resource constraints, including lack of equipment and inadequate time or skills needed for following the intervention. These data are in line with the participants’ narratives.

Furthermore, Pollock et al. [60] described the three following factors as facilitators for the implementation of relevant interventions: (1) relevance of the intervention with the needs and culture of the target population and/or the organization, (2) enhancement of communication through vertical and horizontal networks, and (3) promotion of positive, safe, and supportive learning environment when addressing the intervention. Knowledge and beliefs of the target population on the interventions may act as both barriers or facilitators. These data are in line with the participants’ narratives and thus need to be considered when tailoring interventions are designed.

4.2. Limitations

Regarding the limitations of the present sample, the number of focus groups was pre-determined based on time restrictions and available funding. Yet, three focus groups were conducted, with two sessions with each group, aiming to achieve data and theoretical saturation. Additionally, the present sample lacks a balanced gender distribution, resulting in an underestimation of the burden and challenges experienced by female primary school principals. Moreover, since English is not the mother tongue of the researchers, this may have influenced the rigor of transferring data from participants’ native language to the current presentation. Yet, aiming to eliminate this bias, the translation of participants’ quotes was applied by a bilingual research associate (VK). Additionally, the context of the school and its climate may influence the type of psychologically distressing situations. Thus, these reported herein may not be transferable to other school contexts. However, the interviews offered rich in-depth data that projected the perceptions of the participants’ experiences. Thus, the present findings add to the literature and highlight the need to find strategies and skills to alleviate these stressors. Future research should focus on better understanding the work design of school principals to prevent these dysfunctional job characteristics and shed more light on psychosocial risk-decreasing interventions combined with stress relief strategies, as unmanaged stress could potentially be considerably damaging [64].

Moreover, there are additional strengths of this study beyond the fact that this is among the few that provide data on the psychologically distressing experiences in primary school principals, especially in southern European countries [14,21,35,45,55]. Firstly, the sample size was based on data and theoretical saturation, which supports the rigor of the present analysis. Most importantly, since a census and purposeful sampling approach was followed, it is likely that participants represent the target population, while according to their demographic, vocational, and educational characteristics, they seem to constitute a rather heterogeneous group, reflecting different aspects of the professional-role experience. These support the representativeness of the findings, thus enhancing the generalizability and the transferability of the results.

Another strength is that the participants’ feedback regarding the accuracy of the interpretation of their narratives during data analysis was obtained, which confirms the resonance and the reasonableness of the interpretation of their experience. Furthermore, the resonance of the phenomenon, reasonableness of its presentation, and readability of the narrative were confirmed by presenting the findings to the coordinators and members of the Division of Primary Education of the region in which the study took place, as well as to the school principals of a neighboring region during a seminar on continuing education. Additionally, the aim of these actions was to promote reflection and cultivation of a raised consciousness among primary school principals and their managers, also confirming the revelation of the phenomenon.

5. Conclusions

The study findings highlight the critical challenges faced by primary school principals due to the absence of a clear legal framework and the instability of educational policies. The findings suggest that policy reforms are needed to provide principals with greater clarity in their roles and responsibilities. Additionally, addressing the constant changes in educational policy could help create a more stable and manageable school environment. The present findings also emphasize the necessity of empowering school principals to enhance both their professional experiences and the quality of their services within educational institutions. This empowerment should come from external sources, where policies and frameworks must be adapted to support the diverse and evolving responsibilities of school leaders. At the same time, internal empowerment is equally crucial, achieved through upskilling in key areas of management and leadership. By equipping principals with the necessary resources and competencies, they will not only be better prepared to handle stress-related challenges but also develop into transformational leaders capable of driving meaningful change in the school system.

Future research is suggested to further explore how systemic changes can alleviate these challenges and enhance school leadership effectiveness. By acknowledging and addressing these issues, policymakers and educators can work toward a more structured, supportive, and progressive framework for school administration.