School Principals’ Wellbeing Perceptions in Greek Primary Schools

Abstract

The growing complexity of school leadership, intensified by increasing accountability and administrative demands, has heightened the need to understand principals’ wellbeing. This study examines the wellbeing of 161 public primary school principals in Greece, focusing on the factors that shape their professional experience and overall functioning. Survey findings indicate generally high levels of emotional, cognitive, social, psychological, and spiritual wellbeing, although physical wellbeing was noticeably lower. A significant gender difference emerged, with male principals reporting higher overall wellbeing than female principals, highlighting the relevance of gendered experiences in leadership roles. Job satisfaction also proved central, showing a strong positive association with all six dimensions of wellbeing and underscoring its importance for sustaining principals’ resilience and effectiveness. Beyond individual characteristics, several organizational factors—including relationships with staff, working conditions, school climate, and administrative workload—were identified as key contributors to principals’ wellbeing and daily practice. These conditions illustrate how organizational environments can enhance or strain leaders’ capacity to navigate evolving role expectations. Qualitative insights further clarified how personal attributes and school-level circumstances interact with these broader dynamics. Overall, the study illuminates the interplay between gender, job satisfaction, and contextual factors in shaping principals’ wellbeing, offering evidence to inform targeted support within contemporary educational settings.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the wellbeing of school leaders has emerged as a central concern in international educational research, as principals across many countries face growing professional, emotional, and administrative pressures. Studies consistently highlight rising levels of stress (Riley, 2019), burnout and emotional exhaustion (Arnold et al., 2023), sleep disturbances, and symptoms of depression (Riley et al., 2021; Ray et al., 2020), largely driven by the intensification and complexity of principals’ responsibilities, increased accountability, and heightened expectations for school improvement (Pollock et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2023). These challenges have been linked to dissatisfaction, declining motivation, and an increased intention to leave the profession (Levin & Bradley, 2019; Steiner et al., 2022), with serious implications for school stability and educational quality. Although international bodies such as the OECD (2022), the European Commission (2023), and UNESCO (2024) increasingly emphasize the importance of principal wellbeing for effective governance, teacher retention, and school improvement, the relevant research base remains fragmented. Much of the existing literature focuses predominantly on negative indicators—stress, burnout, workload, and role conflict—while fewer studies examine positive dimensions of wellbeing and the conditions that enable principals to thrive professionally. Furthermore, previous research often aggregates findings across diverse systems without critically reflecting on how well these insights transfer to specific national contexts, including Greece.

In the Greek educational system, principals operate within a highly centralized structure, with limited autonomy and heavy administrative demands, conditions that international studies identify as risk factors for diminished wellbeing (Tahir et al., 2025; Doyle Fosco, 2022). Although valuable research on Greek primary school principals exists (Saiti & Fassoulis, 2012; Dimopoulos et al., 2014; Lazaridou & Beka, 2014), it has largely examined leadership practices and managerial challenges rather than a multidimensional conceptualization of wellbeing. This gap can be addressed by critically combining existing findings to show the theoretical and empirical contribution of this study. The present study investigates Greek primary school principals’ perceptions of their professional wellbeing across six dimensions, exploring how these perceptions vary by gender, age, academic qualifications, teaching and administrative experience, and how they relate to job satisfaction. Based on quantitative and qualitative data, the study aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence principal wellbeing in Greece and contribute evidence that can inform national policies and support mechanisms tailored to the needs of school leaders addressing the following research questions: (a) What are Greek primary school principals’ views on their current wellbeing at their workplace? (b) How do Greek primary school principals’ perceptions of wellbeing differ by gender, age, educational degree, teaching and leadership experience? (c) To what extent does school principals’ job satisfaction relate to their self-reported levels of wellbeing? and (d) What are the factors most often cited by Greek primary school principals affecting their overall wellbeing status and daily professional practice?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Wellbeing in Education

The complex and multifaceted construct of wellbeing has broadly been operationalized to refer to flourishing, life satisfaction, positive emotions, happiness or finding meaning in life and optimal experience in different domains of human functioning (Chaves, 2021). In Ryan and Deci’s (2001) philosophical view, wellbeing consists of hedonic as well as eudaimonic aspects, with the former referring to subjective happiness, pleasure, pain avoidance, life satisfaction and satisfaction with specific life domains (Diener et al., 2017). Eudaimonic wellbeing, on the other hand, is derived from actions fulfilling one’s potential in a process of self-realization, referring thus to the harmonious development of an individual’s capacities leading to a virtuous life. In this sense, psychological wellbeing by Ryff (1989) is viewed as a consequence of higher levels of autonomy, personal growth, self-acceptance, purpose in life, competence or environmental mastery and positive relations with others. Τhe suggested interconnectedness between these two research strands has recently led to more comprehensive definitions on wellbeing described as ‘fluid, dynamic in nature …, influenced by relationships, situatedness, productivity and engagement in life experiences …, underpinned by positive notions’ (McCallum & Price, 2016, p. 17) and conceptualized as either a process of accrual involving ‘an individual’s capacity to manage over time, the range of inputs that can, in isolation, affect a person’s emotional, physical and cognitive state in response to a given context’ or as a scale, defined as ‘the balance point between an individual’s resource pool and the challenges faced’ (Dodge et al., 2012, p. 230).

Research on the wellbeing of school principals has expanded significantly in recent years, drawing on broader frameworks of psychological and occupational wellbeing. Three major approaches have shaped the field: PERMA, PROSPER, and the OECD framework developed by Viac and Fraser (2020). The PERMA model (Seligman, 2018) conceptualizes wellbeing as the combination of positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment. Although widely used, PERMA focuses primarily on individual psychological states and does not explicitly address work-specific demands, organizational conditions, or role complexities experienced by school leaders. The PROSPER model (Noble & McGrath, 2015) extends PERMA by incorporating physical health, security, and purpose; however, it similarly remains a general wellbeing model rather than a framework tailored to professional or leadership contexts. In contrast, the OECD framework developed by Viac and Fraser (2020) was designed to examine work-related wellbeing among educators, including emotional, cognitive, social, and occupational dimensions. Its indicators—such as professional satisfaction, workload, autonomy, interpersonal relationships, and stress—align more closely with the realities of school leadership. Unlike PERMA and PROSPER, the OECD framework situates wellbeing within a specific institutional context, making it more appropriate for centralized education systems where principals have restricted decision-making authority. For these reasons, the OECD model provides a more analytically coherent basis for examining principal wellbeing in Greece, where bureaucratic constraints and administrative intensity strongly shape leaders’ experiences. Although originally developed for teachers, the framework has increasingly been adapted for school leaders in international studies. In the present research, the model was modified to reflect principals’ administrative, managerial, and interpersonal responsibilities in the Greek primary school context, removing teacher-specific indicators and expanding components related to role complexity and leadership demands. School principal wellbeing, on the other hand, is defined in Acton and Glasgow’s (2015, p. 101) terms as ‘an individual sense of personal, professional fulfilment, satisfaction, purposefulness and happiness, constructed in a collaborative process with colleagues and students’.

2.2. Studies on School Principals’ Wellbeing

Within the international realm, the current literature consistently shows that school principals face increasing job complexity, high emotional labour, and mounting stress associated with administrative demands, accountability pressures, and crisis management (Chatzipanagiotou & Katsarou, 2023; Pollock et al., 2017; Riley, 2019; Wang et al., 2023) as well as intensified workload, emotional strain, and heightened responsibility for staff and student wellbeing (Netolicky, 2020). These pressures have often been linked to burnout, job dissatisfaction, and increased intention to leave the profession (Steiner et al., 2022; Arnold et al., 2023). However, despite the growth of empirical studies, research in this field remains fragmented and largely descriptive, often conducted in educational systems that differ markedly from the Greek context, with limited theoretical integration and insufficient consideration of contextual factors affecting principals’ wellbeing. Nonetheless, these studies offer valuable insights that provide a foundation for the present research.

In Australia, school principals’ occupational wellbeing has been primarily examined through large-scale, longitudinal studies with practical implications for enhancing job-related wellbeing. Maxwell and Riley (2017) explored the emotional demands and emotional labour strategies of 1320 public-sector educational leaders aged 26–73, using the Assessment of Quality-of-Life scale. Their findings indicated higher emotional demands, burnout, and lower wellbeing compared to the general population. Structural equation modelling revealed that emotional demands predicted greater use of hiding emotions, faking emotions, and deep acting, with hiding emotions particularly associated with lower wellbeing, higher burnout, and reduced job satisfaction. Similarly, Marsh et al. (2022) reported declining wellbeing, resilience, and job satisfaction among 3683 Australian primary and secondary principals over three years, linking high job demands to poorer occupational mental health; wellbeing was measured via general physical health and happiness. Dicke et al. (2018) also identified stressors and depression as key psychosocial risk factors related to job demands, while confidence and autonomy positively contributed to occupational wellbeing. Age, leadership experience, and school type also influenced outcomes, with older, more experienced, and private-school principals reporting higher wellbeing due to greater access to resources and autonomy. Comparable findings were equally observed in two related studies conducted by Dadaczynski et al. (2022) where German principals over 60 were found to experience fewer wellbeing challenges and by Swapp (2020) where novice principals in Canada were the ones faced with overwhelming workloads, work–life imbalance, unproductive staff relationships, low parental involvement, and accountability pressures that undermined wellbeing.

In contrast, research on principals’ flourishing emphasizes positive organizational perspectives and the correlates of wellbeing. Beausaert et al. (2021) found in a longitudinal study of 2084 Australian and 829 Irish principals that external social capital (support from colleagues and supervisors) and internal social capital (collaboration and trust in management) positively predicted wellbeing over time. In a parallel qualitative study in central British Columbia, Cherkowski and Walker (2016) found that flourishing and occupational wellbeing were fostered through collaborative relationships with teaching staff, driven by purpose and passion to promote a thriving school climate and enhance educational outcomes. Cherkowski et al. (2020) further showed that administrators’ visibility, approachability, and attentiveness to the school environment were closely linked to high occupational wellbeing for all stakeholders. In Collie et al.’s multinational study (Collie et al., 2020), collegial school climate was found to be associated with elevated wellbeing, enhancing attachment to the profession and promoting staff cooperation, leading, in turn, to a heightened sense of attachment to the profession and effective cooperation and communication between staff members, while Drago-Severson et al. (2018) showed that familial school relationships combined with self-care strategies generated positive energy and relief from leadership pressures. In Doyle Fosco et al. (2023), female school leaders were the ones who specifically indicated higher self-reported levels of occupational self-care and social support-seeking practices as a means to overcome anxiety, self-doubt and address the complex challenges encountered within their workplace. Alternatively, for novice school leaders, available evidence shows that resorting to the practices of mentoring and self-reflective meaning-making (Connery & Frick, 2021; Carter, 2018) and positive thinking strategies can bolster resilience, optimism and wellbeing amid heavy workloads and organizational pressures within a school context.

Adopting an integrated perspective, Wang et al. (2018) and Wang and Pollock (2020) examined the impact of work intensification and coping strategies among primarily female primary school principals in Ontario, with an average of 7.1 years of leadership experience. Participants completed a 56-item survey assessing six dimensions of wellbeing—physical, emotional, cognitive, social, psychological, and spiritual—the same multidimensional construct used in our study and supported by recent validation data (Wang, 2024; Chen et al., 2023). Despite working an average of 56.9 h per week, nearly half (47.8%) rated their overall wellbeing as good, and over two-thirds rated their social and cognitive wellbeing as good or excellent. In contrast, less than one-third reported positive physical wellbeing, with the top descriptors being negative (stressed, fatigued, drained, exhausted, taxed, weary, burnout). Principals highly valued aspects of social wellbeing, including respect (76%) and positive relationships with vice-principals, students, and administrative assistants (67.3%), aligning with findings from Beausaert et al. (2021), Cherkowski and Walker (2016), Collie et al. (2020), and Drago-Severson et al. (2018). Organizational supports such as professional associations, mentoring, health benefits, and adequate resources were identified as critical for sustaining wellbeing, consistent with Shirley et al. (2020). Principals also emphasized the importance of developing leadership skills in conflict resolution, communication, time, and problem management without compromising their wellbeing. Similarly, Kutsyuruba et al. (2024) found that occupational flourishing among Canada’s Outstanding Principals depended on school supports, strong social networks, and internal resources including emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, resilience, and self-care strategies.

Understanding principal wellbeing within the Greek educational context requires careful consideration of the structural and cultural characteristics of the national educational system. Greek schools function within a highly centralized and bureaucratic administrative framework, where principals carry extensive responsibilities yet exercise limited decision-making autonomy—a combination consistently linked to heightened occupational stress and reduced job satisfaction (Dimopoulos et al., 2014). Recent qualitative evidence (Karanikola et al., 2025) reinforces this depiction, showing that the absence of a clear legal and procedural framework, disproportionate responsibilities without corresponding authority, and unstable educational policies constitute core sources of work-related strain. These conditions generate interpersonal tensions, overwhelming workloads, and a diminished capacity to manage school operations effectively, while psychosocial risks such as inadequate support structures and high emotional demands further threaten principals’ mental and emotional wellbeing. Greek scholarship has highlighted several factors shaping principals’ professional experiences. Saiti and Fassoulis (2012) emphasize the importance of interpersonal relationships and school climate for job satisfaction, whereas Lazaridou and Beka (2014) show that personality traits and resilience can serve as protective mechanisms against occupational stress. These studies reveal enduring challenges—including role ambiguity, inadequate professional preparation, parent–principal tensions, limited administrative support, and substantial bureaucratic demands—which collectively undermine principals’ wellbeing and erode their sense of professional agency. Nevertheless, despite these important insights, Greek research seldom employs a multidimensional framework of wellbeing or systematically examines demographic factors such as gender and career stage, even though international evidence consistently shows meaningful variation across these groups.

Drawing on international evidence, this study systematically examines how individual demographic factors, such as gender and career stage, intersect with organizational and contextual conditions to shape principals’ wellbeing as well as the extent to which it is associated with school principals’ job satisfaction using a descriptive cross-sectional quantitative research design. By integrating these factors, the study identifies the unique patterns that shape wellbeing among Greek primary school principals, while situating these findings within a broader comparative perspective, highlighting where international insights are transferable and where context-specific differences emerge. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of the drivers of wellbeing and provides evidence to inform targeted interventions and policies that support principals’ professional and personal flourishing in the Greek educational context.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

A descriptive cross-sectional quantitative research design was adopted in the present study, relying on survey data collection procedures. This type of research is typically thought of as providing a ‘snapshot‘ of the frequency and characteristics of one or more variables of interest as they exist in a defined population at a particular point in time (Aggarwal & Ranganathan, 2019). As surveys constitute the most common instrument used in descriptive research studies (Lunenburg & Irby, 2008), an online questionnaire was employed in the present study as a cost-effective, convenient and straightforward alternative to gather participants’ perceptions of their current level of wellbeing (Regmi et al., 2016). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the study protocol was approved by the Panhellenic Association of Primary Education School Unit Directors (approval number: 2A/15.12.2023).

3.2. Data Collection Instrument

An online questionnaire was developed by researchers based on the published literature and other empirical studies concerning principal leadership and wellbeing in the workplace. Specifically, the researchers, based on the six wellbeing dimensions—physical, cognitive, emotional, psychological, social and spiritual—model proposed by Pollock and Wang (2020) and Wells and Klocko (2018), as well as the OECD (2020) multidimensional wellbeing framework (Viac & Fraser, 2020), developed a questionnaire including items falling under the six dimensions of wellbeing—physical, cognitive, emotional, psychological, social and spiritual. The original survey was developed in English but administered to participants in Greek to ensure clarity and comprehension. The questionnaire was professionally translated into Greek and then independently back-translated into English to verify conceptual equivalence. Any inconsistencies identified during back-translation were discussed and resolved by the research team, ensuring that the Greek version accurately captured the intended meaning of the original items. This process guaranteed that participants’ responses could be reliably interpreted in line with the constructs measured in the English version. To establish content validity, the draft instrument was reviewed by two experts in educational leadership and survey design. Their feedback was used to refine item wording, ensure alignment with the constructs of interest, and remove redundant or unclear items (Cohen et al., 2017). Following these revisions, the questionnaire underwent pilot testing with a small group of principals (n = 12) who were not part of the main study sample. Participants provided feedback on clarity, length, and item relevance, which informed a second round of refinement. After final revisions, the instrument was administered to the full sample.

The finalized survey instrument comprised two sections: Section A collected participants’ demographics, while Section B included questions regarding job satisfaction, the six dimensions of wellbeing (emotional, cognitive, social, psychological, physical and spiritual) on a 1 to 4 Likert scale, with 1 representing Strongly Disagree and 4 representing Strongly Agree, and three open-ended questions regarding the remaining years in their posts and the factors most shaping their wellbeing and practice. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha for each scale, rather than across all 77 questionnaire items. The wellbeing scale (24 items) showed an alpha of α = 0.93; the job-satisfaction scale (9 items) showed α = 0.97 while the background-information items were not subjected to reliability analysis because they were factual rather than attitudinal. Although reported overall alpha of 0.98 likely reflected item redundancy across these conceptually distinct domains, inter-scale partial correlations were examined to assess discriminant validity among the six wellbeing subscales, controlling for job satisfaction (

Table 1. Partial correlations between 6 wellbeing dimensions.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Emotional Wellbeing	2.68	0.60		0.37 ***	0.47 ***	−0.19 *	0.06	0.15
2. Physical Wellbeing	2.89	1.37			0.24 **	0.07	0.24 **	0.20
3. Cognitive Wellbeing	2.99	0.50				−0.19 *	0.08	−0.03
4. Psychological Wellbeing	2.65	0.63					−0.12	0.05
5. Social Wellbeing 6. Spiritual Wellbeing	3.63 3.25	0.41 0.57						0.70 **

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

below). Most correlations ranged from small to moderate (r = 0.06 to 0.47), indicating that although the subscales were related, they remained empirically distinct. Emotional wellbeing showed moderate associations with both physical (r = 0.37, p < 0.001) and cognitive wellbeing (r = 0.47, p < 0.001). Physical wellbeing correlated weakly with social wellbeing (r = 0.24, p = 0.002), while cognitive wellbeing showed small negative associations with psychological and emotional wellbeing (r = −0.19, p = 0.017). A strong positive correlation emerged between social and spiritual wellbeing (r = 0.70, p < 0.001), suggesting these dimensions share substantial variance. Several correlations were nonsignificant, i.e., emotional with social (r = 0.06) and spiritual wellbeing (r = 0.15); physical with psychological (r = 0.07) and spiritual wellbeing (r = 20); cognitive with social (r = 0.08) and spiritual wellbeing (r = −0.03) and psychological with social (r = −0.12) and spiritual wellbeing (r = 0.05) that further support discriminant validity. Overall, the pattern of correlations indicates that the subscales assess related but distinct facets of wellbeing.

3.3. Participants

The study sample comprised 161 Greek school principals, with 96.3% serving as headteachers in primary education and 3.7% in preschool education across various geographical areas of the country. Participants were chosen using a convenience sampling method, which is commonly used in social sciences and education to explore people’s attitudes and opinions or generate hypotheses to be tested in greater depth in future research (Cohen et al., 2017). More specifically, the sample was drawn from the population of pre-primary and primary school principals who voluntarily attended a series of short professional development seminars organised by the Panhellenic Scientific Association of School Principals in Primary Education for its members in school year 2023–24. All 200 principals attending the seminar on the 17th of December 2023 received the survey invitation to complete the online questionnaire between 17th of December 2023 and 10th January 2024. A total of 161 principals participated in the study, resulting in a response rate of 80.5%.

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the participants.

Variable	n %
Gender
Female	99 (61.5%)
Male	62 (38.5%)
Age
31–40	6 (3.7%)
41–50	33 (20.5%)
>50	122 (75.8%)
Years of Teaching Experience
1–10	2 (1.2%)
11–20	21 (13%)
21–30	74 (46%)
>30	64 (39.8%)
Years of Experience as a Principal
1–5	90 (55.9%)
6–10	28 (17.4%)
11–15	25 (15.5%)
>16	18 (11.2%)
Years of Service as a Principal in Current School
1–3	113 (71.4%)
4–6	12 (7.5%)
7–9	15 (9.3%)
>10	21 (11.8%)
Academic Qualifications
Didaskaleion *	17 (10.6%)
Bachelor’s	17 (10.6%)
Master’s	112 (69.6%)
PhD	15 (9.3%)
Other	-
School Location
Urban Area	103 (64%)
Suburban Area	29 (18%)
Rural Area	27 (16.8%)
Other	2 (1.2%)

* One-year postgraduate pedagogical training programme for in-service primary teachers.

summarizes the key demographic information and background characteristics of the study participants.

Following Table 1, approximately two-thirds of the school principals were female (n = 99; 61.5%), with a majority belonging to older age cohorts (only 24.2% were younger than 50). With respect to their overall teaching experience, 46% of the participants reported that it ranged between 21 and 30 years, while 39.8% exceeded 30 years. In terms of years of experience as school principals, more than half of the participants (n = 90; 55.9%) reported having served in this position for five years or less, with 71.4% stating that they had been leading the same school for a time frame that did not exceed three years in total. Based on their reported academic qualifications, 69.6% of the participants held a master’s degree, while 64% worked in urban areas of the country.

Finally, participants reported on past career changes and future career expectations. Regarding past changes, 52.8% had not received substantial salary increases, 84.5% had opportunities for professional development, 64.4% had been promoted to school principal, and 62.1% had moved to another school in the past five years. Concerning future prospects, 67.7% expected a salary increase and 73.3% expected qualification enhancement. In contrast, responses regarding a possible promotion or transfer to another school showed more variation: 38.5% viewed promotion as likely, 32.3% as unlikely, and 29.2% were neutral; for transfers, 37.9% considered it likely, while 31.1% were neutral and 31% deemed it unlikely.

3.4. Data Analysis Procedures

The data were collected and downloaded from Google Forms in Excel format and subsequently entered into the SPSS 28.0 Statistical Package for data analysis. The initial phase of analysis involved the calculation of descriptive statistics (i.e., tabulation, frequencies and percentages) to examine the demographics and key variables related to school principals’ views on their state of wellbeing. Several items were negatively worded and therefore reverse-coded prior to analysis so that higher scores consistently reflected higher wellbeing or satisfaction. More specifically, these involved: (i) 3 items assessing the emotional wellbeing dimension and addressing aspects such as regret about career choice, feelings of anxiety and worry about work-related responsibilities as a school principal as well as a sense of despair and hopelessness, (ii) 2 items assessing the physical wellbeing dimension related to work exhaustion and daily stress as a results of school principals’ duties and (iii) 3 items assessing school principals’ job satisfaction in terms of the excessive amount of workload at school, their desire to leave the position and their wish to serve in another post the following year. Reverse-coding was performed using the formula: New score = (maximum scale value + 1)—original score. Total and average scores for each wellbeing dimension were then computed using the recoded items. Subsequently, a composite wellbeing score was calculated by averaging participants’ responses to all individual wellbeing items concerning all six dimensions, with higher scores indicating greater overall wellbeing. Subsequently, inferential statistical analysis was conducted, employing Mann–Whitney tests and Kruskal–Wallis tests with Dunn’s post hoc tests to determine significant differences in self-reported school wellbeing ratings among principals. A Spearman Rho correlation was also used to examine the relationship between job satisfaction and the dimensions of school principals’ wellbeing.

With respect to the qualitative analysis, participants’ responses to the three open-ended questions—regarding their expected remaining years in their posts and the factors shaping their wellbeing and practice—were analyzed using content analysis (Cohen et al., 2017). All responses were first read repeatedly to identify emerging ideas. Key concepts and recurring phrases were coded, and similar codes were grouped into broader categories representing themes related to contextual, organizational, and personal factors most frequently reported by the principals as influencing their wellbeing. Reliability was ensured by having multiple researchers independently code a subset of the responses and then compare results to resolve discrepancies, refining the coding framework as needed. Consistent coding rules were applied across all responses, and detailed documentation of codes, categories, and theme definitions was maintained to enhance transparency and replicability. To strengthen trustworthiness, we implemented multiple coder checks. Specifically, 30% of the responses were independently double-coded by two researchers. Disagreements were handled through structured discussion, during which coders reviewed the relevant excerpts together and reached consensus on the most appropriate codes. When consensus was not immediately reached, a third researcher provided input to finalize the decision. Once consistency was established and the codebook refined, the remaining responses were coded by one researcher using the agreed-upon coding framework. The frequency and meaning of the themes were examined to interpret the main factors influencing participants’ career intentions, wellbeing, and professional practice, with illustrative quotes used to support the findings.

4. Results

4.1. Research Question 1: School Principals’ Views on Their Wellbeing

To answer our first research question, descriptive statistics analysis was initially conducted to examine the distribution of participants’ responses across the six wellbeing dimensions included in our questionnaire. The data were subsequently tabulated and presented as percentages for each wellbeing dimension, i.e., emotional, physical, cognitive, social, psychological and professional. Seven items in our questionnaire were used to measure school principals’ sense of emotional wellbeing, on a 1-to-4 scale, with higher scores indicating greater agreement with each of one of the statements. All negatively worded items were reverse-coded prior to scale construction so that higher scores on every item and subscale indicate higher levels of wellbeing. Descriptive statistics reported below reflect these reverse-coded values.

Overall, school principals tended to agree and/or strongly agree with all statements referring to emotional wellbeing (Mean = 2.68, standard deviation [SD] = 0.60), displaying a relatively high level of emotional wellbeing. More specifically, the results, as presented in Figure 1, indicated that the majority of school principals within our sample expressed enthusiasm about the thought of going to work (71.4%), satisfaction with their work (62.1%), enjoyment working in their current school (81.3%) and satisfaction with their job performance (93.8%). Almost everyone (86.9%) expressed sensitivity and mindfulness about work-related issues. Finally, participants appeared to be hopeful and optimistic, reporting low levels of despair regarding their workplace and role as school principals, as illustrated by the low agreement rates of 29.8% and 14.9% for the respective statements.

After reverse-coding the negatively worded items, the mean score of self-reported ratings by school principals demonstrated moderate levels of physical wellbeing. (Mean = 2.89, SD = 1.37). This tendency is reflected in Figure 2 below, which shows that participants reported experiencing daily exhaustion and stress in their role at alarming rates of 75.8% and 72.1%, respectively.

The participants’ feelings about their physical wellbeing status over the week preceding the administration of our survey questionnaire further reinforced the above findings, as illustrated in

Table 3. School principals’ feelings about physical wellbeing throughout the last week.

Reported Feelings	N	% of Respondents (n = 161)
Stressed	78	48.4%
Exhausted	55	34.1%
Tired	100	62.1%
Energetic	70	43.4%
Dynamic	68	42.2%
Powerful	26	16.1%
Tireless	12	7.4%
Other	7	4.3%

below. School principals tended to select negative emotions to describe their low level of physical wellbeing, stating they had predominantly been feeling tired (62.1%) and stressed (48.4%), and to a lesser extent, powerful (16.1%) and tireless (7.4%). Interestingly, 37.9% of the participants did not select any of the emotions provided in the predetermined list for this question, while other adjectives such as ‘disappointed’, ‘happy’, ‘efficient’ and ‘disillusioned’ occasionally featured in their responses.

The same response pattern is evident in the context of cognitive wellbeing, as the majority of participants’ self-ratings reflect a high level of agreement with the content of all five statements (Mean = 2.99, SD = 0.50), indicating a high level of cognitive wellbeing. As shown in Figure 3 below, a notable 73.9% affirmed their capability to effectively contribute to the realization of their school community’s overarching mission and objectives. Furthermore, 87.6% expressed confidence in their ability to effectively manage issues that arise at the school level, while 90% reported their capability in making difficult work-related decisions. Additionally, 90% indicated their proficiency in following complex procedures. However, only approximately half of the participants (54.7%) reported the ability to influence decisions about important work-related issues.

With respect to participants’ responses to the three questions regarding social wellbeing (Figure 4), the data also revealed a tendency among school participants to agree most of the time (Mean = 2.65, SD = 0.63), indicating a high level of social wellbeing. More specifically, school principals reported satisfaction with the support provided by members of the school staff and parents/guardians in 68.9% and 57.8% of the cases, respectively. However, two-thirds of the school principals (61.4%) explicitly expressed dissatisfaction with the support received from educational authorities at either the local or national level.

The distribution of participants’ responses regarding their sense of psychological wellbeing revealed that school principals tend to strongly agree with the two statements included in this dimension (Mean = 3.63, SD = 0.41), indicating an exceptionally high level of psychological wellbeing. Based on Figure 5 below, respondents reported having an overwhelmingly well-developed sense of responsibility in their work in 100% of the cases. Moreover, an overwhelming majority, totalling 98.2%, reported that they felt they were making significant progress in their role as school principals.

The findings regarding the final wellbeing dimension included in our questionnaire revealed a similar trend in study participants’ responses, demonstrating exceptionally high levels of spiritual wellbeing (Mean = 3.25, SD = 0.57), as illustrated in Figure 6 below. In this respect, a substantial majority of school principals tended to score higher in all four relevant statements on the 4-Likert scale, indicating their capability to provide students with good quality education and wellbeing through their leadership style in 80.8% of cases, serve their school in the best possible way in 97.5%, possess a sense of mission in their daily practices in 90.7%, while simultaneously expressing their firm belief that they are engaged in a dynamic and creative profession in 85% of cases.

A final open-ended question concerning the participants’ intentions to continue their roles as school principals in the future implicitly reveals participants’ feelings and disposition towards the impact of the job demands incurred. As shown in

Table 4. Participants’ responses regarding their willingness to serve as school principals.

Responses	n %
For another 3 years	22 (16.1%)
For another 4 years	20 (14.7%)
For another 5 years	15 (11.0%)
For another 6 years	3 (2.2%)
For another 7 years	3 (2.2%)
For another 8 years	7 (5.1%)
For another 10 years	6 (4.4%)
>10 years	6 (4.4%)
‘I will remain until my retirement’	25 (18.3%)
‘I haven’t decided yet’	23 (16.9%)
‘I would like to withdraw from school principalship’	3 (2.2%)
‘I remain for other reasons (financial)’	2 (1.4%)
‘I have no idea; that will depend upon the working conditions’	1 (0.7%)

below, 136 participants responded to this question, yielding a variety of responses that seem to be determined either by a specific time period within which they feel capable of carrying out their responsibilities as school principals, potentially leading to their retirement (n = 82, 60.1%), given that the majority of the study participants belong to the 50+ age cluster. This is also evident in 18.3% of the cases, where school principals who were already in their final year of service explicitly stated their intention to retire from their positions. The responses indicate the following: (i) study participants’ uncertainty about continuing as principals (16.9%), (ii) their intention to promptly withdraw and never consider reapplying for the position (2.2%), and (iii) their desire to remain in their current positions for the extra stipend they receive for their services (1.4%) or as a function of the changing working conditions (0.7%) they experience. All responses are indicative of the apprehension of school principals regarding their professional longevity throughout their extensive years of service.

Overall, findings in our study closely mirror those of Wang et al. (2018) and Wang and Pollock (2020), with school principals reporting high levels of emotional, cognitive, social, psychological, and spiritual wellbeing, contrasted with notably low physical wellbeing. While most of them expressed enthusiasm, satisfaction, confidence in decision-making, strong professional responsibility, and a clear sense of mission, many reported daily exhaustion and stress and an uncertainty or a desire to leave due to job demands indicating concerns about long-term sustainability in the profession (Marsh et al., 2022). Strong relationships and collaboration with school staff were highly valued by principals as key contributors to their social wellbeing, consistent with the findings of Beausaert et al. (2021) and Cherkowski and Walker (2016).

4.2. Research Question 2: Differences in School Principals’ Views on Wellbeing in the Workplace

A Kolmogorov–Smirnov test demonstrated that the distribution of school principals’ responses concerning their wellbeing status, treated as a dependent variable in our study, was not normally distributed (KS = 0.17, p < 0.01). Consequently, the data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical tests. To examine statistically significant differences in school principals’ views on wellbeing with respect to their gender, a Mann–Whitney U test was conducted. The result (U = 0.001, p = 0.001) indicated a statistically significant gender-related difference, with male school principals self-reporting consistently higher levels of overall wellbeing within the school environments they lead and work in, compared to their female counterparts.

To investigate statistically significant differences in school principals’ views on wellbeing with respect to their age, academic qualifications, overall teaching experience and tenure as school principals, a series of Kruskal–Wallis H tests were executed. The results of these analyses are provided in

Table 5. Descriptive statistics and Kruskal–Wallis test results about the relationship between age and school principals’ wellbeing.

Variable	N	Mean	SD	95% CI Lower	95% CI Upper	df	χ2	p	Effect Size (ε2)	Significant Differences
=30	0	--	--	--	--	2	88.834	0.001	0.47	>50|31–40
31–40	6	4.22	0.12	4.09	4.35					>50|41–50
41–50	33	3.79	0.20	3.72	3.86
>50	122	2.75	0.50	2.66	2.84

, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8 below. In terms of the age range of participants, the Kruskal–Wallis test indicated a significant difference in school principals’ perceptions of their wellbeing status across the four age groups included in the study, χ²χ² (df = 2, N = 161) = 88.834, p = 0.001. The effect size was large (ε² = 0.47), indicating that age accounted for a substantial proportion of variance in wellbeing scores. The mean responses provided by the 31–40, 41–50 and >50 age groups were X⁻ = 4.22, X⁻ = 3.79 and X⁻ = 2.75, respectively. Post hoc comparisons using Dunn’s method with a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests indicated that the mean responses provided by participants in the >50 age group (N = 122, X⁻ = 2.75, SD = 0.50, 95% CI: 2.66–2.84) were significantly lower than those provided by participants in either the 31–40 (N = 6, X⁻ = 4.22, SD = 0.12, 95% CI: 4.09–4.35) and 41–50 age groups (N = 33, X⁻ = 3.79, SD = 0.20, 95% CI: 3.72–3.86). However, no significant difference was found between the 41–50 and 31–40 age groups (p = 1.00). This result suggests higher self-reported levels of overall wellbeing for school principals in the 31–40 and 41–50 age groups compared to participants in the >50 age group.

With respect to participants’ level of education (Table 6), the Kruskal–Wallis test results presented a significant difference in school principals’ responses concerning their overall wellbeing across the five educational levels they fell into (χ² = 105.817, p = 0.001 < 0.05) with a large effect size (ε² = 0.52). Based on post hoc comparisons using Dunn’s method with a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests, the results suggest the following: school principals who were PhD holders (N = 15, X⁻ = 1.84, SD = 0.25, 95% CI: 1.77–1.91) tended to significantly differ in their responses regarding their current wellbeing status from the participants who were either MA holders (N = 112, X⁻ = 2.90, SD = 0.39), BA holders (N = 17, X⁻ = 3.72, SD = 0.13) or had only attended Didaskaleio (N = 17, X⁻ = 4.09, SD = 0.12, 95% CI: 4.04.–4.14), reporting a lower level of wellbeing compared to those reported by the other educational groups. Likewise, the self-reported wellbeing ratings of school principals’ who were MA holders differed substantially from those reported by participants who were either BA holders or had attended Didaskaleio, reporting the lowest level of wellbeing of all three groups. No significant difference was found between the BA and Didaskaleio groups (p = 1.00). Based on these results, school principals with a BA degree and attendance at Didaskaleion reported the highest overall levels of wellbeing, while participants with a PhD reported the lowest wellbeing levels.

Table 6. Descriptive statistics and Kruskal–Wallis test results about the effect of educational level on school principals’ wellbeing views.

Variable	N	Mean	SD	95%CI Lower	95% CI Upper	Df	χ2	p	Effect Size (ε2)	Significant Differences
Didaskaleio	17	4.09	0.12	4.04	4.14	3	105.817	0.001	0.52	PhD–MA
BA	17	3.72	0.13	3.67	3.77					PhD–BA
MA	112	2.90	0.39	2.83	2.97					PhD–Didaskaleio
PhD	15	1.84	0.25	1.77	1.91					MA–BA
Other	0	--	--	--	--					MA–Didaskaleio

Table 6. Descriptive statistics and Kruskal–Wallis test results about the effect of educational level on school principals’ wellbeing views.

Variable	N	Mean	SD	95%CI Lower	95% CI Upper	Df	χ2	p	Effect Size (ε2)	Significant Differences
Didaskaleio	17	4.09	0.12	4.04	4.14	3	105.817	0.001	0.52	PhD–MA
BA	17	3.72	0.13	3.67	3.77					PhD–BA
MA	112	2.90	0.39	2.83	2.97					PhD–Didaskaleio
PhD	15	1.84	0.25	1.77	1.91					MA–BA
Other	0	--	--	--	--					MA–Didaskaleio

With respect to participants’ overall teaching experience (Table 7), the Kruskal–Wallis test results illustrated a significant difference in the responses of school principals regarding their level of wellbeing across the four teaching experience groups included in this study (χ² = 134.138, p = 0.001 < 0.05) with a large effect size (ε² = 0.56). Following post hoc comparisons using Dunn’s method with a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests, this difference was found between participants whose teaching experience ranged > 30 years (N = 64, X⁻ = 2.38, SD = 0.38, 95% CI: 2.29–2.47) and participants whose teaching experience ranged between 21 and 30 years (N = 74, X⁻ = 3.26, SD = 0.26), 11 and 20 years (N = 21, X⁻ = 4.01, SD = 0.13) and 1 and 10 years (N = 2, X⁻ = 4.22, SD = 0.00, 95% CI: 4.22–4.22), exhibiting significantly lower levels of wellbeing across the four groups. A second significant statistical difference was found in the mean responses provided by participants with 21 to 30 years of teaching experience compared to those with 11 to 20 years of teaching experience, with the latter group exhibiting higher wellbeing levels compared to the former. No significant differences were found between the 21–20 and 1–10 groups (p = 0.54), as well as between the 11–20 and 1–10 groups (p = 1.00). Following these results, school principals with 1–10 and 11–20 years of teaching experience reported significantly higher wellbeing levels than participants with >30 years of teaching experience.

Table 7. Descriptive statistics and Kruskal–Wallis test results regarding the overall teaching experience on school principals’ wellbeing views.

Variable	N	Mean	SD	95%CI Lower	95%CI Lower	df	χ2	p	Effect Size (ε2)	Significant Differences
1–10	2	4.22	0.00	4.22	4.22	3	134.183	0.001	0.56	>30|21–30
11–20	21	4.01	0.13	3.96	4.06					>30|11–20
21–30	74	3.26	0.26	3.19	3.33					>30|1–10
>30	64	2.38	0.38	2.29	2.47					21–30|11–20

Table 7. Descriptive statistics and Kruskal–Wallis test results regarding the overall teaching experience on school principals’ wellbeing views.

Variable	N	Mean	SD	95%CI Lower	95%CI Lower	df	χ2	p	Effect Size (ε2)	Significant Differences
1–10	2	4.22	0.00	4.22	4.22	3	134.183	0.001	0.56	>30|21–30
11–20	21	4.01	0.13	3.96	4.06					>30|11–20
21–30	74	3.26	0.26	3.19	3.33					>30|1–10
>30	64	2.38	0.38	2.29	2.47					21–30|11–20

Finally, regarding participants’ overall experience as school principals (Table 8), the Kruskal–Wallis test results indicated a significant difference in school principals’ responses concerning their level of wellbeing across the four professional experience groups (χ² = 128.733, p = 0.003 < 0.05) with a large effect size (ε² = 0.54). Post hoc comparisons using Dunn’s method with a Bonferroni correction for multiple tests further revealed significantly different distribution of responses between the group with 6–10 years of experience (N = 12, X⁻ = 2.81, SD = 0.83), the group with 1–5 years of experience (N = 113, X⁻ = 3.48, SD = 0.39, 95% CI: 3.42–3.54), and the group with more than 16 years of experience as school principals (N = 19, X⁻ = 1.89, SD = 0.25, 95% CI: 1.82–1.96). Likewise, participants’ responses in the group with 1–5 years of experience differed significantly from both the groups with 11–15 and 6–10 years of experience (χ² = 128.733, p = 0.001 < 0.05). The results indicate that the highest overall wellbeing levels were consistently reported by participants with 1–5 years of experience as school principals, while those with more than 16 years of experience reported the lowest wellbeing rates.

Table 8. Descriptive statistics and Kruskal–Wallis test results regarding the overall leadership experience on school principals’ wellbeing views.

Variable	N	Mean	SD	95%CI Lower	95% CI Upper	Df	χ2	p	Effect Size (ε2)	Significant Differences
1–5	90	3.48	0.39	3.42	3.54	3	128.733	0.003	0.54	>16|6–10
6–10	28	2.81	0.83	2.63	2.99			0.001		>16|1–5
11–15	25	2.40	0.14	2.33	2.47					11–15|1–5
>16	18	1.89	0.25	1.82	1.96					6–10|1–5

Table 8. Descriptive statistics and Kruskal–Wallis test results regarding the overall leadership experience on school principals’ wellbeing views.

Variable	N	Mean	SD	95%CI Lower	95% CI Upper	Df	χ2	p	Effect Size (ε2)	Significant Differences
1–5	90	3.48	0.39	3.42	3.54	3	128.733	0.003	0.54	>16|6–10
6–10	28	2.81	0.83	2.63	2.99			0.001		>16|1–5
11–15	25	2.40	0.14	2.33	2.47					11–15|1–5
>16	18	1.89	0.25	1.82	1.96					6–10|1–5

In sum, principals’ wellbeing levels in our study were found to differ according to gender, age, education, teaching experience, and tenure as a principal. Male principals reported higher overall wellbeing than female principals, in line with Doyle Fosco et al.’s (2023) findings, while younger principals and those with fewer years of teaching or leadership experience generally reported higher wellbeing compared to older, more experienced colleagues, in contrast to findings reported by Dicke et al. (2018), Swapp (2020) and Dadaczynski et al. (2022). Principals’ level of education was associated with wellbeing, with PhD holders reporting the lowest and those with bachelor’s degrees or Didaskaleion training reporting the highest levels.

4.3. Research Question 3: Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and School Principals’ Wellbeing

To answer our third research question, descriptive statistics on the variable of job satisfaction were conducted, and participants’ distribution of responses were subsequently presented in the form of percentages, as illustrated in Figure 7 and Figure 8 below. Participants indicated a tendency to strongly agree or agree with all nine statements, displaying a relatively high level of job satisfaction (Mean = 2.43, SD = 0.68). Based on these results, school principals in our study reported that they experienced a significant autonomy (38.5%) or moderate (42.9%) degree of autonomy in their work. They also had the opportunity to exhibit the knowledge and skills they had gained in their workplace to a substantial (44.7%) or moderate (42.9%) degree. Furthermore, they expressed satisfaction with the variety of professional development opportunities offered to enrich their current knowledge to a moderate extent in 60.2% of cases. However, they reported facing excessive workloads in 96.9% of cases overall. Their responses regarding whether preliminary measures were taken at the school organization level to ensure and enhance the overall wellbeing of the school community were varied, reflecting divergent views: 33.5% reported that this occurred to a great extent, 36.6% to some extent, and 23.6% not at all. Half of the school principals in our sample (54.4%) were reportedly satisfied with the working conditions they experienced in their schools and did not intend to move to another school, expressing their wish to serve in another position the following year (50.3%). Similarly, half of the school principals reported being highly satisfied with their working hours (52.2%) and working conditions (47%), in contrast to 47.8% and 53% of participants who appeared dissatisfied with the current circumstances.

To examine the relationship between school principals’ job satisfaction and the six dimensions of wellbeing as reported above, a Spearman correlation analysis was conducted (Table 9). The findings revealed significant and positive relationships between job satisfaction and the emotional wellbeing dimension (Rho = 0.97, p < 0.0001, r² = 0.94), physical wellbeing (Rho = 0.98, p < 0.0001, r² = 0.88), cognitive wellbeing (Rho = 0.95, p < 0.0001, r² = 0.90), social wellbeing (Rho = 0.97, p < 0.0001, r² = 0.93), psychological wellbeing (Rho = 0.91, p < 0.0001, r² = 0.76) and spiritual wellbeing (Rho = 0.96, p < 0.0001, r² = 0.92). These results suggest that school principals with higher levels of wellbeing tend to experience higher levels of satisfaction in the workplace overall. Although zero-order correlations between job satisfaction and the wellbeing dimensions were high (r = 0.91–0.98), partial correlations showed a substantially weaker association once overlapping wellbeing dimensions were controlled (e.g., partial r = 0.33 between job satisfaction and emotional wellbeing). This indicates that much of the shared variance reflects the interrelated nature of wellbeing subcomponents rather than construct redundancy, supporting the distinctiveness of job satisfaction.

Table 9. Spearman’s Rho correlations between job satisfaction and the six dimensions of school principals’ wellbeing.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Job Satisfaction	2.43	0.68		0.97 **	0.98 **	0.95 **	0.97 **	0.91 **	0.96 **
2. Emotional Wellbeing	2.68	0.60			0.97 **	0.96 **	0.95 **	0.86 **	0.96 **
3. Physical Wellbeing	2.89	1.37				0.94 **	0.96 **	0.91 **	0.96 **
4. Cognitive Wellbeing	2.99	0.50					0.91 **	0.85 **	0.96 **
5. Social Wellbeing	2.65	0.63						0.87 **	0.98 **
6. Psychological Wellbeing	3.63	0.41							0.86 **
7. Spiritual Wellbeing	3.25	0.57							0.92 **

** p < 0.01.

Table 9. Spearman’s Rho correlations between job satisfaction and the six dimensions of school principals’ wellbeing.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Job Satisfaction	2.43	0.68		0.97 **	0.98 **	0.95 **	0.97 **	0.91 **	0.96 **
2. Emotional Wellbeing	2.68	0.60			0.97 **	0.96 **	0.95 **	0.86 **	0.96 **
3. Physical Wellbeing	2.89	1.37				0.94 **	0.96 **	0.91 **	0.96 **
4. Cognitive Wellbeing	2.99	0.50					0.91 **	0.85 **	0.96 **
5. Social Wellbeing	2.65	0.63						0.87 **	0.98 **
6. Psychological Wellbeing	3.63	0.41							0.86 **
7. Spiritual Wellbeing	3.25	0.57							0.92 **

** p < 0.01.

Overall, principals with higher wellbeing across emotional, physical, cognitive, social, psychological, and spiritual dimensions tended to experience higher job satisfaction despite the excessive workloads they have been particularly experiencing, in contrast to Marsh et al.’s (2022) findings according to which workload pressures and stress can erode school principals’ wellbeing and satisfaction over time.

4.4. Research Question 4: School Principals’ Perceptions on the Impact of Wellbeing and Professional Practice Factors

To respond to our fourth research question, participants’ responses was considered for each of the two closed-ended questions included in the questionnaire regarding the influence and size of impact exerted by the extent to which various factors shape their overall wellbeing and professional practice. As illustrated in Figure 8 below, ‘relations with staff members at the school level’ emerged as the most frequently mentioned factor (70.8%), followed by ‘working conditions and school climate’ (64%), ‘administrative workload’ (57.8%) and ‘job satisfaction’ (50.3%), all of which were identified as significantly influencing school principals’ wellbeing. The findings align in part with Beausaert et al. (2021) and Cherkowski and Walker (2016) research where collaborative relationships with staff and trust on their part in management positively predicted wellbeing for all stakeholders. Additionally, factors such as ‘school characteristics’ (56.5%), ‘personal characteristics’ (54.7%), ‘opportunities for professional development’ (53.4%), ‘relations with local and national educational authorities’ (52.8%), ‘opportunities for advancement’ (52.2%), ‘school organisation and operation issues’ (50.3%), ‘school principals’ self-efficacy’ (50.3%), ‘management of student misbehaviour’ (49.7%) and ‘relations with parents’ (49.1%) were reported to be associated with school principals’ wellbeing to some extent.

Supplementary qualitative data derived from an open-ended question further complemented these findings, as school principals were asked to identify and explain the extent to which other factors pertinent to the educational context in which their work could also significantly shape their sense of wellbeing. Adopting Hascher and Waber’s (2021) categorisation, we classified participants’ responses into three different groups based on whether they referred to context, organizational or personal-related factors. Key contextual factors thought to be associated with school principals’ level of wellbeing can be summarized as follows: harsh socio-economic circumstances resulting in the degradation of the teaching profession, inability to cooperate efficiently with the School Board and external stakeholders (e.g., local authorities at the municipality level), strict administrative bureaucratic procedures, rapid changes and reforms in the educational landscape, the application of ambiguous and complex legislation that does not comply with educational reality, parents’ involvement and active participation in school matters and sound cooperation among all interested parties in the school community. These findings seem to echo results in other settings where high job demands and lack of resources (Su-Keene & DeMatthews, 2025), bureaucratic pressures, limited support from authorities (Aravena & Gonzalez, 2021) are constant sources of stress that negatively impact school principals’ wellbeing and productivity. Among school-related wellbeing factors reported by the school principals were the following: colleagues’ indifference, hostile attitudes and professionalism displayed, pressure and intervention from trade unionists in their work, lack of professional development seminars and counselling for school principals, school culture and lack of autonomy in their work, as school principals must account for their actions to all stakeholders in the school community (colleagues, parents, superiors), excessive administrative workload, limitations set by inadequate infrastructure, lack of cooperation with the School Committee over financial issues and lack of secretarial and general support staff. School principals also mentioned the absence of a concrete mission, the degree of extroversion pursued at the school level, their relationship with students, the refusal expressed by the majority of their colleagues to abide by current legislation and the intense feelings of futility reported by members of the teaching staff regarding their work as restrictive factors that influence their wellbeing status in the workplace. This result ties in with Karanikola et al.’s (2025) findings in that school principals’ wellbeing is associated with challenging interpersonal relations and inadequate support systems, including conflicts with staff and other stakeholders and feelings of isolation due to ambiguous educational policies and unclear role expectation. Finally, personality-related wellbeing factors reported by participants included school principals’ age and overall health condition, their creativity and general disposition, financial rewards, the disproportion between working hours and payment, lack of time to fulfil their pedagogical role and a sense of ‘no matter how much or how hard they try they are still not able to achieve what they want’. The result agrees with Wang et al.’s (2018) findings in that principals’ sense of accomplishment and their opportunity to exercise creativity and intrinsic skills in their role can ultimately related to their job satisfaction and overall wellbeing.

In terms of principals’ views of the relationship of these factors (see Figure 9) to their daily professional practice the majority of the participants indicated that: ‘relations with staff members’ (94.4%), ‘working conditions/school climate’ (89.4%), ‘job satisfaction’ (82.6%), ‘relations with parents’ (80.7%), ‘school organisation and operation issues’ (78.3%), ‘administrative workload’ (77.6%), ‘management of student misbehaviour’ (73.9%) and ‘school principals’ personal characteristics’ (72.7%) shaped their professional practice to a great extent. When asked to report on one factor that participants believed greatly shaped their wellbeing and daily practice, their responses revolved around the same themes, notably, the following: (i) difficult interpersonal relationships with members of the teaching staff who are often unmotivated, indifferent, and unwilling to comply with school procedures and educational legislation, (ii) difficulties and disruptions in communication and collaboration with parents, often leading to crisis events with unpredictable consequences for all parties, (iii) excessive administrative workload and time-consuming bureaucratic procedures that deprive school principals of their creativity potential in pedagogical practice and the introduction and implementation of innovative interventions to increase school extroversion. They reported feeling constrained in their role as mid-level managers within the educational hierarchy, executing state rules and regulations most of the time rather than instigating changes on their own in their daily practice at the school level, and feel alienated due to the absence of school principals’ networks that would enable knowledge and expertise transfer among them, (iv) school organizational issues related to school climate, incidents of student misbehaviour, lack of professional training seminars for school principals, time management issues, frequent rates of teaching staff rotation that impair smooth school operation, poor infrastructure and income revenue.

5. Discussion

5.1. Findings of Note

The present study aimed to explore school principals’ views on their current wellbeing in the workplace and identify predictor factors that most commonly appeared within the preschool and primary educational setting in Greece. With respect to our first research question, descriptive data revealed overall high levels of self-reported emotional, cognitive, social, psychological, and spiritual wellbeing but not physical wellbeing, in line with the results of Wang and Pollock (2020) and Wang et al. (2018). In reporting their emotional wellbeing status, participants in our study felt excited and satisfied with their job performance, enjoyed working in the context of their current school and exhibited a certain level of sensitivity and willingness to solve work-related issues effectively. They reported considerably low levels of despair and no regrets about their decision to assume the tasks and responsibilities accompanying the role of school principalship. Elevated cognitive wellbeing levels were demonstrated by participants’ convictions that they could effectively aid their school community in achieving its mission and goals, readily manage daily issues at the school level, make difficult work-related decisions and, in some cases, influence collective decisions related to work issues and follow complex procedures. Heightened levels of social and psychological wellbeing were evident in participants’ responses, reporting (a) their satisfaction with the support they received from both members of the school staff and parents/guardians but less so from local and/or national educational authorities, and (b) an exceptionally well-developed sense of responsibility in their work and a sense of gradual self-accomplishment in their role as school principals. Positive spiritual wellbeing ratings were also reported by the vast majority of participant school principals, who viewed themselves as key agents striving to enhance their students’ learning experiences and wellbeing, doing their utmost to ensure the benefit of their school community, guided by a sense of mission in their everyday practice and having the sense that they were involved in a dynamic and creative type of job. In contrast, physical wellbeing was rated as relatively moderate by the school principals in our sample, primarily attributed to increased levels of daily exhaustion, stress, fatigue, disappointment, inefficiency and disillusionment.

Turning to our second research question, the Mann–Whitney test result revealed a statistically significant gender-related difference, with male school principals self-reporting consistently higher levels of overall wellbeing within the school environments they lead and work in comparison to their female colleagues. This indicates that the gender of participants plays a role in their perceived wellbeing levels in the workplace, as it has also been confirmed in Doyle Fosco et al.’s (2023) research. Additional findings based on the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test indicated statistically significant differences in participants’ responses by age, education level, overall teaching experience and tenure in the school principal position. In contrast to the findings of Dicke et al. (2018), Swapp (2020) and Dadaczynski et al. (2022), results in this study demonstrated higher self-reported levels of overall wellbeing for school principals belonging to the 31–40 and 41–50 age groups who were BA holders and/or had attended Didaskaleion, with a teaching experience of a maximum of 20 years and a leadership experience ranging between 1 and 5 years. With respect to our third research question, Spearman Rho correlation results indicated a positive and significant relationship between school principals’ job satisfaction and six wellbeing dimensions, suggesting that higher levels of emotional, cognitive, social, psychological and spiritual wellbeing experienced by school principals resulted in a higher sense of job satisfaction.

Finally, regarding our fourth research question, ‘relations with staff members at the school level’, ‘working conditions and school climate’, ‘administrative workload’ and ‘job satisfaction’ were most frequently reported by participants in our study as the most influential factors on their overall wellbeing. This echoes previous research on the effects of social capital (Beausaert et al., 2021), staff collaborative relationships (Cherkowski & Walker, 2016; Drago-Severson et al., 2018), collegial school climate (Collie et al., 2020) and the impact of work intensification on school principals’ wellbeing (Marsh et al., 2022; Maxwell & Riley, 2017). The same set of parameters was also reported to have a direct influence on school principals’ daily professional practice, followed by an additional four factors: ‘relations with parents’, ‘school organisation and operation issues’, ‘management of student misbehaviour’ and ‘school principals’ personal characteristics’. Further qualitative data derived from participants’ responses to open-ended questions revealed that school principals’ overall wellbeing status and effective professional daily practice depended on their efforts to deal successfully with a series of hardships often encountered (a) in the wider school community context while struggling to cooperate efficiently with external stakeholders, ensure parents’ collaboration and enforce educational legislation effectively in their own school context, and (b) in the school context, when trying to tackle the indifferent and anti-professional attitudes of teaching staff, excessive administrative workload, incidents of student misbehaviour, lack of support staff, inadequate infrastructure and financial issues due to miscommunication with the School Committee, as well as when trying to curtail bureaucracy and contribute to enhancing the school’s mission, culture and extroversion. Personality-related wellbeing factors have also been reported by school principals in this study, related to age-related health issues, creativity and general disposition, coupled with a general sense of restricted work autonomy, wage discrimination in proportion to their working hours and a perceived lack of time management skills.

5.2. Implications for Practice

School administrators face a wide range of challenges that, if left unaddressed, can seriously undermine their wellbeing, leadership effectiveness, and long-term retention in the profession (OECD, 2020). Although principals in this study reported relatively high levels of overall wellbeing, the findings highlight the need for systematic and sustained support through targeted interventions at both policy and practice levels.

A first priority concerns the administrative workload of Greek principals. The strong influence of bureaucratic demands on wellbeing underscores the urgency of streamlining procedures and redistributing non-instructional tasks. International research shows that excessive administrative load is one of the strongest predictors of principal burnout and declining physical wellbeing (Maxwell & Riley, 2017). Policy measures such as employing administrative assistants, simplifying reporting requirements, enhancing digital services, and reducing redundant paperwork would substantially lessen administrative pressures and enable principals to focus on pedagogical and relational leadership—areas consistently linked to improved school functioning and principal satisfaction (Leithwood et al., 2020).

A second implication relates to the limited autonomy afforded to Greek school principals. Restricting principals’ discretion in staffing, resource allocation, and curriculum adaptation constrains their professional agency and negatively relates to their wellbeing. Increasing school-level decision-making authority would not only enhance job satisfaction and motivation but also align Greece with international movements toward distributed, collaborative, and context-responsive leadership models (Hallinger, 2018). Third, the demographic disparities identified in this study highlight the need for differentiated leadership preparation. Early-career principals may benefit from structured induction and mentoring programmes (Perrone & Tucker, 2019), while female principals—who in many contexts face heightened relational demands and emotional labour—may require additional support structures and peer networks. Integrating wellbeing education, stress-management strategies, and resilience-building practices into both pre-service and in-service leadership training would strengthen principals’ capacity to navigate the complexity of their work and respond effectively to changing school demands (Mahfouz & Richardson, 2021).

The strong association between wellbeing and job satisfaction is consistent with international research demonstrating that principal wellbeing influences school climate, staff morale and retention, and student outcomes. To address emerging risks, it is essential to establish formal wellbeing monitoring mechanisms at regional or national levels—such as regular assessments, reflective practice groups, and peer collaboration networks—which have been shown to reduce isolation and enhance collective efficacy within leadership communities (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2014). Complementing these systemic measures, principals can also benefit from individual-level practices that strengthen resilience and emotional regulation. Evidence suggests that internal coping strategies such as mindfulness, self-care routines, and reflective practice can support leaders in managing stress and sustaining their wellbeing (Wells & Klocko, 2018; Walker, 2020). Participation in evidence-based interventions, including the Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE) programme, has additionally been linked to increased self-reflection, improved interpersonal relationships, and greater attention to self-care, enabling principals to maintain healthier and more sustainable leadership practices (Mahfouz, 2018).

Finally, the qualitative findings emphasize the importance of organizational conditions in supporting or hindering principal wellbeing. Effective cooperation with parents, clear and consistent implementation of educational legislation, adequate infrastructure, access to support staff, and improved communication with school committees emerged as central to principals’ daily functioning (Leithwood et al., 2020). Strengthening these conditions is essential for sustaining wellbeing and enabling principals to cultivate positive, collaborative, and professionally supportive school cultures that benefit teachers and students alike.

6. Limitations and Future Directions

This exploratory study was based on a convenience sample of school principals serving mainly in public primary schools across the country. As a result, it is difficult to draw conclusions or generalize the findings to the wider population of Greek school principals or to principals in other countries. However, despite its limitations, this study portrays an empirically based picture of Greek primary school principals’ wellbeing in the workplace, with its findings leading to several suggestions for future research. First, we suggest that future research might replicate this study by selecting a representative sample of Greek school principals serving in pre-primary, primary or secondary schools in Greece or other countries. Second, the current study is based on self-reported data from principals regarding the six dimensions of wellbeing in the workplace. Future studies could further examine other factors that have been reported as shaping school principals’ wellbeing, such as different types of job demands, the educational policy context, personal factors or other environmental factors. Third, from a methodological point of view, two limitations should be taken into account: (i) uneven sample sizes across age groups may reduce the power of the Kruskal–Wallis test, affecting group comparisons and (ii) the use of a convenience sample of principals attending a professional seminar limits the generalizability of the findings. Principals attending a professional seminar were selected using a convenience sampling approach, which introduces potential selection bias and reduces external validity, as this group may not reflect the full diversity of principals in other settings. Finally, the findings of this study point to the important role of the social support school principals experience from members of the school community, such as teachers and parents, as well as local educational authorities. That said, further research may be necessary to explore how various stakeholders contribute to school principals’ well-being in the workplace and how principals’ well-being is reflected in their leadership practice.

7. Conclusions

With the demands of their roles on the rise, school principals’ wellbeing is expected to form an integral part of the contemporary educational agenda, requiring holistic attention to enhance work conditions, job efficiency and effectiveness within the Greek primary educational context. A comprehensive understanding of principals is crucial for providing focused and efficient assistance to school principals through intervention programmes aimed at developing resilience and deploying appropriate techniques to ameliorate their wellbeing status, so they can flourish as educational leaders. Towards this end, this study empirically reinforces the complex nature of wellbeing in educational leadership, highlighting the need for ongoing professional development efforts targeted at empowering primary school principals by implementing effective stress coping strategies and viable means of wellbeing support and maintenance in their workplace.