University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Sorting through stress: how middle school administrators in southern California adapt and build resilience in a post-pandemic world

(USC Thesis Other)

Sorting through stress: how middle school administrators in southern California adapt and build resilience in a post-pandemic world

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Sorting Through Stress: How Middle School Administrators in Southern California
Adapt and Build Resilience in a Post-Pandemic World

Jonathan A. Weber

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Jonathan A. Weber 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jonathan Weber certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Gregory Franklin
Darline Robles
David Cash, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
Throughout the country, K–12 administrators have adapted and coped with the ever-changing
landscape during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines the perceived
stressors for school site administrators as filtered through Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four
frames (structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) to explore the responses and
impacts of various stressors as interpreted by an administrator’s risk and resiliency factors to
determine the effects on their own sense of self-efficacy and mental wellness. The study
makes suggestions for best practices post-pandemic to support the mental wellness of
administrators.
Keywords: middle school, administrator, mental health, resiliency factors, self-
efficacy, adaptive leadership.

v
Acknowledgments
Thank you to all the professors and the USC Rossier School of Education faculty who
have helped and taught me along the way to make this study possible. A special thanks goes
out to fellow researcher and doctoral student, Kelly Gilbert, without whom this study would
not have been possible. To my family, friends, and colleagues who supported this doctoral
journey, I also want to extend my gratitude.

vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... ix
Preface ........................................................................................................................................ x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ......................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................................... 8
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 9
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................... 9
Limitations and Delimitations ...................................................................................... 10
Definitions of Terms .................................................................................................... 11
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................ 13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ................................................................................... 15
The K–12 Administrator Role ..................................................................................... 15
Job-Related Stressors ................................................................................................... 27
Mental Health and Wellness in Educational Settings .................................................. 29
Frameworks .................................................................................................................. 32
Chapter Three: Methodology ................................................................................................... 38
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................... 38
Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 39
Selection of the Population .......................................................................................... 39
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................ 40

vii
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................... 48
Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 49
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 49
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 50
Chapter Four: Results .............................................................................................................. 51
Participants ................................................................................................................... 51
Results .......................................................................................................................... 52
Results for Research Question 1 .................................................................................. 53
Results for Research Question 2 .................................................................................. 77
Results for Research Question 3 .................................................................................. 82
Results for Research Question 4 .................................................................................. 90
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 98
Chapter Five: Discussion ......................................................................................................... 99
Findings ..................................................................................................................... 100
Limitations ................................................................................................................. 109
Implications for Practice ............................................................................................ 110
Future Research ......................................................................................................... 111
Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 113
References .............................................................................................................................. 114
Appendix A: Semistructured Interview Protocol ................................................................... 121
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 121
Questions (With Transitions) ..................................................................................... 122
Closing ....................................................................................................................... 127

viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Assumed Stressors/Responses and Method of Assessment 41
Table 2: Summary of Adaptive Leadership Stressors/Responses and Method of
Assessment 42
Table 3: Summary of Self-Efficacy and Method of Assessment 44
Table 4: Summary of Resilience and Method of Assessment 46
Table 5: Interview Participants 52

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Conceptual Framework 33

x
Preface
Some chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as such.
Although jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real–world practices. To meet their objective of
developing highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real–world challenges, the USC
Graduate School and the USC Rossier School of Education permitted our inquiry team to
carry out this shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with one other doctoral candidate,
Kelly Gilbert. We interviewed K–12 administrators in our counties to better understand and
implement real-world strategies of use to them after the COVID-19 pandemic. This pairing
allowed not only more depth to be added in location but also in levels of administration.

1
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Highly effective educational administrators are an essential component of student
learning, as they are responsible for increased student achievement, positive learning
conditions, and improved teaching and leadership. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,
school site administrators faced a myriad of new stressors and pressures (Harris & Jones,
2020). At every level, from the principalship to the superintendency, educational leaders
reported experiencing increased levels of stress related to the job (Federici et al., 2012; Harris
& Jones, 2020; Mahfouz, 2020; Robinson & Shakeshaft, 2016; Yan, 2020). Working and
leading in an ever-changing landscape added more pressure to an already stressful and
potentially tense job (Fullan, 2001). Many school site administrators were placed in an
untenable situation with no roadmap on how to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic on their districts. This ambiguity necessitated constant reframing of problems to
find pathways forward.
How are K–12 school site administrators to maintain sound mental health while
dealing with these situations? As students returned to in-person learning post-pandemic,
medical professionals and educational leaders expressed increased concern about students’
social-emotional well-being (Viner et al., 2022). This concern resulted in school districts
refining existing systems of support, or, in some cases, developing and implementing entirely
new systems seeking to increase student wellness as well as to prevent or reduce adverse
factors resulting in poor mental health among students (Whitaker & Lopez-Perry, 2022).
Subsequently, these systems led to increased mental wellness support for teachers and
classified staff (Steiner & Woo, 2021). Although these efforts have been shown to be
effective, little attention has been paid to the overall mental health and wellness of school
district administrators. It is impossible to have a strong, sustainable school district when the
leaders are experiencing low levels of mental health and wellness.

2
2
The COVID-19 pandemic likely exacerbated job-related stress experienced by school
administrators (Brackett et al., 2020). Prior to the pandemic, literature was limited on
concrete and realistic steps for educational leaders to take to mitigate and adapt to job-related
stress. In a post-pandemic landscape, where administrator roles and responsibilities have
changed significantly, there is a critical need not only to articulate what the job-related
stressors are but also to understand what strategies leaders have used to adapt, build
resilience, and enhance mental wellness.
Bolman and Deal (2017) offered a framework to help educational leaders sort post-
pandemic, job-related stressors into more manageable areas, positing, “Reframing requires an
ability to think about situations from more than one angle, which lets you develop alternative
diagnoses and strategies” (p. 6). Their framework examines organizations through four
different frames: (a) structural, (b) human resource, (c) political, and (d) symbolic. Bolman
and Deal (2017) wrote:
A frame is a mental model—a set of ideas and assumptions—that you carry in your
head to help you understand and negotiate a particular “territory.” A good frame
makes it easier to know what you are up against [emphasis added] and, ultimately,
what you can do about it [emphasis added]. (p. 12)
By sorting post-pandemic stressors into the four frames, leaders can be more adaptive,
thinking strategically about how to organize their team and resources to overcome challenges,
thus becoming more resilient and reducing the job-related stress they experience.
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) first frame is structural, which views an organization as a
factory where processes and people must work together to ensure smooth operations. It
positions problems as viewing tensions between differentiation (how to allocate work) and
integration (how to coordinate various efforts). When a breakdown occurs, the structural
frame seeks to see who in the chain of command was responsible for either not delegating

3
3
properly or not performing their job effectively or to see what system or protocol was not
functioning at a high enough level. During the COVID-19 pandemic, school site
administrators dealt with countless changes and protocols. Distance learning introduced a
completely novel format to deliver instruction to all students, not to mention equity issues
ensuring access to the curriculum and technology (Harris, 2020). Complicating matters,
absenteeism was on the rise, and new laws and bills in California tasked schools with
maintaining contact with their entire student population when students and teachers were not
physically present on school campuses (Harris, 2020). Returning to campus also presented
new structural issues with transportation, hybrid schedules, contact tracing, and supply chain
shortages of items essential to staying compliant (e.g., meals, plexiglass, masks, COVID-19
tests; (Harris, 2020)). These new demands were placed on top of an already demanding job,
but, in many cases, school administrators had not received adequate training to know how to
handle these structural changes (Harris, 2020). Framing these stressors in terms of a structural
issue allows leaders to align resources and become more agile.
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) second frame is the human resource frame, which
examines the intersection of the district as a system with the individuals within it. During the
COVID-19 pandemic, struggles in the human resource frame presented distinct challenges
for K–12 administrators and schools because many peoples’ basic needs were jeopardized
while they attempted to function and work. Schools faced staff shortages from resignations
and illness while navigating changing regulations and negotiations with bargaining units.
Managing the relationship between employees and employers while providing for everyone’s
safety created tension on campuses. Ethical dilemmas were faced as some employees took
advantage of the situation for their personal gain and performance evaluations were still
conducted (Laverdure & LeCompte, 2021). Finally, staff needed to be supported in the face
of the various losses experienced, such as mourning the death of colleagues or family

4
4
members, grieving the loss of colleagues who left the profession, or grieving the loss of how
schools ran previously. All these situations occurred simultaneously, and school
administrators were required to walk the tightrope of supporting staff while upholding the
regulations and mandates leading to sustainable organizations. Using the human resources
frame allows leaders to consider the human factor when overcoming stressors.
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) third frame is the political frame, which “views
organizations as roiling arenas, hosting ongoing contests arising from individual and group
interests” (p. 184). The pandemic shed light on issues of equity, necessitating a disruption
and discontinuation of historic practices no longer serving students well. As the pandemic
became politicized, with groups either for or against various restrictions and mandates,
schools were positioned in the middle, trying to provide high-quality education while
balancing the competing views of the staff and community. School boards faced making
unprecedented decisions about how to comply best with changing regulations while
maintaining equity and public support. This interplay of power and decision making
positioned schools against some community groups, because agendas often were competing.
Collaborating with bargaining units, school boards, families, and community members to
codify new practices has continued to be a major source of post-pandemic stress for leaders.
Facing these stressors through a political frame can assist leaders in negotiating with these
groups to improve education for all.
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) final frame is the symbolic frame, which “focuses on how
myth and symbols help humans make sense of the chaotic, ambiguous world in which they
live” (p. 236). During the pandemic, for many school districts, doors were shut for over a
year. Schools are usually places that serve and welcome the community, but due to the
pandemic, access was denied (Laverdure & LeCompte, 2021). School site administrators had
to maintain a sense of community when contact was not recommended or allowed. Internally,

5
5
a school generally functions as a team, but the culture was affected by the various bargaining
units and their negotiations that pitted employees against the employer. In a post-pandemic
landscape, experienced leaders have become hyper-aware of how much the world has
changed. Site administrators have been tasked with bringing individuals back together in the
service of children. Leaders must remain optimistic that a more equitable and robust system
can be built moving forward. The symbolic frame helps leaders navigate the tension between
sensitivity to loss and optimism about the future by reimagining future possibilities.
As K–12 administrators experienced all these stressors in the four frames, they had to
navigate them while attempting to provide the highest level education possible to students in
their care. Adaptive leadership is concerned with how people change and adjust to new
circumstances and subsequently lead others through change (Northouse, 2019). The theory of
adaptive leadership is the throughline connecting Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames
because it is the process leaders use to encourage others to overcome challenging problems.
Because the concept of adaptive leadership takes a systems perspective, it assumes the
stressors people face are embedded in complicated yet interconnected systems (Heifetz et al.,
2009). Adaptive leaders can use Bolman and Deal’s four frames to orient, organize, motivate,
mobilize, and focus attention on themselves and others (Heifetz, 1998).
Mental health has become a focus for many organizations. When a person’s basic
needs are met, they are freed to think and function at higher levels (Ryckman et al., 1985).
When a person is put in a position where a high level of stress or pressure exists, these factors
have the potential to impact their mental health, positively or negatively. An individual can
experience a positive effect when a task is accomplished or an obstacle is overcome, which
also results in them making a positive connection between productive struggle, positive
outcomes, and actualization (Ryckman et al., 1985). An individual can experience a negative
effect when the stress, obstacle, or responsibility feels insurmountable, outside their locus of

6
6
control, or begins to draw attention from identified goals, which may result in making a
negative connection between stress and a person’s self-perception (Skoch, 2003).
When facing daily situations, individuals bring both “risk” and “resiliency” factors
helping to mitigate or increase the stressors or pressures in daily circumstances (Diehl & Hay,
2010). A resiliency factor is defined as “the capacity and dynamic process of adaptively
overcoming stress and adversity while maintaining normal psychological and physical
functioning” (Wu et al., 2013, p. 1). A risk factor is defined as a previously held condition
caused by a potential of any number of conditions (e.g., genetics, maladaptive coping
strategies, ill-serving stress responses, psychiatric conditions) negatively impacting
individuals’ ability to cope with stress effectively (Wu et al., 2013). Resiliency and risk
factors function as lenses through which stressors are viewed and translated. The result can
either be a reduction or intensification of perceived stressors. In studies of adults, resiliency
has been linked positively to higher cortisol levels, adaptive stress response, rapid stress
recovery, and superior performance (Simeon et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2013). In high-pressure
or stressful jobs (e.g., K–12 administrator), the leader’s self-concept of their skills and
efficacy either can help to mitigate stressors and recover from the pressures or add further
stress to the situation and decrease performance.
Bandura has written about self-efficacy extensively (Bandura & Cervone, 1983;
Bandura et al., 1999; Bandura & Schunk, 1981), defining self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s
capabilities to produce given attainments” (Bandura et al., 1999, p. 258). Bandura et al.
(1999) wrote, “Unless people believe they can produce desired effects by their actions, they
have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties” (p. 258). Building on this
idea and connecting it to resiliency and risk factors, as a person experiences pressures of their
day-to-day life and added job-related stressors and inputs, these stressors are translated
through their resiliency and risk factors, leading to a variety of possible outcomes based upon

7
7
their perceived self-efficacy on that day and in that situation. Depending on the outcomes of a
situation, a person’s perceived self-efficacy can be increased or decreased as an effect of
these stressors. A high level of self-efficacy has been linked to regulation of stress, higher
self-esteem, and better well-being while a low level of self-efficacy has been related to more
symptoms of anxiety and depression as well as lower subjective levels of well-being, another
term for mental health (Bai et al., 2017).
This research study sought to learn from K–12 public school administrators’ lived
experiences. It examined the impact of job-related stressors on administrators’ mental health
and extracted resiliency and mental wellness factors helping to sustain them in the face of the
pandemic. By examining these experiences, strategies and supports were distilled to suggest
how educational leaders at all levels can deepen their sense of self-efficacy through a focus
on their mental health and the mental health of those they lead in a post-pandemic world
(Fernandez & Shaw, 2020).
Statement of the Problem
School site administrators face myriad stressors in their daily lives, which can have a
direct impact on their mental health. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, much of this
stress was exacerbated as school administrators took on new roles and responsibilities while
attempting to manage the welfare of their staff, students, and community in ways that were
far outside the traditional administrative job description (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020).
Considerable research exists on the factors historically causing stress for site administrators
(Cooley & Shen, 2003; Grubb & Flessa, 2006; Robinson & Shakeshaft, 2016). Although this
literature has been useful in illuminating the factors administrators experienced that have
impacted their mental health negatively, these studies were conducted pre-pandemic, before
administrators’ duties and workload changed.

8
8
For K–12 administrators, simply naming the stressors brought on by the pandemic is
not helpful enough in terms of mitigating stress and the effects of stress on leaders’ mental
health. As job-related stressors have increased, more and more school administrators have
left the profession because of the impact of job-related stressors on their mental health
(DeMatthews et al., 2021). School administrators spend much time supporting those in their
care yet may not always take care of themselves adequately. When a leader experiences
negative impacts on their mental health or approaches burnout, they not only harm
themselves but potentially those they lead.
The literature on steps to help site administrators adapt to job-related stress and build
resilience, both pre- and post-pandemic, has been limited. As a result, there is an urgent need
to understand the job-related stressors educational leaders face. It is important to understand
and learn from effective administrators’ use of strategies that have helped them adapt to the
challenges of day-to-day work in the wake of the pandemic, build resilience, and increase
overall mental health. This study examined responses to stressors present in the wake of the
COVID-19 pandemic to see what could be learned and applied to improve the mental health
of K–12 administrators (Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). Understanding leaders’ views and
perceptions on this topic may shed light on possibilities for reducing job-related stress and
supporting district leaders’ wellness. I also make recommendations to help promote
administrators’ mental health to support and retain them in districts and in the profession.
Purpose of the Study
In Southern California and across the nation, educational leaders have been met with
unprecedented scenarios, impossible situations, and unfavorable or unworkable solutions
(Steiner & Woo, 2021). At the same time, some educational leaders have thrived in this
difficult atmosphere. The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate how highly
effective K–12 public school site administrators identified post-pandemic job-related

9
9
stressors, perceived the impact of these stressors on their mental health, adapted, and built
self-efficacy. It also provided insight into resiliency factors that may be supported at all levels
of administration to better support and retain administrators through a focus on mental health
and wellness.
Research Questions
This study sought to increase understanding of how K–12 public school
administrators perceived post-pandemic, job-related stressors, how they adapted to them, and
how they built resilience to maintain high levels of self-efficacy and mental wellness. The
following research questions were used in this study:
1. How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern California describe new
job-related stressors that emerged in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern California describe the
impact of their jobs on their mental health in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic?
3. In what ways have K–12 school administrators in Southern California responded
to the job-related challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. What resiliency or mental-wellness factors emerged from the reflections and/or
experiences of K–12 school administrators in Southern California?
Job-related stressors were filtered through Bolman and Deal (2017) four frames to
examine administrators’ perceptions of mental health, what they identified as risk and
resiliency factors, and strategies they found harmful or beneficial to maintaining high levels
of self-efficacy and mental wellness.
Significance of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic brought with it unprecedented uncertainty and challenges
for almost all public institutions, including school districts. Educational leaders across the

10
10
country experienced difficult times characterized by high levels of stress, constant conflict,
and ever-evolving demands. This study may have direct significance for school districts and
boards as they work to support, retain, and evaluate public school administrators at all levels,
but particularly school site administrators. By determining how highly effective K–12 site
administrators perceived and responded to job-related stressors in the wake of the pandemic,
and subsequently adapted and built resilience, this study could have a significant impact on
how educational leaders approach their work to lead effectively during times of crisis
recovery. Additional significance is gained through the impact this work may have on the
prioritization of mental health and resilience at the administrative level of education. This
prioritization of mental health may also impact public school systems in better supporting and
retaining site administrators.
Limitations and Delimitations
This thematic research study was limited to highly effective K–12 public school site-
level administrators in Los Angeles County and their self-reported experiences in their
leadership roles. Although schools and districts in various locations may have similarities,
individual daily experiences and reactions to stressors may vary from school to school and
person to person. Interview questions explored site administrators’ personal recollections and
experiences. Generalizations from this study may be limited in the following ways:
1. The definition of “highly effective” can be unique to different people. Leaders
identified as highly effective given specific criteria may have defined the term
through different lenses.
2. Participants’ ability to articulate job-related stressors and specific leadership
adaptations and resilience factors might have been a limitation. Because the
pandemic was considered a period of constant crisis, they may not have been able
to remember, describe, or explain fully what they did or how they did it.

11
11
3. Researcher bias and positionality may have been a limitation. Although every
effort was made to remain fair, objective, and unbiased, my pandemic leadership
experiences and predisposed opinions may have impacted the findings.
This study was delimited to the selection criteria of five highly effective site
administrators. Further delimitations included region (Los Angeles County), administrator’s
current employment status (presently employed as an administrator), evidence of personal
resilience, at least 2 years of experience in the position in the same district during the
COVID-19 pandemic, and evidence of at least two of the following characteristics: (a)
leading a successful school or school district; (b) articles, papers, or materials written,
published, or presented at education conferences; (c) membership in professional associations
in their field (e.g., Association for California School Administrators or the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development) or holding an educational doctorate; and (d)
recognition by their peers.
Definitions of Terms
• Adaptive leadership is a leadership style focused on preparing people to deal with
change in response to different contexts. This theory examines leadership
activities, followers’ work, and the contexts in which they are set (Northouse,
2019).
• Administrator refers to school leaders and may include principals, vice/assistant
principals, deans, directors, assistant superintendents, or superintendents.
• Burnout is “a common response to chronic emotional strain caused by dealing
with the needs of others” (Friedman, 2002, p. 230), often connected to unmediated
stress and/or a lack of buffers or support systems.

12
12
• COVID-19 refers to an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus,
resulting in many people experiencing mild to moderate respiratory illness and
potentially death (World Health Organization, 2022).
• The four frames is a theory of adaptive leadership examining leaders’ actions as
related to the following four frames: structural, human resource, political, and
symbolic (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
• Highly effective leader, for this study, is defined as a California public school
administrator serving at the site level who credible authorities in the educational
field have identified as successful in their role.
• The human resource frame is one of four frames of adaptive leadership viewing
organizations from the lens of a relationship between an organization and its
people and how they provide for each other reciprocally (Bolman & Deal, 2017).
• K–12 schools are schools including students in Grades K–12. This includes
elementary, middle, and high schools.
• Leadership style refers to how leaders and followers relate to each other and work
together. This style can have an impact on morale and productivity (Bolman &
Deal, 2017; Northouse, 2019a).
• Mental health refers to a person’s state of mind and general psychological and
emotional state.
• The political frame is one of four frames of adaptive leadership viewing
organizations as “roiling arenas, hosting ongoing contests arising from individual
and group interests” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 184).
• Resilience is the capacity to recover from and adjust to adverse situations
(Northouse, 2019).

13
13
• Resiliency factors refer to “the capacity and dynamic process of adaptively
overcoming stress and adversity while maintaining normal psychological and
physical functioning” (Wu et al., 2013, p. 1).
• Risk factors refer to a previously held condition caused by a potential of any
number of conditions (e.g., genetics, maladaptive coping strategies, ill-serving
stress responses, psychiatric conditions) negatively impacting an individual’s
ability to cope effectively with stress (Wu et al., 2013).
• Self-efficacy is a personally held belief in one’s ability and/or capabilities to
achieve the desired attainments (Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Bandura et al., 1999;
Bandura & Schunk, 1981).
• The structural frame is one of four frames of adaptive leadership viewing
organizations like factories where processes and people work together to ensure
smooth operations. It positions problems as viewing the tension between
differentiation (how to allocate work) and integration (how to coordinate various
efforts; Bolman & Deal, 2017).
• The symbolic frame is one of four frames of adaptive leadership “focuse[d] on
how myth and symbols help humans make sense of the chaotic, ambiguous world
in which they live” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 236).
Organization of the Study
This research findings of this study are organized into five chapters, the references,
and the appendices. Chapter 1 outlines the importance of this topic, states the problem, and
defines the purpose of this study. It also provides the research questions, defines the terms,
and highlights the study’s limitations and delimitations. Chapter 2 presents a review and
synthesis of the related literature, including an exploration of stress management, adaptive
leadership behaviors, and resilience. Chapter 3 explains the research design and methodology

14
14
of the study and includes an explanation of the population to be studied, instruments used for
data collection, and analysis of the data. Chapter 4 presents the data and provides a detailed
analysis of the findings. Chapter 5 reports significant findings, draws conclusions, and makes
recommendations for further study. The appendices and references follow Chapter 5.
Mentally healthy administrators are better equipped to lead and protect the mental
health of those they lead. This study highlighted the school administrator role and how it
changed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. By examining these shifts in the landscape
of school administration, resiliency and mental wellness factors were extracted to help those
at all levels of leadership to better support their mental health and the mental health of those
they lead while retaining talent in levels of leadership.
This chapter was written jointly by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to
this project. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all
those listed.

15
15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This study investigated the role of K–12 administrators, both central office leaders
and principals, and how their role changed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. It
examined the impact of job-related stressors on administrators’ mental health. Finally,
resilience factors were extracted in service of supporting educational leaders at all levels to
better support their mental health and the mental health of those they lead. In this chapter, the
traditional K–12 administrator role and how the role has evolved over time are reviewed.
Then, the job-related stressors administrators have experienced and how mental health and
wellness have been promoted in educational settings are described. Literature associated with
resilience also is discussed. Finally, the conceptual and theoretical frameworks are presented.
The K–12 Administrator Role
The K–12 administrator role has been in a process of changing and evolving, with this
evolution presenting new challenges and opportunities. The presence of the COVID-19
pandemic again reshaped the school administrator role.
Traditional
The role of K–12 administrators in a traditional sense has been well studied, laying
down base knowledge for school leaders to follow. These guiding principles and mindsets
have provided a point from which to address emergent issues in a changing world. In the
broadest view, K–12 school leadership is like leadership in any other setting, and correlations
can be drawn between successful leaders in any organization to successful leaders in
educational settings. Although the primary focus of this research was not leadership styles,
traits and approaches leaders apply in various situations may influence their perceived levels
of stress and their effectiveness. For that reason, in the following sections, various leadership
approaches are examined to lend context to the research.

16
16
Skills Approach
One way to examine leadership is to divide it into its identifiable parts and examine
them individually. Northouse (2019) acknowledged leadership is complex and possesses
multiple dimensions. The author addressed these dimensions by classifying leadership into
four different approaches and four different styles. Some see leadership as a trait, and others
view leadership as a process. Viewing leadership as a trait is congruent with viewing great
leaders as those who possess attributes or skills that make them a “born leader” (Northouse,
2019). The trait approach was the first approach used to examine leadership throughout
history. In this view, a person is either innately positioned to be a good leader or not.
Examples of skills that have been associated with great leaders are intelligence, self-
confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability, to name a few. Looking at leadership in
this way is unique from others as it focuses solely on the leader and on not those they lead or
the organizations in which they are placed. Those subscribing to this theory of leadership
believe those who can be identified with these traits should be placed in the highest
leadership positions for the most success, yet this approach is not without weaknesses. The
trait approach focuses on a limited number of traits, not an exhaustive list. This list is then
organized in a subjective way, with culture playing a large role into which traits are “most
desirable.” Also, because this theory focuses only on the leader, situations and contexts are
not accounted for, making it hard to say if the traits would contribute to the leader’s success
if they were in a different context.
Trait Approach
Related to the skills approach, Northouse (2019) next examined the trait approach to
leadership. Although the trait approach looks exclusively at the leader and their inherent
personality traits, the skills approach still focuses on the leader, but shifts the focus to the set
of skills they possess and how they can be developed. Although traits are viewed as fixed

17
17
attributes, skills can be learned and developed. Three main competencies Northouse
identified are problem-solving skills, social judgment skills, and knowledge. These
competencies are then linked to leadership outcomes, such as effective problem solving and
performance. This approach addresses one weakness of the trait approach by looking at how
individual skills are tied to outcomes in context, are seen as malleable, and have the potential
to grow and change. Skills also are affected by environmental influences, such as how leaders
adapt to the contexts in which they are placed. Another strength of this approach is its focus
on leadership development, not simply the identification of desirable traits. By following this
approach, each person can be seen as having a chance to become an effective leader. A
distinct weakness of this approach is that it does not necessarily help to predict how certain
skills will result in good leadership, which may not help organizations as they attempt to
identify, place, and retain the best leaders in the highest positions.
Behavioral Approach
Although the previous two approaches examined the leader almost exclusively, the
final two approaches bring in more context by including followers. The third approach
Northouse (2019) identified is the behavioral approach. This approach shifts the focus to
include leaders’ behaviors toward those they lead in differing situations. This approach looks
at two behaviors: task behaviors and relationship behaviors. Task behaviors are actions
helping a group complete steps toward a goal. They ensure the work gets accomplished and is
accomplished as a high standard. Relationship behaviors are actions that help people feel
comfortable and experience a sense of belonging. Northouse explained how leaders must
balance concern for the task and concern for people effectively to guide followers toward
reaching goals. This approach has been known best through the work of Blake and Mouton’s
(1981) managerial (leadership) grid. In this grid, concern for results is the x axis, and concern
for people is the y axis. Managerial (leadership) styles are then defined in four quadrants.

18
18
Quadrant 1 (top right corner) is high concern for results and people. This is defined as team
management in which a team of committed individuals accomplishes the work. Quadrant 2
(bottom right corner) is defined as “country-club management” in which there is a high
concern for people but a low concern for results. In this organization, employees are
comfortable and have a friendly work atmosphere, but results are not guaranteed. Quadrant 3
(bottom left corner) contains both low concern for people and results, also referred to as
“impoverished management.” In this system, there is minimal effort given both to the task
and to the people in the organization. Finally, Quadrant 4 (top left corner) is defined as
“authority-compliance” management in which there is a high concern for results but a low
concern for people in the organization. In organizations like this, human elements are
minimized to focus on maximizing efficiency and task completion. It stands in stark contrast
to “country club management.” In the middle of these four quadrants is “middle-of-the-road”
management, in which concern for results and people are balanced to obtain adequate results
while maintaining the morale of those who work in the organization.
The behavioral approach broadens the view of leadership away from only looking at
the leader and expands the equation to encompass the followers. This was a departure from
historical leadership studies and allowed for more depth to enter the field. The behavioral
approach also is studied and recognized widely, which lends credence to the theory. A final
strength is that a leader is balancing tasks and relationships in every situation, which this
approach recognizes as key to being an effective leader. Conceptually, this provides a
framework for examination and evaluation. Like the trait approach, the behavioral approach
has not yet been linked adequately to performance outcomes; therefore, the behavioral
approach can help researchers evaluate and study leadership but cannot predict effective
outcomes. This approach also cannot establish a universal style of leadership that will fit
every situation. This study was conducted in the United States, and, therefore, the findings

19
19
were very U.S.-centric. Studies conducted in other countries have resulted in different
leadership styles being espoused as the preferred approach.
Situational Approach
The final method Northouse (2019) examined is the situational approach, which
focuses on leadership in various situations. As opposed to the behavioral approach, which
looks at overall leadership, the situational approach posits leadership needs to adapt to
various situations for maximum effectiveness. Although the behavioral approach examines
concern for people and tasks, the situational approach looks at how a leader must toggle
between supportive and directive approaches after evaluating their followers’ needs in
various situations to match their needs. Directive behaviors of leaders include actions such as
setting timelines, giving directions, defining roles, and showing how those goals are to be
achieved. Directive behaviors are concerned with what is to be done, how it is to be
accomplished, and who is responsible for the tasks. Supportive behaviors are focused more
on relational aspects of the work (e.g., culture and climate). These behaviors are two-way
interactions that are more socioemotional in nature. Examples of supportive behaviors are
problem solving, praising, and listening. Like the behavioral approach, the situational
approach makes a matrix with directive behaviors on the x axis and supportive behaviors on
the y axis; however, in contrast to the behavioral approach, which is used to describe existing
leadership styles, the situational approach uses these quadrants in a fluid way, reacting to the
needs of the individual teams being led. Starting in Quadrant 4, which is for highly
committed teams but with low levels of competence, a leader would take a highly directive
and low supportive stance. For teams with slightly higher levels of competence but a lower
level of commitment, a leader would move into Quadrant 1, with high directive and high
supportive or “coaching” behavior. As the team develops, the leader would shift into
“supporting” behaviors in Quadrant 2, with high supportive and low directive behavior.

20
20
Finally, once a team is highly developed with high competence and high commitment, the
leader would transition to Quadrant 3 by delegating with low supportive and low directive
behavior. As the team’s needs change and shift, the leader would assess and move fluidly
from quadrant to quadrant.
A distinct strength of the situational approach to leadership is that it is easily applied
and prescriptive in nature (Northouse, 2019). A leader or coach can use the model to analyze
teams and apply leadership styles to specific contexts. Another strength is its focus on leader
flexibility and adaptability. Rather than viewing leadership as fixed, the situational approach
assists leaders in responding to organizations’ needs. Among the criticisms for this approach
is that it is not studied as widely as many of the other approaches and may not match
organizations’ group dynamics as much as it matches leadership styles when working with
individuals.
Transformational Leadership
Although previous sections addressed various approaches to leadership, Northouse
(2019) also provided four leadership styles. Leadership styles differ from approaches as they
are less focused on how a leader should lead and more descriptive of leaders’ various
mindsets. By examining four main leadership styles, a researcher examines the mindsets of
leaders to place them better into categories focused on how they lead and what they value.
Transformational leadership is focused on emotions, values, and ethics and how these
are used to make lasting change in followers or teams (Northouse, 2019). Transformational
leaders use methods to increase their team members’ intrinsic motivation to reach the desired
goals. Transformational leadership sits in contrast to transactional leadership, in which
followers perform tasks in exchange for something else (e.g., money, favors, praise). In
transformational leadership, each interaction between the leader and follower increases the
follower’s motivation and connection to the leader as they attempt to reach their full

21
21
potential. At times, transformational leaders also use characteristics of charismatic leaders,
who influence followers through setting high expectations, giving examples and role models,
and tying followers to the organization’s ideals. Transformational leadership sits on one side
of the leadership spectrum with laissez-faire leadership on the other side. Laissez-faire
leadership is nontransactional leadership in which the leader does not exert idealized
influence over those they lead.
Although laissez-faire leadership does not improve performance or relationships in an
organization, transformational leadership has an additive effect on transactional leadership,
resulting in performance beyond expectations (Northouse, 2019). Transformational
leadership combines four elements to achieve this effect: (a) idealized influence, (b)
inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration.
Idealized influence is the leader acting as a role model, providing a model followers can
attempt to attain. Inspirational motivation invites followers to become part of the
organization’s shared vision by communicating high expectations and goals. Intellectual
stimulation allows followers space to be creative and innovative. It also invites challenging
conversations about themselves, the leader, and the organization. Finally, individualized
consideration keeps the focus on each follower and their needs, not just the organization’s
needs. By pairing these four together with the base of transactional leadership, outcomes
beyond expectations may be achieved.
Transformational leadership has many strengths—it has been studied widely, it
appeals instinctively to many people, and it centers followers’ needs (Northouse, 2019). It
also has been researched and shown to be effective for reaching desired outcomes (Yukl &
Mahsud, 2010); however, it is not without criticisms, as it lacks clarity of implementation,
can appear to be a personality trait rather than a skill that can be learned, and may be focused
more on social groups compared to organizations and corporations. Hesitancy also exists

22
22
about the potential to abuse transformational leadership with a “cult of personality.” Of
special note to this research would be how transformational leadership plays into the leader’s
mental well-being. This area is not well known and has not been studied widely.
Authentic Leadership
Representing a new theory of leadership, authentic leadership focuses on leaders’
“authenticity” and “genuineness” and their leadership (Northouse, 2019). Three perspectives
define authentic leadership: (a) intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, and (c) developmental. The
intrapersonal perspective looks at what occurs inside leaders and whether they display
genuine leadership, are true to their convictions, and have a self-concept as a leader. The
interpersonal process incorporates leaders, followers, and their interactions together, because
authentic leadership is formed through a reciprocal interplay between leaders and followers.
The developmental process of authentic leadership acknowledges a leader can grow and
improve in their authentic leadership through time and interactions. It also recognizes life
events can be the catalyst for growth in authentic leaders (e.g., a career change).
Authentic leaders exhibit four main traits: (a) self-awareness, (b) internalized moral
perspective, (c) balanced processing, and (d) relational transparency (Northouse, 2019). Self-
awareness encompasses everything from how leaders view themselves and their leadership to
core identities, values, and goals. It also refers to how in-tune leaders are with their emotions.
Internalized moral perspective refers to how leaders know what they stand for and how they
use that knowledge to guide actions, even when influenced by outside pressures. This
regulatory process limits who is allowed to influence the leader. Balanced processing refers
to leaders’ ability to take in diverse perspectives and data sets to make informed decisions.
Relational transparency refers to leaders openly showing who they are to those with whom
they interact. This also can involve showing all parts of themselves, such as showing

23
23
vulnerability and making genuine connections. Confidence, hope, optimism, and resilience
are four positive psychological attributes that have been linked with authentic leaders.
One key strength of authentic leadership is its focus on the moral perspective.
Especially when looking at educational leaders, moral imperatives hold weight. For this
reason, in this research, authentic leadership played a key role. Also, as authentic leadership
generally comes from a major life event, this research on leaders in the aftermath of the
COVID-19 pandemic is of note. Finally, as the core values of authentic leadership can be
fostered over time, authentic leadership also played a larger role in this research. With that
said, research on authentic leadership is not as well developed as many of the other
leadership styles; thus, it is harder to find a wide range of research on the topic, especially
within the context of the post-COVID-19 landscape.
Servant Leadership
Servant leadership focuses solely on the leader and their actions. Key elements of a
servant leader are empathy and attentiveness to followers and putting followers’ needs first
while leading with strong ethics (Northouse, 2019). Although the roots of servant leadership
go back far into history, servant leadership presents is challenging to conceptualize because it
changes in various contexts. One theory identifies seven servant leader behaviors: (a)
conceptualizing, (b) emotional healing, (c) putting followers first, (d) helping followers grow
and succeed, (e) behaving ethically, (f) empowering, and (g) creating value for the
community (Northouse, 2019). Conceptualizing refers to leaders understanding the
organization at a deeper level to allow for more informed decision making. Emotional
healing is understanding and adapting to followers’ various needs. Putting followers first is
straightforward in its explanation yet is the most prevalent trait of a servant leader. Helping
followers grow and succeed builds upon the moral imperative to help every person reach
their fullest potential. Behaving ethically emphasizes making the right decisions on the path

24
24
to success and not compromising or giving in to pressure. Empowering puts the focus on
followers and not only gives them autonomy but also entrusts them to make decisions for the
organization in the way they handle decisions. Finally, creating value for the community
showcases servant leaders’ desire to give to those they serve and to leave a mark in the
community. Servant leaders will look for ways the organization can better serve and meet the
community’s needs.
The key strength of servant leadership is how it centers altruism and ethics in every
facet of leadership, which many other styles of leadership may neglect. It also recognizes this
style of leadership is not applicable to every setting, but, when applicable, it can result in
positive outcomes. The leading critique of servant leadership is the difficulty in placing it into
a theoretical framework due to the style’s highly individualized nature. Another critique is
that “servant leader” is highly prescriptive in nature and implies good leaders must put others
first. For this research, this latter critique is of note.
Although the previous section discussed leadership types and styles, Marzano et al.
(2005) examined the various traits of leaders within schools that lead to student academic
achievement. By examining over 62 studies and 2,802 schools, the authors computed the
correlation between principals’ leadership behavior and student academic achievement to
be .25. They then used a meta-analysis to discover the correlation between those behaviors
and students’ academic achievement. The five behaviors or traits with the highest correlation
to student achievement were situational awareness (.33), flexibility (.28), discipline (.27),
outreach (.27), and monitoring/evaluating (.27). Although these five behaviors or traits rated
highest for correlating most closely with increased student achievement, the authors also
noted almost all 21 traits were linked with increases in student achievement. Situational
awareness refers to leaders’ ability to notice and use the details and underlying movements in
a school to help address current and potential problems. Flexibility refers to leaders’ ability to

25
25
adapt their leadership quickly to the school’s needs. Discipline refers to addressing student
behaviors before they create disruptions in the classroom. Outreach is the extent to which
leaders are an advocate and spokesperson for the school to the wider community. Finally,
monitoring and evaluating involves being immersed constantly in examining the
effectiveness of current practices and how they relate to student achievement.
Although Marzano et al. (2005) addressed individual leaders’ actions, they also
addressed the formation and use of an effective leadership team, laying out a 5-step process
for developing effective school leadership. First, a strong leadership team in the school can
be developed by crafting a purposeful community. A purposeful community is defined as
“one with the collective efficacy and capability to develop and use assets to accomplish goals
that matter to all community members through agreed-upon processes” (Marzano et al., 2005,
p. 99). Next, leadership must be distributed throughout the team, making school improvement
a joint endeavor for the team rather than resting on one person. The third step is to select the
“right work.” The right work is defined as choosing actions with the leadership team that are
proven to have the greatest positive impact on student achievement and making those the
priority. After the priority is chosen, the order of magnitude of the work must be examined.
First-order change refers to changes that are perceived as extensions of the past, fit within the
current paradigm, and can be accomplished with the team’s existing skill set. Second-order
change is considered a break from the past, conflicts with current paradigms, and may require
acquisition of new knowledge and skills. Finally, the management style must be matched to
the order of magnitude of the change initiative.
Although leadership in the traditional sense has been studied widely, there is a gap in
the interplay between leadership and leaders’ mental health. Much research has been on
leadership styles and approaches because they affect outcomes for the organization but not

26
26
necessarily on how various leadership approaches affect leaders. These issues are
compounded when leadership styles and expectations are changing and adapting constantly.
Changing Leadership
As education continues to change and adapt to students’ varied needs, leaders,
leadership styles, and demands on educational leaders also change. Due to these demands,
modern-day educational leadership is shifting from managerial style leadership to
instructional leadership while providing necessary social supports for the success of all
students (Grubb & Flessa, 2006). Although the purpose of education in the past was not for
every person to be educated to equally high standards, in the modern world, an equity
approach to education raises expectations for schools and leaders (Goldring & Schuermann,
2009). Modern-day educational leaders face higher levels of accountability, the need to be
well versed in data analysis implementation, and the need to function as a central community
hub for engagement and participation. Grubb and Flessa (2006) spoke of the idea of the “hero
principal” as one who could take on all these varied expectations to manage a school
effectively. The authors showed how the role of educational leaders has shifted toward more
distributed leadership with multiple leaders who have specialized leadership taking on tasks
in a collaborative manner. Leaders who refuse to abandon the role of hero principal may face
added work-related stressors and put themselves in danger of burning out under the high level
of stress and the demands placed on today’s educational leaders (Friedman, 2002).
Crisis Leadership
Although school leaders face high levels of stress and demands daily, these stressors
expanded exponentially during the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting school closures.
School leaders of all levels were faced with ever-changing protocols, demands, and crises
with few relevant precedents from which to draw (Harris, 2020). Crisis leadership can be
viewed as a double-edged sword, providing both challenges and opportunities. Fernandez and

27
27
Shaw (2020) highlighted three leadership styles that can be useful during a crisis to help
manage the challenges and support a cycle of improvement after the crisis: (a) servant
leadership can be used to improve involvement and collaboration, (b) distributed leadership
can be used to improve the quality of decision making, and (c) adaptive leadership can be
used to help leaders emerge from a crisis better equipped to face the next challenge. By
responding to present challenges and taking an adaptive approach, crisis leadership allows
leaders to connect with those they lead, distribute leadership and resources effectively, and
communicate plans, goals, and information clearly. For modern-day educational leaders,
crisis leadership is considered an essential leadership skill (Harris, 2020). Additional research
is needed on the effect of crisis leadership on leaders and on developing best practices and
plans for crisis leadership.
Job-Related Stressors
History of Administrator Stress
Stress is an inevitable component of an educational administrator’s job. Even prior to
the pandemic, educational leadership was considered a highly stressful career (Cooley &
Shen, 2003; Grubb & Flessa, 2006; Robinson & Shakeshaft, 2016). Numerous studies, dating
back to the 1980s, have investigated the stressors educational administrators face.
Historically, the most prevalent stressors administrators have faced have been state and
federal mandates, finances, time management, poor working conditions, overload, conflict,
role ambiguity, and relationships with the community, supervisors, and subordinates
(Armenta & Reno, 1997; Bailey et al., 1987; Friedman, 2002; Gmelch & Gates, 1998;
Robinson & Shakeshaft, 2016; Williamson & Campbell, 1987). Expectations of educational
administrators have increased over time, resulting in increased stress. Carr (2003) labeled the
superintendency the toughest job in the United States because obligations of superintendents
are complex and wide ranging. Superintendents have been expected to lead their

28
28
organizations to excellence in often politically charged environments (Fuller et al., 2003;
Robinson & Shakeshaft, 2017). Principals also are expected to be dynamic instructional
leaders who lead complex change initiatives quickly and solve problems reaching far beyond
the educational scope (Friedman, 2002; Fullan, 2001; Grubb & Flessa, 2006).
Research has identified the seriousness of stress for educational administrators
(DeMatthews et al., 2021; Harris & Jones, 2020; Koch et al., 1982; Mahfouz, 2020; Wells &
Klocko, 2018). The impact of job-related stressors on administrators has been shown to
include burnout, exhaustion, high levels of turnover, challenges with physical and mental
health, and difficulty with relationships (Armenta & Reno, 1997; DeMatthews et al., 2021;
Federici et al., 2012).
Although educational administrators’ stress has been the focus of several studies,
there has been very little literature connecting administrator stress to administrator mental
wellness. Wells (2016) stated educational leaders deal with chronic levels of stress and
suggested mindfulness strategies to overcome it. Robinson and Shakeshaft (2013) studied
female ex-superintendents who decided to exit the superintendency due to poor health and
well-being. Weber et al. (2005) investigated the early retirement of principals due to stress-
associated disease, including cardiovascular issues, psychiatric/psychosomatic and depressive
disorders. Sharp and Walter (2004) investigated superintendents’ declining physical and
mental health through superintendent storytelling.
During and Post-Pandemic Administrator Stress
The COVID-19 pandemic brought with it new job-related stressors for educational
administrators and likely exacerbated the stress levels educational leaders traditionally have
experienced (Brackett et al., 2020). Throughout the pandemic, administrators’ roles evolved
and expanded to include navigating challenges that emerged as a result (Clifford &
Coggshall, 2021). New responsibilities have included crisis management, including decision

29
29
making in uncertain stressful situations and communicating with highly politicized groups
(Steiner & Woo, 2021).
Studies are underway to understand the pandemic’s full impact on administrators, and
surveys have revealed several significant issues warranting further investigation. Steiner and
Woo (2021) highlighted three major sources of stress among administrators that evolved
because of the pandemic, including (a) managing conditions related to the pandemic (e.g.,
shifting instructional models and implementation of COVID-19 mitigation strategies); (b)
administrative duties, such as managing staffing, illness, attendance tracking, and scheduling;
and (c) supporting the social and emotional well-being of teachers and students. Concern
over administrator burnout has emerged as another theme. The National Association of
Secondary School Principals (NASSP, 2020) revealed working conditions during the
pandemic dramatically accelerated surveyed principals’ plans to leave the profession. In a
March 2021 survey, 72% of principals reported the stress associated with their jobs was a
major or moderate concern (Kaufman et al., 2021).
Mental Health and Wellness in Educational Settings
Medical professionals have expressed concern about the social-emotional well-being
of students, resulting in an increased focus on developing and refining systems of support to
increase student wellness and prevent or reduce adverse factors resulting in the poor mental
health of students (Whitaker & Lopez-Perry, 2022). At the same time, less attention has been
paid to administrators’ mental health and well-being; as such, there is a gap in the literature
related to how to support the mental health of those in educational settings while maintaining
leaders’ emotional health. Without strong supports in place for leaders in educational
settings, school leaders may face adverse effects from the amount of stress they experience
daily.

30
30
A wealth of research exists on the effects of stress on students who experienced
school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Students had to manage distress, both
emotionally and physically, during the pandemic that may have lasting effects (Viner et al.,
2022). The pandemic’s long-term effects are not yet known, but what is well researched is the
adverse effects experienced and well documented from students’ perspectives. Sixty-three
percent of students reported having an emotional meltdown, 43% reported having an anxiety
or panic attack, 22% reported 3 or more days where they could not participate in school due
to mental health concerns, and 19% of students reported suicidal thoughts (Whitaker &
Lopez-Perry, 2022). These statistics show the drastic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
students’ mental health and justify an increased focus on social–emotional support in schools
for students in K–12 settings.
The COVID-19 pandemic also had distinct impacts on educators’ mental and
emotional health. Educators faced a revolutionizing of education in a short amount of time
with the various school closures and protocols placed on educational settings. Education is a
profession focused on serving and developing the capacity of all those placed in their care,
yet overnight, for some, the entire model of education shifted. Due to these increased
demands in novel formats, all during a global pandemic, the toll on educators’ mental health
is clear. One in four teachers reported they would leave the profession at the end of the 2021–
2022 school year, and a higher percentage of teachers reported job-related stressors and
burnout than the general population (Steiner & Woo, 2021). With the number of people
leaving the workforce, a shortage of teachers is being experienced still. Steiner and Woo
(2021) noted one key factor in retaining educators was support from administrators.
Studies have shown strong leadership is key to maintaining schools that have a clear
focus on mental and emotional health (Quinane et al., 2021; Steiner & Woo, 2021; Viner et
al., 2022; Whitaker & Lopez-Perry, 2022), but highly functioning organizations also need

31
31
leaders at the helm who are mentally well and can balance the exponential demands of
maintaining the mental health of those they lead while maintaining their own. When leaders
are not focused on maintaining their mental health, their decision making and leadership
styles can be adversely impacted. Left unchecked, these stressors can cause anxiety,
depression, interrupted sleep patterns, substance abuse, and, in some cases, personality
disorders for leaders (Barling & Clotier, 2017). When leaders experience these negative
impacts, they risk passing them down to those they lead. Conversely, when leaders focus on
their mental health, the trickle-down effects are evident in those they lead as well. Leaders
with secure working models of themselves and their mental health have been shown to be
more sensitive, caring, and responsive in caring for others (Davidovitz et al., 2007). With
links to leaders’ mental wellness, further research, especially in educational settings, is
needed on how to foster healthy and positive mental health practices for educational leaders
at all levels, from the school site to the superintendency (Fuller et al., 2003).
Resilience
Resilience is defined as the capacity to recover from and adjust to adverse situations
(Northouse, 2019). It is a quality that gives individuals the ability to adapt successfully in the
face of stress and bounce back in the face of adversity (Wu et al., 2013). Bandura (2006)
stated self-efficacy—an individual’s belief in their capabilities—can affect performance.
Skoch (2003) found a connection between resilience and self-efficacy. In challenging times,
resiliency serves as a protective factor, because people who believe they can produce desired
goals through their actions will have more incentive to persevere in the face of difficulties.
High levels of self-efficacy foster positive responses to stressors (Bai et al., 2017).
Resiliency plays a significant role in successful leadership (Skoch, 2003). Fortunately,
the literature suggests that although not all people are naturally resilient, resiliency is a
quality that can be cultivated in everyone. Simeon et al. (2007) found individuals who take

32
32
more risks and seek out rewards in healthy ways may have better adaptation skills than those
who avoid them. Allison (2012) argued fostering resilience in educational leaders begins with
making a choice to be resilient, which includes taking care of work-related business while
taking care of themselves. Resilient leaders can be coached to reflect on powerful questions
that elicit ideas about resilience and can move leaders toward resilient action.
Resiliency is an important factor in supporting school administrators’ overall mental
health and well-being. In a study of educational leaders, Allison (2012) found resilience and
happiness were related. Resilient leaders who intentionally engaged in personal renewal
through activities that revitalized them in emotional, physical, spiritual, and intellectual ways
generated the energy needed to accomplish the demanding work of school administrators.
Wells and Klocko (2018) offered mindfulness as a solution to foster resilience. They found
mindfulness was linked to effective leadership because it focuses on self-awareness, self-
regulation, compassion, listening, and other qualities of emotional intelligence.
Frameworks
Conceptual
Four Frame Model
Bolman and Deal’s (2007) four frame model offers a strategy for empowering
administrators to sort through job-related stressors in service of fostering mental health and
wellness. By sorting post-pandemic stressors into the four frames, leaders can become more
adaptive, thinking strategically about how to organize their team members and resources to
overcome challenges, thus becoming more resilient and reducing the levels of job-related
stress they are experiencing (see Figure 1).

33
33
Figure 1
The Conceptual Framework Model

Note. The conceptual framework highlights Bolman and Deal’s (2007) four frames for
sorting stressors experienced by educational leaders.

Bolman and Deal’s (2017) first frame is the political frame, which “views
organizations as roiling arenas, hosting ongoing contests arising from individual and group
interests” (p. 184). The pandemic shed light on issues of equity, necessitating a disruption
and discontinuation of historic practices no longer serving students well. As the pandemic
became politicized, with groups either for or against various restrictions and mandates,
schools were positioned in the middle, trying to provide high-quality education while
balancing competing views of the staff and community. School boards faced making
unprecedented decisions about how to best comply with changing regulations while
maintaining equity and public support. This interplay of power and decision making framed
schools against some community groups because agendas often were competing.
Collaborating with bargaining units, school boards, families, and community members to

34
34
codify new practices has continued to be a major source of post-pandemic stress for leaders.
Facing these stressors through a political frame will assist leaders in negotiating with these
groups to improve education for all.
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) second frame is the human resource frame, which
examines the intersection of the district as a system and the people within it. During the
COVID-19 pandemic, struggles in the human resource frame presented distinct challenges
for K–12 administrators and schools because many peoples’ basic needs were jeopardized
while they attempted to function and work. Schools faced staff shortages from resignations
and illness while navigating changing regulations and negotiations with bargaining units.
Managing relationships between employees and employers while providing for their safety
created tension on campuses. Ethical dilemmas were faced as some employees took
advantage of the situation for their personal gain, and performance evaluations were still
conducted (Laverdure & LeCompte, 2021). Finally, supporting staff in the face of the various
losses experienced created challenges, including mourning the death of colleagues or family
members, the loss of colleagues who left the profession, or how schools were run previously.
School administrators dealt with all these situations simultaneously and were required to
walk the tightrope of supporting staff while upholding the regulations and mandates leading
to sustainable organizations. Using the human resources frame allows leaders to consider the
human factor in overcoming stressors.
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) third frame is symbolic, which “focuses on how myth and
symbols help humans make sense of the chaotic, ambiguous world in which they live” (p.
236). During the pandemic, for many school districts, doors were shut for over a year.
Schools usually are places that serve and welcome the community, but access was denied due
to the pandemic (Laverdure & LeCompte, 2021). Administrators faced maintaining a sense of
community when contact was not recommended or allowed. Internally, a school generally

35
35
functions as a team, but the culture was affected by the various bargaining units and
negotiations that could pit employees against the employer. In a post-pandemic landscape,
experienced leaders have been hyper-aware of how much the world has changed.
Administrators have been tasked with bringing individuals back together in the service of
students. Leaders must remain optimistic that a more equitable and robust system can be built
moving forward. The symbolic frame helps leaders navigate the tension between sensitivity
to loss and optimism about the future by reimagining future possibilities.
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) final frame is the structural frame, which views
organizations as a factory where processes and people must work together to ensure smooth
operations. This frame positions problems as the tension between differentiation (how to
allocate work) and integration (how to coordinate various efforts). When a breakdown
occurs, the structural frame seeks to see who in the chain of command is responsible for
either not delegating properly, who is not performing their job effectively or what system or
protocol is not functioning at a high enough level. In the COVID-19 pandemic, school
administrators dealt with countless changes and protocols. Distance learning introduced a
novel format to deliver instruction to all students, not to mention equity issues ensuring
access to curriculum and technology (Harris, 2020). Complicating matters, absenteeism was
on the rise, and new laws and bills in California tasked schools with maintaining contact with
their student population even though they were not present physically on campus. Returning
to campus also presented new structural issues with transportation, hybrid schedules, contact
tracing, and supply chain shortages of items essential to staying compliant (e.g., meals,
plexiglass, masks, COVID-19 tests). All these new demands were added to an already
demanding job, but, in many cases, school administrators did not receive adequate training to
know how to handle these structural changes (Harris, 2020). Framing these stressors in terms
of a structural issue allows leaders to align resources and become more agile.

36
36
Adaptive Leadership
Although adaptive leadership is not part of the conceptual framework for this study, it
is the throughline connecting Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames because it is the process
leaders use to encourage others to overcome challenging problems. Adaptive leadership is
concerned with how people change and adjust to new circumstances and subsequently lead
others through change (Northouse, 2019). Because the concept of adaptive leadership takes a
systems perspective, it assumes the stressors people face are embedded in complicated yet
interconnected systems (Heifetz et al., 2009). Adaptive leaders can use Bolman and Deal’s
four frames to orient, organize, motivate, mobilize, and focus the attention of themselves and
others (Heifetz, 1998). Evaluating personal levels of stress, fostering resilience, and
deepening their sense of self-efficacy is critical for successful adaptive leadership (Fernandez
& Shaw, 2020).
Risk and Resiliency Factors
Diehl and Hay (2010) found resiliency and risk factors can serve as a filter through
which job-related stressors are translated and viewed. Stress levels can either increase or
decrease because of resiliency and risk factors. Because school administrators work in high-
stress environments, their sense of self-efficacy can either help to mitigate stressors or
exacerbate them. Administrators with high levels of self-efficacy generally experience higher
levels of mental wellness (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020).
Theoretical
Phenomenological Theory
Phenomenological theory is focused on individuals’ lived experiences, perceptions,
and feelings, defined as a way to seek reality from individuals’ narratives of their experiences
and feelings and to produce in-depth descriptions of the phenomenon (Ortamlarında et al.,
2015).

37
37
This study aimed to give voice to school administrators via a phenomenological
approach that collects and analyzes narratives to arrive at shared “truths” of participants’
experiences (Byrne, 2001). The COVID-19 pandemic brought with it a dramatic shift in
school administrators’ roles and responsibilities. Their experiences with shifting
responsibilities and job-related stressors during and after the pandemic have been largely
unexamined. What administrators saw, heard, and felt substantiates their perceptions and its
impact on their sense of self-efficacy and mental wellness.
This is an important research problem to explore for several reasons. First, the
literature has indicated a discrepancy between traditional job-related stressors experienced by
administrators prior to the pandemic and those experienced during and after the pandemic
(Harris, 2020). Research on educational administrators’ lived experiences during this time are
absent from the literature; however, rich descriptions of these experiences may add insight
into better mitigation of job-related stress for administrators leading during prolonged crisis
situations in the future. Second, hearing from administrators about their lived experiences
during this time, in their words, may inform support services and advocacy efforts promoting
the mental wellness of administrators. Finally, administrators’ experiences have the potential
to touch other school leaders’ lives to shed light on how administrators could be better
supported in the future. The themes and trends administrators used most often to adapt to and
overcome job-related stressors and promote overall mental wellness were analyzed from
these participants’ narratives.
This chapter was written jointly by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to
this project. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all
those listed.

38
38
Chapter Three: Methodology
The work of school administrators can be highly stressful. Much of this stress was
exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, during which time administrators took on roles and
responsibilities far outside the traditional administrative job description. For administrators to
lead well, they must maintain a high level of mental well-being despite multifaceted, job-
related pressures; yet, for K–12 administrators, simply naming the stressors brought on by the
pandemic has not been helpful enough in terms of mitigating stress and the effects of stress
on leaders’ mental health. Understanding leaders’ views and perceptions on this topic can
shed light on possible strategies for reducing job-related stress and supporting school and
district leaders’ wellness. Finally, it is important to understand and learn from effective
administrators’ use of strategies that helped them adapt to the challenges of day-to-day work
in the wake of the pandemic, build resilience, increase overall mental health, and lead a
balanced life in the face of adversity.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this phenomenological study was to identify what highly effective K–
12 administrators identified as job-related stressors, how they perceived the impact of these
stressors on their mental health, and how they subsequently adapted and built resilience in a
post-pandemic landscape. In Southern California and across the nation, educational leaders
faced unprecedented scenarios as well as unfavorable and unworkable solutions. At the same
time, some educational leaders thrived in this difficult atmosphere. In addition to displaying
effective leadership during this period of pandemic recovery, they rose above challenges and
led their districts to become stronger than they were pre-pandemic. By examining highly
effective administrators’ mindsets, behaviors, and responses to stressors, this study explored
possible resiliency factors that could lead to mental wellness in the face of adversity and
analyzed these factors through Bolman and Deal’s (2017) framework for adaptive leadership.

39
39
These results could yield important recommendations to help school systems maintain and
retain K–12 administrators.
Research Questions
The following research questions guide this qualitative study:
1. How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern California describe new
job-related stressors that emerged in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern California describe the
impact of their jobs on their mental health in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic?
3. In what ways have K–12 school administrators in Southern California responded
to the job-related challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. What resiliency or mental-wellness factors emerged from the reflections and/or
experiences of K–12 school administrators in Southern California?
Selection of the Population
This study focused on K–12 school site administrators in Los Angeles County
considered “highly effective” as demonstrated by their pre- and post-pandemic experience in
administration and two or more of the following traits: (a) evidence of leading a successful
school or school district; (b) articles, papers, or materials written, published, or presented at
education conferences; (c) membership in professional associations in their field (e.g.,
Association for California School Administrators or the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development) or holding an educational doctorate; and (d) recognition by their
peers. I chose the criteria purposefully to target K–12 administrators who displayed the traits,
habits, and mindsets we hoped to study. Rather than select a broader sample of administrators
with varying levels of effectiveness, this approach enabled us to explore the traits, habits, and
mindsets of highly effective leaders other administrators can learn from and emulate.

40
40
The sampling strategy for this study made use of convenience, snowball, and
purposeful sampling to identify research participants. Convenience sampling supports this
research because there was no existing database or previously collected data that could
identify administrators who met the study criteria. In addition, snowball sampling was useful
because initial participants could refer fellow administrators who fit the criteria (Maxwell,
2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). We combined both strategies with purposeful sampling,
which is used when there are unique attributes needed for an interview or for other qualitative
measures (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This approach ensured the selection of administrators
who displayed the traits of highly effective and mentally healthy leaders.
Instrumentation
The study explored K–12 administrators’ shared experiences and themes around
mindsets and strategies positioning them for success (e.g., high levels of self-efficacy,
positive responses to stressors; Bai et al., 2017). To examine this phenomenon, we analyzed
and coded stressors using the four frames of adaptive leadership: (a) structural, (b) human
resource, (c) political, and (d) symbolic (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The purpose of a
phenomenological study is to seek and represent reality from participants’ narratives to
describe their experiences accurately and in depth (Byrne, 2001; Ortamlarında et al., 2015).
We used semistructured interviews to uncover themes in participants’ lived experiences.
Post-Pandemic Stressors
The COVID-19 pandemic was a global event that impacted the lives of every public-
school administrator in California and around the world. Prior to the pandemic, educational
leadership was considered a highly stressful career (Cooley & Shen, 2003; Grubb & Flessa,
2006; Robinson & Shakeshaft, 2016). Because administrators were exposed to many new
stressors because of the pandemic, this study sought to understand how these new
post-pandemic stressors impacted administrators’ mental wellness (see Table 1).

41
41
Table 1
Summary of Assumed Stressors/Responses and Method of Assessment
Assumed stressors/responses Interview questions
By the very nature of the job, a
career as an administrator is
inherently stressful.

Administrators need to have
methods to respond to job-
related stressors to stay mentally
well.
How would you describe the stressors, if any, of
being an administrator before the COVID-19
pandemic?

Think back to March 13, 2020, when schools across
the state were closed because of the pandemic.
Describe the experience of leadership during and
after that time.
Tell me about a decision you made during or after
that time, if any, that you are proud of.
What job-related challenges, if any, did you
experience during or after that time?
What joys, if any, did you experience throughout the
pandemic?
What struggles, if any, were new to you during the
COVID-19 pandemic?
In your opinion, what are the top five job-related
stressors experienced by educational administrators
in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic?
How would you characterize the difference, if any,
with being an administrator pre-pandemic versus
post-pandemic?
Describe how, if at all, your leadership style has
changed because of the pandemic.

42
42
Adaptive Leadership Stressors and Responses
Although general questions were asked to describe the stressors experienced, all
responses were coded according to Bolman and Deal’s (2017) framework for adaptive
leadership. To ensure each area was addressed, additional questions related to each
dimension of the framework were posed (see Table 2). By asking about each framework
dimension, this study helped to construct a more complete picture of the stressors and
responses experienced post-pandemic.

Table 2
Summary of Adaptive Leadership Stressors/Responses and Method of Assessment
Assumed structural stressors/responses Interview questions
Administrators need to have strong systems in
place to allocate work and manage stress.
Describe in your own words a system
that was created in response to the
pandemic that caused stress (if any) in
your work life.
Describe in detail a system that you put
in place (if any) that you believe made
your organization run smoothly during
the COVID-19 pandemic.
Assumed human resource stressors/responses
Administrators need to effectively manage the
people in their organizations to manage
stress.
From your perspective, what was the
most difficult part of managing the
people under your supervision during
the COVID-19 pandemic?

43
43
What do you believe were the most
important steps (if any) that you took
to support the people you supervise
during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Assumed political stressors/responses
Administrators need to navigate individual
and group interests to manage stress.
Describe the tension (if any) that you
experienced due to the perceived
politicized nature of the COVID-19
pandemic.
What steps (if any) did you take to
mitigate these stressors (if
experienced)?
Assumed symbolic stressors/responses
Administrators need to create and maintain a
positive culture to manage stress.
What challenges, if any, did you
experience while helping maintain a
positive culture during the COVID-19
pandemic?
What steps or strategies did you use to
help maintain a positive culture during
the COVID-19 pandemic?
Describe how these changed/evolved (if
at all) after returning to in-person
learning.

44
44
Self-Efficacy and Responses
Educational leaders’ self-efficacy was assessed by examining how leaders perceived
the effect of the stressors they experienced during and after the pandemic on their leadership
and mental wellness (see Table 3). Bandura (2006) stated an individual’s belief in their
capabilities can affect performance. Semistructured interview questions were designed to
engage the administrators in self-reflection on their confidence levels and the perceived
impact of their confidence levels on performance. Because there is no one way to measure
self-efficacy and because it is highly personal, rich descriptions and lines of questioning were
used to portray administrators’ experiences accurately.

Table 3
Summary of Self-Efficacy and Method of Assessment
Assumed self-efficacy/responses Interview questions
Administrators need to have high
levels of self-efficacy to feel
successful and mentally well.
First, tell me about your background in education
(background/demographic)
How did you become interested in the field of
education?
Where did you get your educational degree and
certification?
How long have you worked in the field?
What roles or positions have you held?
How long have you been in this district?
What is your official job title?

45
45
What impact, if any, did the COVID-19 pandemic
have on your own perception of yourself or your
abilities as an administrator?
In what ways, if any, did you grow?
In what ways, if any, do you feel less sure?
Describe a time during the pandemic when you felt
like you were being effective/successful at your job.
What effect, if any, did this have on your mental
health?
Describe a time during the pandemic when you felt
like you were not being effective/successful at your
job.
What effect, if any, did this have on your mental
health?
What steps, if any, did you take to remedy this?
What effect, if any, did this have on your mental
health?

Resilience and Responses
Resilience refers to the capacity to recover from and adapt to stressors successfully
(Northouse, 2019b). Educational leaders’ resilience was measured by how they adjusted and
adapted to adversity. Understanding how administrators develop and enhance resilience is
essential to promoting healthy coping mechanisms and mitigating maladaptive stress
responses (Wu et al., 2013).

46
46
Semistructured interview questions were designed to engage administrators in self-
reflection on their resilience levels and the impact of their resilience levels on mental
wellness (see Table 4). Because the understanding of resilience is still in an early stage (Wu
et al., 2013), and because resilience is individualized, lines of questioning and detailed
descriptions were used to describe the resilience factors administrators experienced
accurately.

Table 4
Summary of Resilience and Method of Assessment
Assumed resilience/response Interview questions
Administrators need to have high levels of
resilience to persevere through
challenging situations to feel successful
and mentally well.
Describe a time, if any, when you perceived
that you responded well to stressors
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
What allowed you to respond the way that
you did?
What did you learn from this situation?
Were you able to apply this method to other
situations?
Describe a time, if any, when you perceived
that you did not respond well to stressors
during the COVID-19 pandemic (if any).
What caused you to respond the way that
you did?
What did you learn from this situation?

47
47
Were you able to apply this method to other
situations?
Describe routines, procedures, and systems
that you have in place, if any, to help
maintain your own mental wellness.
(Behavior, coping behaviors/wellness)
What would be your ideal way of coping
with the stress, if any, of being a leader
through the pandemic?
Describe a time, if any, when you felt
supported as an administrator during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Describe in what form the support was
provided.
What was it about this situation that made
you feel supported?
To the best of your knowledge, describe
what mental health and wellness supports
administrators have access to.
Imagine that you are at a meeting with other
administrators around California. The
topic is supporting mental health for
administrators post-pandemic. What
would you suggest as an ideal solution for

48
48
addressing the mental health and wellness
of administrators?
Some administrators reported the pandemic
impacted their mental health. What
impact, if any, did job-related stressors
have on your mental health after the
COVID-19 pandemic?

Credibility and Trustworthiness
At every step of the process, we made a concerted effort to ensure validity and
reliability were checked and verified. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), validity and
reliability “are concerns that can be approached through careful attention to a study’s
conceptualization and the way in which the data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted, and
the way in which the findings are presented” (p. 238). Additionally, Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) underscored the importance of data triangulation to improve reliability. Qualitative
researchers also have used the terms “credibility” and “trustworthiness” to represent the
concepts of “reliability” and “validity” more accurately in qualitative studies (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). To increase the credibility and trustworthiness of this phenomenological study,
a three-pronged approach to triangulation was employed. First, qualitative data and themes
that emerged from the semistructured interviews were coded, and we independently cross
checked the data and themes that emerged. Second, we employed member checks so
interview participants could review preliminary findings and provide feedback on both
accuracy and authenticity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The final level of triangulation was the
inclusion of rich, detailed quotes from the semistructured interviews. With these quotes,
readers are presented with the same low-inference data to which we were privy.

49
49
Data Collection
Following the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approval, participants were solicited securely via email through the University of Southern
California. We provided each participant a formal information sheet explaining the purpose
and topic of the study as well as participants’ rights and safeguards. Upon receipt of each
participant’s consent, we provided a secure Zoom link to each individual participant for an
interview at a mutually agreed upon and convenient time.
We conducted and recorded each interview via Zoom with participants’ consent. Each
interview was under 1 hour. After each interview, we uploaded the audio file to a secure
transcription service for confidential transcription. To ensure accuracy and confidentiality,
we reviewed and anonymized each transcription prior to inclusion in the study. During this
process, and to the greatest extent possible, we removed all identifying information from the
transcript and assigned pseudonyms to participants and to school and district locations.
Data Analysis
Before conducting the interviews, we used the review of literature from Chapter 2 to
develop a priori codes and to establish a draft codebook. This codebook was color coded and
linked to the literature. Upon receiving the transcripts, my research partner and I analyzed
each transcript independently and used the codebook to assign codes to various key transcript
segments. These codes were refined and re-evaluated with each successive transcript
analysis. After completion of the transcript coding, I used the phenomenological analysis
method (Ortamlarında et al., 2015) to reduce data phenomenologically through
horizontalizing (listing all relevant expressions), reducing expressions to invariant groups,
and then clustering the groups to create themes. I then compared the themes to multiple data
sources to ensure validity.

50
50
Summary
This study used a phenomenological approach to collecting qualitative data from
semistructured interviews. The data collected from highly effective administrators in
California public schools were analyzed to target the four research questions: (a) stressors
administrators encountered in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) the impact of
administrative jobs on administrators’ mental health; (c) how administrators responded to
post-pandemic, job-related challenges; and (d) what resiliency or mental wellness factors
emerged from the reflections and/or experience of administrators in Southern California.
These findings are presented in Chapter 4, with a discussion of findings in Chapter 5.
1. How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern California describe new
job-related stressors that emerged in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern California describe the
impact of their jobs on their mental health in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic?
3. In what ways have K–12 school administrators in Southern California responded
to the job-related challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. What resiliency or mental-wellness factors emerged from the reflections and/or
experiences of K–12 school administrators in Southern California?
This chapter was written jointly by the authors listed, reflecting the team approach to
this project. The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by all
those listed.

51
51
Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this study was to use a phenomenological approach to describe middle
school administrators’ true lived experiences in Los Angeles County (Ortamlarında et al.,
2015). Phenomenologists believe knowledge cannot be reduced to numbers or statistics;
instead, truth comes from life experiences (Byrne, 2001). Phenomenological approaches
collect and analyze narratives to arrive at shared “truths” of the experience; therefore,
whenever practical, respondents’ exact quotes were used. By gaining a deeper understanding
of their experiences and strategies, key indicators and features that helped them to adapt and
build resilience in a post-pandemic landscape were distilled to inform other educational
administrators. The first two research questions helped guide this study by asking middle
school administrators to describe their stressors and how their stressors impacted their mental
health. The last two research questions then asked them to reflect on how they responded to
these stressors to foster resilience and mental wellness in the face of stressors after the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Participants
All five participants in this study met the criteria by being current middle school
administrators in Los Angeles County with educational administration experience both pre-
and post-pandemic. They also were recognized by their peers and had led a successful middle
school as evidenced by state or national awards, test scores, or recommendations by those
who supervised them or worked at or above their same level. All five participants, after being
recommended by either those who supervised them (e.g., past or present superintendents or
assistant superintendents), were solicited by email about their willingness to participate in the
study. Of the five participants, three identified as male and two identified as female. In total,
they represented experiences from four separate districts in Los Angeles County. The district
with two middle school administrator participants had one male and one female (see Table 5).

52
52
Table 5
Interview Participants
Participant pseudonym Gender District Administrative experience
Nancy Female District A 5 years
Ryan Male District A 13 years
Brian Male District B 7 years
Nathan Male District C 16 years
Alice Female District D 10 years

Results
The research study results are presented in this section and are organized by research
question. For each question examined, a review of the relevant literature is provided along
with a preview of the overall results. Results are then presented as found through interviews
with participants with themes that emerged from those questions. Finally, a summary of
results as connected to each research question is presented, with an overall summary in the
conclusion. The research questions examined and answered in this study were:
1. How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern California describe new
job-related stressors that emerged in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern California describe the
impact of their jobs on their mental health in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic?
3. In what ways have K–12 school administrators in Southern California responded
to the job-related challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic?

53
53
4. What resiliency or mental-wellness factors emerged from the reflections and/or
experiences of K–12 school administrators in Southern California?
Results for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked: How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern
California describe new job-related stressors that emerged in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic? The educational field, and especially leadership within it, is a highly stressful field
(Cooley & Shen, 2003; Grubb & Flessa, 2006; Robinson & Shakeshaft, 2016). The purpose
of this research question was to better understand middle school administrators’ lived
experiences and their perceptions of stressors that emerged in their daily work lives and to
represent how, if at all, the landscape of educational leadership had changed in recent years
(Friedman, 2002; Fullan, 2001; Grubb & Flessa, 2006). I divided responses into four
categories based on Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames. Within each frame, separate
themes were identified via five participants’ responses about their individual stressors. I
present these responses and themes next, organized according to the four frames.
Political Frame
The political frame “views organizations as rolling arenas, hosting ongoing contests
arising from individual and group interests” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 184). Stressors falling
into this category revolve around the tension between sometimes competing groups or ideas
about pathways forward. Steiner and Woo (2021) stated maintaining productive dialogue
with highly politicized groups can be a major source of stress for educational administrators.
Two distinct themes surfaced in the political frame: (a) pressures of returning to high
academic achievement and (b) competing ideas of school safety in the wake of the COVID-
19 pandemic.

54
54
Returning to High Academic Achievement
Schools exist to prepare students for the future and to teach them the skills needed to
enter a global workforce in the most efficient way possible (Baker, 2021). When the
pandemic hit, this focus shifted as schools across the country transitioned to online learning.
Participants in this study mentioned pressures to also perform academically came to the
forefront when returning to in-person learning. For Nancy, she worked in a school with a
high number of unduplicated pupils. These students were particularly impacted by the
pandemic and, in returning to school, the focus turned to closing existing achievement gaps.
Steiner and Woo (2021) found female administrators or administrators serving in high-
poverty schools were more likely to face job-related stressors. Nancy discussed the pressure
as expressed to her in questions from district personnel: “Everything revolved around testing
data. What do we do? Are you meeting your benchmarks? Where are you on the dashboard?
What more can I do to help the kids really . . . close the [achievement] gap.”
Brian worked in a high-performing, flagship school for the district that had received a
national award for achievement recently. In this school, the pressure was not to close gaps so
much as it was to maintain high achievement. The pressure to continue to provide for
students was evident in his responses:
We always strive for excellence here on our campus. We strive for, I don't want to say
perfection, but we want to make sure that we're providing the very best for our
students and for the community. . . . You still feel that sense of urgency, to be a top
school, to get top scores, and to continue to . . . have great programs.
Continuing implementation and carrying on with programs that had been started pre-
pandemic caused stress in his professional life. Pressures like these reflect the levels of
accountability modern-day administrators face (Brackett et al., 2020; Goldring &
Schuermann, 2009; Grubb & Flessa, 2006).

55
55
For Alice, political stress came from the desire for things to “get back to normal.” She
expressed there were competing ideas about what normal should look like. District officials
looked to test scores and put pressure on those scores to maintain where they were; however,
Alice pointed out, “kids are humans . . . they’ve had a rough few years,” to illustrate the
tension between the district’s view of “normal” and her idea of normal. She stated, “I want
my kids to have as normal of an experience back at school as possible so that they have
experiences that they haven't had for the last 2 years.” The tension between those two ideas
caused stress in her professional life and reflects the cycle of “crisis leadership” (Fernandez
& Shaw, 2020; Harris, 2020).
Nathan spoke about the disappointment that came with lost momentum due to the
pandemic. He spoke about how excited the staff was to see the results of their labor that year
on state testing. Work had been invested in student achievement, recruitment, and retention,
but, when the pandemic hit, many of those measures did not show the growth that had taken
place. He said:
A lot of our time was spent working on instruction, working on helping to build the
culture of the school academically. . . . We had done great work all the way up to that
point. And then everybody just hit a wall.
Overcoming that sense of loss in the work started pre-pandemic caused stress as did finding a
way to reinvigorate the culture and the staff.
Competing Ideas of School Safety in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Returning to campus also came with a return to discourse on the best ways to keep
students and staff safe, both physically and emotionally. Each participant mentioned COVID-
19 protocols as causing stress in their work lives, which aligns with Robinson and Shakeshaft
(2016) who also cited changing regulations as one of the top sources of stress for educational
administrators. For some administrators like Brian, there was little pushback. He shared,

56
56
“We'd see issues with perhaps a staff member that had their masks on too low or something
like that. We'd address it with them, and they were very cordial about it, very professional.
Politics weren't involved at that time.” The other four participants mentioned more tension
between county protocols and ideas among staff. All four participants mentioned competing
ideas about vaccines and vaccination status for staff and for students. Ryan mentioned
tension over vaccines even resulted in the school district getting involved because staff
members were being dishonest about their vaccination status. This blend of personal and
professional beliefs caused a lack of trust and respect to occur.
Nancy also mentioned the staff was divided when she first came to the school, so she
had to focus on relationship building throughout the pandemic. She said, “I had a very
divided staff. They were divided on multiple issues: educational philosophy, best practices,
which union members they supported. It became something that was very political.” This
division with the staff spilled over into competing beliefs regarding vaccines. Some staff had
issues being in the same room with staff members who were not vaccinated. She responded:
I had to say, “I'm sorry, but that's none of your business. That's a choice and you can't
come after her about that.” I explicitly sent out an email to my teachers when we
came back about kindness and respect. You can't ask your neighbor teacher if they're
vaccinated, it's not your place to do that. . . . It became a big deal.
She went on to talk about how this sharing of ideas and beliefs also tied together with various
social movements occurring at the time, such as the Black Lives Matter movement. To try to
create harmony among staff, she would ask staff members, “How does this relate to the
classroom?” Managing concerns like these as well as performance is one of four themes
found to lead to administrator burnout (Friedman, 2002).
Nathan and Alice shared many similarities in the stressors they experienced politically
related to school safety. Both shared there were competing priorities between the county and

57
57
the parents. Nathan stated, “It was one of those typical ‘boots on the ground’ [situations] and
felt like we had a different experience than the people who were making the decisions.” This
lack of control can have a negative impact on stress and conceptions of self-efficacy (Diehl &
Hay, 2010). Alice shared about the difficulty of complying with county protocols when
parents would not inform the school in a timely manner when their child who had since tested
positive had been present on campus. “Parents' priorities are different than the public health
priorities,” she stated. They also both shared struggles with school safety due to the proximity
of their schools to other organizations or counties. Alice shared about a teacher who worked
at her school and at the high school district, which returned to in-person learning earlier than
her school did. When the teacher shared with students that it was going to be okay, some
parents took this statement as minimizing the pandemic or denying it, even though the
teacher meant it to be a soothing and reassuring statement to calm students who may be
anxious about returning to in-person learning. Nathan’s school was close to the boundary of a
neighboring county with vastly different COVID regulations than Los Angeles County,
causing confusion and conflict over regulations. He said:
We have lots of teachers, myself included, who live in [a neighboring county] and the
rules are totally different [there] than they were in L.A. County. Part of the challenge
was, as people were trying to compare, “Well, this school does this and the school
does that.” When I would drive back and forth, I live 5 miles away, but it was like
people from over here would go over [there] so they could go out to dinner. As soon
as you came back to L.A. County, you had to put your mask back on. So, it was really
a stressor. But, my job is to implement what I'm told to do. I'm not a policymaker. I
got to do what I'm told to do. They keep paying me checks, and they write me checks.
I keep cashing them. So, I better do it.

58
58
Stressors placed on administrators by outside forces, such as parents, were also cited in
Friedman (2002) as one of the top four causes of administrator burnout.
Human Resource Frame
The human resource frame looks at how the people in an organization intersect with
the organization as a system (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The five participants spoke much about
stress that came either advertently or inadvertently due to the people they managed, either the
employees or the students. Researchers have examined stress at the district level and among
teachers, support staff, students, and parents (Brackett et al., 2020; DeMatthews et al., 2021;
Friedman, 2022; Steiner & Woo, 2021). Five themes emerged from study participants’
experiences: (a) managing student needs, (b) managing staff needs, (c) maintaining
accountability for staff, (d) maintaining the safety of those on campus, and (d) managing the
isolation of the job.
Managing Student Needs
Students returned to campuses after a year or more of distance learning and with
needs that may have presented in different ways than before. Much of the research that has
been conducted has focused on students’ social–emotional well-being; for example, Whitaker
and Lopez-Perry (2022) found 63% of students reported an emotional meltdown and 43% of
students surveyed reported a panic or anxiety attack. With this novel situation, middle school
administrators needed to adapt quickly to provide a safe and effective learning environment.
For Brian, managing student behaviors posed a unique challenge due to increased use of
social media. He stated:
It seems we're spending a lot of time on social media [as compared to] the previous
years. The only assumption we could make is that their exposure to social media was
causing them to be unkind to one another and use words that were something you'd
see more of in an adult world.

59
59
He also reported there were instances of “TikTok trends” daring students to complete tasks
on campus, which could involve destroying, vandalizing, or stealing school property. Viner et
al. (2022) showed the pandemic’s adverse impacts had the potential to persist in the long
term. Nathan echoed some of these ideas as he talked about handling the “fallout” of the
pandemic. On his campus, even though discipline was always a concern, he did not see the
larger rise in student behaviors requiring discipline like other campuses. Rather, he said the
stress came from trying to put back together the “fragmented” pieces caused by the
pandemic: reconnecting students to supports, systems, and programs. He continued:
When we got back to school the following year, everybody was running around trying
to clean up all the mess of being gone for a year. It felt like we were way more
fragmented. I would say now, we're all busy, still trying to deal with the repercussions
of being out for a year, academically, socially, and emotionally. With kids coming in,
you can really tell the kids that had good support systems going into the pandemic and
through the pandemic. [But], those kids who were probably pretty fragile going into
the pandemic and really had very little support . . . they just regressed in how they
were operating.
Ryan also highlighted the increased needs students had when they returned, especially
with respect to mental health, which he believed were caused due to the lack of social
interaction and being online. Ryan shared, “It's hard to help them through a screen. Some
kids thrive during that. . . . But you can't replace that teacher interaction with kids.” He
mentioned students’ mental health needs compounded other stressors he faced when students
returned to campus. Ryan continued, “All of the mental health needs of the students poured
in. Having to contact trace kids like that. That, to me, was the more stressful time.”
Alice noticed her presence around campus helped to alleviate some of students’
needs, both emotionally and behaviorally. She said:

60
60
I feel like if [the students] see you out there, they're less likely to get in trouble. I can
just deal with it really quickly outside rather than having to deal with whatever
nonsense occurs once they get back into the classroom or end up in an altercation.
She mentioned this meant other desk jobs or tasks requiring paperwork or documentation
(e.g., county COVID reporting procedures) needed to happen at times when students were
not on campus (e.g., before or after school), thereby extending her workday. She also
discussed managing student fears of COVID-19 and returning to in-person instruction in the
fall as a source of stress. This also caused stress as she tried to encourage students to rejoin
social activities on campus. She continued:
[I was] really trying to draw the kids back into different school activities to get them
comfortable. A lot of them will wear their masks [under their noses] so it's not really
about the need for the mask, but more the need to want to cover up and not let people
see all of them.
This selfless nature of the administrator's job while dealing with challenges arising from
working with adolescents was spoken about at length as a source of job-related stress and
potential burnout (DeMatthews et al., 2021).
Managing Staff Needs
One of the largest themes of stress that emerged in the human resource frame was
managing various staff members’ needs on campus. Support from administrators was linked
to teachers’ likelihood of staying at a school site (Steiner & Woo, 2021); however, managing
staff’s needs on campus has been linked not only to job-related stressors (Robinson &
Shakeshaft, 2016; Steiner & Woo, 2021) but also to administrator burnout (Friedman, 2002).
Nancy commented administrators are “paid problem solvers.” She elaborated:
I found that, we are paid problem solvers. This is what we do. There's a leak in the
cafeteria, the cafeteria lady is going to call us. Something happened with the sprinkler

61
61
on the field, the PE teacher is going to call us. There's a kid who's being unruly. The
teacher is going to call us. . . . I found that, for many staff members, there were
personal things that were happening, and they still picked up the phone and called us.
This resulted in many people in her organization looking to her not only for help in their
professional jobs but also in their personal lives. This support was unique as she was tasked
with providing support for teachers and staff as they all went through an unprecedented
situation. Nancy shared, “We were asking staff to continue providing a service, as they
normally would, under completely abnormal circumstances.” Related to this, Brian said:
There were stressors that went with making sure our staff knew what we were doing:
putting new schedules together, working across our district to make sure that we were
all on the same page. That was quite a bit of a challenge.
Ryan spoke about trying to encourage and support new staff members as they tried new
instructional practices pre-pandemic and how this became harder after the pandemic, because
the work required him to be in his office more. Ryan said, “[Pre-pandemic, I was] focusing
on instruction and the good things happening in our classrooms, encouraging those folks
struggling, trying to support them with trying new things. Before the pandemic, I was in [my
office] a lot less.” This shift from being an instructional leader to one who experienced more
demands resonates with previous research on the changing roles of administrators (Goldring
& Schuermann, 2009; Grubb & Flessa, 2006). Ryan also mentioned a source of stress was
when he perceived he was not meeting staff members’ needs, as he felt he displayed
characteristics of a servant leader (Northouse, 2019). He stated:
I want all of my staff members to feel happy, I want them to feel supported. It bugs
me when someone isn't, even if it's a ridiculous thing. It bugs me that they're not
happy in their job or whatever they're doing. So that's something I try not to take too,
personally, but I do.

62
62
Nancy reported staff needs sometimes were outside the normal scope of a teacher’s
needs, and adaptive leadership was needed to respond appropriately to support those she
supervised (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020; Northouse, 2019). She mentioned a situation where a
teacher had a newborn baby crying in the next room but was diligent in supervising her class
on Zoom. A parent called the school to alert Nancy that her teacher needed help, so Nancy
logged on to the Zoom call to relieve the teacher and take the class so the teacher could care
for her child. She also shared, in being there for teachers, there was a shift away from
accountability toward ensuring access to what was needed to be healthy and safe. She said,
“We were a lot more willing to try things, really think outside of the box, and take chances.
Suddenly you weren't as fixated on deadlines. . . . You just needed to survive.” This example
of the situational approach to leadership allowed her to shift between directive and supportive
approaches in a fluid way (Northouse, 2019). Finally, in the human resource frame of
stressors, Nancy shared how knowing everyone’s personal struggles also added emotional
weight and stress. DeMatthews et al. (2021) referred to this as “secondary traumatic stress,”
also known as compassion fatigue. Steiner and Woo (2021) rated this as one of the top job-
related stressors for administrators. Nancy stated, “Suddenly, the supports or the services that
we provide at our school for students and families, our staff was seeking out those same types
of supports. And so, we just got pulled in a completely different direction.” In an extreme
example, having students and staff share when they had lost family members was a heavy
stressor to take on. Nancy had seven staff members who lost family members to COVID-19,
and she also lost her father to COVID-19. Nancy shared, “It was really hard for me because I
knew firsthand what they were going through, and sometimes we're a little scared to be
vulnerable.” Ryan mentioned this same stressor, as he considered himself a very empathetic
person: “Knowing more people's personal struggles during that time, or what they've been
going through, puts things in perspective.” He mentioned these struggles ranged from

63
63
economic struggles, family struggles, or even losing loved ones. Alice also noticed this
stressor increased during and after the pandemic, sharing, “I don't mind being supportive. But
I felt like, during the pandemic, and especially after the pandemic, a lot more of that fell to
me: to be emotionally supportive for the staff and the students.”
This added stress of knowing the personal struggles and challenges of staff was
compounded by the barrier of only being able to deliver services virtually during the
pandemic as well as the restrictions afterward. Ryan said:
Usually in staff meetings, you can get a temperature of what it’s like in the room.
When you're having a staff Zoom meeting and everybody is just on these little
screens, people aren't speaking up. So, you don't know how people are feeling about
things.
This struggle in the large setting was also experienced in smaller one-on-one settings during
the pandemic. Ryan shared, “It was frustrating not being able to support them in person, or
even just give them a hug and say, ‘Hey, man. I'm sorry, you're going through this right
now.’” Nathan talked about how he made it a priority for his staff to prioritize relationships:
“We were going to take care of each other. We're going to figure out the school stuff later.
That was a decision that we made that I think really helped us get through it.” Viner et al.
(2022) found evidence that stress from the isolation may impact and continue to persist for
students. The accounts from Ryan and Nathan suggest this may also be true for teachers and
administrators. The five administrators’ examples point to a shift in leadership style to a more
empathetic servant leadership style to manage the diverse needs of students and staff
(Northouse, 2019).
Maintaining Accountability for Staff
All five participants mentioned stress that came from maintaining accountability for
staff on campus both during and after the pandemic. Friedman (2022) found two of the top

64
64
four sources of stress were stressors from teachers and support staff and holding them
accountable to high levels of performance. Alice mentioned most of the daily stress caused
by people came from adults on campus, not from students. She shared, “Most stressors that
walk in the door are adults. Most of the kids come to school with at least a positive attitude
about school at that time.” Brian talked about how the pandemic changed the landscape of
teaching and work habits for teachers:
A lot of us just got lazy. . . . We were used to just being at home and having to come
back an entire year to regular hours. It was difficult. So when I was trying to get
programs after school…a lot of the response that I was getting from teachers was, “I
don't want to anymore.”
This lack of willingness to take on programs also caused stress as this meant decreased
opportunities for students on campus. Inspiring those on campus to resume programs took a
blending of transformational leadership and situational approaches to know how best to
support students and teachers. Transformational leadership was needed to provide a novel
path, motivation to follow that path, and a way to support the school’s mission while
responding to the unique situation and providing directive support (Northouse, 2019).
Some accountability for staff had to do with COVID protocols. Ryan reported having
some staff members who, in response to various protocols in Los Angeles County, were
dishonest about their vaccination status; therefore, district-level human resource staff had to
get involved. Ryan shared, “That was hard and that actually made me lose respect for some
people that I did respect.” For Nathan, the staff was eager to restart programs and activities,
but stress came from not being able to approve activities on campus due to regulations, which
then reminded staff the pandemic was still ongoing. He stated:
Whether it was dances, or we want to do a concert, or we want to do a play,
something that would make people feel like, “Okay, we can start getting back!” We

65
65
were constantly having to tell people no. There was just this constant reminder of
“No, we're not out of it yet.”
Nancy was driven back to the contract and negotiated memorandums of
understanding to hold staff members accountable for not infringing on contractual
agreements while providing high-quality services and support for students. She said:
[The pandemic] forced us to go back and revisit policy. All of a sudden, you really
had to get into those MOUs. You really had to get into what was decided upon during
bargaining. . . . It shed light on job descriptions. I was like, “Oh, my gosh, can I ask
that person to do that? Or can I not?” It forced you to go back and analyze the
different roles that people play and really take a look at how many people take on
additional roles in the school. And how do we do that now?
Maintaining the Safety of Those on Campus
Two participants spoke about stress that came from the focus on keeping staff and
students safe on campus, both physically and with COVID regulations. Ryan said:
As a principal, it's that responsibility that just kind of hangs over your head. There are
1,400 kids at this school and every day, something's going to happen that shouldn't
happen. At the end of the day, you're responsible for that, even if it's somebody else
doing something stupid. So that whole responsibility factor never goes away. When
you go home, whatever you're doing, you're always aware of it.
Brian spoke about how, after returning to campus, there was a shift in mindset about
safety. He went from focusing mostly on instructional leadership to an increased focus on
student safety through the lens of COVID-19, which caused stress. He shared, “We're trying
to move into ‘How are we teaching students and helping them grow as people?’ versus just
‘How are we making sure that they're safe and they know the [COVID] rules?’” This toll on
leaders had the potential to cause stress, anxiety, and frustration (Brackett et al., 2020).

66
66

Managing the Isolation of the Job
Four of the five participants mentioned loneliness and isolation for themselves and
others as a source of stress during and after the pandemic. The educational administrator role
is a selfless one, and besides causing a sense of isolation and emotional exhaustion, it also
can cause feelings of depersonalization, which is characterized by feelings of loss of identity
and meaning (DeMatthews et al., 2021; Gmelch & Gates, 1997). Ryan spoke about how
listening to complaints repeatedly resulted in isolation and frustration: “As a principal, one of
the difficult things is, you have to maintain relationships with people, even when you're
frustrated with them.” Nathan experienced increased stress from isolation, especially during
the year of distance learning. He reflected:
I didn't get into this business to stare at a computer screen. I want to be out with kids.
I get energy by being around other people. The challenge was, I don't want to say
boredom, because that doesn't say it. It was more like loneliness.
Both Alice and Brain mentioned struggling to connect with people who were not in
their building and the impact it had on relationships and work efficiency. Brain said, “We
couldn't get together all of us in a space and have some real discussion about how we could
make that be successful. Teachers were off campus . . . our ability to make decisions had
changed.” This separation caused a distinct challenge when trying to maintain leadership
teams, which are a key factor in transformational leadership (Fullan, 2001; Marzano et al.,
2005; Northouse, 2019). Alice took this one step further and talked about the difficulty in
managing someone who was not physically in the same space. She reported she often would
receive a report of a teacher not being logged in at the right time and would then need to track
them down to ascertain what was going on. Even more, relationships with students were

67
67
strained due to isolation and separation. Incidental check-ins from the playground and
hallways were not possible. Alice shared, “How do you increase your relationship with kids
when you can only talk to them on the phone, and then only if you can get them to answer?”
Symbolic Frame
The symbolic frame “focuses on how myth and symbols help humans make sense of
the chaotic, ambiguous world in which they live” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 236). It concerns
the stories told about what the organization is and what it stands for. In the literature, much of
this is accomplished through speaking of the “moral imperative” for education and how
educational leadership then adapts and changes that (Fullan, 2001; Marzano et al., 2005;
Northouse, 2019). Throughout interviews with the five participants, three themes emerged
regarding areas of stress in the symbolic frame: (a) maintaining an academic focus, (b)
maintaining a safety focus, and (c) rebuilding school culture and climate.
Maintaining Academic Focus
Public schools were created to educate students in academic standards (Baker, 2021).
When the general public thinks about sending their children to school, they do so with the
mindset that their children will meet academic goals. However, with the pressures of the
pandemic, respondents reported tension emerged between supporting students academically
while supporting them emotionally (Steiner & Woo, 2021; Whitaker & Lopez-Perry, 2022).
Brian’s school earned a prestigious award in the state recently, and he shared, “You still feel
that sense of urgency, to be a top school, to get top scores, . . . and to have great programs.”
Nathan also felt the stress to maintain an academic focus, saying, “The stressor is trying to
reestablish good momentum that that schools may have had. The upside is it was a break if
you had bad momentum. We got to start this over again.” Alice spoke about how there was
pressure to go back to the way things were pre-pandemic:

68
68
One of the stressors is the pressure for everything to be back to normal as soon as
possible, whether that's put on by ourselves, or our district, or the state talking about
test scores. Everyone wants things to be compared to “How are your test scores
compared to before?”
Early on during the return to in-person learning, Nancy and her campus made an
intentional shift from academics as a priority to socioemotional learning as a focus, which
caused tension. She said:
I was really proud of making the choice to shift our focus to SEL from academics. It
wasn't an easy one, because academics always matter. And to say, “We're putting a
child's well-being ahead of education,” was not an easy concept for any of us. From
the time we've all entered this field, that's why we exist. We exist for academics, we
exist for education. So, to turn around and say, “I don't care if Joey hasn't turned in
any assignments, does Joey have food?” was such a huge shift.
She reported although this was a large mindset shift, it was necessary and paid off on her
campus because students and staff felt supported and were receiving what they needed, but
this shift did not come without intentional communication and focus to shift the narrative.
Maintaining Safety Focus
Schools historically have been a physically safe place for students to learn. Returning
to school from the pandemic added a layer of uncertainty to sending a student to school,
because their mere presence on campus could expose them to the COVID-19 virus. This
juxtaposition caused potential stress stemming from parental distrust (DeMatthews et al.,
2021). Three respondents spoke about this symbolic source of stress. Ryan said:
Student safety is always our biggest [source of job-related stress]. But, then you layer
COVID on top of it. I was just talking to a parent yesterday, and they were upset
because their kid caught COVID. And they’re pretty certain they caught it at school.

69
69
He continued to talk about how, to educate students, schools needed to be open. But,
in opening school, there was always a chance they could contract the virus. However, that did
not remove the pressure of worrying about keeping everyone safe. As Ryan said, “There’s the
responsibility of parents and they send us the thing that's most special to them every day. We
want to make sure we're doing well.” Alice spoke about school safety and shared stress also
came from differing views on what it meant to be safe at school. For her, this involved having
talks with teachers who may not have agreed with county protocols, reminding them this was
nonnegotiable and necessary to open schools safely again.
Brian shared, “That sense of urgency of being the top school was more just about,
‘Let's make sure everyone's safe. Let's make sure everyone's on the same page.’” This
mindset was in tension with the prior theme of returning to an academic focus, a tension that
also caused stress. Yet, a focus on making students feel comfortable as they returned to
campus was a priority, as “safety” amid a global pandemic redefined policies and procedures.
Brian described this tension:
[Refocusing the staff on academics and safety] can also be very frustrating again
when we're trying to move into, “How are we teaching students and helping them
grow as people?” versus just “How are we making sure that they're safe and they
know the rules?”
Rebuilding School Culture and Climate
Three respondents touched on rebuilding culture and climate as a source of stress in
the symbolic frame. Culture and climate are two main concerns for situational leadership,
requiring a leader to adapt and change tactics to ensure support and clarity for those in the
organization (Fullan, 2001; Marzano et al., 2005; Northouse, 2019). For two respondents,
their previously established school culture helped carry them through the pandemic. When
returning to campus, rebuilding and strengthening the campus culture and climate became a

70
70
focus. Alice said, during the pandemic, “it was hard for the kids to feel as connected, and
then the staff to feel as connected to each other.” To help with this, she established times
during the pandemic to have events with safety protocols in place. She said:
We did a lot of the drive-thru events that tried to keep them a little connected.
Sometimes we'd have little things to give away, or we put signs up that the teachers
made so they know we were thinking of them.
As staff returned to campus, she had to manage rebuilding school culture while staff and
students had concerns about being in person. This caused stress as individual comfort levels
had to be considered when it came to interaction and connectedness.
Nathan’s organizational culture allowed them to maintain a positive culture through
the pandemic. He stated:
We really benefited from having some organizational culture that allowed us to still
do the best that we could in spite of the fact that we weren't together. Interestingly,
when we came back, most of the teachers actually reported that they felt like they
knew more of what was going on! They felt closer to teachers during the pandemic
because people were real.
Once they were back on campus, Nathan and his staff had the task of rebuilding and
strengthening the culture. He went on:
When we got back to school the following year, everybody was running around trying
to clean up all the mess of being gone for a year. It felt like we were way more
fragmented. I would say now, we're all busy still trying to deal with the repercussions
of being out for a year: academically, socially, emotionally.
This positive experience was not the case for everyone. Ryan reported returning to campus
was “overwhelming” for him and his staff. He said:

71
71
Instruction, things like getting into classrooms, was really difficult to focus on it. The
truth was, even our teachers were just trying to survive, and they had things going on
at home themselves. So, it was just a victory to get kids back in school.
This additional stress had the potential to negatively impact the culture and climate of
his school, so actions were needed to combat these effects, such as focusing on connecting
and supporting not only students but also staff.
Structural Frame
Bolman and Deal’s (2017) structural frame views an organization as a factory with
processes and people needing to work together for operations to be smooth. Differentiation
(allocation of work) and integration (coordination of efforts) are placed in tension with each
other. Of note in this section is the impact of complex organizational environments, with
public schools complying with local, state, and national guidelines (DeMatthews et al., 2021).
Identified stressors were categorized into the structural frame and sorted into the following
categories: (a) COVID regulations, (b) logistics and coordination, (c) pandemic relief work,
and (d) discipline.
COVID Regulations
The most consistent source of structural stress across all five administrators was the
stress caused by complying with county health regulations for the pandemic. All five
participants spoke at length about the stress the process of contact tracing had on their daily
lives and the time it took to complete the task. Friedman (2002) cited overwhelming
responsibilities and information perplexities as a leading cause of emotional anxiety and
potential burnout. Nathan phrased it as, “It's just the stress of a secretary walking and saying,
‘Hey, a kid tested positive,’ and, well, there just went two hours of my day!” Ryan concurred
with the time it took. In reflecting on contact tracing and completing the necessary
notifications, he said, “That literally became the job,” and lamented the loss of time to do

72
72
instructional leadership. In Brian’s experience, this was not only time consuming but also
came with additional stress due to the politicized nature of the information needing to be
collected. Brian shared, “[Contact tracing] was very time-consuming, I would even say very
traumatic, for an administrator on many levels. If you weren't familiar with that particular
system, it could be very challenging.”
On top of being time consuming, many respondents expressed the protocols added
stress because they were in a constant state of flux due to new understanding and research,
which falls into the category of information perplexities (Friedman, 2002). Nancy shared:
The other stressful thing that really hit home for us was contact tracing. It was like,
they gave us these guidelines, but no one knew what we were doing! You look at it,
and it could be interpreted in so many different ways. . . . They give you this sheet
about what it means to be a contact, but they don't tell you how to trace it! . . . There
were just so many moving parts that we were trying to grasp while trying to continue
to run a school under a situation that you've never been in!
Brian spoke about how difficult it was to stay on top of communication and to follow each
protocol and the changes:
I wanted to make sure that was clear to everyone and communicated to everyone.
Sometimes it's difficult to get that information. What I mean by that is, sometimes
teachers knew about what some of the things we were doing before we did it, because
it was being discussed with the union.
Trying to follow protocols while keeping all stakeholders informed via communication was a
source of stress for him. Ryan also spoke about the county COVID protocols and keeping up
with the various systems as a source of stress post-pandemic. Alice spoke about the tedious
nature of the protocols and how they changed. She also mentioned it was difficult to
complete them with fidelity because contact tracing required knowing exactly where a

73
73
student was days prior, which is information that was not always easily obtainable. Nathan
talked about how the constant evolution of protocols and regulations caused stress coupled
with the responsibility of being held accountable for them. He stated:
One of the big stressors actually was the constant evolving of things that we would
have to do. We would have a meeting for two hours to explain a new protocol and
then a week later, they would change the protocol. We'd have to have another two-
hour meeting. And then a week later, they would change the protocol. There was
stress spending all this time being trained how to do this, knowing that in a week, it's
all going to be gone. But if I don't do it right, I'm going to have the county health
department down in my office asking, “Why aren't you doing all this stuff?”
The stress of learning new protocols also began to wear on the morale and motivation for
implementing the protocols with fidelity. He went on, “We would spend time trying to figure
out how we were going to deal with a problem, and then the scenario would change or the
rules would change. It got to be that nobody wanted to make a decision!” These stressors
added to the overwhelming nature of the task (DeMatthews et al, 2021; Friedman, 2002).
Logistics and Coordination
Structural stress is not only looking at the systems in place but also the coordination
of work (Bolman & Deal, 2017). During the pandemic, four respondents spoke about stress in
their lives caused by logistical concerns, restructuring, or coordinating work between groups
of people or departments to have role clarity (DeMatthews et al., 2021). Nathan attributed
this stress to the novel nature of the situation and the critical thinking required to respond to it
appropriately. He shared, “We were very, very busy, but it was a different kind of busy. . . .
We were constantly having to troubleshoot. . . . We really had to rethink a lot of what we
were doing.” He referenced being in many professional development sessions to learn how to
use new tools and techniques to comply with the various regulations and systems put in place

74
74
and connected this to how much time was devoted to these systems as a source of stress
requiring adaptive leadership skills (Northouse, 2019). Nancy also spoke about how new
methods of thinking were needed to provide services to all students and coordinate the safe
and continuing return to campus. Nancy shared, “Coming back to in-person, we were forced
to think outside of the box. There was no such thing as a box anymore. We really had to
become innovative and creative, about how to bring things back.”
Although most school years have one overall format consistent throughout the year,
the pandemic presented full shifts in how instruction was delivered to students (Steiner &
Woo, 2021). This structural change caused stress for everyone involved, including
administrators. Ryan reflected on the process of transitioning to online learning in the period
of distance learning:
As a middle school team, we quickly transitioned to online. We didn't have the
infrastructure in place of Google classrooms or anything like that at the time. How
quickly we were able to transition from in-person to online with some teachers who
were really technologically challenged, I think, was it was really impressive. It wasn't
perfect, for sure.
Although Ryan thought about structural stress in the transition to distance learning,
Brian reflected more on the existing structural challenges while trying to provide services and
experiences typical to a middle school (e.g., schedules, awards, promotion) while balancing
safety and efficiency (Brackett et al., 2020). Brian shared, “Putting new schedules together
and working across our district to make sure that we were all on the same page. . . . That was
quite a bit of a challenge. But it was manageable.” In the return to campus, he said this
transitioned into more logistical concerns, reimagining and communicating how day-to-day
processes and procedures would take place and look. He shared:

75
75
Logistically, let's make sure everyone knows what time the bell is going to ring, how
long you have to be out there for supervision, that you have your mask on, when you
have your mask on, where you're supposed to be eating, those types of things. It was
more procedural, or making sure that procedures and routines were in place for us and
for everyone.
Finally, he expressed a logistical cause of stress was the breakdown of vertical
communication, a key trait needed for crisis leadership (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020). Brian
said, “I didn't feel like we were a part of the decision-making process. Again, the decision-
making process was outside of us. . . . Sometimes we were finding out about what was
happening after the fact.”
Pandemic Relief Work
While interviewing Alice, she coined the term “pandemic relief work” to refer to all
actions taking place to provide students and the community with access to food and
resources. These important social services fell to administrators to either come up with or
enact systems, which caused novel stress post-pandemic (Grubb & Flessa, 2006). For Nancy,
these actions highlighted the disparities in access to education and experiences for students.
She said:
One of the things that really came to light after the pandemic is that schools became a
hub of social services. . . . Suddenly there was this magnified view of how many
children went without. . . . It really magnified the dependence that families have on
the school site. It also really created a larger gap of the “haves” and the “have-nots.”
This equity issue underscored the importance of this work but also added the weight,
pressure, and responsibility of doing the work well. Even though these actions caused stress,
Alice pointed to the importance of the social aspect of the work, referencing how this
pandemic relief work allowed for social interaction with families, even at a distance.

76
76
A subset of pandemic relief work was providing technology support for families
during distance learning or during quarantine. Alice stated she often felt like the “technology
support provider,” calling students’ homes and trying to troubleshoot with them to get them
online for school. Ryan talked about the tension this technology support put on his work:
We were expecting them to be like college students. “Hey, you're going to show up
for this Zoom on time, and you're going to do this, you're going to do that.” A lot of
them just didn't have the skills to deal with that.
Due to the lack of skills, time and effort then had to be devoted to keeping them connected
and helping them from a distance.
A final subset of logistical stress was outside impacts, such as shipping delays
preventing needed supplies from arriving on time for teachers. Brian talked about the stress
of trying to meet his teachers’ needs when supplies and technology were delayed due to
COVID. Because he had a relationship with the teachers, they worked with him and
understood, but he was not sure how long that would hold out. In situations like this,
administrators spend relational equity on things not in their control while trying to ensure
people are given what they need, a common situation during crisis leadership (Harris, 2020).
Three participants (Nancy, Brian, and Ryan) also spoke about the structural stress of trying to
ensure all teachers had the COVID supplies they needed in their classrooms for safety. If
teachers did not have what they needed, they may feel unsafe or unsupported, which also was
a source of structural stress.
Discipline
The structural frame concerns the allocation and coordination of work, and school
discipline can fall into this category as a source of stress. When students returned to campus,
some participants mentioned heightened student behaviors upon their return and how this
caused stress (DeMatthews et al., 2021). Brian shared some of his students participated in a

77
77
TikTok trend called “devious licks,” which challenged students to steal materials from
campus. Others participated in a trend where they would use strings from masks to cut
through the backs of plastic chairs. Not only did this cause stress because of the property
damage but also because of the ensuing disciplinary actions. Nathan also spoke about
discipline causing day-to-day stress: “I think there's definitely a stress of dealing with kids
who were in circumstances so beyond their control, and just the negative effect that that that
had on them that that's pretty stressful.” These students would sometimes act out at school, so
the structural stress became how to reintegrate them into campus properly through support.
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was: How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern
California describe the impact of their jobs on their mental health in the wake of the COVID-
19 pandemic? The purpose of this research question was to understand how job-related
stressors identified previously impacted respondents’ functioning and mental states. As
leaders are required to help those around them, they must be mentally well to support both
staff and students in maintaining high levels of mental fortitude (Davidovitz et al., 2007;
Wells, 2016). This research question explored what factors may or may not impact that
function.
In analyzing the data from the five middle school administrators, three themes
emerged: (a) negative impact of stress on mental health, (b) positive impact of a job well
done on mental health, and (c) the impact of managing perceptions.
The Negative Impact of Stress on Mental Health
Four of the five participants rated their mental health as average or above, with one
participant rating their mental health as “average to below average.” However, throughout the
interviews, each participant remarked on the negative impact day-to-day stress had on their
mental health, either systemically or, at points, during the pandemic. For some, the pandemic

78
78
started out not having much of an impact, but the prolonged nature of the pandemic began to
wear on their patience, stress, and mental health. Nathan reported feeling, at one point, “This
is unsustainable. People are going to lose it. We can't keep this pace going. We can't be
expected to work these kinds of hours all the time. It's getting to be too much.” Overload,
high demands, and heavy workloads were cited repeatedly in the research as causes of stress
leading to potential burnout and turnover (DeMatthews et al., 2021; Friedman, 2002; Steiner
& Woo, 2021).
Ryan reported feeling quite effective at the beginning of the pandemic but noticed a
shift as it continued, stating, “I felt, a lot of times, like a hamster on a wheel, just working all
the time and not getting anywhere. Just hanging on. What were we really accomplishing?”
The repetitive nature of the work caused him to feel isolated as well. He stated:
We’re doing the same thing, like Groundhog’s Day, every day. We have all these
things we need to do for our kids that are falling behind, kids that need extra support
and help, and we can’t do any of it. So, it became a victory just to get through the day.
As the stress continued to build, Ryan noticed negative impacts on his mental health that
caused him frustration and shortened his patience, symptoms of decreased self-efficacy
(Bandura, 2006). He said:
I can count on one hand in my years as an admin that I've snapped on a teacher, and
one was during the pandemic on a Zoom. . . . That's just not a response I usually have.
So that kind of made me check myself a little bit, like, “What's going on here? There's
a lot of stress there.”
Brian described the stress as “fatigue,” citing that it built as the pandemic went on.
When schools initially shut down, he said he felt, “The job never gets done. So, feeling,
‘Okay, I can finally get caught up.’ This was refreshing. But then, knowing that that extended
further than 2 weeks or 3 weeks, it wasn't what I expected.” He reported feeling sad for

79
79
students and a “sense of loss” at what they were missing out on. Brian also reported feeling
isolated not just from colleagues and students but also from the decisions being made, which
caused frustration. Being removed from the ability to make decisions can be a risk factor for
stress and negative self-efficacy (Diehl & Hay, 2010).
Nancy mentioned the increased effect of stress on her mental health: “I do feel like
the reactions, both positive and negative, were a little more impactful than they would have
been before.” These impacts often created space for doubt to creep in and caused her to
question her efficacy and the work being done. Alice also expressed this feeling, sharing
how, when they would host parent events and no one would show up, it would cause self-
doubt to creep in and she would begin to question if she had done enough, what could have
been done differently, or if people just did not care.
Finally, both Ryan and Alice spoke about the detrimental effects of continually
hearing negatives and complaints from staff and parents, which is congruent with Friedman
(2002) who spoke of the stress placed on administrators from parents. Ryan stated:
You hear the same complaints from them over and over and over, and they're about
things that maybe you can't even fix. . . . That's stressful. Just having to sit there and
hear it kind of wears on you over time.
Alice joked about the impact of hearing negatives:
There are days that I have told the school secretary, “Can you just find one parent to
call and say something nice?” She [responds], “They don't do that a lot.” You know,
that's what parents do. I just need to get in the right mind frame about it.
Ryan also talked about how these interactions could shift perspective easily:
It's this roller coaster. At the end of the year, you look back and you're like, “Wow,
look at all this cool stuff we did this year! We're so proud of it!” But when you're in

80
80
the middle of it, sometimes it's one conversation with one person that can change your
perception on things.
As school administration is a middle management position, there is no power or authority to
make decisions, but the responsibility to implement those decisions that have been made with
fidelity may lead to stress.
The Positive Impact of a Job Well Done on Mental Health
For all the negative impacts mentioned about the impact of stress on mental health,
there were also positives stated. Nathan experienced positive effects on his mental health and
perceptions of his self-efficacy when staff perceived their needs were met (Simeon et al.,
2007). He said:
I got satisfaction out of feeling that my staff felt taken care of. . . . I heard repeatedly
as we came out of [quarantine], that people were very grateful for how we approached
it and that they felt like we were on their side. That gave me a lot of satisfaction.
For Alice, positive effects were felt when students were successful. She reflected:
When I saw the kids participating in class, being able to turn in their work, being able
to be more engaged, calling, asking for help. That's when I would see myself as being
more successful. Like, “Oh, good, they're accessing their resources.”
She reported this feeling persisted, even after the experience was over: “When
something positive happens at work, then you go home and you're in a better mood. You just
feel better about yourself, like, ‘Yes! Something I did is working!’”
Ryan experienced a sense of pride that impacted his mental health positively, both in
his personal resilience and in that of the school’s programs (Bai et al., 2017; Northouse,
2019; Skoch, 2003). He said:
The thing I was most proud of stress-wise and anxiety-wise was, I was able to
continue to move [programs] forward, despite the pandemic. I was proud of how I

81
81
handled that. I'm just an anxious person in general, but I was able to continue moving
on and doing things. It's hard for me sometimes to recognize when I do good things,
but personally, I'm like, “All right, you didn't have a breakdown, you made it through
this time!” . . . [The programs] actually happened when we got back in person.
For Brian, a positive impact on his mental health was his school receiving a
prestigious statewide recognition, even in the face of the pandemic, which helped serve as a
protective factor (Skoch, 2003). He stated:
I felt very proud of that process we were using. It felt like things were moving in the
right direction. We couldn't see the big picture. We didn't know if we were going to
actually walk away with the recognition. But we did, and that’s something that felt
very special now that it's official.
The Impact of Managing Perceptions
The final theme that emerged from Research Question 2 was the impact of managing
the perceptions of mental health while being a school administrator. This theme emerged
from three participants and revolved around having an outward persona or perception of
strength needing to be maintained. This process was spoken about in terms of how it put
stress on administrators’ lives and may have prevented some administrators from accessing
services that could help them manage the stress that came into their lives effectively (Barling
& Clotier, 2017; Davidovitz et al., 2007; Fuller et al., 2003).
All three participants spoke about the school leader needing to portray a persona of
formidable strength. Brian spoke about how others may view going to see a counselor or
asking for mental health support as a “sign of weakness.” Alice echoed this sentiment,
saying, “You don't want people to see you crack. This is my job to hold this school up. So, I
got to do it.” Nathan phrased it through an analogy:

82
82
There were times where I felt like I deserved to have a mental breakdown. . . . There
were those points where you feel like, as an administrator, that you kind of have to
keep it together. That’s part of our job, whether it's right or wrong. . . . If you're in
battle, you don't want to see your general crying in the corner going, “I don't know
what to do. I don't know what to do.” You make your decisions, you move forward,
and then you go to the corner where nobody's listening and you kind of cry a little bit.
Nathan cited this sense of pride as one reason why school administrators may not seek mental
health services.
Another reason both Nancy and Alice noted that may prevent administrators from
accessing mental health services was fear of being stigmatized or district office personnel
hearing of it and negative impacts from that. Nancy said:
You have to ask yourself, “This resource came from my school district. If I call, are
they going to tell my boss that I'm calling? And if I get this type of assistance? Is
someone going to think I can't do my job?”
Alice spoke about how, in a smaller district, one of the few people to reach out to may be the
superintendent, and there is fear of the stigma that may cause about an administrator’s ability
to do their job.
Results for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked: In what ways have K–12 school administrators responded
to the job-related challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic? Resiliency is a practice that is not
necessarily inherent but can be taught or fostered (Skoch, 2003). Raising levels of resilience
has a positive impact on leadership (Allison, 2012; Skoch, 2003). In looking at the five
administrators’ responses, almost every strategy listed was considered a positive response to
the stressors. In general, the administrators I interviewed were less likely to speak about
negative responses to stress as they were to mention the positive ways they may have

83
83
responded. Throughout the responses, four themes emerged: (a) mindset, (b) community and
support, (c) self-care, and (d) boundaries.
Mindset
Every administrator I interviewed mentioned a response related to keeping a correct
mindset in the face of adversity. In the research, mindfulness was stated as a protective factor
that may help to foster resiliency and boost levels of self-efficacy (Wells & Klocko, 2018).
Although the word “mindfulness” or the exact practice was never mentioned, respondents did
speak about monitoring their thoughts and mindsets, which is congruent with the ideas of
Allison (2012) who spoke of the importance of choosing to be resilient. Nancy responded by
using the opportunity to use adaptive leadership to go back to basics (Fernandez & Shaw,
2020; Northouse, 2019). She shared, “We have such a unique opportunity to revisit what we
do and why we do it and really go back to the why. Because we came back to completely
different jobs.”
With his staff, Brian responded in a supportive manner, focusing on finding laughter
and levity (Northouse, 2019), which he accomplished by using interactive slide-sharing
websites in staff meetings and by asking teachers to draw something that would appear on the
screen. He remembered:
We were laughing in meetings . . . because we knew things were already difficult. So,
we made it a real emphasis on: “You guys need to feel good about who you are . . . as
a teacher to support our students.”
Ryan responded with his mindset by intentionally looking for the positive to not get
overwhelmed by the negative. He phrased it by saying:
We don’t get a lot of people saying nice things. When the parent calls or a teacher
needs to come in, it's usually that they need something . . . it can be very negative if
you don't look for the positive.

84
84
He also spoke about reframing the entire view on the pandemic as a time to push forward
implementations (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020). Ryan shared, “I would say it helped us grow. It
helped us grow in many ways. Sometimes it's a forced change.” He gave an example of how
his teachers were not in the habit of using Google Classroom, but the transition to distance
learning allowed for full implementation to Google Classroom on his campus.
Nathan maintained focus by continuing to remind stakeholders of the goal of getting
students used to being back on campus (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020; Harris, 2020). He said:
When people came back, we were very clear that our main job was to get kids just
used to going back to school. It wasn't that we were going to be standing around
singing “Kumbaya,” but we tried to take a realistic perspective that the kids had been
gone for a full year, so we couldn't expect them to just come back and start doing
math like nothing had ever happened. We really spent that first semester focusing on
getting kids and staff used to being back at school.
Alice also made it a goal to focus on positivity and not get dragged down by struggles
or negativity (Allison, 2012; Simeon et al., 2007). She shared:
We lived through it. What are we going to do now? Even before the pandemic was
over, I was like, “What are we going to do next? What are we going to be positive
about?” We could be bummed about a lot of crazy stuff that happened last week, but
that’s water under the bridge! How are we going to move forward?
Community and Support
All five respondents spoke about the importance of community and support as a
response to job-related challenges experienced during and after the pandemic. This is
consistent with findings related to teachers from Steiner and Woo (2021) and are tied to the
idea of forming connections as a strategy for crisis leadership (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020).
Nancy, who lost her father due to COVID-19, responded by reaching out to help a group of

85
85
students on campus through formation of a grief group. She also opened up to them about her
struggles and offered support, showing traits of vulnerability. She said:
It gave us this connection where we just agreed that any of us, if we ever needed just a
hug, if we just needed a minute, if we felt like we wanted to scream, if we felt like we
needed to cry, we just agreed we would be there for each other.
She stated that although this did not take the pain away, it did create community: “It wasn't
easy for me to talk about it because I had to process it myself. But it really just created a
small community. And we're okay. We're doing okay.” This group of students and Nancy
fought back against some of the isolation that could have been experienced (Viner et al.,
2022). Brian also used the community to share their favorite methods of self-care to connect
staff members to each other while promoting self-care, stating:
I met with my leadership team, and we decided that we were going to provide support
for one another, making sure that that was our theme. That included making sure that
every department had a check-in system for their teachers as well for their
department. So, it was really important to see that we were supporting each other,
making sure that we were all successful here on our campus.
He continued:
I was asking them, “What are you doing?” And so, people would put up pictures of
cheese, drinking wine, and weightlifting and things of that nature. But the idea that we
were like sharing who we are as people, but then also getting an idea of what ideas or
what strategies can we use to decompress.
Ryan used many ways to foster school connectedness and create community in his
school, key features of both adaptive and crisis leadership (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020;
Northouse, 2019). One way was through the TV newscast that aired throughout the
pandemic. He said:

86
86
I filmed a ton of stuff with my kids during that time and sent it out to our whole
school community just so they saw, “Hey, you guys aren’t going through this alone!
I'm at home with my kids, too.”
He did this for the staff, as well, after their staff meetings, by conducting the “after show,”
which was a chance for staff members to be together in community and share enjoyable
experiences. Returning to in-person learning, he created opportunities for creating
community by supporting teachers and making them feel connected back to school, saying,
“We still did a lot of things to show our appreciation. We got them a lot of swag. We have
Vans with our [logo] on it, and jackets. We'd have lunches for them.”
Nathan made caring for people and creating community a priority to respond to job-
related challenges. He shared:
The decision was we were going to take care of each other. We're going to figure out
the school stuff later. But we were going to take care of each other. That was a
decision that we made that really helped us get through it. And then, when we came
back, people really felt like that we kind of continued on with that as well.
This was done even through the process of absorbing teachers and students from another
campus. Team-building activities, tours, and fun activities were held to foster community
with new students and staff. On top of this, multiple other communities existed that
personally supported Nathan. Nathan made frequent use of prayer, as he is religious and has a
church community to which he is connected outside of work. Inside work, a “lunch bunch”
group naturally formed of himself and other eighth-grade teachers who all took lunch at the
same time. To help foster community with outside stakeholders, Nathan focused on his
external communication, saying, “I really got to work on improving my communication out
to parents. I still have parents that talk about emails and stuff that we sent out.”

87
87
Alice also focused on external activities to draw in the community and foster school
connectedness. Various drive-thru activities were conducted with teachers creating signs,
handing out materials, and making connections at a distance. She also focused on availability
and visibility, making herself available to help teachers and parents/guardians with whatever
support they needed. She spoke about how she would be on the phone with families
frequently to connect their students back to school. She also coupled that with more family
time, making it an intention to spend time with them in her backyard at home each day.
Self-Care
Allison (2012) tied resilience and happiness together, citing how those who engaged
in activities allowing for personal renewal generated the energy needed to be effective at the
job of leadership. All five respondents spoke about needing to use self-care strategies to help
manage job-related stress associated with being an educational administrator. Brian spoke
about it most directly, citing SEEDS time as a strategy for self-care (i.e., sleep, eating,
exercise, doctor’s orders, self-care). He stated:
Making sure that people have social time, exercise, eating, and good diet. Basically,
the concept is recharging their own battery, finding time to laugh, finding time to give
some time to themselves, because they also had to give to students. So that was
something that we had discussed at a previous professional development meeting.
The most common type of self-care reported by Brian and also by every administrator
interviewed was exercise. For Brian, exercise was coupled with community, as he kept a
schedule and worked out with his wife every morning. He also rode his bike to stay active.
Nancy coupled exercise with community by participating in a walking club. She
shared, “Anytime I could, I had to get a walk in. It allowed me to process, so for me, it was
walking, but really what it was was self-reflection time and self-care time.” She paired this
with the next theme of boundaries to schedule walking time with her community, saying:

88
88
I penciled walking club into my calendar. . . . It allows me to connect with kids on a
different level. But it also allows me to get a little bit of a mental brain break away
from the craziness of it all.
Connecting with people has been cited as a crucial step of crisis management, allowing not
only others to feel supported and have their needs met but also the leader (Fernandez &
Shaw, 2020).
Ryan used running as self-care throughout the pandemic and after. He said this was
not always a conscious decision to do it as mental self-care, but he experienced it as
beneficial for his mental health. He shared, “I felt like I would get stressed up to that point. I
ran, and then I would be a little better.”
Nathan coupled walking as his form of exercise with time to connect with his
spirituality to help respond to job-related challenges (Allison, 2012). He mentioned making it
more intentional after the pandemic:
Every morning I walk around my campus, and I pray around my campus. When I was
at home, I did that around my block. I actually kept a little journal that I would keep
track of people. When I would talk with staff individually, I asked them, “What are
some things that I can pray for you?”
These questions also meet the same needs Wells and Klocko (2018) spoke of related to
fostering listening and compassion, key traits of emotional intelligence.
Alice also used self-care in community to help respond to job-related stressors. At her
school, they instituted virtual 5K races in which students participated. She remembered:
I did a lot of 5Ks with the kids. [We would] meet up and or make a track around
school the kids would do it with their parents, and then they would send the results in.
We had this Nike app that we were testing out, so that the kids would be able to log

89
89
their miles in doing it with their family, not as a big group. [They would say], “The
principal's going to do it at this time!” and the kids would go and vote.
In talking with all five participants, only three mentioned food or drink as self-care for
themselves. Brian mentioned getting together for drinks with colleagues to have time to
reflect and relax in community and cited this as a strong positive. Nathan motioned to a
candy machine behind him to say how sweets were sometimes a way he coped with stress,
saying, “I do probably find myself stress eating. Aside from M&Ms, I eat pretty well.” Alice
enjoys a glass of wine and said she tried new ones throughout the pandemic: “During the
pandemic, I tried a lot of new wine. I go to Paso Robles and check out the wineries there.”
Boundaries
The final theme that emerged from talking to the five middle school administrators in
Los Angeles County was setting clear boundaries. For some, this involved setting clear
boundaries between work and home life. Maintaining work–life balance can be a struggle
that creates stress (Brackett et al., 2020; Robinson & Shakeshaft, 2016). Nancy stopped
responding to work emails after hours, as she noticed the notification and quick response
welcomed dialogue and would put her back into the mode of working. She said:
My boss and district folks all have my cell phone number. There is not a single staff
member on this campus that does not have my cell phone number. They know if you
need an immediate response, you can call me. I tell them, “If you cannot bring
yourself to pick up the phone and call me then it's not an emergency.” They know
that. So, I've tried to do a better job of [availability]. When I'm home, I'm home. If it's
not an emergency, it needs to wait till tomorrow.
Although Ryan did not mention this as a strategy he used, he mentioned knowing others who
used it to foster healthy levels of their mental health. He stated:

90
90
We take our jobs personally. But [some administrators] are able to have buckets.
They're able to bucket work stress here. But I'm not going to take that home with me
because I know I've tried my best and I'm working hard at it. I have a hard time. . . .
I try not to take it home. But it's hard not to transition. There's some people that are
able to do it and I always admire that they're able to say, “I can leave that there till
tomorrow.”
He mentioned this was a strategy he was working on implementing and reflected on how he
advocated for it for others but not always for himself. He often would go around and tell
other staff members to go home when they were working late but then he would stay later.
The second form of boundaries was delineation of work either between other staff
members or even prioritizing what needed to get done and what did not, which falls into the
“distributing leadership” category of crisis leadership and adaptive leadership (Fernandez &
Shaw, 2020; Northouse, 2019). Ryan reflected on the importance of delegation to achieve
goals, “I'm not a huge micromanager anyway, but you really can't [micromanage]. You have
to have good people in place and trust them that they're going to do a good job and then
empower them.” For Alice, it was not as much about delegating the work as it was analyzing
the work done on campus to determine what was necessary and what caused more stress and
could be eliminated. She said:
I did a lot less stuff. I realized that some of those things I didn't need to add back
afterward. Like, we're not going to add back Saturday school unless it's absolutely
necessary. We do it only every once in a while, like when we do our big roller coaster
project. But, we cut that back.
Results for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked: What resiliency or mental-wellness factors emerged from
the reflections and/or experiences of K–12 school administrators in Southern California?

91
91
Resilience is the capacity to adjust to adverse situations (Northouse, 2019). Resilience has
been linked with happiness and effective leadership (Allison, 2012; Skoch, 2003; Wells &
Klocko, 2018). Resiliency also has been linked with self-efficacy, which has been correlated
with performance (Bandura, 2006). In analyzing the data, three themes emerged: (a) the
importance of community, (b) the importance of a positive mindset, and (c) the importance of
advocating for self-care.
The Importance of Community
All respondents talked about the importance of being part of a community of support
and had their systems in place for connecting with other people (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020;
Viner et al., 2022). Nancy was part of a walking club, created a grief group for those who had
also lost a loved one, and spoke about making time with family a priority.
Brian found the value of checking in with other administrators and collaborating with
them as a form of community, sharing:
I'm the veteran middle school person of 7 years. Most of them have only 1 or 2 years,
so I'm checking on them. Sometimes I'm getting ideas from them and sometimes I'm
sharing what I'm doing. . . . We’re all constantly sharing. We have a group chat
available for us. In that group chat, we're constantly joking around and sending stuff
to one another, just to help lighten the day, especially during meetings. The idea is
that it helps alleviate some of the stress.
This community that formed not only interacted virtually but also got together when safe to
do so for in-person time at local businesses. Brian reflected on how valuable this time with
others who share the same job was and expressed wishing there were opportunities for more
time like this to help support administrators’ mental health. He said:

92
92
We have to find answers within others that have gone through similar situations that
can see things through a different lens, and be able to bounce off ideas from them . . .
I think that's the best thing for administrators to do is to learn from each other as well.
Ryan said, many times, administrators feel like the “forgotten group” when it comes
to community and using it to foster better mental health. He stated:
We're really stressed a lot of times, and I'm sure the person next to me is too. We'll go
out to lunch and dinner and literally, we would just vent. I liked that because it made
me feel like I'm not crazy because I'm dealing with this. They're going through it, too.
It gets it off your chest, [so] you can move on.
Nathan’s resilience came through a combination of a positive mindset and connection
to various communities, including his faith community. He shared, “I have a great family and
great support system. We're very involved in our church.” He also talked about how fortunate
he was during the pandemic to be surrounded by his family: “Our family was together, and
we got to spend quality time with them, more than they wanted. We're very fortunate, we're
very blessed.”
Alice had a supportive family at home helping her throughout and after the COVID-
19 quarantines. She spoke about spending more and more quality time with her family. After
the pandemic, due to the time she was able to spend with them, she cut down on work tasks
to allow for and prioritize more time with family.
The Importance of a Positive Mindset
Four participants mentioned the importance of being vigilant over their mindset or
keeping a positive mindset. Although this is not the same as mindfulness, it does share some
characteristics, such as self-awareness, self-regulation, and a focus on emotional intelligence
(Wells & Klocko, 2018). Nancy noticed if she did not guard her mindset, the stress of the job
would have a negative impact on her mental health. She said:

93
93
It's important to understand what's within your control and what is not. And so, one of
the really difficult things for me was figuring out “What can I do that will have a
positive impact?” I would internalize, and I had to remind myself that that is not
within my control.
This focus on control is linked to resiliency factors that fight against a feeling of lost control
(Diehl & Hay, 2010). She demonstrated this by talking about how she viewed the pandemic
as a window of opportunity for education and her school to examine grading pedagogy,
essential skills, and guaranteed and viable curriculum, capitalizing on crisis management for
improvement (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020). Brian reiterated the same idea by talking about how
his team worked with outside companies and consultants to strengthen his leadership team.
Ryan used the technique of perspective shifting to remind himself of all the work
being accomplished and to not have his perspectives skewed unnecessarily by one factor. He
shared, “We're so proud of [all we accomplished]. But when you're in the middle of it,
sometimes it's one conversation with one person that can change your perception of things.”
Nathan attributed the pandemic’s lack of impact on his mental health to his mindset,
demonstrating Diehl and Hay’s (2010) ideas about self-efficacy impacting mental wellness.
Practicing rational detachment, he said, “I maintain a belief that I am not a control of this
world, and so, therefore, I'm not going to try to control the world.” He coupled this
perspective with an attitude of gratitude and a strong belief that “it will all work out.” In
reflecting on this, he referenced a common way he signed off on emails, “Grace to yourself,
grace to others.” He explained this as the idea that everyone is going to make mistakes, and
people need to be willing to forgive everyone, including themselves. He reported his even
temper sometimes frustrated people because they wanted to see more emotion from him. He
maintained a mindset of, “The work all gets done, doesn’t it?”

94
94
Alice connected her mindset to her “why” by looking at why she was involved in
middle school administration (Fullan, 2001; Marzano et al., 2005; Northouse, 2019). She
stated:
I don't know if I could recommend this job to other people. There's a lot of nonsense
that occurs, and you have to be in the right mind frame to be entertained by it. I
happen to be very entertained by most nonsense that middle schoolers do . . . some
people, they just don't like middle schoolers. If you don't like middle schoolers, this is
not the job for you.
She coupled this idea with a focus on constantly moving forward and not dwelling on the
struggles of the past, saying:
I think it’s like war wounds. Everyone is going to have some crazy thing that they are
going to remember. . . . But we lived through it. What are we going to do now? What
are we going to be positive about? We could be bummed out about a lot of crazy
things that happened last week, but that’s water under the bridge. How are we going
to move forward?
In reflecting on others around her whom she perceives as maintaining a positive outlook, she
said she knows of an administrator who does not place value on what other people think may
be positive or negative but rather bases all her decisions off what she thinks is best. She said
it allowed her to simply accept things as they come and make plans for the future.
The Importance of Advocating for Self-Care
Much research has been done to show the importance of self-care for students and
teachers returning from the pandemic (Quinane et al., 2021; Steiner & Woo, 2021; Viner et
al., 2022; Whitaker & Lopez-Perry, 2022). However, there is a gap in the research related to
leaders who need to maintain high levels of mental well-being to lead best (Davidovitz et al.,
2007). Wells and Klocko (2018) defined self-care as an “intentional plan to focus on

95
95
wellness” (p. 166). This definition allows space for personalizing self-care to each
individual’s needs. Nancy shared she and many administrators approach mental health the
same as work, with a focus on just pushing through and continuing on, but she said:
It's important to create a safe space for administrators, to where, whatever my
concerns are, I can bring it up to someone and discuss it without the fear of being
judged. . . . The vast majority of us are rule followers. We have to send out the
message of “It's okay to take care of you.”
She followed through with this on her administrative team by coordinating time throughout
the school year when they would take time off work to take care of themselves.
Nancy also spoke about the importance of advocating for self-care by setting firm
boundaries between work and life and being clear on personal and work priorities (Brackett
et al., 2020). She stated:
Once I leave the building, I have to be mom, I have to be a wife. I have to focus on
the next part of my day, like “What's for dinner?” and move on. That's something that
is new to me. But I do think that with everything we've been through, it just refocuses
your priorities.
Brian also scheduled time for self-care through his standing morning workouts with
his wife. On top of this, he had a consistent routine allowing him to spend quality time with
each family member. To help maintain this routine, a delegation of tasks was necessary to not
take on too much.
Ryan spoke about the importance of separating his work and home lives to maintain
dedicated time for self-care, although he struggled to do this for himself. He shared, “The
thing I tell a lot of people here every day is, ‘Go home! That'll be here tomorrow, get out of
here!’ I know they have families. But I don't take my own advice most of the time.”

96
96
As mentioned before, Alice made more focused priorities throughout the pandemic to
decide what did not need to be added back into her schedule to make more time for self-care,
like spending time with her family. The pandemic allowed for traditional ways of doing
things to be reexamined to see what no longer served her and her organization (DeMatthews
et al., 2021; Fernandez & Shaw, 2018).
On top of making time for self-care, one theme of self-care that emerged was the
desire for district officials and those higher up to recognize and prioritize mental health, not
just for students and teachers but also for administrators. DeMatthews et al. (2021) advocated
for a form of this through peer support and a leadership delegation plan. Nancy said, “It is
important to know that mental health and well-being is the priority that we should stick with,
for everybody, administrators included.” As someone who has gone to therapy for much of
his life, Ryan mentioned more work was needed to remove the stigma of administrators
seeking mental health services, saying, “There's this stigma if you need help with something.
But we're really stressed a lot of times, and I'm sure the person next to me is, too. . . . Admin
can be like a forgotten group sometimes.” He advocated for having more open conversations
about mental health:
[We should] not be afraid to have conversations about [the impacts of stress and
anxiety]. I've never shied away from that. If I have a kid in here that struggles from
anxiety, I'll say, “Me too, man, like ever since I was your age. You know that doesn't
define who you are,” and encourage them to talk to somebody. There's no shame in
seeing a therapist because most people out there need it.
The tools he learned in therapy equipped him to be mentally well through the stress of the
pandemic, so Ryan was an advocate for spreading that message to more people. Brackett et
al. (2020) also advocated for embedding socioemotional programs systematically, which
could be extended to administrators.

97
97
Alice also recognized bosses need to prioritize mental health. She shared her district’s
leader was formerly a school psychologist, so they understood the importance of mental
health and checking in with people. She shared they frequently asked how they could support
people and would ask people if they seemed stressed or worried. She also shared a variety of
self-care options need to be offered to administrators, because not everyone recharges in the
same way. She spoke about having a choice board of self-care so people could be met where
they are. In emphasizing the importance of this, she said it would be in the district’s best
interest because it can stop problems from compounding. Alice shared, “When people are
stressed, they don't necessarily use their coping skills as well as they could when they're in
their less stressed state.”
One respondent spoke about how simply providing more money does not work to
foster resiliency or mental wellness, because it does not remove the work overload or time
needed (Brackett et al., 2020; DeMatthews et al., 2021; Friedman, 2022; Robinson &
Shakeshaft, 2016; Steiner & Woo, 2021). Nathan said:
Paying me more is not going to make me mentally happier. I tell them all the time,
“You could pay me 20% more, but you're not going to get 20% more out of it.” I
honestly think, administratively, we need more people. The biggest frustration that I
had through all of it was there was a tremendous amount of support, money, and
resources that were given to teachers to try to help fill all of the issues. From my
perspective, the majority of the extra work came through the front office. As
administrators, we didn't really benefit. . . . We absolutely want to do a good job. We
run the risk of people really dealing with mental health issues when, as administrator,
you have this big task to do, and you literally can't figure out how you're going to get
it done. Because there's just not enough time in the day to get those things done.

98
98
Conclusion
The four research questions explored the lived experience of five administrators
throughout Los Angeles County during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The first question
asked participants to reflect on the stressors they experienced, and these stressors were
organized according to Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames. Stressors in the political
frame consisted of the pressure of returning to high academic achievement and balancing
competing ideas of school safety in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The human
resource frame included managing student and staff needs while maintaining accountability
for staff, the safety of those on campus, and the administrator’s isolation on the job. Stressors
in the symbolic frame included maintaining an academic focus and a safety focus as well as
rebuilding school culture and climate. Finally, in the structural frame, COVID regulations,
logistics and coordination, pandemic relief work, and discipline were cited as the main
categories of stressors. The second research question explored the impact of the job on
administrators’ mental health. The themes that emerged included the negative impact of
stress on mental health, the positive impact of a job well done on mental health, and the
impact of managing perceptions.
Research Question 3 explored experiences with how administrators responded to
these stressors, either positively or negatively. The four themes that emerged involved
mindset, community and support, self-care, and setting boundaries. Research Question 4
examined resiliency and mental wellness factors and pointed to the importance of
community, a positive mindset, and advocating for self-care.

99
99
Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapter 5 summarizes the findings within the educational community. Key research
findings are discussed to inform educational leaders and those overseeing them on best
practices on how to cultivate, support, and encourage self-care for leaders to bolster their
resiliency and self-efficacy. At the end of the chapter, recommendations for further research
are made based on the study’s findings.
This study focused on the lived experience of middle school administrators in Los
Angeles County. Of note was the exploration of what job-related stressors impacted their
mental health and how these stressors were translated through their risk or resiliency factors.
The job of an educational administrator has shifted dramatically in recent years (Goldring &
Schuermann, 2009; Grubb & Flessa, 2006). Due to this shift, more and more administrators
are reporting burnout, and schools are facing leader turnover (DeMatthews et al., 2021;
Gmelch & Gates, 1997). The purpose of this study was to see how administrators adapted and
built resiliency in a post-pandemic landscape. The following questions guided this study:
1. How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern California describe new
job-related stressors that emerged in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic?
2. How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern California describe the
impact of their jobs on their mental health in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic?
3. In what ways have K–12 school administrators in Southern California responded
to the job-related challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic?
4. What resiliency or mental-wellness factors emerged from the reflections and/or
experiences of K–12 school administrators in Southern California?
This study used a phenomenological approach focusing on participants’ lived
experiences and seeking to represent those experiences and relate them to each other. To

100
100
conduct the research, five current middle school principals in Los Angeles County were
interviewed, with their responses then coded and sorted according to the a priori codebook
established. These codes divided stressors based on Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames.
Findings
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked: How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern
California describe new job-related stressors that emerged in the wake of the COVID-19
pandemic? Qualitative data from the five interviews with principals were sorted into Bolman
and Deal’s (2017) four frames. Inside the political frame, two findings emerged. The first
finding from the political frame was related to the pressure of returning to high academic
achievement. This finding was consistent with the work of Steiner and Woo (2021) who
examined the pressures on school principals 1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic as well as
the work of Brackett et al. (2020) who examined the toll stressors from the COVID-19
pandemic had on educational administrators. Interview responses from the five principals
highlighted the pressures of trying to return to high achievement and experiences from before
the pandemic as a source of stress in their professional lives. This pressure looked different
based on the administrators’ positionality. Some administrators felt this stress more with test
scores, others with accountability measures, and others experienced it more pointedly
regarding school experiences and culture. The weight was described as always present and, at
times, juxtaposed with school safety and health concerns.
The second finding regarding the political frame was holding space for competing
ideas about school safety. This confirmed Robinson and Shakeshaft’s (2016) work on the
pressure that can be faced due to changing regulations. Participants talked about the stress
related to vaccination and masking requirements while needing to maintain privacy and
security. They also expressed facing challenges due to regulations changing frequently.

101
101
Frustration was expressed due to the amount of time it took to learn one protocol, only for it
to be changed later.
The second frame into which stressors were sorted was the human resource frame
(Bolman & Deal, 2017). Four distinct findings emerged in this frame from the qualitative
analysis of interviews with the five administrators. The first finding in the human resource
frame focused on stressors from managing student needs, both socially and academically.
The five administrators’ individual experiences were congruent with research by Whitaker
and Lopez-Perry (2022), finding students returning from distance learning came to schools
with increased socioemotional needs. Commonalities existed among participants because
students increased their use of time on social media, which negatively impacted social
behaviors at school. This led to a rise in necessary discipline and development of further
supports. A second major theme related to students’ needs was the increased anxiety and
mental health needs they had when they returned to campus. Coupled with the anxiety of
being notified of exposure and some students experiencing the loss of loved ones, an
increased amount of counseling was needed for students.
The second finding in the human resource frame was stressors from managing staff
needs. Steiner and Woo (2021) noted stressors stemming from supporting teachers’ well-
being ranked as one of the top risk factors for secondary school principals during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The five administrators’ responses were consistent with this finding. A
main commonality between the administrators’ experiences came from shifting from
supporting teachers instructionally to supporting them in more intensive social ways because
work and home needs tended to blur during the COVID-19 pandemic. Another leading
commonality confirming the work of DeMatthews et al. (2021) included stressors stemming
from knowing others’ stress and trauma and the increased pressure this knowledge placed on
administrators, a tension that can lead to secondary traumatic stress or compassion fatigue.

102
102
The third finding in the human resource frame was maintaining accountability for the
staff. Friedman (2022) listed stressors from weak teacher performance and stressors related to
inadequate performance by school support staff as two of the top four themes that can lead to
educational leader burnout. The five administrators’ accounts contained numerous examples
consistent with this theme as a source of stress. Whether holding staff accountable to high
standards of work, staffing programs again once back on campus, or managing testing or
vaccination requirements, all five administrators experienced stress in this realm.
The fourth theme in the human resource frame is also related to accountability.
Maintaining the safety of those on campus through compliance with county regulations
emerged as a common source of stress in some administrators’ experience. DeMatthews et al.
(2021) cited the high demands placed on administrators and their complex responsibilities as
a potential source of burnout and turnover. Although no administrators in this study left their
positions due to these factors, they still felt the pressure. Whether it was maintaining physical
safety through discipline or teaching or upholding changing regulations for students and staff,
stress came from this process.
The fifth and final theme in the human resource frame related to the isolation staff and
administrators felt. Gmelch and Gates (1997) spoke of “depersonalization” or the loss of
identity and meaning, which related closely to the feelings of isolation found in interviews
with the administrators. Loneliness was experienced from not being around staff and
students. This separation also compounded other stressors because problems were
complicated through strained communication at a distance. Needing to separate personal
opinions from professional ones also caused tension and stress in the administrators’
experiences. This was prevalent when listening to complaints from staff and parents.
The third frame into which stressors were sorted was the symbolic frame (Bolman &
Deal, 2017). In this frame, which is concerned with sense making and storytelling, three

103
103
themes emerged. The symbolic frame relates to the ideas of leadership, and findings were
consistent with work on adaptive and transformational leadership (Fullan, 2001; Marzano et
al., 2005; Northouse, 2017). The first finding relates to the first finding in the political frame
and concerns maintaining an academic focus. The administrators felt the tension of trying to
balance strong academic achievement while meeting students’ social-emotional needs.
The second finding in the symbolic frame relates to the fourth theme in the human
resource frame: maintaining a focus on safety. Although the focus in the human resource
frame was on managing protocols, in the symbolic frame, the finding that emerged was the
ethos behind what it means to be safe at school and how to manage that when competing
groups do not always agree on what safety looks like. DeMatthews et al. (2021) spoke about
stress coming from parental distrust, which principals experienced in two ways. First, stress
was experienced from parents who did not trust that the school was doing its part to protect
their students from COVID-19. Conversely, stress was experienced from those who did not
want to comply with regulations, either knowingly or unknowingly. Not every stakeholder
group agreed with the county protocols required to open schools, so this was in direct
competition with school safety and led to contention.
The third and final finding that emerged in the symbolic frame was stress caused by
rebuilding school culture and climate. A school’s climate is largely the untold story of how
things are done in the school (Fullan, 2001). The five administrators each spoke about how
they needed to use situational leadership to help teach and rebuild campus culture
(Northouse, 2017). The first commonality that came through the qualitative analysis of the
interviews was reforming connections and community in the school. This involved
addressing concerns, hosting events, and providing intentional ways for people to connect
upon coming back to campus. The second commonality was the pressure to build

104
104
relationships on top of other demands. At times, this was overwhelming, and one
administrator said it felt like just trying to survive.
The fourth and final frame into which stressors were sorted was the structural frame
(Bolman & Deal, 2017). Four distinct findings emerged in the structure frame in the
qualitative analysis of responses. The first was remaining up to date with COVID regulations.
Friedman (2002) cited overwhelming responsibilities and information perplexities as two
factors potentially leading to burnout in leaders. The five administrators’ experiences were
consistent with this work as related to COVID protocols and regulations. The stress came in
three distinct ways. First, the process of tracing close contacts was very intricate and involved
while not always being defined clearly. Second, the communication required after close
contact had been identified was time consuming and, at times, politicized and tense. Third,
remaining up to date with protocols was detrimental to morale, because, when protocols
shifted, it was difficult to remain current and implement them with fidelity. Yet, each of these
tasks came with accountability and needed to be implemented with fidelity to remain open
and compliant.
The second finding in the structural frame was stressors from logistics and
coordination. DeMatthews et al.’s (2021) work pointed to stress that could come when clarity
was not present. In crisis leadership, clarity is not always as readily accessible as situations
can change, adapt, or evolve quickly. Fernandez and Shaw (2020) stated, to handle situations
as they arise, a leader must connect with people, distribute leadership, and communicate
clearly. The five administrators’ experiences were congruent with these three aspects. First,
the leaders spoke about needing to delineate roles and responsibilities to think creatively and
innovatively. Second, there was consistency between the educational administrators’
accounts and the need to communicate clearly with families, staff, and students.
Communication took many forms, including phone calls and novel online tools. With each of

105
105
these new tools, stressors came from supporting everyone in becoming familiar with the new
processes. Third, returning to campus, many logistics needed to be worked out, including bell
schedules and COVID-19 procedures.
The third finding in the structural frame was related to providing social support, or, as
one responded referred to it, “pandemic relief work.” Grubb and Flessa (2006) wrote about
how the principal’s role has shifted from managerial, to instructional, to providing social
supports. The five principals’ experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic were consistent
with this work. Each administrator spoke about stress from providing support for students’
varying needs both during and after the pandemic. Technology support was a subset of this
support, especially during the year of distance learning. Once returning to campus, stress
came through pandemic relief work by creating systems and ensuring all classrooms and
teachers were supported in the supplies they needed to comply with protocols.
The fourth and final finding in the structural frame that emerged from the qualitative
analysis of interviews with the five principals was the stress connected to student discipline
(Bolman & Deal, 2017). DeMatthews et al. (2021) spoke about the category of stress from
meeting the diverse needs of students on campus. The first theme in this area was managing
student behaviors because they were influenced by social media. Second, as students returned
to campus, a difference was noticed between those who had had more support during the
pandemic and those who did not. This disparity of equity required more time and support to
help students reintegrate into campus successfully.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked: How do K–12 public school administrators in Southern
California describe the impact of their jobs on their mental health in the wake of the COVID-
19 pandemic? In the qualitative analysis of the interviews with the five educational
administrators, three findings emerged. The first finding was how stress negatively impacted

106
106
their mental health. This finding is consistent with the work of DeMatthews et al. (2021),
Friedman (2002), and Steiner and Woo (2021). Each of these studies cited high demands or
heavy workloads as causes of stress that could lead to burnout or turnover. Each principal
experienced fatigue due to the heavy workload and the demands of the job. This fatigue
exacerbated other stressors that were present, making their effects larger and causing
administrators to doubt their actions. Finally, consistently fielding complaints from teachers
and parents was cited as a stressor causing detrimental impacts to their mental health.
The second finding that emerged related to this research question was how a job well
done could impact participants’ mental health positively. In the qualitative analysis of the
interviews, administrators reflected on when they felt effective and how this impacted their
mental health. The commonalities supported Skoch’s (2003) ideas in that resilience and self-
efficacy are related. The administrators all shared how their mental health improved when
they felt effective in their jobs and how this could even motivate them to continue with their
work. Many times, this was connected to either teachers or students being supported and
having the resources they needed to succeed.
The third and final finding from the second research question related to managing
perceptions of mental health while being a public administrator. These findings were
consistent with the work of Barling and Clotier (2017) who spoke about access to mental
health services for leaders. The first theme regarded having to portray a picture of strength or
“having it all together” as a leader to inspire hope and trust. Second, a theme that emerged
was a sense of hesitancy to access mental health services because confidentiality may not be
ensured. Concerns were expressed over what would happen professionally to an
administrator if they accessed mental health services.

107
107
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked: In what ways have K–12 school administrators in
Southern California responded to the job-related challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic? In
analyzing the interviews with the five respondents, four findings emerged. The first finding
from the qualitative analysis was how mindset can impact responses to stress experienced on
the job. Allison (2012) advocated for leaders to practice mindfulness to manage stress and
demands of the job. Although mindfulness and mindset are not the same, in the way
respondents spoke of mindset, they serve a similar purpose, because both involve monitoring
and checking thoughts and mental models. The first theme used for mindset was to reframe
the pandemic as an opportunity rather than a challenge, citing the chances that exist for
learning and innovation. Another strategy for doing this was to point back continually to the
moral imperative for education and to focus on why these actions are important. Second,
multiple principals spoke of actively searching out positives each day and recognizing when a
conversation or situation was pulling them in a negative direction to protect their mindset.
The second finding that emerged from the qualitative analysis of the interviews was
leaning on community and building systems of support. Fernandez and Shaw (2020) found,
in crisis leadership, leaders must form connections with people, which aligns with forming
community. Each principal had methods of maintaining connections to the larger school
community, whether that was support groups, media they produced and distributed, team-
building activities or opportunities, or events welcoming the public to participate in whatever
manner was allowed. Through each of these, the administrators also created systems and
pathways to remain connected to their team and their teachers.
The third finding related to responding to job-related challenges was self-care. Allison
(2012) tied resilience to happiness and advocated for engaging in activities that allow for
personal renewal to generate energy. The administrators’ experiences supported this finding,

108
108
and each of them had myriad ways to generate energy to help counteract some of the stress
they experienced. The largest theme that emerged was exercise. Each administrator had a
way to be active, and many of them connected this to the previous finding of community by
exercising with a group of likeminded individuals. Two other methods of self-care one or
more administrators mentioned to counteract stress were comfort food or drink and the
importance of spirituality.
The fourth and final finding on how principals responded to stress was setting clear
boundaries. Brackett et al. (2020) cited maintaining work–life balance as one tool necessary
for educational administrators to succeed. The qualitative analysis of the five participants’
interviews supported this finding in two ways. First, respondents spoke about various
methods and tools they used or wished they used more to draw clear boundaries between
work and home. Another theme was delineating what work would be done and by whom as
well as prioritizing and identifying work that did not need to be done.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked: What resiliency or mental-wellness factors emerged from
the reflections and/or experiences of K–12 school administrators in Southern California? In
qualitatively analyzing the five educational administrators’ interview responses, three
findings emerged. The first finding related to the second finding from Research Question 3:
the importance of community as supported by Fernandez and Shaw (2020) who wrote about
crisis leadership. Each respondent had their own way of creating and engaging in community,
whether virtually, during exercise, or in a spiritual setting. One theme was connecting
administrators to those with similar jobs and experiences for support and camaraderie.
The second finding of resilience and mental wellness factors that emerged from
respondents was the importance of a positive mindset. This finding is connected to the first
finding for Research Question 3. Wells and Klocko (2018) advocated for activities that

109
109
promote self-awareness and self-regulation, which is congruent with the administrators’
actions in monitoring their mindsets. The first theme related to practicing rational detachment
to recognize and label what is within the administrators’ control and what is not. The second
action under the category of positive mindset was perspective taking, which was
accomplished by refocusing on the organization’s mission by “zooming out” to analyze
events from a wider point of view, taking in a broader scope of experiences. These two
themes together allowed principals to not fixate on problems of the past but look forward to
what could be done in the future.
The third and final finding that emerged was the importance of advocating for self-
care. This finding is connected to the third and fourth findings for Research Question 3.
Wells and Klocko (2018) defined self-care as “an intentional plan to focus on wellness”
(p.166), which was supported and accomplished through a combination of strategies by all
five educational administrators. The first theme that emerged was exercise, especially in
community with others. Second, a theme of setting clear boundaries to maintain work–life
balance was a strategy used to practice self-care. The third and final theme that emerged
through the qualitative analysis of the five respondents’ interviews was a desire for district
officials to recognize the importance of self-care and mental wellness for administrators and
to prioritize it in their initiatives and support.
Limitations
Limitations of this study included (a) lack of generalizability due to the small sample
size and specificity of location and (b) internal validity due to reliance on responses given
verbally to a fellow administrator. All respondents resided and worked in public middle
schools in Los Angeles County and experienced the same county protocols and restrictions at
the same time; therefore, although their experiences were true and valid to them, they may
not have reflected the experiences of other educational administrators in neighboring

110
110
counties, states, or organizations. Due to this, the study may not be generalizable outside the
sample population. However, the purpose of this study was not to generalize but rather to
report accurately on the true, lived experiences of similar individuals and their experiences
throughout and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the context of the statements made and
the level of detail in the responses, descriptive findings allowed for contextual inference and
applicability. Secondly, the interview protocol relied on respondents to self-report in the
moment and therefore may not have encompassed administrators’ full experience, negatively
affecting respondent validity. Triangulation, follow-up questions, and two independent
coders helped to overcome this threat to validity.
Implications for Practice
This study examined the experiences of five middle school administrators in Los
Angeles County during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Themes emerged from the
findings that can inform fellow administrators and district personnel on how to better support
the needs of site-level administrators, not only during crises, such as a pandemic, but also in
managing the workload and stressors present in educational administrators’ day-to-day lives.
The first implication for practice is for site-level administrators’ mental health to be
prioritized and invested in to better support all initiatives taking place on a school site.
Triangulation of the five administrators’ experiences suggested more needs to be done to
invest in administrators’ mental wellness, both in providing access and in removing barriers.
Findings also suggested barriers need to be removed to ensure administrators can access
mental health support, such as ensuring confidentiality, verbalizing the importance of
prioritizing mental health, and providing a more diverse set of self-care offerings.
The second implication for practice uncovered in interviews with the five
administrators was the need for stronger communities of job-alike peers. Study findings
suggested access could be increased by creating time and communities for job-alike

111
111
administrators to support each other. Multiple participants mentioned the isolation and
loneliness of educational administration. Providing dedicated time and space for
administrators to share experiences and support each other may help to mitigate feelings of
isolation that may accompany middle management. Furthermore, these communities, once
they have built trust through social relationships, could also function to lend support and
share best practices and strategies to support educational administrators in their continual
quest to be transformational leaders and to build higher levels of self-efficacy.
The third implication for practice was for educational administrators to set clear
boundaries both for their work and for their mindset. First, triangulated results showed
negative impacts to mental health when clear boundaries were not maintained. Study findings
suggested maintaining clear boundaries between work and home life can help bolster
resiliency, which has been tied to self-efficacy. Second, findings suggested carefully
guarding mindsets related to what can be controlled and what cannot be controlled may
impact resilience positively. Third, findings suggested administrators focused actively on
perspective taking and searching out positives can experience bolstered self-efficacy.
The fourth implication for practice suggested the need for further support and
delineation of work for site-level administrators. Qualitative analysis of the interview results
pointed to negative impacts on administrators’ mental health when they feel overwhelmed by
the workload. Findings suggested the addition of administrative staff or different delineation
or prioritization of workload may relieve the pressure site-level administrators may feel.
Findings also suggested administrators need to advocate for themselves and their needs, not
merely portray an image of strength, to represent their experiences appropriately.
Future Research
This study’s review of literature noted the lack of research on administrator mental
health. Although this study assisted in adding more context to administrators’ experiences

112
112
during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, more research is warranted. Additional research is
recommended to address three areas related to this study.
The first recommendation for future research is to research best practices for
educational administrators related to managing their workload and stresses inherent to the job
of a site-level administrator. Although this study investigated what five administrators
experienced and perceived to be beneficial, this does not constitute quantitative data that
could be analyzed and traced across time. Research into best practices for managing
workload, efficiency, and organizational structures would strengthen this study’s results.
The second recommendation for future research is to strengthen the study’s
generalizability. This study’s interview instrument focused on sorting the stressors
administrators experienced into Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames in a
phenomenological way. This may not represent the full scope of stressors educational
administrators experience and poses a distinct challenge to survey a large number of
administrators. It would be beneficial for researchers to study this topic more broadly and in
varying locations to add to the generalizability of the results.
The third recommendation for future research is to examine best practices more
closely for district-level administrators to support site-level administrators. This study
focused on site-level administrators’ lived experiences and what they perceived as effective
support, but this does not necessarily constitute data proven to be universally considered
supportive. Further research is needed to investigate and determine best practices for district
administrators in supporting site-level administrators and initiatives.
Fourth and finally, although much research has been conducted on the effectiveness
and practices of professional learning communities for teachers, this model has not been
applied fully to educational leaders. Because the administrators cited isolation and loneliness,
further development is warranted on how to structure a community to support the continued

113
113
growth of administrators who work in diverse settings. This research would support the
communities spoken about as an implication, giving them frameworks and procedures to
continue their journey of transforming schools while maintaining their mental health.
Conclusions
This study confirmed the role of site administrators changed dramatically during and
after the COVID-19 pandemic. Principals experience stress from myriad sources every day
(Brackett et al., 2020; DeMatthews et al., 2021; Friedman, 2020; Gmelch & Gates, 1998;
Robinson & Shakeshaft, 2016; Steiner & Woo, 2021). Depending on responses to these
stressors, administrators’ perceptions of self-efficacy and resilience can be affected positively
or negatively (Allison, 2012; Skoch, 2003; Wells & Klocko, 2018). Study findings suggested
administrators can impact their resilience and perceptions of self-efficacy positively by
engaging in targeted self-care, establishing clear boundaries, forming communities, and
managing perceptions. Findings further suggested more work needs to be done to change the
stigma around leaders accessing mental health services. Findings from this study can help to
inform site-level educational administrators on strategies for maintaining mental wellness and
can inform district-level administrators how to support the mental health of those they
supervise. This study represents the true experiences of five educational administrators to
show the implications of resilience and self-efficacy.

114
114
References
Allison, E. (2012). The resilient leader. Educational Leadership, 69(4), 79–82.
Armenta, T., & Reno, T. (1997). The forgotten leadership skill: Range of interest and the
school principal. NASSP Bulletin, 81(592), 81–84.
https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659708159213
Bai, K., Kohli, S., & Malik, A. (2017). Self-efficacy and hope as predictors of mental health.
Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(4), 631–635.
https://doi.org/10.15614/IJPP/2017/V8I4/165901
Bailey, W. J., Fillos, R., & Kelly, B. (1987). Exemplary principals and stress—How do they
cope? NASSP Bulletin, 71(503), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263658707150317
Baker, B. D. (2021). Chapter 2: School finance 101. Educational inequality and school
finance: Why money matters for America's students. Harvard Education Press.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 1(2), 164-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing
the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45(5), 1017–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1017
Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways
to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 258–
269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.258
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41(3), 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586

115
115
Barling, J., & Cloutier, A. (2017). Leaders’ mental health at work: Empirical,
methodological, and policy directions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
22(3), 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000055
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1981). Management by Grid® principles or situationalism:
Which? Group & Organization Studies, 6(4), 439–455.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105960118100600404
Brackett, M., Cannizzaro, M., & Levy, S. (2020). The pandemic’s toll on school leaders is
palpable. Here’s what’s needed for a successful school year. EdSurge.
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-07-16-the-pandemic-s-toll-on-school-leaders-is-
palpable-here-s-what-s-needed-for-a-successful-school-year
Byrne, M. M. (2001). Understanding life experiences through a phenomenological approach
to research. AORN Journal, 73(4), 830–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-
2092(06)61812-7
Carr, N. (2003). Education vital signs. Leadership: The toughest job in America. American
School Board Journal.
Clifford, M. A., & Coggshall, J. G. (2021, October). What we learned from elementary
school principals about changes to schools and the profession emerging from 2020–
2021. American Institutes for Research. https://www.naesp.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/10/LWNNExecutiveSummary.pdf
Cooley, V. E., & Shen Van, J. E. (2003). School accountability and professional job
responsibilities: A perspective from secondary principals. NAASP Bulletin, 87(634).
https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650308763402

116
116
Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Izsak, R., & Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as
attachment figures: Leaders' attachment orientations predict leadership-related mental
representations and followers' performance and mental health. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 93(4), 632–650. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.632
Diehl, M., & Hay, E. L. (2010). Risk and resilience factors in coping with daily stress in
adulthood: The role of age, self-concept incoherence, and personal control.
Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1132–1146. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019937
DeMatthews, D., Carrola, P., Reyes, P., & Knight, D. (2021). School leadership burnout and
job-related stress: Recommendations for district administrators and principals. The
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 94(4), 159–
167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2021.1894083
Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: Relations with burnout, job
satisfaction and motivation to quit. Social Psychology of Education, 15(3), 295–320.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9183-5
Fernandez, A. A., & Shaw, G. P. (2020). Academic leadership in a time of crisis: The
coronavirus and COVID-19. Journal of Leadership Studies, 14(1), 39–45.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21684
Friedman, I. A. (2002). Burnout in school principals: Role related antecedents. Social
Psychology of Education, 5, 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016321210858
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M. B., Harvey, J., Immerwahr, J., & Winger, A. (2003). An
impossible job? The view from the urban superintendent’s chair. Center on
Reinventing Public Education. https://crpe.org/an-impossible-job-the-view-from-the-
urban-superintendents-chair/

117
117
Gmelch, W. H., & Gates, G. (1998). The impact of personal, professional and organizational
characteristics on administrator burnout. Journal of Educational Administration,
36(2), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239810204363
Goldring, E., & Schuermann, P. (2009). The changing context of K–12 education
administration: Consequences for EdD program design and delivery. Peabody
Journal of Education, 84(1), 9–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560802679583
Grubb, W. N., & Flessa, J. J. (2006). “A job too big for one”: Multiple principals and other
nontraditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 42(4), 518–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06290641
Harris, A. (2020). COVID-19 – School leadership in crisis? Journal of Professional Capital
and Community, 5(3–4), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2020-0045
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID 19–school leadership in disruptive times. School
Leadership and Management, 40(4), 243–247.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479
Heifetz, R. A. (1998). Leadership without easy answers. Harvard University Press.
Heifetz, R. A., Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive
leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard
Business Press.
Kaufman, J., & Diliberti, M. (2021). Teachers are not all right: How the COVID-19
pandemic is taking a toll on the nation's teachers. Center on Reinventing Public
Education. https://crpe.org/wp-content/uploads/final-EP-teachers-synthesis.pdf
Koch, J. L., Tung, R., Gmelch, W., & Swent, B. (1982). Job stress among school
administrators: Factorial dimensions and differential effects. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67(4), 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.4.493

118
118
Laverdure, P., & LeCompte, B. (2021). Policy, advocacy and leadership column: Lessons
learned from COVID-19: A leadership and advocacy perspective. Journal of
Occupational Therapy, Schools, and Early Intervention, 14(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2021.1899644
Mahfouz, J. (2020). Principals and stress: Few coping strategies for abundant stressors.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(3), 440–458.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218817562
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Ortamlarında, E., Çalışmaları, F., İçin, Y., Çerçeveler, T., Ve Prosedürler, Y., Yüksel, P., &
Yıldırım, S. (2015). Theoretical frameworks, methods, and procedures for conducting
phenomenological studies in educational settings. Turkish Online Journal of
Qualitative Inquiry, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.59813
Quinane, E., Bardoel, E. A., & Pervan, S. (2021). CEOs, leaders and managing mental health:
a tension-centered approach. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
32(15), 3157–3189. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1925325
Robinson, K., & Shakeshaft, C. (2016). Superintendent stress and superintendent health: A
national study. Journal of Education and Human Development, 5(1), 120–133.
https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v5n1a13

119
119
Ryckman, R. M., Robbins, M. A., Gold, J. A., & Kuehnel, R. H. (1985). Physical self-
efficacy and actualization. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 288–298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90020-0
Sharp, W. L., & Walter, J. K. (2004). The school superintendent: The profession and the
person. R&L Education.
Simeon, D., Yehuda, R., Cunill, R., Knutelska, M., Putnam, F. W., & Smith, L. M. (2007).
Factors associated with resilience in healthy adults. Psychoneuroendocrinology,
32(8–10), 1149–1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSYNEUEN.2007.08.005
Skoch, S. H. (2003). Resilience and self-efficacy: The importance of efficacy beliefs and
coping mechanisms in resilient adolescents. Colgate University Journal of the
Sciences, 35(1), 115–146.
Steiner, E. D., & Woo, A. (2021). Job-related stress threatens the teacher supply: Key
findings from the 2021 State of the U.S. Teacher Survey. RAND Corporation.
Viner, R., Russell, S., Saulle, R., Croker, H., Stansfield, C., Packer, J., Nicholls, D.,
Goddings, A. L., Bonell, C, Hudson, L., Hope, S., Ward, J., Schwalbe, N., Morgan,
A., & Minozzi, S. (2022). School closures during social lockdown and mental health,
health behaviors, and well-being among children and adolescents during the first
COVID-19 wave: A systematic review. JAMA Pediatrics, 176(4), 400–409.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.5840
Weber, A., Weltle, D., & Lederer, P. (2005). Ill health and early retirement among school
principals in Bavaria. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental
Health, 78, 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-004-0555-9
Wells, C. (2016). Mindfulness: How school leaders can reduce stress and thrive on the job.
Rowman & Littlefield.

120
120
Wells, C. M., & Klocko, B. A. (2018). Principal well-being and resilience: Mindfulness as a
means to that end. NASSP Bulletin, 102(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636518777813
Whitaker, A. & Lopez-Perry, C. (2022). State of student mental wellness report 2022.
https://aclucalaction.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/01/2022_state_of_student_wellness
_report_.pdf
Williamson, J., & Campbell, L. (1987). Stress in the principalship: What causes it? NASSP
Bulletin, 71(500), 109–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263658707150017
World Health Organization. (2022). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). WHO Health Topic.
https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1
Wu, G., Feder, A., Cohen, H., Kim, J. J., Calderon, S., Charney, D. S., & Mathé, A. A.
(2013). Understanding resilience. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, Article
10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00010
Yan, R. (2020). The Influence of working conditions on principal turnover in K–12 public
schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(1), 89–122.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19840391
Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting
Psychology Journal, 62(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019835

121
121
Appendix A: Semistructured Interview Protocol
Introduction
Hello and thank you for agreeing to participate in this research study! I appreciate you
taking the time out of our schedule to speak with me today. The entire interview should take
around an hour. Do you still have a full hour we can set aside right now for the questions?
Before we get started, I wanted to let you know a little about this study to give you
some background for our conversation. This information is all the same information given to
you in the Study Information Sheet. I am a student at the University of Southern California
and I am completing this study in partial fulfillment of earning a degree of Doctor of
Education. In this study, I am interested to learn about school site administrators and their
experiences post-pandemic. This study is a thematic study, with one researcher looking at
site-level administration and another examining central office administration. I am
particularly interested in learning about mental health and what steps or strategies were
effective for various administrators as they navigated work and life in a post-pandemic world.
Throughout this process, I am speaking to various administrators in Southern California and
am curious to hear the various perspectives.
As stated in the informed consent, this interview is completely confidential, meaning
nothing from this interview will be shared with your district or colleagues and to the greatest
extent possible, all identifiable information will be replaced. In the final study, direct quotes
may be used from our interview, but I will do my best to remove all identifying features from
your responses and to replace names with pseudonyms. Finally, I want to assure you I am
here to understand your perspective as an educational administrator, and to ultimately find
commonalities between the experiences of other administrators who are adapting and
building resilience in a post-pandemic landscape. My role is not to evaluate you as an
administrator, nor is it to pass judgment.

122
122
We will be discussing your own mental health and some of the questions are quite
personal. If at any time you are not comfortable or want to stop the interview, you can stop
and request for your responses to not be included in the study. The answers you give will be
stored securely in a password-protected computer to ensure security and all data will be
deleted after three years. If you are interested, I would be more than happy to provide you
with a copy of the research paper at the conclusion of the study.
Do you have any questions for me before we get started? I have brought along a
device to record this conversation. This recording would not be shared with anyone outside of
this research and is only to ensure I capture and can revisit your answers as I try to accurately
report on your answers. Are you okay with my recording this conversation?
Thank you very much. I am starting the recording now and we will begin.
Questions (With Transitions)
I would like to start by asking you some background questions about you to get to
know you a little better.
1. First, tell me about your background in education (background/demographic)
a. How did you become interested in the field of education?
b. Where did you get your educational degree and certification?
c. How long have you worked in the field?
d. What roles or positions have you held?
e. How long have you been in this district?
f. What is your official job title?
For this next set of questions, we will be discussing your time as an administrator
before March 13, 2020, the day the pandemic began.
2. If I were to have shadowed you in your role prior to March 13th, 2020, what kinds
of work would I have observed you doing?

123
123
3. How would you describe the stressors, if any, of being an administrator before the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Now, we will discuss being an administrator after March 13, 2020, which is known to
administrators as the time during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
4. How would you characterize the difference, if any, with being an administrator
pre-pandemic versus post-pandemic?
a. Describe how, if at all, your leadership style has changed because of the
pandemic.
5. Think back to March 13, 2020, when schools across the state were closed because
of the pandemic. Describe the experience of leadership during and after that time.
a. Tell me about a decision you made during or after that time, if any, that
you are proud of.
b. What job-related challenges, if any, did you experience during or after that
time?
c. What joys, if any, did you experience throughout the pandemic?
d. What struggles, if any, were new to you during the COVID-19 pandemic?
For this next section, we will discuss the ways in which you may have experienced
stress as an administrator:
6. In your opinion, what are the top five job-related stressors experienced by
educational administrators in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic?
7. Describe in your own words a system that was created in response to the
pandemic that caused stress (if any) in your work life.
8. From your perspective, what was the most difficult part of managing the people
under your supervision during the COVID-19 pandemic?

124
124
9. Describe the tension (if any) you experienced due to the perceived politicized
nature of the COVID-19 pandemic.
10. What challenges, if any, did you experience while helping maintain a positive
culture during the COVID-19 pandemic?
11. Some administrators have described the pandemic as one of the most challenging
times of their careers. Using your own experience, how would you respond to an
administrator who says this?
For these next questions, we will be focusing on your response to the stressors that
may have come up during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
12. Describe in detail a system you put in place (if any) that you believe made your
organization run smoothly during the COVID-19 pandemic.
13. What do you believe were the most important steps (if any) you took to support
the people you supervise during the COVID-19 pandemic?
14. What steps (if any) did you take to mitigate these stressors (if experienced) caused
by the politicized nature of the COVID-19 pandemic?
15. What steps or strategies did you use to help maintain a positive culture during the
COVID-19 pandemic?
a. Describe how these changed/evolved (if at all) after returning to in-person
learning.
16. What would be your ideal way of coping with the stress, if any, of being a leader
through the pandemic?
17. Think about a fellow administrator you feel has a positive way of responding to
stress. What do you believe allows them to respond in a way you believe is
positive?

125
125
For this next set of questions, we will discuss risk and resiliency factors. You may
find some of the questions to be personal in nature. As a reminder, if at any time, you do not
feel comfortable, or if you would like to stop the interview, we can stop, skip this section, or
take a break. Also, please remember, my role is not to judge or evaluate, but to understand
your true, lived experience.
18. Prior to the pandemic, how would you characterize your overall mental health?
a. What changes, if any, did you experience to your mental health after the
pandemic?
b. To what factors would you attribute these changes (if any)?
19. To the best of your knowledge, describe what mental health and wellness supports
to which administrators have access.
a. In your opinion, what may prevent administrators from taking advantage
of available resources?
20. Describe a time, if any, when you perceived you responded well to stressors
during the COVID-19 pandemic (if any).
a. What allowed you to respond the way you did?
b. What did you learn from this situation?
c. Were you able to apply this method to other situations?
21. Describe a time, if any, when you perceived you did not respond well to stressors
during the COVID-19 pandemic (if any).
a. What caused you to respond the way you did?
b. What did you learn from this situation?
c. Were you able to apply this method to other situations?
22. Describe routines, procedures, or systems (if any) you have in place to help
manage stress.

126
126
a. Which of these would you describe as positive/healthy?
b. Which of these would you describe as negative/harmful?
For this last set of questions, we will be focusing on your experiences with self-
efficacy and fostering mental wellness.
23. Describe a time during the pandemic when you felt like you were being
effective/successful at your job.
a. What effect, if any, did this have on your mental health?
24. Describe a time during the pandemic when you felt like you were not being
effective/successful at your job.
a. What effect, if any, did this have on your mental health?
b. What steps, if any, did you take to remedy this?
c. What effect, if any, did this have on your mental health?
25. What impact, if any, did the COVID-19 pandemic have on your own perception of
yourself or your abilities as an administrator?
a. In what ways, if any, did you grow?
b. In what ways, if any, do you feel less sure?
26. Some administrators reported the pandemic impacted their mental health. What
impact, if any, did job-related stressors have on your mental health after the
COVID-19 pandemic?
27. Describe a time, if any, when you felt supported as an administrator during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
a. Describe in what form the support was provided.
b. What was it about this situation that made you feel supported?
28. Imagine you are at a meeting with other administrators around California. The
topic is supporting mental health for administrators post-pandemic. What would

127
127
you suggest as an ideal solution for addressing the mental health and wellness of
administrators?
Closing
This brings us to the end of our interview for today. Do you have any follow-up
questions for me or anything you wish I would have asked you, but didn’t include?
Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with me. The answers you have
shared are very valuable to this study. If I have any questions as I go through the response,
would it be okay for me to follow up with you again via phone or email? As a small token of
my appreciation, please accept this gift card. Thank you again for taking the time.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Throughout the country, K–12 administrators have adapted and coped with the ever-changing landscape during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examines the perceived stressors for school site administrators as filtered through Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames (structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) to explore the responses and impacts of various stressors as interpreted by an administrator’s risk and resiliency factors to determine the effects on their own sense of self-efficacy and mental wellness. The study makes suggestions for best practices post-pandemic to support the mental wellness of administrators.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Sorting through stress: how K–12 superintendents in southern California adapt and build resilience in a post-pandemic world

PDF

Teaching in the time of COVID-19: secondary educators’ experiences during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Teaching in the time of COVID: secondary educators’ experiences during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Cultural intelligence and self-efficacy of trip leaders on short-term international educational programs

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Ethnic studies influence on education attainment

PDF

Inclusive gender practices in high schools: a study on supports and practical solutions for California administrators

PDF

A phenomenological study examining experiences of families of students with disabilities in Georgia public schools during the COVID-19 pandemic and looking forward

PDF

Building leadership capacity from the top: how superintendents empower principals to lead schools

PDF

Transgender patients’ perceptions of healthcare: A study of gender minority stress and resilience factors in predicting healthcare behavioral intentions

PDF

The next generation of leaders: an exploration of the experiences of millennials as administrators in southern California’s urban public schools

PDF

Implementing an equity-based multi-tiered system of support in a large urban school district: the grows and glows

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

Black middle school girls' self-efficacy for science

PDF

An evaluation of the effectiveness of positive behavior intervention system at the high school level

PDF

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals

PDF

The impact of COVID-19 on instructional practices

Asset Metadata

Creator Jonathan A. (author), Weber ()

Core Title Sorting through stress: how middle school administrators in southern California adapt and build resilience in a post-pandemic world

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/20/2023

Defense Date 03/29/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag adaptive leadership,administrator,Mental Health,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest,resiliency factors,self-efficacy

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cash, David (committee chair), Franklin, Gregory (committee member), Robles, Darline (committee member)

Creator Email jnthn2005@gmail.com,weberj@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113056779

Unique identifier UC113056779

Identifier etd-WeberJonat-11670.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-WeberJonat-11670

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Weber, Jonathan A.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230420-usctheses-batch-1026 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu