University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Leadership practices impacting Minnesota school principals’ employee well-being and burnout during the pandemic

(USC Thesis Other)

Leadership practices impacting Minnesota school principals’ employee well-being and burnout during the pandemic

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
Copyright 2022 Janet Eileen Swiecichowski

Leadership Practices Impacting Minnesota School Principals’
Employee Well-Being and Burnout During the Pandemic

by

Janet Eileen Swiecichowski

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

November 2022

ii

© Copyright by Janet E. Swiecichowski 2022
All Rights Reserved

iii

The Committee for Janet Swiecichowski certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Courtney Malloy
Katie Pekel
Kimberly Hirabayashi, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv

Abstract
Employee well-being is a primary focus for many employers, as the world emerges from
the COVID-19 pandemic. For K-12 school districts, there are high levels of occupational stress
and burnout among leaders and employees. This study identified a strong relationship between
burnout, emotional exhaustion, fatigue, engagement, and job fulfillment factors that may impact
school principal effectiveness. Further, this study investigated organizational and leadership
practices used during the pandemic to mitigate employee burnout and promote employee well-
being. The findings show that among K-12 principals and assistant principals, well-being and
beliefs about effectiveness declined during the pandemic: 65.5% of reported less effectiveness;
84% experienced a decrease in personal well-being; and 65.5% indicated experiencing burnout.
Less than a third of participants prioritized their personal well-being at least weekly over the last
year. Most participants reported burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue. Minnesota
principals worked long hours, and fewer than half believed the pace is sustainable. The most
significant challenges they faced related to student and staff mental health—an emotionally
draining area of work that they feel least confident in their abilities to support.
The findings of this study are significant because school principals have a mission-critical
role in public education. As supervisors and instructional leaders, their beliefs and behaviors
impact school culture, student learning, and the workplace of employees. Effective school
leadership and stability are critical as K-12 schools face unprecedented challenges emerging
from the pandemic. School leadership is strongly correlated with school improvement, teacher
retention, teacher effectiveness, school culture, student achievement and the cost of education.
This study offers three recommendations to support school leaders based on the findings.

v

Acknowledgments
To Minnesota school principals and leaders who answer a call to serve on behalf of
children, families, staff, and communities. When the world paused during the pandemic, school
leaders stepped up to do more than they had ever imagined. As their staff, students, and families
looked for answers and direction, school leaders provided a path forward. They care deeply
about others and our collective future. They inspire me.
To my husband, Kurt, and adult children, Luke and Michelle. Thank you for supporting
me, understanding when I was unavailable, encouraging me when I got frustrated and having
faith that I could accomplish this goal.
To my classmates. I feel so blessed and privileged to have had the opportunity to work
with classmates and friends in the Rossier OCL Cohort 16, especially our Saturday Breakfast
Club and thematic dissertation group, whose collective work may impact more than a dozen
professions. From education to healthcare to banking to government, studying what employers
ask of the humans who serve their organizations provides a collective will to drive meaningful
change. We are living through a historic era, and our chance to reset as a society is now.
To my dissertation committee, Dr. Adibe, Dr. Hirabayashi, Dr. Malloy, and Dr. Pekel,
whose research, reassurance, and knowledge guided my journey. I have grown as a learner and a
leader with your guidance.
I dedicate this dissertation to the well-being of U.S. children, teachers, principals, and
school leaders. With all its imperfections, public education is the foundation of our democracy.
The children in our schools are the leaders of tomorrow. They hold the hope for a more loving,
equitable and human-centered world.

vi

vii

Table of Contents
Abstract iv
Acknowledgments v
List of Tables xiii
List of Figures xiv
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study 1
Background and Context of the Problem ........................................................................................ 2
A Sustained Crisis ................................................................................................................... 2
A Crisis Within a Crisis .......................................................................................................... 4
Wellness Policies in Minnesota Schools................................................................................. 5
Problem of Practice ......................................................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .............................................................................. 6
Importance of the Study .................................................................................................................. 6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ................................................................ 7
Definitions....................................................................................................................................... 8
Organization of the Dissertation ................................................................................................... 11
Chapter Two: Literature Review 12
Well-Being .................................................................................................................................... 12
Workplace Health, Safety, and Well-being .......................................................................... 14
Occupational Stress and Burnout .................................................................................................. 19
Defining Burnout .................................................................................................................. 20

viii

Measuring Well-Being and Burnout ............................................................................................. 27
Organizational Interventions for Preventing Employee Burnout ................................................. 28
A Framework for Employee Well-Being .............................................................................. 28
Prevention and Intervention Services ................................................................................... 31
Mitigating Workload ............................................................................................................. 32
The Role of K-12 School Principals ............................................................................................. 32
Principal Job Demands ......................................................................................................... 35
Principal Turnover ................................................................................................................ 36
Student Behavior and Student Low Achievement ................................................................ 37
Managing Difficult Stakeholder Issues ................................................................................. 37
Principal Satisfaction .................................................................................................................... 38
Principal Effectiveness.................................................................................................................. 40
Impact of Workload .............................................................................................................. 41
The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Sustained Crisis for School Leaders ............................................. 41
Safe Schooling: Three Learning Models ...................................................................................... 43
Digital Leadership ................................................................................................................. 43
Prioritizing Equity in Education ........................................................................................... 44
Supervising Essential Employees During the COVID-19 Pandemic ................................... 44
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................. 45
Summary of Review ..................................................................................................................... 47

ix

Chapter Three: Methodology 48
Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 48
Methodology Approach and Rationale ......................................................................................... 49
The Researcher.............................................................................................................................. 50
Population ..................................................................................................................................... 51
Participant Group Workplace Demographics ............................................................................... 52
Participant Group Personal Demographics ................................................................................... 52
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................................. 55
Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................................. 57
Chapter Four: Findings 61
Research Question 1: Burnout, Emotional Exhaustion, And Fatigue Related to Employee
Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................. 63
Employee Effectiveness ........................................................................................................ 63
Reliability .............................................................................................................................. 64
Burnout, Emotional Exhaustion, and Fatigue ............................................................................... 65
Burnout Scale ........................................................................................................................ 65
Emotional Exhaustion Scale ................................................................................................. 66
Fatigue Scale ......................................................................................................................... 67
Descriptive Frequencies ........................................................................................................ 67
Correlational Statistics .......................................................................................................... 69

x

Regression ............................................................................................................................. 69
Research Question 2: Engagement and Fulfillment Related to Beliefs About Effectiveness ...... 70
Engagement Scale ................................................................................................................. 70
Fulfillment Scale ................................................................................................................... 71
Correlational Statistics .......................................................................................................... 72
Regression ............................................................................................................................. 73
Correlating Two Quantitative Research Questions....................................................................... 73
Research Question 3: School District Strategies Supporting Principal Well-Being..................... 75
Personal Protective Equipment ............................................................................................. 75
District or Leadership Practices ............................................................................................ 76
Supportive Supervisory Practices ......................................................................................... 76
Involvement In Decision Making Is Significant ................................................................... 77
Autonomy and Supervisory Support Matter ......................................................................... 81
Occupational Stressors Persist .............................................................................................. 81
Neglecting Self-Care ............................................................................................................. 83
Research Question 4: School Principals Strategies to Mitigate Burnout For Employees ............ 85
Empathy and Human Connection ......................................................................................... 88
Time and Relaxing Demands ................................................................................................ 89
Gratitude and Appreciation ................................................................................................... 90
Well-Being Discussions ........................................................................................................ 91

xi

COVID-19 Protocols .................................................................................................................... 93
Other Findings .............................................................................................................................. 93
Caregivers ............................................................................................................................. 94
Workplace Demographics ..................................................................................................... 94
School Type .......................................................................................................................... 94
District Type ......................................................................................................................... 97
Supervisory Load .................................................................................................................. 97
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................... 98
Chapter Five: Recommendations 100
Discussion of Findings ................................................................................................................ 100
Burnout, Effectiveness, and Well-Being ............................................................................ 101
Leadership Practices ........................................................................................................... 105
Recommendations for Practice ................................................................................................... 107
Recommendation 1: Redesign Jobs for a Manageable Workload ...................................... 108
Recommendation 2: Use the U.S. Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Well-Being
............................................................................................................................................. 112
Recommendation 3: Support Adoption of Personal Well-Being Behaviors ...................... 115
Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................................................... 121
Limitations and Delimitations..................................................................................................... 121
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 122

xii

References 125
Appendix A: Survey Instrument ................................................................................................. 143
Appendix B: Email Solicitation 150
Appendix C: Additional Statistical Tables ................................................................................. 153

xiii

List of Tables
Table 1: Workplace Demographics .............................................................................................. 53
Table 2: Personal Demographics .................................................................................................. 54
Table 3: PanEffectiveness Frequencies ........................................................................................ 64
Table 4: Pan Effectiveness and Effectiveness Scale Descriptive Statistics .................................. 65
Table 5: Item-Total Statistical Analysis for Burnout, Emotional Exhaustion, and Fatigue ......... 68
Table 6: Correlations for Burnout, Emotional Exhaustion, and Fatigue ...................................... 69
Table 7: Item-Total Statistical Analysis for Engagement and Fulfillment ................................... 72
Table 8: Correlations for Engagement and Fulfillment ................................................................ 73
Table 9: Correlations Among Independent Variables in RQ1 and RQ2 ...................................... 74
Table 10: District or Supervisor Policies or Practices That Supported Principal Well-Being ..... 78
Table 11: Involvement in District-Level Decisions Compared to Very Little Involvement ....... 79
Table 12: Prioritizing Personal Well-being Related to Independent and Dependent Variables ... 86
Table 13: Principal or Leadership Strategies to Mitigate Employee Burnout .............................. 87
Table 14: Descriptive Statistics by 2020-2021 Learning Model .................................................. 95
Table 15: Descriptive Statistics by School Type .......................................................................... 96
Table 16: Well-Being Frameworks ............................................................................................. 103
Table 17: American Psychiatric Association Framework of Interventions ................................ 115

xiv

List of Figures
Figure 1: Organizational Influence to Enhance Employee Well-Being ...................................... 30
Figure 2: Effectiveness Histogram................................................................................................ 66
Figure 3: Pan Effectiveness Histogram......................................................................................... 67
Figure 4: Effectiveness and Burnout: Simple Linear Regression ................................................. 70
Figure 5: Effectiveness With Fulfillment: Simple Linear Regression .......................................... 74
Figure 6: Involvement in Decisions Related to Burnout, Emotional Exhaustion, and Fatigue ... 80
Figure 7: Involvement In Decisions Related To Engagement, Fulfillment and Effectiveness ..... 80
Figure 8: How Often Did You Prioritize Your Personal Well-being Over The Last 12 Months? 83
Figure 9: U.S. Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Mental Health & Well-Being….104

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Public school leadership positions are demanding and increasingly complex due to
unreasonable job demands, mounting student needs, systemic inequities, societal polarization,
ever-changing technology, and a broad supervisory span of control (Harris, 2020; Lawson et al.,
2019; Leithwood et al., 2017; Reeves, 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic further stretched school
leaders, resulting in increased occupational stress and burnout (DeMatthews et al., 2021; Harris,
2020; Heubeck, 2021). A survey of national school principals indicated 45% of respondents
thought about leaving the profession (Heubeck, 2021). With no coordinated federal pandemic
response and public education policy decided at the state level, there is a need to understand how
schools and leaders responded to the pandemic in each state to understand long-term impacts.
In March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Minnesota abruptly closed all schools
and instructed districts to plan for an extended period of distance learning (Walz, 2020). School
leaders were thrust into an unprecedented period of change in their service model. Categorized as
“essential employees” during the pandemic (Walz, 2020), these frontline managers were
squeezed between prioritizing the needs of their students and employees and the demands of
district leadership, state mandates, and external constituents. Complicating their unmanageable
workload, they had to understand complex health and legal issues, deploy new technology,
repeatedly manipulate schedules, and ensure free meals for all students (Heubeck, 2021; Pekel et
al., 2020; Pollack, 2020). By November 2021, job satisfaction among school principals
nationally dropped from 63% to 35%—the lowest level recorded by the National Association for
Secondary School Principals (NASSP, 2021a), with multiple experts signaling a looming crisis
of principal turnover (DeMatthews, 2021; Harris, 2020; NASSP, 2021a).
2

Background and Context of the Problem
This study explores the impact of burnout on the effectiveness of Minnesota K-12
principals and identifies proactive practices for employee well-being implemented during the
pandemic as a model for long-term commitment to supporting employee well-being and
effectiveness among educational leaders. The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE, 2021
listed 2,496 valid email addresses for school principals and assistant principals in K-12
Minnesota public schools (including traditional and charter schools). All principals and assistant
principals were invited to participate in this study, which was conducted at the end of the 2021-
2022 school year, the third school year disrupted by the pandemic.
A Sustained Crisis
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO, 2020) declared a global
pandemic of COVID-19, a highly contagious respiratory virus caused by a novel coronavirus that
has not previously been seen in humans. As a novel virus, there were no tests, vaccines, or
known treatments when the pandemic emerged, and hospitals did not have capacity for the large
number of cases expected (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2022; Minnesota Department of
Health, 2020). COVID-19 has caused more than 1,040,000 deaths in the United States, and more
than 6,000,000 worldwide. The coronavirus spreads from an infected person, who is contagious
before the onset of symptoms, to others through respiratory droplets produced when breathing,
talking, coughing, or sneezing (CDC, 2020). To contain the spread, governments around the
world shut down schools, businesses, churches, and places where people gather. For schools, the
shutdowns initiated unprecedented disruption and school principals were on the frontlines
responding to students, families, and employees.
3

In Minnesota, there was a 2-week grace period for planning. On March 15, 2020, the
Governor’s Executive Order 20-02 closed all schools for two weeks to prepare for a sustained
period of distance learning (Walz, 2020). The executive order designated public education as an
essential service and required schools to quickly shift all service delivery models. School leaders
faced rapid, unprecedented change, disruption of all routines, deployment of new technology
tools, cancellation of traditional rituals, and increased demands for information on decisions that
were beyond their control or had yet to be known. A series of executive orders kept students out
of school buildings and in distance learning through the end of the 2019-2020 school year.
In addition to health and safety threats from the coronavirus, job demands and uncertainty
increased for school principals. It was the end of July 2020 before the state released its directive
for a localized approach for reopening schools in 2020-2021. Each district needed to develop a
safe learning plan and prepare for three scenarios that schools could roll into and out of during
the year: (a) in-person everyday learning, (b) hybrid learning at 50% classroom and school
capacity, and (c) full distance learning with daily teacher contact and either synchronous or
asynchronous learning activities aligned to state standards (MDE, 2020; Walz, 2020). For school
principals, this approach meant a significant workload, including three master schedules that
ensured 6-foot social distancing, preventing covid transmission, accommodating contact tracing
requirements, and reassigning staff based on health and safety accommodations and staffing
shortages.
As the pandemic wore on into the 2021-2022 school year, multiple studies reported
increased exhaustion among educators, staffing shortages and rising mental health needs among
students, families, and staff (Clifford & Coggshall, 2021b; Pekel et al., 2022; Steiner et al.,
2022).
4

A Crisis Within a Crisis
Minnesota was an epicenter for the epidemic of systemic racism in the pandemic, with
well-documented educational, housing, healthcare, and economic disparities evident across race,
ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (Grunewald & Nath, 2019). Civil unrest and civil
disobedience in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd played out in schools, parking lots,
and school board meetings, increasing job demands on school principals and district leaders
(Fazio, 2021).
Before the pandemic, Minnesota had not surveyed its school principals about job
demands, workload, or future career plans; however, national reports demonstrate the school
principal role is a complex, high-stress, and demanding job, with principals under great stress
several days a week (De Jong et al., 2017). The pandemic compounded the complexity, and
studies have signaled a growing problem with occupational stress, secondary trauma, and
burnout among educators (MacIntyre et al., 2020; Panlilio & Tirrell-Corbin, 2021; Steiner et al,
2022a). A 2021 report from the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP,
2021) warned of a “mass exodus of principals” (para. 4) if nothing is done. In December 2021,
the inaugural biennial Minnesota Principal Survey, with 779 respondents, found principals work
on average 58.6 hours per week, and fewer than half believe that workload is sustainable.
Minnesota principals reported higher job satisfaction than national studies, with 83% of
respondents stating they were “generally satisfied with being a leader at this school” (Pekel et al.,
2022, p. 25) and 90% expressing confidence they could “be successful as a leader at this school”
(Pekel et al., 2022, p. 31; however, the study also reinforced the job complexity, overwhelming
workload, and high stress levels, and 40% expect to remain in their current position for less than
four years (Pekel et al., 2022).
5

Wellness Policies in Minnesota Schools
Since 2004, Minnesota statutes have required all public-school districts to adopt wellness
policies for students and staff; however, this mandate, attached to a Minnesota Health and
Human Services bill, instead of an education policy bill, has resulted in varying levels of
compliance, versus active efforts to promote wellness. Further, the model policies address
nutrition and physical activity, not comprehensive wellness practices (P.L. 108-265 § 204, 2004).
Wellness is more than nutrition and physical activity; it is more than preventing illness,
addiction, or risk factors (Curry & O’Brien, 2012). Wellness and well-being require lifestyle and
occupational choices to promote optimal performance and quality of life.
Problem of Practice
The COVID-19 pandemic created high levels of occupational stress, leading to burnout
and limiting effectiveness, while negatively impacting employee well-being, specifically among
K-12 school principals (DeMatthews et al., 2021; Harris, 2020; Heubeck, 2021) and their staffs.
This series of events is a problem because school leadership effectiveness and stability are
strongly correlated with school improvement, teacher retention, teacher effectiveness, student
achievement (DeMatthews et al., 2021; Grissom et al., 2021; Leithwood et al., 2017), and
“eventually, increased costs” (De Jong et al., 2017, p. 354). In Minnesota, as the state emerges
from the pandemic, principals have reported significant challenges they face related to student
and staff mental health—the area in which they felt least confident in their abilities to support
(Pekel et al., 2022). As one principal quoted in the report from the Minnesota Principals Survey
said,
Principals are in the middle. We get pressure from staff and families to meet their needs.
We get pressure from [district] staff to implement with little opportunity for input. It can
6

be overwhelming to have such pressure from both directions with limited support. (Pekel
et al., 2022, p. 48)
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this research is to explore employee well-being, effectiveness, and
burnout among K-12 public school principals in Minnesota during the COVID-19 pandemic and
examine organizational and leadership practices related to well-being of school principals and
their employees. Specifically, the research answered the following questions:
1. How have burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue impacted beliefs about
employee effectiveness among Minnesota K-12 school principals during the COVID-
19 pandemic?
2. How have levels of engagement and fulfillment impacted beliefs about effectiveness
among Minnesota K-12 school principals during the COVID-19 pandemic?
3. What specific strategies have Minnesota school districts implemented that support the
well-being of their employees, specifically school principals, during the COVID-19
pandemic?
4. What specific strategies did school principals implement in their schools to mitigate
employee burnout?
Importance of the Study
The COVID-19 pandemic created high levels of chronic occupational stress and burnout,
which negatively impacted employee well-being. For public education, increased rates of
burnout and reduced educator well-being are a significant problem. Prepandemic, multiple
studies signaled a growing problem with occupational stress, secondary trauma, and burnout
among educators (De Jong et al., 2017; MacIntyre et al., 2020; Panlilio & Tirrell-Corbin, 2021;
7

Steiner et al., 2022). Burnout impacts effectiveness and intention to leave jobs (Steiner et al.,
2022). Unstable or ineffective leadership ultimately impacts teacher retention (Steiner & Woo,
2022), student achievement (Grissom et al., 2021), and education costs (De Jong et al., 2017;
DeMatthews, 2021). The nation was already experiencing a critical shortage of quality
candidates for principal positions (De Jong et al., 2017; NASSP, 2021), and public schools
cannot thrive without quality leadership (Leithwood et al., 2017; Reeves, 2021). In addition, a
2021 Wallace Foundation meta-analysis found school leadership is among the most important
factors contributing to student achievement, a point previously understated in the literature
(Grissom et al., 2021). Finally, the school principalship is a pipeline for the superintendency
(Muñoz et al., 2014; Tienken, 2020), and burnout of school principals threatens the availability
of qualified superintendents for public education into the future.
This study assessed the level of burnout, exhaustion and fatigue among school principals
following two years of uncertainty during the pandemic. Ultimately, the goal of this study was to
provide school boards, school districts, and school leaders proactive strategies and interventions
to support employee well-being and prevent burnout among school principals.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study used social cognitive theory as a framework to investigate school leaders’
effectiveness in their roles, along with their abilities to promote a culture of well-being and
protect against occupational stress for themselves and their employees. Bandura’s (1999) social
cognitive theory states an individual’s beliefs and thinking processes influence their behaviors,
just as their environments influence their behaviors and individual beliefs. This triadic
reciprocity has a bidirectional relationship in which the environment, beliefs or cognition, and
behavior influence each other. Social cognitive theory is a dynamic model that recognizes the
8

individual’s shifting roles based on the context of the moment. As a behavioral theory, social
cognitive theory analyzes human adaptation, learning, and control of one’s thoughts and
behaviors, which include self-regulation, self-agency, and self-efficacy. As a learning theory,
social cognitive theory addresses the importance of modeling and social support. Social
cognitive theory is an appropriate framework for this study because to understand the
environment school leaders created for their teams, one must understand participants’ beliefs and
behaviors, along with the stressors they managed throughout the sustained crisis environment of
the pandemic. If school principals were negatively impacted by burnout, they likely could not
perform at their best cognitively, and their thinking and decision making impacted their
behaviors and the environments they created for their teams.
This concurrent, mixed-methods study deployed an online survey to 2,389 Minnesota K-
12 school principals and assistant principals at the end of the 2021-2022 school year, with 496
respondents. A mixed methods approach was necessary to explore the complex dynamics of
human well-being (King et al., 2014). Questions on the survey were derived from four respected
instruments: (a) Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach et al., 1997), (b) Fatigue Assessment
Scale (FAS; Michielsen et al., 2004), (c) Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al., 2014), and (d) Q12
Employee Engagement Survey (Gallup, 2021) and adapted questions from a prepandemic school
principals survey (De Jong et al., 2017).
Definitions
Wellness and well-being are commonly interchangeable terms, with different meanings
to different people. Likewise, stress, burnout, exhaustion, fatigue, and job demands are common
terms that may be misunderstood. The following definitions provide clarity and specify factors
that will be measured in this study.
9

Burnout: The WHO (2019) defined burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting
from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed” (para. 4). Burnout is
more than an individual stress response. Maslach et al. (1997) described three dimensions of
burnout: (a) emotional exhaustion, (b) depersonalization, and (c) reduced personal
accomplishment or professional efficacy. The three dimensions capture the complex
relationships of self, self-evaluation, and relationships with others (Maslach et al., 1997).
Depersonalization: One of three dimensions of burnout, depersonalization describes
withdrawing from interpersonal relationships with others as a response to chronic occupational
stress. Depersonalization is characterized by negativity, cynicism, or callousness. It may be
displayed as loss of idealism, irritability, no longer having positive emotions about those one
serves, using derogatory labels, or tuning out through psychological withdrawal (Maslach et al.,
1997).
Emotional exhaustion: Maslach et al. (1997) defined emotional exhaustion as being
emotionally overextended, drained, and experiencing energy depletion, tiredness, and fatigue.
Chronic emotional exhaustion is being exhausted by one’s work and is an antecedent to burnout,
representing the individual dimension of burnout. Emotional exhaustion is more than a feeling; it
is when those in helping professions no longer have anything left to give of themselves.
Fatigue: A physical symptom of burnout, fatigue is a medical term associated with
extreme tiredness, unrelenting exhaustion, or weakness. Fatigue is commonly associated with
physical exertion or illness. Sustained weariness that develops over time, fatigue reduces
motivation, energy and concentration and impacts psychological well-being (Mayo Clinic,
2022).
10

Occupational stress: The National Institute of Health (NIH, 2020) defined occupational
stress as a chronic condition associated with the workplace. It is “directly linked to seven of the
10 leading causes of death globally, with cardiovascular disease being the leading cause for both
men and women” (Quick & Henderson, 2016, p. 458). Occupational stress can be analyzed in
three parts: (a) the causes and risk factors, (b) the stress response, and (c) medical, psychological,
and behavioral consequences of distress. Burnout is a significant form of psychological distress
and occupational stress (Quick & Henderson, 2016).
Reduced personal accomplishment: Personal accomplishment or professional efficacy is
the self-evaluation of one’s ability or capability. Reduced personal accomplishment or efficacy is
the third dimension of burnout. Characterized by feeling less effective, productive, or capable,
this self-evaluation leads to feelings of incompetence, lack of achievement, low morale, or an
inability to cope (Brady et al., 2020; Maslach et al., 1997).
Well-being: Well-being is “peoples’ positive evaluations of their lives” (Quick &
Henderson, 2016, p. 459) and includes positive emotion, engagement, positive relationships,
accomplishment, satisfaction, and meaning (Quick & Henderson, 2016; Seligman, 2011).
According to Gallup (2019), well-being includes career, physical, social, community, and
financial elements. In common language, Gallup (2020) described well-being as “Liking what
you do each day and being motivated to achieve your goals; … having good health and enough
energy to get things done … having supportive relationships in your life … liking where you live
and feeling safe, [and] … managing your economic life to reduce stress and increase security”
(p. 19). Well-being has physical, psychological, environmental and social dimensions.
Wellness: Wellness is defined as being healthy in eight interconnected dimensions of life:
(a) emotional, (b) physical, (c) occupational, (d) intellectual, (e) financial, (f) social, (g)
11

environmental, and (h) spiritual. Simply stated, “Wellness is about how we live our lives, and the
joy and fulfillment and health we experience” (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration [SAMHSA], 2016, p. 3).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 introduces the background and context of the problem, the importance of the
study, the target population, research questions and methodologies, theoretical framework and
conceptual definitions. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature on the constructs of this
study. Constructs include occupational stress and burnout, employee well-being, personal
protective behaviors, and leadership and organizational strategies to support workplace well-
being and prevent burnout, disengagement, and stress-induced employee turnover. Chapter 2 also
includes a literature review on the role, skills, and leadership behaviors of effective school
principals, the demands of the job, and impacts on school principals during the pandemic.
Chapter 2 also examines principal burnout and turnover costs. Chapter 3 describes the research
methodology, participants, data sources, and data collection procedures. Chapter 4 discusses the
results of the study, data analysis, and key findings. Chapter 5 compares the research findings to
existing literature, applies the theoretical framework to recommendations, and outlines
limitations and opportunities for future research.

12

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review provides a common understanding of the underlying constructs of
this study related to employee well-being, employee engagement, occupational stress, and
burnout. Employee health and safety are critical leadership and organizational functions for any
employer, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970 (U.S.
Department of Labor, 2004). Over the last 50 years, organizations and employers have evolved
their focus from health and safety to wellness, employee engagement, and employee well-being.
There is substantial evidence that the pandemic provided a tipping point that elevated employee
well-being to a primary leadership and organizational performance consideration (Bersin &
Mertens, 2021; Clifton, 2022; Murthy, 2022).
This chapter includes a review of employee well-being, employee engagement,
occupational stress, and burnout literature from the fields of health, psychology, public health,
social sciences, organizational development, and human resources management. Finally, the
chapter includes a review of the role, professional standards, and leadership behaviors of
effective school principals, along with a critical assessment of the job demands and work
conditions for school principals during the pandemic.
Well-Being
There is no uniform definition of well-being in the literature. Well-being is defined as
“peoples’ positive evaluations of their lives, which includes positive emotion, engagement,
satisfaction, and meaning” (Quick & Henderson, 2016, p. 459). The literature addresses health
and well-being as inextricably connected with antecedents in the physical, emotional,
occupational, psychological, and mental health domains. The terms wellness and well-being are
often used interchangeably with similar elements. Further, definitions of well-being are often
13

driven by a researcher’s interests and field of expertise. Well-being is not about the absence of
negative factors but focuses on promoting positive factors. The WHO identified mental wellness
as a subset of well-being, when an individual realizes capabilities, can cope with normal stresses
of life, can work productively, and contribute to the community (Kanold & Boorgren, 2022).
Maslow introduced well-being in pursuit of self-actualization. Deiner later described
well-being as overall life experience and self-described happiness; others have used measures of
energy, excitement, and enthusiasm (Danna & Griffin, 1999; Diener & Seligman, 2004; Maslach
& Banks, 2017). Well-being has been advanced by the subfield of positive psychology, which
shifted the narrative and focus of psychology from the deficit or disease model to an asset-
building model. Seligman, a father of positive psychology, developed the PERMA model
naming five measurable elements of psychological well-being: (a) positive emotions, (b)
engagement, (c) relationships and human connections, (d) meaning and belonging (serving
something bigger than oneself), and (e) accomplishments or sense of achievement (Diener &
Seligman, 2004; Seligman, 2002, 2011). Seligman’s PERMA model was adapted for K-12
education as an applied model of positive education. The model has six components: (a) positive
emotions, (b) positive engagement, (c) positive relationships, (d) positive purpose, (e) positive
accomplishments and (f) positive health (Hoare et al., 2017). Adding to Seligman’s work, the
PERMA+ model asserts optimism, nutrition, physical activity and sleep are equally important to
well-being (Iasiello et al., 2017). Well-being crosses home and work life domains, individual,
team, family, and community (Murthy, 2022).
Corporations have been generally described well-being as health, happiness and
prosperity with six dimensions: (a) spiritual, (b) social, (c) physical, (d) financial, (e)
occupational, and (f) emotional/mental (Bevington et al., 2021), and Gallup (2022) took a
14

holistic approach, defining well-being as “how people's lives are going” (p. 1). Gallup listed five
interrelated dimensions: (a) career: liking what you do and being motivated, (b) social:
supportive relationships), (c) financial: reducing economic stress, (d) community: safety and
pride, and (e) physical: health and energy. Kanold and Boogren (2022), focusing specifically on
educators, sought “a positive state of good health and enhanced physical, mental, emotional and
social well-being” (p. 3). In the medical field, the American Psychiatric Association (APA)
(2018) characterized well-being as psychological, emotional, and physical. Across industries,
Deloitte asserted well-being “is at the heart of an organization’s responsibility towards its
employees” (Bevington et al., 2021, p. 2).
Workplace Health, Safety, and Well-being
Since the mid-1950s, there has been an increasing recognition that organizations have a
responsibility to provide a workplace that is safe and free of hazards. In 1970, the Occupational
Health and Safety Act became law to “assure safe and healthful working conditions” (U.S.
Department of Labor, 2004, p. 1). Safety has focused on the physical environment for decades,
largely evaluated by engineers and architects. In the 1980s, occupational stress and burnout
received attention as workplace hazards for those in helping professions—social work, medicine,
and education (Maslach & Banks, 2017). In the 1990s, literature focused on work conditions,
including ergonomics, workplace aggression and violence, sexual harassment, and other
dysfunctional behaviors, including the working relationships between subordinates and their
supervisors. Since the late 1990s, preponderant research has linked poor employee well-being to
low productivity, low-quality decisions, increased absenteeism, and overall low organizational
performance (Danna & Griffin, 1999; Murthy, 2022).
15

Deiner and Seligman (2004) asserted people’s positive evaluations and feelings about
their lives are antecedents to economic, social, health, and organizational outcomes. Further, they
found well-being contributes to worker productivity, higher incomes, teamwork and
collaboration, social relationships, rewarding marriages, health, and longevity. In a meta-analysis
of studies on well-being and work, Deiner and Seligman found positive emotions on the job
associated with performance and high levels of organizational citizenship and inversely
correlated with poor organizational citizenship (e.g., stealing from the employer). Further,
workers who are high in well-being have low turnover, less absenteeism, and are more punctual,
cooperative, and helpful to other workers. The relationship between job satisfaction and turnover
is especially important during periods of low unemployment or labor shortages (Deiner &
Seligman, 2004), consistent with where the U.S. economy is in 2022.
Day and Penney (2017) asserted the employing organization is responsible for providing
healthy workplaces. Since 2010, when Gallup published “Well-Being: The Five Essential
Elements,” which were career, physical, social, community, and financial, organizations and
large employers have expanded human resources strategies to think holistically about employee
well-being (Bersin & Mertens, 2021). There is a direct correlation between the wellness and
well-being of employees and organizational performance—when workers thrive, organizations
thrive (Bevington et al., 2021; Day & Penney, 2017; Diener & Seligman, 2004; Gallup, 2020,
2022).
Well-Being at Work
In a literature review about well-being at work, Maslach and Banks (2017) empirically
linked seven needs employees have for intrinsic motivation and psychological well-being: (a)
autonomy, (b) belonging, (c) competence, (d) psychological safety, (e) positive emotions, (f)
16

fairness, and (g) meaning. They recommended the following efforts to improve employee well-
being address all seven dimensions:
● Autonomy is people’s needs to own their behaviors and make personal choices.
Autonomy is positively associated with job satisfaction, performance, and mental
health.
● Belonging is the human need for relationships and sense of social connection,
affiliation, and recognition. Positive relationships have significant effects on
employee well-being and job performance. Coworker support is a protective factor
against employee exhaustion and turnover intent.
● Competence is the need to feel capable and manage various challenges, be effective at
work (e.g., self-efficacy), and feel some sense of accomplishment. Competence has
been found to be significantly associated with the enjoyment of work.
● Positive emotions, emerging from the relatively young field of positive organizational
psychology, include feelings of hope, optimism, efficacy, and resiliency. The
construct of psychological capital is positively associated with job-related affective
well-being, and has a strong association with job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and employee citizenship.
● Psychological safety is characterized by interpersonal trust, respect, and care. It
requires management practices that protect employees from work stress, aggression,
violence, and bullying. Psychological safety moderates emotional demands and
emotional exhaustion; it is positively correlated with employee health.
17

● Fairness related to employees being treated with respect and management decisions
being perceived as just and equitable. There is evidence linking fairness to job
satisfaction and low turnover intention.
● Meaning gives a sense of purpose to life. Perceptions of meaningful work are
positively related to employee well-being and positive job-related outcomes.
Emerging research asserts job-design, guided by an employee’s values and strengths,
creates meaningful work, thereby improving satisfaction and predicting better
employee well-being.
Collectively, the constructs identified by Maslach and Banks (2017) mitigate key workplace
stressors that have been found to influence employee well-being negatively: long working hours,
job insecurity, low job control, high job demands, low social support at work, high time pressure
and work-family conflicts.
Day and Penney (2017) expanded the model of healthy workplaces to include employee
involvement and development; interpersonal relationships with clients, coworkers, and leaders;
leadership behaviors; corporate social responsibility; culture of support, respect, and fairness;
work-life balance; safe work environment; and meaningful work characteristics. This type of
workplace well-being model advocates for a holistic effort that includes the individual, team,
leader and organization (Day & Penney, 2017).
In October 2022, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a Framework for Workplace Mental
Health and Well-being (Murthy, 2022). In the report, the surgeon general placed the onus on the
employer to protect employees from harm (physical and psychological) and promote workplace
well-being. The report listed five essentials, each grounded in two human needs and shared
across industries: (a) protection from harm (safety and security), (b) connection and community
18

(social support and belonging), (c) work-life harmony (autonomy and flexibility), (d) mattering
at work (dignity and meaning), and (e) opportunity for growth (learning and accomplishment). In
Chapter 5, each of the five essentials is delineated, as they apply to school principals, along with
recommendations for how this framework can apply in school districts.
Educator Well-Being
Educator well-being has been an area of intense research. The International Organisation
for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD, 2013) measured regional policies in
support of 11 well-being topics: (a) income, (b) jobs, (c) housing, (d) education, (e) health, (f)
environment, (g) safety, (h) civic engagement and governance, (i) access to services, (j)
community, and (k) life satisfaction. For education specifically, OECD proposed a three-
dimensional framework for well-being, with the dimensions of (a) life satisfaction: income
satisfaction, health satisfaction, and work satisfaction; (b) affect: happiness, anger, and worry;
and (c) eudaimonic well-being: competence, autonomy, and meaning and purpose (Song et al.,
2020).
Kanold and Boogren (2022) offered a framework for educator wellness that places the
onus on the individual for social, physical, mental, and emotional activities to enhance well-
being. Much of the literature about educator well-being espouses self-care and professional
boundaries (American Association of School Administrators [AASA], 2020; the National
Association for Secondary School Principals [NASSP], 2022; Hanover Research, 2020). The
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) broke the trend in 2022 with
the article “Self-Care Is Not Enough” (Johnson, 2022). Articles in educational press echoed the
call throughout the pandemic, taking care of educators requires a systemic response from
educational leaders (Slade, 2021). Numerous studies indicate educator well-being is at an all-
19

time low (Gallup, 2022; NASSP, 2022; Steiner et al., 2022) yet critical to the effective
functioning of schools.
Well-Being Summary
Well-being is subjective and complex. It crosses various domains of life and is impacted
by individual beliefs and actions and the environment and social context. Well-being involves
cognitive judgments about quality of life as a whole or in particular domains of their lives (e.g.,
spiritual, physical, career, financial) (King et al., 2014; Song et al., 2020). The study of employee
well-being has been approached from many perspectives, including public health, occupational
health, nutrition, business, architecture, design, human resources, and psychology, but few
interdisciplinary efforts have been made to integrate findings and recommendations across
disciplines (Maslach & Banks, 2017).
The 2020 pandemic marked a tipping point for employers. As the world focused on
health and safety, private and public executives needed to proactively engage with employees to
address physical safety, mental health, trauma, caregiving, social connection, technology
impacts, work-life balance, inclusion and diversity, change management, and occupational stress
(Gallup, 2022). Further, because employees spend a quarter or a third of their time at work, the
employing organization has a responsibility to consider, protect, and promote employee well-
being. Most employers view employee well-being as an ethical responsibility (Day & Penney,
2017). The antithesis of well-being is illness, emotional exhaustion, fatigue, or burnout.
Occupational Stress and Burnout
The NIH (2020) defined occupational stress as a chronic condition associated with the
workplace and is directly linked to the leading cause of death: cardiovascular disease.
Occupational stress is also linked to seven of the 10 leading causes of death, globally.
20

Unmitigated occupational stress may lead to burnout (Edú-Valsania et al., 2022; Quick &
Henderson, 2016).
Understanding occupational stress includes three stages: (a) identifying the causes of
stress known to be risk factors, (b) the stress response to pressures, and (c) the consequences of
distress (medical, psychological, behavioral) versus eustress (i.e., healthy stress) (Quick &
Henderson, 2016). Not all stress is bad. Stress on systems forces adaptation and stress on humans
frequently inspires growth. Left unresolved, however, occupational stress can lead to burnout,
stress-related illness, mental health issues and the potential of career-ending and life-ending
consequences.
Beginning in the late 1990s, the WHO, the U.S. NIH, and many large employers
broadened employee safety considerations to include occupational stress, mental health and
workplace well-being in response to stress-induced employee turnover and public health
concerns (Deloitte, 2020; Quick & Henderson, 2016).
Defining Burnout
According to Maslach et al. (2001), burnout was first described by Freudenberger in the
early 1970s, as a work-related syndrome among mental health workers experiencing exhaustion,
fatigue, disillusionment, frustration, and withdrawal, due to work that failed to produce expected
results. Since 1976, Maslach has studied burnout among social workers, healthcare workers, and
helping professionals. Maslach conceptualized burnout as emotional exhaustion, cynicism, or
depersonalization and reduced personal achievement reflected in negative self-evaluation or
reduced self-efficacy. In 1986, Maslach extended her research into the field of education and
created a burnout inventory for educators. In 1994, the WHO issued a paper suggesting burnout
is a major problem in healthcare, prompting subsequent research to inform other professions.
21

Relying heavily on the research of Maslach and Jackson, the WHO offered a definition of
burnout, long-term effects, risk factors, and preventative measures (Bertolote et al., 1994).
According to the NIH, Maslach and Jackson’s conceptualization of burnout remains the most
widely accepted in the scientific literature over the decades (Edú-Valsania et al., 2022).
The WHO and NIH characterized burnout as an occupational health issue, a syndrome
impacting individuals experiencing chronic workplace stress (Edú-Valsania et al., 2022; WHO,
2019). Burnout includes exhaustion, negativity, cynicism, callousness, increased mental
distancing from one's job, and reduced professional efficacy (Edú-Valsania et al., 2022; Maslach
et al., 2001; WHO, 2019).
Antecedents to Burnout
Burnout results from prolonged job-related stress that is emotional and interpersonal
(Maslach et al., 2001). Research over four decades has shown burnout is an occupational and
organizational problem that negatively impacts the individual, collective employee groups, and
organizations. Employers are responsible for the workload, work conditions, and job demands
assigned to their employees. Therefore, employers are primarily responsible for the resulting
occupational stress and burnout that may occur (APA, 2018; Bertolote et al., 1994; Edu-Valsania
et al., 2022). Maslach and Leiter (2017) identified six predictors of burnout: (a) workload, (b)
control, (c) reward, (d) community, (e) fairness, and (f) values. The NIH identified seven
organizational triggers of burnout: (a) work overload, (b) emotional labor, (c) lack of autonomy
or influence, (d) role ambiguity, (e) inadequate supervision or perceived injustice, (f) lack of
social support, and (g) poor working hours (Edú-Valsania et al., 2022). Gallup’s (2020) research
on employee burnout identified five root causes: (a) unfair treatment at work, (b) unmanageable
22

workload, (c) lack of role clarity, (d) lack of manager communication and support, and (e)
unreasonable time pressure.
Workload, Control, and Reward
Maslach and Leiter (2017) found an excessive workload that requires sustained effort can
trigger burnout and psychological distancing from work. They described workers “experiencing
an ever-growing and demanding world that taxed their emotional resources” (p. 42). When
overload is a chronic condition of the work, with little opportunity to rest or recover, burnout is
likely. Job demands are more problematic if employees consider them to be beyond the
requirements of their job (Maslach & Leiter, 2017).
Gallup (2020) identified an unmanageable workload and unreasonable time pressures as
two of the top five causes of burnout. Employees who report they always have too much to do
are more than twice as likely to experience burnout. The risk of burnout increases when
employees exceed an average of 50 hours per week and escalates significantly when employees
regularly work up to 60 hours per week. Even high performers are negatively affected by
unmanageable performance goals and expectations associated with workload. A competitive or
high-demand employment culture may attract people who are willing to work long hours under
high levels of stress, but the pace and pressure are not sustainable over time.
Multiple studies have found as a coping mechanism, professionals distance themselves
from unreasonable workload and demands, and professionals who distance themselves from their
work demonstrate low job satisfaction. Exhaustion leads to less satisfaction and heightened
cynicism, which reduces the energy one brings to their job (Bakker et al., 2002). Unreasonable
deadlines, often created by people who do not know how long quality work takes, often have a
ripple effect. Once employees fall behind, they are chronically behind, resulting in reduced self-
23

efficacy. A lack of control over one’s time and priorities is another trigger of burnout. Maslach
and Banks (2017) noted a clear link between lack of control and stress. On the other hand, when
employees have professional autonomy, permission to make decisions and are involved in
decisions that will impact their work, they report high levels of engagement, which may mitigate
burnout.
Control is a key concept for emotional labor, which is the process of emotional regulation
in response to job expectations or demands, such as demonstrating empathy not felt, hiding
negative emotions of anger or irritability, or bringing calm to an intense situation or crisis.
Several studies have shown emotional labor and emotional regulation have a positive
relationship to burnout, especially among helping professions such as educators (Edú-Valsania et
al., 2022).
Interpersonal Factors: Communication, Social Supports, Relationships, and Supervision
Work relationships with managers, coworkers, and clients have a significant impact on
employees’ motivation, engagement, and burnout. When there is a lack of support, unresolved
conflict, perceptions of unfair treatment, or conflicting values, employees will experience a
greater likelihood of burnout (Maslach & Banks, 2017). Unmitigated conflicts, incivility, and
lack of trust lead to socially toxic workplaces (Leiter et al., 2012). Relationships with supervisors
are of critical importance. Research consistently shows managers who care for their employees
elicit stronger performance from employees; however, Boekhorst et al. (2021) found when
supervisors alone carry the burden of care, there are negative impacts. Employees may
experience guilt if they perceive the supervisor as overloaded. The results of this study suggest
managers and leaders need to set realistic limits. Managers should be trained to refer to other
sources of support. Boekhorst et al. recommended managers build a culture of team caring,
24

starting with role modeling behaviors. Healthy teams have a shared responsibility of caring for
each other. Consistent messaging should reinforce a shared responsibility of care for team
members (Boekhorst et al., 2021).
Many studies indicate social support decreases stress and burnout. Among school
principals, those who feel less isolated are less likely to experience burnout and as positive
emotional support increased, emotional exhaustion decreased. Beausaert et al. (2016) studied
3,500 school principals over four waves from 2011 to 2014. Social support can be provided by
many people within or outside an organization, including principal supervisors, parent, alumni,
and community leaders, principal professional networks, and teachers, counselors, and school
staff. Beausaert et al. found if principals lack social support from colleagues, they will more
likely burnout over time. They also found that social support alone will not always mitigate
occupational stress and burnout as other factors like job demands, state policy, or individual
factors may be too strong. Finally, principals who relied on support from their communities may
be too close to the community struggles and may become vulnerable to the stress. Finally, this
study suggested in addition to social supports, restructuring the principals’ job responsibilities
could be a solution to ever-increasing complexity and demands on the job.
Job Demands Resource Model
The job demands resources (JD-R) model posits burnout occurs when job demands are
high and resources are limited. Such working conditions undermine motivation, deplete energy,
and lead to exhaustion or feelings of being over extended (Demerouti et al., 2001). Prolonged
exposure to high demands may lead to exhaustion and psychologically distancing oneself from
work (Bakker et al., 2002). Job demands may include workload, time pressure, physical
environment, demanding clients, hours worked, and schedules. Job demands are not inherently
25

negative but become job stressors when an employee does not have time or resources to
adequately recover (Bakker et al., 2007). In professions such as education, emotionally
demanding contacts with “customers” (i.e., students and families), unmitigated conflicts, and
problem-solving that requires intense cognitive processing are also high job demands. Job
resources include job control, participation in decision making, support from supervisors,
performance feedback, rewards, and job security (Marchand & Durand, 2011). Job resources are
primarily the responsibility of the organization and organizational leadership (e.g., job design
job, setting the organizational structure, and supports and ensuring reward and career growth
opportunities) (Bakker et al., 2007; Marchand & Durand, 2011).
Demerouti et al. (2001) found strong correlations between burnout and job demands
leading to exhaustion, coupled with a lack of job resources leading to disengagement and
depersonalization. Further, “where both exhaustion and disengagement are simultaneously
present, it represents burnout syndrome” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 508).
Gallup (2020) found employees who have too much to do are twice as likely to report
burnout. Unmanageable workloads take many forms including long hours, too many tasks,
unreasonable time pressure, or difficult and complex work. In a study of more than 1,000
teachers, Bakker and Demerouti (2007) found high job demands led to burnout only if teachers
had limited job resources. Bakker and Demerouti found when educators handling student
misconduct also had resources (e.g., job control, supervisor support, climate, innovativeness,
information, and appreciation), there was a positive correlation with engagement, which
mitigated burnout. In summary, job resources are important to mitigating burnout, motivating
engagement, and preventing employee turnover among educators (Bakker et al., 2007).
26

Teacher burnout has been widely reported as a chronic problem leading to high rates of
attrition. Teacher burnout has been correlated with lack of control or autonomy, lack of
resources, lack of support from supervisors or colleagues, and reduced self-efficacy (Beausaert et
al., 2016). When supervisors (i.e., school principals) are overloaded, exhausted, or burnt out—
unable to provide teacher support and encouragement—the whole school suffers (Beausaert et
al., 2016).
Consequences of Burnout
Burnout has adverse consequences for individuals (psychological, physical and
behavioral) and organizations (reduced productivity and performance, reduced efficiency,
increased costs; Edú-Valsania et al., 2022). A meta-analysis of studies related to consequences of
burnout identified burnout as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and hospitalizations, Type
II diabetes, obesity and high body mass index, hypertension, high cholesterol, prolonged fatigue,
musculoskeletal pain (including neck and shoulder pain), headaches, gastrointestinal issues,
respiratory problems, and mortality below the age of 45 (Salvagioni et al., 2017). Psychological
consequences include insomnia, depressive symptoms, and hospitalizations for mental disorders.
Burnout has also been linked to job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, presenteeism (physically
present but not working effectively), disability pensions, and turnover (Salvagioni et al., 2017).
Additional studies have associated burnout with heavy drinking and tobacco use, memory
problems, and difficulty with decision making (Carmichael, 2015; Edú-Valsania et al., 2022;
Gallup, 2020).
Depersonalization or cynicism is a characteristic of burnout. Research indicates when
leaders in caring professions are burned out, they display less empathy for clients and less social
connection to teams. They make poorer decisions and may not have the energy needed to do
27

their jobs. Finally, they feel less efficacy and may have a negative view of themselves (Beausaert
et al., 2016; Maslach et al., 2017).
Measuring Well-Being and Burnout
The MBI is commonly used to assess burnout among human services professionals by
measuring emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment or feelings of
competence, self-efficacy, and achievement in one’s work. For educators, the MBI is combined
with the Areas of Worklife Survey (AWS) to assess factors contributing to burnout: workload,
control, reward, community, fairness, and values (Li-Sauerwine, 2020; Maslach et al., 2022).
Two questions from the MBI addressing emotional exhaustion and depersonalization have been
used as a rapid assessment tool during the pandemic. The abbreviated two-question MBI-2 was
found to correlate with the full MBI as a rapid assessment tool in healthcare (Li-Sauerwine et al.,
2020; West et al., 2012) and may correlate in other helping professions as well.
Fatigue is another focus of this study and has been studied in the workplace measuring
five components: (a) general fatigue, (b) physical fatigue, (c) reduction in activity, (d) reduction
in motivation, and (e) mental fatigue (de Vries, 2003). The FAS has been identified as the most
promising fatigue measurement tool (deVries, 2003). The FAS was originally developed for
patient populations to self-report based on symptoms of fatigue.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) developed a worker
well-being questionnaire, WellBQ (Chari et al., 2022), which was not known to be available in
time for this research study. Its development is indicative of the growing concern among public
health policy makers about excessive demands employers may place on employees that cause
occupational stress and inhibit employee well-being. The pandemics’ lingering effects on mental
health have driven an explosion in the workplace well-being marketplace (Bersin, 2021b) and
28

regulatory action appears to be following. Researchers, including Deloitte (Bevington, 2021),
Gallup (2021), and RAND (Steiner et al., 2022), espoused that the problem of burnout and
decreased well-being is the design of work itself.
Organizational Interventions for Preventing Employee Burnout
The NIH (2016) outlined organizational and individual mitigations for occupational stress
to prevent burnout. At the organizational level, collaborative teams and workplace supports,
early warning systems to prevent burnout, and a full spectrum of prevention and intervention
services need to be available for employees. Employers are responsible for task demands
(workload), role demands (role conflict), physical demands (workplace design), and
interpersonal demands (social density, group pressures; Quick & Henderson, 2016).
Decades of studies document educator burnout as a chronic problem. For national and
international students, educators reported higher levels of occupational stress and burnout and
less well-being than the general working population (Steiner et al., 2022). As large organizations
like Deloitte and Gallup lead in advocating for improved workplace well-being; other
organizations (including schools) can learn from their best practices. Employers have the ability
and responsibility to change work environments and job demands that contribute to employee
burnout (Bevington et al., 2021; Day & Penney, 2017; Gallup, 2022; Lahiri & Schwartz, 2018;
Steiner et al., 2022).
A Framework for Employee Well-Being
Well-being needs to be understood at the individual, group, leadership, and
organizational levels. Identifying the essential elements of employee well-being in the context of
the organization and with the involvement of the employees is the first step. Deloitte offered six
dimensions of well-being (Bevington et al., 2021); Seligmann (2002) offered the PERMA model;
29

Day and Penney (2017) proposed a layered model with 10 antecedents to a healthy workplace.
Each of these models advocate for a holistic approach with individual, organizational and
societal outcomes. Figure 1 outlines the influence of the individual and organization across four
quadrants for well-being. Quadrant A includes well-being practices that are primarily the
responsibility of the individual. Quadrant B includes well-being practices that are highly
influenced by both the individual and the organization, a shared responsibility. Quadrant C has
lower influence of the individual and organization, and Quadrant D is primarily influenced by
the organization.
The APA (2022) recommended organizations create a culture of well-being in the
workplace, including optimal workflows, realistic expectations, and supporting personal
resilience strategies. Job design and employee experience are critical components associated with
setting realistic expectations. Job design includes workload, conflict, mitigating stressors, and
organizational guidelines, such as the right to disconnect outside of work hours. Job design
should involve the employees involved in the job and demonstrate respect and support for
individuals (Day & Penney, 2017). Hamilton et al., (2022) criticized schools for consistently
adding and implementing new initiatives without de-implementation. Reeves and Eaker (2019)
encouraged school leaders to limit new initiatives and begin by creating a “not-to-do list.”
Social supports and a focus on relationships with the organization are critical components
of employee well-being (Murthy, 2022). In education, a strong support network and support from
supervisors was found to increase principal job satisfaction and effectiveness (Grissom et al.,
2021); however, Boekhorst et al. (2021) cautioned social support cannot be solely the
responsibility of leaders or supervisors. Managers who engage in self-sacrificial behaviors
experience greater resource depletion, and managers who help employees with personal
30

problems experience negative effects for the employee. If employees perceive managers to be
overworked and trying to help employees, the employee engenders feelings of guilt. Boekhorst et
al. recommended cultivating a caring team environment but not allowing managers or
supervisors to go it alone.

Figure 1
How Organizations Can Influence Factors That Enhance Employee Well-Being

Reprinted with permission. “Well-Being at the Heart of the Employee Experience for the Social
Enterprise” (Bevington et al., 2021). Deloitte. [Https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/pages/human-
capital/articles/well-being-heart-employee-experience-social-enterprise.html]

In a 30-year meta-analysis of literature related preventive stress management theory,
Hargrove et al. (2011) distinguished between eustress (good stress) and distress (bad stress).
Eustress inspires productivity and performance. Distress is counterproductive. Their meta-
31

analysis findings recognized the benefit of some stress for leaders and proposed to eliminate only
extreme stressors. Hargrove et al. (2011) added, “Because leaders are so pivotal to the success of
organizations and because they predictably encounter significant stressors, organizations are well
served by targeting primary interventions toward senior leaders” (p. 188). Because of their roles,
leaders are often at increased risk of distress, and there is an abundance of evidence that leaders
in distress negatively impact employees (Gallup, 2020. Therefore, executive coaching, peer
support, journaling and other stress management and professional development strategies are
needed (Gallup, 2020; Levin et al., 2019; Tenney et al., 2016). Strong social supports, flow of
information, role clarity, and support from supervisors are preventative factors for chronic
occupational stress. Finally, interdependent work (not isolation) with healthy relationships and
developing psychological contracts create teams that can sustain themselves in stressful
situations (Hargrove et al., 2012).
Prevention and Intervention Services
The literature suggests early warning systems are needed to prevent the chronic condition
of burnout, along with a full spectrum of prevention and intervention services available for
employees. At the institutional level, supervisors should receive training related to employee
well-being and symptoms of burnout. Checking-in on employees, demonstrating empathy and
care, creating a conversation protocol for managers, or conducting pulse surveys all provide
opportunities for early intervention before burnout. Prioritizing and promoting healthy practices,
offering instruction in mindfulness, and encouraging respite or recovery time are also important
interventions; however, the pandemic has prompted greater examination of employer
intervention strategies and prompts the employer to also look at the design of the work in itself
(Bevington et al., 2021); Gallup, 2021; Murthy, 2022).
32

Mitigating Workload
While social-emotional care for leaders is important, employers are primarily responsible
for task demands or workload (Gallup, 2020). Sixty- and 80-hour work weeks are not healthy for
cognitive functions (WHO, 2022) and impair performance (Tekleselasie & Villarreal, 2010;
Tenney et al., 2016). Determining workloads for leaders is a shared responsibility that requires a
focus on organizational priorities and appropriately staffing for tasks. Reeves (2021) advocated
for focusing on tasks that most directly impact student learning, identifying tasks that are no
longer important, limiting the adoption of new initiatives, and aligning job responsibilities with
individual values and purpose. Grissom et al. (2020) prioritized professional development for
principals, career progression, and redesigning job responsibilities with an eye to realistic
expectations, which likely means hiring additional support, supervisory or administrative
personnel to delegate some duties. District support and adequate resources are decision drivers
for principals choosing to stay or leave their jobs (Farley-Ripple et al., 2012).
The Role of K-12 School Principals
The role of the school principal has changed significantly over the last two decades
(Grissom et al., 2021) and was significantly impacted by the disruption from the COVID-19
pandemic (Harris, 2020; Pekel et al., 2021). This section explores the role of the school principal
in K-12 education, the complexity of the position, and the demands placed on principals during
the pandemic, which could have contributed to burnout.
Career mobility and turnover among school principals has been studied for decades, long
before the pandemic. Since the publication of A Nation At Risk in 1983 and the federal adoption
of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, the role of school leadership in improving public
education outcomes has increased the pressure and public scrutiny for school principals (Grissom
33

et al., 2021). De Jong et al. (2017) described the job as “a complex, high-stress, time-demanding
job” (p. 355), and Wells (2013) called it “too big for one.” Multiple studies have sounded an
alarm about the risks associated with unreasonable job demands, loss of personal time, managing
difficult stakeholders, and lack of support (De Jong et al., 2017). Further, heightened
accountability and new expectations for curriculum leadership and standards add to the strain
amid decreasing resources and budgets (De Jong et al., 2017; MetLife Survey, 2012; Wells
2013). Public contention, overwhelm, and addressing significant social issues also lead to
dissatisfaction (Harris, 2020).
In a NASSP (2022) survey, 50% of principals indicated their stress level was so high they
were considering a career change or retirement. RAND’s 2022 State of the American Principal
survey found teachers and principals reported worse well-being than other working adults, with
occupational stress running twice the rate of the general public. Among principals, 85% reported
frequent job-related stress, 48% reported burnout and 28% reported symptoms of depression.
The RAND survey of 1,500 principals across the nation was conducted in January 2022. Top
stressors included staffing shortages, supporting teachers’ and staff members’ mental health, and
supporting student learning due to lost instructional time during the pandemic (Steiner et al.,
2022). And there is every indication that staffing shortages will continue for years to come
(National Conference of State Legislatures, 2022; Steiner & Woo, 2021).
Federici and Skaalvik (2011) linked principal propensity to quit to burnout and job
dissatisfaction. Studies have also linked principal turnover to teacher turnover and negative
impacts on student achievement (Boyce & Bowers, 2016; Farley-Ripple et al., 2012; Grissom et
al., 2021; Leithwood et al., 2017; Tekleselassie & Villarreal, 2011).
34

The roles of school principals are unique, diverse, complex, demanding, and important
(De Jong et al., 2017; DeMatthews, 2021). As frontline managers, school principals are
responsible for establishing a vision for improvement, facilitating effective implementation of
school improvement plans, mobilizing teachers to achieve building goals, managing a complex
master schedule of pupils and personnel, and building the culture of a school, all of which impact
employee work environments (Leithwood et al., 2020). Principal leadership is second only to
classroom teachers among the factors that impact student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2004;
Leithwood et al., 2020; Tekleselassie & Villarreal, 2011). Calculating the number of students
impacted by one teacher versus a school principal, the most recent research states the importance
of the principal is even greater (Grissom et al., 2021). Factors including inspiring academic
optimism, academic culture, collective teacher efficacy, and disciplinary climate all impact
student learning and are significant contributions of principal leadership (Leithwood et al.,
2020). De Jong et al. (2017) noted 30 years of research prioritizes the role of the principal as
instructional leader with an impact on student achievement, yet this role is often at odds with the
role of merely managing a complex organization with a large span of control in the number of
direct reports (personnel) and pupils for which a principal is responsible. Hamilton et al. (2021)
prioritized working closely with teachers to improve instructional practices (including coaching),
implementing evaluation systems and setting up and maintaining effective professional learning
communities. Each of these strategies takes time on top of already impossible task demands
given the number of personnel principals are expected to supervise compared to private sector
leadership roles.
35

Principal Job Demands
Decades of research indicate excessive work overload and role ambiguity interfere with
the principal’s ability to lead their school with sustained vision, effort, and commitment (Farley-
Ripple et al., 2012; Levin et al., 2019; Tekleselassie & Villarreal, 2011). Principals are
responsible for a myriad of duties, including instructional leadership, supervision and evaluation
of faculty and staff, being visible and building strong relationships with students, handling
discipline issues, meeting with parents, participating in curriculum development and innovation
initiatives, representing the school in the community, attending meetings for central office
initiatives, answering concerns of school board members, preparing and responding to crisis, and
ensuring the effective building operations, most importantly the master schedule that ensures a
highly qualified teacher in every classroom and safe flow of students and staff throughout the
day. A typical work week for a school principal may require 60 to 80 hours on the job (Grissom
et al., 2021; Heubeck, 2021). Calls for educational reforms, accountability, rapidly changing
technology and increasing societal demands further add stress to the school principalship
(Grissom et al., 2021; Harris, 2020; Leithwood, 2019; Reeves, 2021). State policies and
leadership competencies require school principals to engage staff and community members in
planning and decision making, which increases time and complexity of decision-making and
reduces the autonomy of the leader (National Policy Board for Educational Administration,
2015). The imbalance of less authority and greater accountability leads to increased role
confusion and job dissatisfaction (Boyce & Bowers, 2016; Tekleselassie & Villarreal, 2011).
They are also subject to the policies and procedural decisions of the central office, the elected
school board, and state agencies. Finally, most principals (89%) believe they should be held
accountable for everything that happens in their buildings (De Jong et al., 2017).
36

In addition to job demands, emotional exhaustion decreases morale and motivation
among principals. Most educators pursue their vocation because they want to make a positive
impact in the lives of students (De Jong et al., 2017; Leithwood et al., 2020; Pekel et al., 2022).
Most are also lifelong learners. They have pursued advanced degrees and are intrinsically
motivated by their abilities to build relationships and work closely with students, teachers, and
parents (Louis et al., 2010; Louis & Thessin, 2019). Tekleselassie and Villarreal (2011)
concluded personal fulfillment and the opportunity for “engagement and relationships with
school partners provide a rewarding environment that may positively contribute to principals’ job
longevity” (p 257); however, that reward motivation was largely cut off due to virtual or distance
learning during the pandemic.
Principals and educators may also be vulnerable to secondary traumatic stress resulting
from exposure to traumatic experiences of their staff, students or families of students (Hanover
Research, 2020; Lawson et al., 2019). During the pandemic many frontline managers, including
principals, were tasked with monitoring staff well-being and regular manager checkins to
identify signs of burnout or secondary traumatic stress among educators and staff (Hanover
Research, 2020).
Principal Turnover
High turnover rates deny schools the leadership needed to meet the growing needs of
students and school systems. Research suggests principal turnover impacts student learning and
teacher turnover and future leadership (Rangel, 2018). Rangel (2018) reported on many studies
that demonstrated increased teacher turnover in the year before and the year after a principal
leaves a school and a negative effect on subsequent principal leadership. Finally, principal
turnover is costly, estimated at more than $75,000 to develop, hire, and onboard a new principal
37

(Superville, 2020). High rates of principal burnout increase the risk of principal turnover, but
there are other factors as well.
Student Behavior and Student Low Achievement
Several studies suggest student misconduct undermines employee engagement and is an
important precursor to burnout or a principal’s desire to change schools (Bakker et al., 2007;
Tekleselassie & Villarreal, 2011). However, for some principals making a difference when
students are in crisis gives meaning to their work, even if emotionally draining (Superville,
2021). Because the pandemic has led to an increase in student behavior incidents and mental
health issues across Minnesota (Parr et al., 2022; Pekel et al., 2020), predictions of principal
burnout are high (NASSP, 2021). High intensity school discipline problems increase intent to
leave; investing in student behavioral supports can reduce the principal exodus (Bakker et al.,
2007). Tekleselassie and Villarreal (2011) contended school district investment in positive
behavioral interventions, counselors and social workers to address student behavior can reduce
principal attrition. It is a challenge, because principals both feel responsible and are held
responsible for the school’s disciplinary climate, which may be beyond their control. Thus,
student behavior also contributes to a principal’s desire to change schools (Tekleselassie &
Villarreal, 2011).
Managing Difficult Stakeholder Issues
Increased expectations for stakeholder engagement and managing difficult stakeholders
contribute to job demands and stress for school principals (De Jong et al., 2017), most of whom
went into the profession to work with children. Increased media attention and calls for
accountability have strained the relationships and may create bias against school leaders (De
Jong et al., 2017). Social justice activism in Minnesota following the murders of Philando
38

Castillo and later George Floyd have increased the number of student walkouts and protests at
schools. Racist incidents at schools have increased criticism of school leaders and parents have
called for changes in school policies and practices with a focus on equity (Fazio, 2021). Student
walkouts, parent protests, anti-racism activists, and a nationally coordinated anti-critical race
theory (CRT) effort to discredit school leaders have all increased contentiousness for school
leaders in Minnesota. Managing stakeholders in one challenge facing school leaders, managing
staff is another challenge.
Lack of Autonomy Over Staff and Budget
Tekleselassie and Villarreal (2011) found the greater the principal autonomy over staff
supervision, the less likely the principal would seek a change of schools or leave the profession.
Boyce and Bowers (2016) analyzed the National Center of Education Statistics School Staffing
Survey data of 1,470 principals who exited their schools between the 2007–2008 and the 2008–
2009 school years. Principals who had high levels of autonomy or influence on curriculum,
setting performance standards, professional development of teachers, budget and spending
decisions, and teacher selection reported greater job satisfaction and lower incidents of school
climate and student behavior issues, including fighting and disrespect of teachers. One cannot
deduct causation, but there is a strong correlation.
Principal Satisfaction
Tekleselassie and Villarreal (2011) identified three measures of job satisfaction that
influence principal turnover: (a) belief in the worth of job (purpose), (b) satisfaction with the
district, and (c) enthusiasm for the principalship (employee engagement). Making a difference in
the lives of students and staff provide motivation and meaning for many principals (De Jong et
al, 2017; Superville, 2022). Boyce and Bowers (2016) found large differences in attitude
39

between satisfied principals and disaffected principals; satisfied principals had higher levels of
enthusiasm and belief that the stress of the job was worth it. Disaffected principals reported
negative attitudes and more often thought about transferring to another school or leaving the
profession. In both studies, high satisfaction correlated with lower intent to leave the profession
or switch schools—an indication their satisfaction and engagement as an employee matters, in
addition to their self-efficacy as a leader. In a 2022 study of Minnesota school principals, 83%
reported being generally satisfied with their job and attributed that satisfaction to relationships
with students (68%), relationships with staff (60%) and seeing students grow socially,
emotionally, and academically (<50%). At the same time, 40% expected to remain in their
current role for less than 4 years (Pekel et al, 2022).
Relationships and central office support also influence a leader’s intent to stay or leave.
Rangel (2018) found principals who enjoy positive relationships with their supervisor, peer, and
subordinates are more likely to stay. Conversely, principals in one study who left their positions
reported low levels of cohesiveness and collaboration. Further, negative relationships or conflict
with school councils and the broader community were factors in leaving the principalship
(Rangel, 2018). De Jong et al. (2017) found lack of support from the superintendent or district
also contributes to job dissatisfaction and contributes to feelings of isolation. This is noteworthy
because during the pandemic, there was widespread stress, increased anxiety, and decreased
social connections which strained relationships among adults in schools and communities
(Reeves, 2021). Further, principals were often required to implement state or local pandemic
response plans, which may have led to feelings of micromanagement, decreased autonomy, and
disempowerment. De Jong found that conflict without central office support increases principal
40

burnout. “When principals feel challenged by stakeholders and not supported by the
superintendent, the likelihood of burnout is a real concern” (De Jong et al., 2017, p 368).
Professional growth also influences retention. Tekleselassie and Villarreal (2011) found
school districts that provide internships and training for principals reduced mobility. Further,
they presented a study of rural Michigan principals who participated in a McREL Balanced
Leadership program; a post-evaluation of the cohort group showed a decline in principal
turnover. During the pandemic, all professional development programs in Minnesota shifted to a
virtual environment with reduced programming, which diminished their abilities to positively
impact retention. The Minnesota Principal Survey also found a disconnect between the most
common professional development (i.e., district presentations, networking events, and
workshops) versus professional development principals ranked most useful (Minnesota
Principals Academy, networking, and doctoral coursework). The top barriers Minnesota
principals reported for participating in professional development were feeling obligated to be in
their buildings (68%), limited time (63%), and COVID-19 restrictions (59%). Minnesota
principals (34%) reported they would benefit from more additional professional development in
reducing staff burnout (Pekel et al., 2022)
Principal Effectiveness
There is a growing body of research that outlines what effective principals do. A meta-
analysis of two decades of research, sponsored by the Wallace Foundation, outlined three critical
skills sets—(a) people, (b) instruction, and (c) organization—and four leadership behaviors for
effective school principals: (a) engaging in instructionally focused interactions with teachers, (b)
building a productive climate, (c) facilitating collaboration and professional learning
communities, and (d) strategically managing personnel and resources (Grissom et al, 2021). Each
41

of these four leadership behaviors was disrupted or severely tested during the pandemic,
contributing to occupational stress for school leaders.
In the Minnesota Principal Survey, 80% of respondents reported believing their primary
role was to be an instructional leader; however, only 61% reported their supervisor ensures they
have time to do so. Professional growth and instructional tasks are two areas where principals are
spending much less time than they would like. Instructional leadership and culture and climate
are the two quadrants where principals feel least confident. A significant finding of the
Minnesota Principals survey was that districts need to prioritize and support the work principals
must do, because it cannot all be done. As it is currently defined, the principal role is physically,
mentally and emotionally challenging. Pekel et al. concluded, “The totality of the job and
expectations of a single leader likely need to be examined” (Pekel et al., 2022, p. 50).
Impact of Workload
Long hours and unrealistic workload are major reasons for job dissatisfaction, burnout,
and turnover among school principals (Tekleselassie & Villarreal, 2011; De Jong et al., 2017).
Balancing work and personal life were ranked as one difficult part of the job before the
pandemic. Most notably, Tekleselassie and Villarreal (2011) found when job enthusiasm, job
worthiness, and job satisfaction are compromised, intent to leave the profession increases.
Untimely departure from the profession interrupts both the school and the individual’s career
progression (Grissom et al., 2021).
The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Sustained Crisis for School Leaders
On March 13, 2020, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz declared a peacetime emergency in
response to the COVID-19 (Walz, 2020). Executive Order 20-02 ordered all schools to close for
2 weeks to plan for a prolonged period of distance learning. Distance learning was later extended
42

through the end of the 2019-2020 school year. School principals needed to immediately address
issues of building access to materials and personal belongings, technology access for teachers
and students, free meal distribution, professional development for teachers who in many cases
had no experience in online instruction, and staff anxiety in response to the unprecedented
turmoil. A Spring 2020 survey of 13,077 Minnesota educators (Pekel et al., 2020) recounted
challenges of pandemic disruption:
• worry among educators unable to connect and engage students
• multiple technology platforms that families of students did not know how to use
• lack of technology and/or broadband access for some students and teachers
• long hours and exhausting, disheartening work for which educators felt unprepared
• stressed families dealing with job loss, food insecurity, caregiving, health conditions
and fear of the unknown.
During Spring 2020, school activities were canceled, students and teachers were sent
home to socially isolate, and there were shortages of supplies, including technology devices.
Further complicating the situation, Minnesota has a divided legislature with Democrats
controlling the State House and Republicans controlling the State Senate. The political battles
associated with the emergency powers, school and business closures, and aggressive pandemic
mitigation strategies played out in many local school districts and communities (Gockowski,
2020). As the pandemic wore on, more decisions, including masking requirements, were pushed
to the local level putting added pressure on local school boards, superintendents and principals,
increasing occupational stress.
The pandemic also exposed many racial injustices: inequities in public health, education,
housing, financial services, food insecurity, and other social determinants of health in the United
43

States and Minnesota, specifically (CDC, 2022; Evans & Walsh, 2020), elevating equity
concerns among school leaders. On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was murdered by police in
Minneapolis, MN, triggering a prolonged period of civil unrest and heightening social justice
activism in schools around the state (Fazio, 2020; Pekel et al, 2020; Shockman, 2021).
Safe Schooling: Three Learning Models
It was late July when MDE (2021) released the Safe Learning Plan for the 2020–2021
school year. It called for schools to create plans for three scenarios: (a) in-person learning with
mitigation strategies, (b) hybrid model with schools and buses at 50% capacity, and (c) full
distance learning, with an expectation that schools may shift between models with little notice
during the year. Principals quickly learned about personal protective equipment (PPE), created
multiple versions of the master schedule, determined new capacity and social distances, revised
lunch schedules and cafeteria seating, established procedures for technology distribution, and
communicated new policies and procedures for student and staff safety. Principals designed
student pods to minimize contact, learned about contact tracing and quarantine guidelines, gained
an understanding of complex health and legal nuances (Heubeck, 2021), then braced for
substitute and staffing shortages.
Digital Leadership
While many high schools had one-to-one technology for students in Minnesota, that was
not the case among elementary schools or rural schools that lacked broadband access in their
communities. Principals were faced with learning and rapidly deploying new technology tools.
While scaling up educational technology, 82% of elementary principals reported they were
unsure how their district could deliver instruction in a virtual environment (Clifford &
Coggshall, 2021a). Delays in the technology supply chain added anxiety as schools waited for
44

almost a year for some technology to be delivered. In Minnesota, all schools were also required
to offer a virtual school option during the 2020-2021 school year for families who did not want
to send their child to school in person. For many school principals, this meant running two
school models: staffing and supervising both a fully online virtual school and the standard
model—that might shift from in-person to hybrid or distance learning based on local COVID-19
case counts.
Prioritizing Equity in Education
Minnesota has some of the nation’s largest achievement gaps (Grunewald & Nath, 2019).
The pandemic magnified existing inequities with students of color disproportionately impacted
by school closures (Parr et al., 2022; Pekel et al., 2020). As the principal role changed from
instructional leader to logistics coordinators, the focus was on providing paper resources where
the internet was not available to students, coordinating with community partners to open access
to the internet to facilitate learning, or providing hotspots and WiFi devices. Schools continued
to serve students meals despite school closures (Clifford & Coggshall, 2021b). What is
noticeably absent from studies capturing the impact of the pandemic are the areas of school
leadership that are known to influence effectiveness, support student learning, and advance one’s
professional mission or sense of purpose.
Supervising Essential Employees During the COVID-19 Pandemic
During the pandemic, principals found themselves supervising teachers who were
reporting high levels of occupational stress and burnout (Pressley, 2021), the first contact for
parents who are stressed and overwhelmed (Pekel et al., 2020), and needing to serve students
reporting more mental health concerns (Pekel et al., 2022; Potter et al., 2021). Surveys from the
third school year impacted by the pandemic repeatedly indicated that each year had been harder
45

on educators than the year prior — demonstrating the sustained impact of unresolved
occupational stress (Clifford & Coggshall, 2021b; NASSP, 2021). A RAND 2022 national study
of teachers and principals indicated both reported worse well-being than other working adults.
Further, poor well-being and adverse working conditions were associated with poor physical
health, job dissatisfaction and an intent to leave their jobs (Steiner et al., 2021). The 2022
Minnesota Principals Survey detailed additional roles and responsibilities principals took on
during the pandemic, including contact tracing, food distribution, and technology accessibility.
Principals also reported being overwhelmed, with increased expectations for both their staff and
themselves, with growing student needs, increased concerns for student and staff mental health,
student behavior issues, anger from parents, active pushback from families and communities,
political pressure, new protocols and procedures, increased importance of communication, and
staffing shortages (Pekal et al., 2022). School principals faced unprecedented change and
occupational stress during the pandemic.
Conceptual Framework
Bandura’s (2005) social cognitive theory places human agency and social modeling at the
core of development, adaptation and change. Social cognitive theory provides an effective
framework for this study of school principals who faced dramatic change and adaptation during
the COVID-19 pandemic and had to lead others through the change.
As applied in the context of a work environment (a public school) during a pandemic,
social cognitive theory would posit that elements of the environment (health threats, state and
district mandates, societal pressures, needs of employees) would have significantly impacted the
behaviors of school principals. Likewise, principals’ beliefs about leadership, learning,
motivation, mental health, well-being, student safety, personal safety, resiliency, and self-
46

efficacy would have influenced their behaviors. As school leaders, supervisors and employers,
principals are responsible for the culture of the school (National Policy Board for Educational
Administration, 2015), and many believe they are personally responsible for everything that
happens in the school (Harris, 2020; De Jong et al., 2017). Principals understand they influence
the work environment for their employees and the learning environment for their students. And,
culture and climate is one of four leadership responsibility areas for Minnesota principals (Pekel
et al, 2022).
Social cognitive theory is a dynamic model that recognizes the individual's shifting roles
based on the context of the moment. For example, principals are frontline managers in a school,
but they are also employees in the public education system, subject to expectations from the
external environment (i.e., district leadership, state mandates, and the local community).
Social cognitive theory places human agency (learning, adaptation, intentionality,
forethought) and self-regulation at the core of human behavior. Through the lens of social
cognitive theory, we can see that school principals are leaders who needed to learn and adapt to
uncertain conditions during the pandemic and create a culture of resilience for their teams. As
leaders, principals needed to model for their employees the behaviors they wanted to see in their
schools. In terms of employee well-being and burnout, school principals needed to understand,
believe in and practice preventative or intervention behaviors to mitigate the effects of
occupational stress during the pandemic. Further, their behavior needed to inspire the collective
efficacy of their employees to be resilient in the face of unprecedented challenges and
occupational stress.
Social cognitive theory is an appropriate framework for this study because we need to
understand the participants beliefs and behaviors to understand the environment they created for
47

their teams. If school principals were negatively impacted by burnout, they would likely be
unable to perform at their best cognitively, when their thinking impacted their behavior and the
environment they created for their teams.
Summary of Review
The literature review presents evidence that the role of school principal carries the burden
of excessive workload, conflict, change, and broad span of control that was further complicated
during the COVID-19 pandemic. This literature makes a strong case for the importance of school
leadership in relationship with teacher retention, school effectiveness and student success
(DeMatthews, 2016; Grissom et al., 2021; Leithwood, 2012; Leithwood et al., 2004; Leithwood
et al., 2020). Educators, especially school principals, face an unprecedented level of occupational
stress—prevalent before and exacerbated by the pandemic (De Jong et al., 2017; Harris, 2020;
Steiner et al., 2022). The public school system faces a risk of principal burnout and turnover
despite the evidence that principal leadership significantly impacts student achievement and
school success (Grissom et al., 2021; Steiner et al., 2022). As frontline managers with a
significant impact on student achievement, school leadership effectiveness and stability are
strongly correlated with school improvement, teacher retention, teacher effectiveness, student
achievement (DeMatthews et al., 2021; Grissom et al., 2021; Leithwood, 2012) and eventually,
the cost of education (De Jong et al., 2017). In answer to a national mental crisis and reports
increasing rates of employee burnout across multiple professions, the U.S. Surgeon General is
calling on all employers to enact practices to strengthen workplace well-being. It is incumbent on
Minnesota (and all states) and school systems to assess and improve educator well-being moving
forward. Only when educators thrive will the students they serve have the same opportunity.

48

Chapter Three: Methodology
The COVID-19 pandemic created high levels of occupational stress in the United States,
negatively impacting employee well-being. This chapter details the methodology for a
concurrent, mixed-methods survey study to explore the impact of the pandemic on burnout of
school principals in Minnesota and organizational and leadership practices to support employee
well-being. This chapter includes the recruitment and selection of participants, the data collection
process, and data analysis procedures. Finally, the chapter addresses the role of the researcher,
study validity and reliability, and ethical considerations related to this study.
Research Questions
The purpose of this research was to explore employee well-being, effectiveness and
burnout among K-12 public school principals in Minnesota during the COVID-19 pandemic and
examine organizational and leadership practices related to well-being of school principals and
their employees. Specifically, the research answered the following questions:
1. How have burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue impacted beliefs about
employee effectiveness among Minnesota K-12 school principals during the COVID-
19 pandemic?
2. How have levels of engagement and fulfillment impacted beliefs about effectiveness
among Minnesota K-12 school principals during the COVID-19 pandemic?
3. What specific strategies have Minnesota school districts implemented that support the
well-being of their employees, specifically school principals, during the COVID-19
pandemic?
4. What specific strategies did school principals implement in their schools to mitigate
employee burnout?
49

Methodology Approach and Rationale
This concurrent, mixed-methods survey study, combining quantitative and qualitative
questions, explored the prevalence of burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue among school
leaders. At the onset of the research, there were assumptions that principals may be experiencing
burnout, but there was not specific data to support the claims. The quantitative data collected in
this study provided evidence of a high degree of burnout and decreased beliefs about
effectiveness during the pandemic among participants.
The quantitative portion of the study was appropriate to measure relationships among
independent and dependent variables (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This study explored
employee effectiveness as the dependent variable in relationship to burnout, emotional
exhaustion, and fatigue (RQ1). Effectiveness was also the dependent variable in relationship to
employee engagement and fulfillment as independent variables (RQ2). The quantitative data also
provided an opportunity to explore the relationship between the five independent variables in
RQ1 and RQ2. Using questions from previously validated instruments increased the credibility
and confidence of the survey instrument. Questions were drawn from the MBI (Maslach &
Jackson, 1981), Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al., 1983), FAS (Michielsen et al., 2004), and
Gallup’s (2021) Q12. Two additional questions, specific to the principalship, were taken from a
prepandemic principals job satisfaction survey (De Jong et al., 2017) included in the literature
review.
The qualitative portion of the study included five open-ended questions, which provided
insight into factors contributing to burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue (RQ1). Answering
RQ3 and RQ4 relied on qualitative data, coded for themes, to identify organizational and
leadership practices used to support employee well-being during the pandemic. Open-ended
50

questions were chosen for two reasons: (a) to provide a list of potential strategies needed for a
closed-ended question was not readily available and creating one may have biased the responses
and (b) because principals have a role in communicating practices to their employees so the
strategies used should be top of mind and easily volunteered in an open-ended response.
The Qualtrics (Version May, 2022) survey platform was selected for its ease of
administration, ability to collect data online, which was appropriate to the study population, and
the tools for statistical analysis.
The Researcher
As a researcher, I selected a concurrent, mixed-methods survey design because I believe in
the value of both quantitative and qualitative data to better understand the human experience.
The topic of employee well-being and its impact on educators is important to me, having
dedicated my entire professional career to advocating for public education. I believe the
pandemic pushed the educational system and educators beyond many capacities, and the
disruption to student learning will be seen for decades to come. The recovery will take strong
leadership.
My positionality as a White, upper-middle-class, professional woman is privileged. I have
access to employee wellness programs and excellent health benefits. I work in a mission-driven
public relations consulting firm, with employee well-being as a core value. In my work, I support
education, health services and nonprofit clients.
I have never served as a school principal. Over a 22-year career in educational public
relations, I worked in central office administrator positions supporting school principals during
celebratory and challenging times. My roles coordinating strategic planning for an innovative
and high-performing school district, leading internal and external communications and
51

engagement, and directing crisis communications have provided unique insight into the job
demands school principals face. Having not served in the principal role, I will be looking at the
data from an external point of view and may be blind to some nuanced responses. My position as
a researcher creates a power differential, which requires adherence to the highest standards of
professional ethics and conduct.
In my current role as a communications consultant with Minnesota school districts, I work
outside of the school systems and have no employment relationship with the study population. I
provide indirect support to about two dozen school principals who could potentially be in my
response group. For two reasons, I see no conflict of interest: (a) school districts contract my
services and principals are not decision-makers regarding my work, and (b) all survey responses
were anonymous, without identifying employers, so there is no way to discern respondents with
whom I may be familiar from those I do not know.
Population
In December 2021, the MDE listed 2,389 valid email addresses for school principals and
assistant principals in Minnesota public schools, including traditional and charter schools. All
principals and assistant principals were invited to participate in the study via two emails to their
school district email address. In addition, the Minnesota Secondary School Principals
Association distributed the study link via email to its members to assist in boosting response
rates, which were lagging in the last week of the study. Survey fatigue was a barrier, so 300
completions was the goal. The study closed with 496 respondents. Demographic questions were
optional, and 380 respondents completed the demographic questions. This sample size is larger
than many other surveys cited in the literature review. According to the Qualtrics sample size
52

calculator, 309 would be the ideal sample size for a 95% confidence level (Qualtrics, 2021), if
the sample were randomized.
Participant Group Workplace Demographics
Using social cognitive theory, it is important to factor the environment and the individual
in relation to the research questions. The work environment factors that may influence job
demands, effectiveness and well-being of the school principal include the type of school district
(urban, suburban, rural), the type of school (elementary, middle, high school; DeMatthews,
2021) and the staff size or number of employees supervised. Minnesota’s Safe Learning Plan
called for local autonomy and school district decision-making, based on local pandemic data.
Therefore, both the pandemic learning model and the level of involvement in decision making
during the pandemic were additional independent variables for this study. Table 1 provides the
descriptive statistics for the participant group related to independent work environment variables.
Participant Group Personal Demographics
This study collected data from 496 K-12 public school principals in Minnesota at the end
of the 2021-2022 school year, the third consecutive school year disrupted by the COVID-19
pandemic. Demographic questions were optional in this study; 380 respondents completed the
demographic questions. Among those who provided demographic data, 48% are female, 51%
male; 86% were married or in a domestic partnership, 5% single, 9% widowed/separated/
divorced (see Table 2). Fifty-one percent reported being a caregiver for children or vulnerable
adults. Participant ages ranged from 28-65 (x̄ = 49), with an average of 11 years as a principal
and 12 years on average with their current employer. Nine racial identities are represented, 92%
White and 8% professionals of color (n < 10 for individual subgroups). Workplace and personal
demographics were analyzed as nominal variables for each quantitative research question.
53

Table 1
Workplace Demographics
n Valid
percentage
Learning model In-person 168 44.20%
Hybrid 166 43.70%
Distance 46 12.10%
Total 380 100.00%
District type Urban 55 14.50%
Suburban 133 35.00%
Rural 192 50.50%
Total 380 100.00%
School type Elementary 134 37.70%
Middle 59 16.60%
High 105 29.60%
K-12 57 16.10%
Total 355 100.00%
Employees supervised 0-25 30 7.90%
26-50 84 22.10%
51-75 110 28.90%
76-100 84 22.10%
100 or more 72 18.90%
Total 380 100%

54

Table 2
Personal Demographics
n Valid percentage
Gender Male 195 51.70%
Female 182 48.30%
Total 377 100.00%
Marital status Single 20 5.26%
Married 329 86.65.5%
Divorced/Separated 31 8.16%
Total 380 100.00%
Caregiver Yes 192 50.50%
No 188 49.50%
Total 380 100.00%
Racial identity White 348 92.10%
POC 30 7.90%
Total 378 100.00%
Age 25 to 34 9 2.5%
35 to 44 81 22.4%
45 to 54 188 52.1%
55 to 65 83 23.0%
Total 361 100.00%
Years as principal 3 or less 55 14.50%
4 to 10 161 42.40%
11 to 20 121 31.80%
21 to 31 43 11.30%
Total 380 100.00%
Years with employer 3 or less 65 17.10%
4 to 10 139 36.60%
11 to 20 95 25.00%
21 to 31 81 21.30%
Total 380 100.00%
55

A representative sample of school leaders would require 16-30% from the Metro area and
70% from rural or outstate schools. The Minnesota Principal Survey administered in November
2021 had a 34% participation rate with 54% from the metro area and 46% from outstate (Pekel et
al., 2022). There are a variety of grade configurations among schools; about 60% are elementary,
and 40% are secondary schools. The participants in this study were fairly representative of the
population compared to other studies.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2019), the
demographic profile of Minnesota school principals is 94% White, which is problematic, when
disaggregating quantitative data. Minnesota has a persistent problem attracting BIPOC education
professionals, according to the Coalition to Attract Teachers of Color and American Indian
Teachers (2020), and only 4% of Minnesota teachers are people of color or American Indian
teachers. Because respondents were predominately White, the survey data likely masks
information from minoritized groups.
Instrumentation
This study used an online survey through the researcher’s University of Southern
California Qualtrics doctoral student account. All responses were anonymous in Qualtrics. The
survey consisted of 17 Likert-scale questions, five open-ended questions, and 12 demographic
questions. See Appendix A for the full survey instrument.
Two questions from the MBI addressed emotional exhaustion and depersonalization that
are indicative of burnout. The abbreviated two-question MBI-2 has been found to correlate well
with the full MBI as a rapid assessment tool in healthcare (Li-Sauerwine et al., 2020; West et al.,
2012) and may correlate as well for educational leaders. Four questions on fatigue were adopted
from the FAS (Michielsen et al., 2004). Three questions were adopted from the Perceived Stress
56

Scale (PSS) (Cohen et al., 2014). Four questions from the Gallup Q12 (2021) explored employee
engagement as a factor in avoiding burnout. Using questions from previously validated research
studies increases the study’s credibility. Two Likert-scale questions specifically address the
impact of the pandemic for RQ 1 and RQ 2. Two quantitative and one qualitative questions
addressed RQ 2 using questions related to principal job dissatisfaction and turnover from a
prepandemic study of principals in a Midwest state (De Jong et al., 2017). Both addressed
motivations fundamental to the principalship. A third open-ended question from the 2017 study
asked about the most difficult parts of the job and provided insights into challenges to
effectiveness and well-being. The final Likert-scale question asked leaders to what extent they
prioritized their own well-being to avoid burnout. This question was used for RQ3 and supported
by open-ended responses regarding specific activities participants used toward their personal
well-being. Two open-ended questions collect organizational and leadership practices
implemented to support employee well-being for RQ3.
Data Collection Procedures
Through the MDE, 2,389 valid school principals’ email addresses were available online
as a public record. Email was the only method for distributing the survey. The email addresses
were uploaded to Qualtrics and a first invitation was sent on May 23, 2022. Because Minnesota
schools end their academic year on a range of dates, from May 28 to June 22, 2022, a second
email invitation was sent on June 14, 2022. See Appendix B for the series of email invitations
sent.
The researcher received support from four influential leaders, who forwarded the
anonymous survey link to their email lists to encourage participation in the email. The Minnesota
Secondary Principals Association Executive Director encouraged participation in the survey and
57

shared the anonymous survey link in official communication on June 21, 2022. The Minnesota
Elementary School Principals’ Association received the link on May 23, 2022. The Minnesota
Principals Academy through the University of Minnesota distributed an email and link to its
member list on June 13, 2022. The host of a Minnesota principal podcast, Mark McImoyle, used
their social media channels to encourage participation. All communication asked principals to
check their school email for the study invitation and link. The researcher specifically requested
the link not be shared on social media to maintain the integrity of the data. The survey window
remained open from May 23, 2022, through June 30, 2022. Of the 2,485 email addresses on the
original MDE, 96 bounced as bad email addresses, leaving 2,389 valid email addresses. Of the
510 study submissions, 366 responses were completed through the individual email link sent
through Qualtrics, and 144 responses were completed using the general survey link provided to
the Minnesota Secondary Principals Association, the Minnesota Elementary School Principals’
Association, and the Minnesota Principals Academy.
Data Analysis
The quantitative data was analyzed using Qualtrics reporting tools and IBM SPSS
(Version 28.0.0.0) statistical software. A series of descriptive and inferential statistical tests were
conducted for each dependent, independent, and nominal variable. The qualitative data was
downloaded from Qualtrics and imported to ATLAS.it (Version 22.1.0) for coding. Analysis
related to each research question are fully described in Chapter 4. See Appendix C for data tables
and Appendix D for the code book.
Validity and Reliability
Drawing meaningful conclusions from survey instruments requires one to employ
specific strategies “to demonstrate the accuracy of the data” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 385).
58

Creswell and Creswell (2018) discussed three types of validity: (a) content validity, (b)
predictive validity, and (c) construct validity. Because the survey reused questions from
established tools, there is confidence in the content and construct validity.
Demographic data was collected and analyzed to determine if the survey sample was
representative of the population of school principals in Minnesota. In cooperation with the
Minnesota Principals Academy, the University of Minnesota Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement (CAREI) conducted an inaugural Minnesota Principals Survey (Pekel
et al., 2022) in November 2021 and released results in Spring 2022. The Minnesota Principals
Survey did not explicitly measure exhaustion, fatigue, and burnout; however, it was designed to
provide policymakers a look at the successes and needs of principals in Minnesota (Pekel et al.,
2022) and provided a quantitative database of school principal responses during the pandemic for
additional research. Comparing the data from this study with the Minnesota Principals Survey
(Pekel et al., 2022) and MDE data regarding learning models further validated the credibility of
responses.
Reliability is a measure of whether the survey instrument would reliably return consistent
results over time. By reusing questions, without modification, from instruments that have been
measured for reliability, this research provides readers with a greater level of confidence in
reliability than creating new questions. According to multiple studies over time, the MBI-2 has a
.70–.90 Cronbach’s alpha value (Li-Sauerwine et al., 2020; West et al., 2012). Cohen’s PSS has
Cronbach’s alpha of .84–.86 for the full version (Cohen et al.., 2014), which is an acceptable
level of reliability (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). As a complete instrument, the Gallup (2021)
Q12 Cronbach’s alpha is 0.91 and individual items correlate to the larger scale at approximately
0.70.
59

Creswell and Creswell (2018) reminded researchers when questions are reused and
combined with other questions, the original reliability and validity need to be re-established
during data analysis. In this study, the MBI-2 burnout scale had a Cronbach’s alpha score of
0.739. The four-item fatigue scale had a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.832 in this study. Questions
from the Cohen’s PSS were used to create the effectiveness scale, which had a Cronbach’s alpha
of 0.613, within the 0.5 to 0.7 range of a moderately reliable scale (Salkind, 2014). Using four
questions from the Gallup Q12, the engagement scale in this study had a Cronbach’s alpha of
0.627, within the 0.5 to 0.7 range of a moderately reliable scale (Salkind, 2014). Using questions
from the De Jong et al (2017) study, the fulfillment scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.810,
indicating strong reliability, especially for a two-item scale. Additional internal reliability tables
for the independent and dependent variables are provided in Chapter 4.
Ethics
This research study was conducted in compliance with all applicable University of
Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines and standards for protecting
research subjects. As defined by the Federal Regulations for Protection of Human Research
Subjects (45 CFR 46), this study falls under the category of exempt (University of Southern
California, 2021). There is minimal risk as defined by the federal regulations: The purpose was
educational research, and the survey did not involve children. Participants were provided an
information sheet about the purpose of the study, and Q1 included informed consent. Participants
had the right to end their participation at any time, without consequence. As a researcher, I took
the following precautions to protect the anonymity and confidentiality of respondents:
• The list of invited participants was public data available through the MDE.
60

• The email invitation included a link to an information sheet and the first question on
the survey confirmed willing consent to participate in the study. The survey
instrument informed participants of the purpose of the survey and their ability to
discontinue participation for any reason at any time.
• Qualtrics email distribution generated a unique response link, unknown to the
researcher, to allow invited participants to complete the survey. Reminder emails
were also sent through the Qualtrics system to all emails in the list.
• In Qualtrics, the tool for “anonymize responses” was used. No individually
identifiable information was collected in the survey.
• The primary researcher’s contact information was available to participants for
questions or concerns about the study.
• There was no incentive or compensation for participating in the survey.
All research has some risk of harm to participants or a population (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). For example, this study of school principals and burnout risks discouraging educators
from becoming principals due to the job demands; however, there was greater value in
identifying factors contributing to burnout so that policymakers and district leaders can better
support the well-being of these frontline managers.

61

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this research was to explore employee well-being and burnout among K-
12 public school principals in Minnesota during the COVID-19 pandemic and to examine
organizational and leadership practices related to effectiveness and well-being of school
principals and their employees. This chapter presents the findings and data analysis for each
research question.
Overall, two thirds (66%) of respondents in this study reported feeling less effective in
their role as a school principal or assistant principal at the end of the 2021–2022 school year,
compared to their work before the pandemic, and 83% reported less well-being. The top five
stressors reported by participants in open-ended questions included (a) overwhelming job
demands, (b) increasing student needs, (c) growing employee mental health issues, (d) unrealistic
demands of parents and the public, and (e) staffing shortages, all contributing to occupational
stress and burnout.
Research Question 1 was created to explore how burnout, emotional exhaustion, and
fatigue impacted beliefs about employee effectiveness among Minnesota K-12 school principals
during the COVID-19 pandemic. A majority of respondents reported experiencing symptoms of
burnout more than a few times a month (burnout scale: x̄ = 4.33/7), emotional exhaustion ( x̄ =
4.19/6), and fatigue (x̄ = 3.31/5). There was a strong, negative correlation between effectiveness
and each variable of burnout (r = -.589, p < .001), emotional exhaustion (r = -.626, p < .001), and
fatigue (r = -.626, p < .001). Qualitative responses provided more insight into stressors: long
hours, work overload, and feelings of never catching up. Managing student and staff mental
health, unreasonable demands from parents and the public, and feeling unprepared or under-
resourced for rising mental health needs were contributing factors to emotional exhaustion and
62

burnout. Work also pushed personal well-being off the calendar. Only 31% of respondents
reported prioritizing their personal well-being at least weekly over the prior 12 months.
There was a statistically significant relationship between prioritizing well-being at least
weekly and beliefs of effectiveness (p < .000212) and fulfillment (p < .0001) during the
pandemic. The behaviors leaders modeled, along with the beliefs leaders have about well-being
and effectiveness, set the tone for their employees. Further, many respondents felt their school
districts did little to support their well-being. In open-ended comments, no one mentioned an
employee assistance program as a resource. If leaders did not believe or were not aware of
district strategies to support employee well-being, they were unable to communicate them to
their employees. Supervisors are traditionally the most trusted source of information in employee
communication and play an important role in supporting employee well-being programs on
behalf of their districts.
While burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue had negative correlations with
effectiveness, effectiveness was positively correlated with engagement (r = .419, p < .001), and
fulfillment (r = .526, p < .001), . Engagement and fulfillment are associated with alignment of
meaningful work and personal purpose, feeling one is making a difference for students, and
feeling like supervisors and colleagues care about the individual. Qualitative data outlined
supportive supervisory practices, which included regular check-ins, involvement in decision-
making, flexibility with time, and reducing meetings or nonessential tasks. A few respondents
mentioned providing professional development on well-being and mental health and the
importance of social connection.
The last three years have presented unprecedented challenges for public education and
took a toll on public school principals in Minnesota, but there are findings in this study that can
63

help local and state leaders improve efforts to fight the high levels of employee burnout reported
by public school employees in 2022.
Research Question 1: Burnout, Emotional Exhaustion, And Fatigue Related to Employee
Effectiveness
This study explored how burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue are related to beliefs
about employee effectiveness among Minnesota K-12 school principals during the COVID-19
pandemic. In analyzing this research question, employee effectiveness is the dependent variable.
burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue are independent variables.
Employee Effectiveness
Three survey questions from Cohen’s PSS-10 combined to create the employee
effectiveness scale:
• Q4.7: In the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the
important things in your life?
• Q4.8: In the last month, how often have you felt confident about your ability to
handle your problems at work?
• Q4.9: In the last month, how often have you felt difficulties at work were piling up so
high that you could not overcome them?
Each question had a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from never to always. Questions 4.7 and 4.9
were reverse coded for statistical analysis.
A single item in the instrument (Q2.1) asked participants to self-report their current
effectiveness at work compared to before the pandemic (Pan Effectiveness), with 1 being
significantly less effective and 5 being significantly more effective. Most participants (65.5%)
reported less current effectiveness than before the pandemic. See Table 3 for frequencies.
64

Table 3
Effectiveness Frequencies: Perceived Effectiveness in June 2022 Versus Prepandemic
n %
Significantly less effective 51 11.62%
Somewhat less effective 237 53.99%
Same 85 19.36%
Somewhat more effective 57 12.98%
Significantly more effective 9 2.05%

Reliability
Throughout this study, reliability statistics were run in SPSS, which returned a
Cronbach’s alpha score for each factor and scale. The effectiveness scale had a Cronbach’s alpha
of 0.613, within the 0.5 to 0.7 range of a moderately reliable scale (Salkind, 2014), and
acceptable for this study. Removing any of the three questions would have reduced the
reliability.
Descriptive Frequencies
Descriptive statistical analysis measures the central tendency of data using the mean and
standard deviation. Effectiveness had a mean of 3.35 (SD = 0.76) compared to the Pan
Effectiveness mean of 2.40 (SD = 0.93). Table 4 provides the mean, median, mode and skewness
for both effectiveness scale and pan effectiveness item.
Table 4 shows that the mean, median, and mode are nearly identical within each scale. Although
effectiveness has a slightly negative skewness, the histogram in Figure 2 represents a normal
distribution. Comparing the histograms in Figures 2 and 3, it is evident that the pandemic
65

negatively impacted principals’ beliefs as to their effectiveness in their work for two thirds
(65.5%) of the participant group.

Table 4
Pan Effectiveness and Effectiveness Scale Descriptive Statistics
PanEffectiveness Effectiveness
N 439 415
Mean 2.398 3.351
Median 2.000 3.333
Mode 2.00 3.67
Std.
Deviation
.92559 .76048
Skewness .742 -.156
Std. Error of
Skewness
.117 .120
Minimum 1.00 1.33
Maximum 5.00 5.00

Burnout, Emotional Exhaustion, and Fatigue
The independent variables for RQ1 were burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue.
Two to four questions from the study instrument were grouped and the means calculated to
create a scale for statistical analysis of each independent variable. All scales used questions from
existing instruments to improve validity and reliability. See Appendix A for the full study
instrument.
Burnout Scale
The MBI is widely used to measure burnout in education and healthcare. Two questions
from the MBI form the MBI-2 and have been shown to have a high correlation with the full MBI
to reliably identify burnout (Li-Sauerwine, 2020). Those two items were used for this study: (a) I
66

feel burned out from my work (Q4.1), and (b) I have become more callous toward people since I
took this job (Q4.2). A rating of three or greater on these questions is a potential indicator of
burnout. For this study, the burnout scale, using these two questions, had a Cronbach’s alpha
score of 0.739, indicating strong reliability, especially for a two-item scale.

Figure 2
Effectiveness Histogram

Emotional Exhaustion Scale
Emotional exhaustion is a subset of burnout and has three dimensions: (a) emotional
exhaustion, (b) depersonalization, and (c) reduced personal accomplishment or professional
efficacy. The emotional exhaustion scale included two items (Q4.1 and Q4.3), one question from
the MBI-2 related to burnout (Li-Sauerwine, 2020), and one question from the FAS related to
67

mental exhaustion (Michielson et al., 2004). The emotional exhaustion scale had a Cronbach’s
alpha score of 0.783 in this study, indicating strong reliability, especially for a two-item scale.

Figure 3
Pan Effectiveness Histogram

Fatigue Scale
Fatigue measures included four items from the FAS (Michielson et al., 2004). The four
items addressed mental exhaustion (Q4.3), physical exhaustion (Q4.4), energy (Q4.5), and
concentration (Q4.6). Q 4.5 and Q 4.6 were reverse coded for statistical analysis. The fatigue
scale had a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.832 in this study, indicating strong reliability. Table 5
provides reliability statistics for the independent variables in RQ 1.
Descriptive Frequencies
Descriptive statistical analysis measures the central tendency of data using the mean and
SD. The MBI-2 uses a 7-Point Likert scale with 1 being low (never) and 7 high (always). A cut-
68

off score of > 3 is correlated with the definition of burnout (Li-Sauerwine, 2020). In this study,
the mean for the two-item burnout scale was 4.33 (SD = 1.53). The emotional exhaustion scale
used one question with a 5-point scale and one with a 7-point scale. The mean for emotional
exhaustion was 4.19 (SD = 1.26). The FAS (Michielson et al., 2004) uses a 5-point Likert scale
with 1 being low (never) and 5 being high (always). The mean for fatigue was 3.31 (SD = 0.84).
With the mean above the midpoint for all three scales, each provided evidence of burnout,
emotional exhaustion, and fatigue among participants, which is consistent with a decrease in
well-being during the pandemic reported by 83.86% of respondents.

Table 5
Item-Total Statistical Analysis for burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue

Scale
mean if
item
deleted
Scale
variance if
item
deleted
Corrected
item-total
correlation
Cronbach's
alpha if
item
deleted
Burnout scale Q4.1 3.72 3.251 .588 –
Q4.2 4.93 2.673 .588 –
Emotional exhaustion scale Q4.1 3.44 1.185 .697 –
Q4.3 4.93 2.670 .697 –
Fatigue scale Q4.3 9.77 6.053 .751 .744
Q4.4 9.97 6.209 .703 .768
Q4.5 9.89 6.816 .650 .792
Q4.6 10.01 7.675 .547 .834

69

Correlational Statistics
This study sought to explore how burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue are related
to beliefs about employee effectiveness among Minnesota K-12 school principals during the
COVID-19 pandemic. IBM SPSS was used to calculate correlations for each scale, with 415
participants having complete data. Using the Pearson r measure for correlation. burnout,
emotional exhaustion, and fatigue had a strong negative correlation with effectiveness. As
burnout, emotional exhaustion or fatigue increased, effectiveness decreased. Table 6 provides the
correlation statistics. All were significant at the .05 level.

Table 6
Correlations for Burnout, Emotional Exhaustion, and Fatigue
Pan
effectiveness
Effectiveness
Burnout Pearson correlation -.359
*
-.589
*

Emotional exhaustion Pearson correlation -.391
*
-.626
*

Fatigue Pearson correlation -.428
*
-.626
*

Note. * = Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. B = Listwise. n = 415.

Regression
Running a regression analysis using Qualtrics statsIQ, the three variables of burnout,
emotional exhaustion, and fatigue explain a high portion of the effectiveness scale. All three
variables are similarly strong drivers of Effectiveness. Figure 4 illustrates a simple linear
regression for burnout with effectiveness.

70

Figure 4
Effectiveness and Burnout: Simple Linear Regression

Research Question 2: Engagement and Fulfillment Related to Beliefs About Effectiveness
This study explored how levels of engagement and fulfillment are related to beliefs about
effectiveness among Minnesota K-12 school principals during the COVID-19 pandemic. In
analyzing this research question, employee effectiveness is the dependent variable. Engagement
and fulfillment are independent variables.
Engagement Scale
Four questions from the Gallup (2021) Q12 explored employee engagement as a factor
for effectiveness. Gallup Q12 is a reliable measure of employee engagement and addresses basic
and career satisfaction elements required to attract and retain talented employees. As a complete
instrument, the Gallup Q12 Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91 and individual items correlate to the larger
scale at approximately 0.70. The four questions included in this study related to
• having the opportunity to do what one does best every day (Q2.4)
71

• knowing what is expected (Q2.5)
• having materials to do the job (Q2.6)
• having a supervisor or someone at work who seems to care about one as a person
(Q2.7).
Each question had a 5-point rating scale with 5 being high (strongly agree) and a midpoint of
3.0. The engagement scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.627, within the 0.5 to 0.7 range of a
moderately reliable scale (Salkind, 2014), and acceptable for this study. Removing any of the
four questions would have reduced the reliability, as seen in Table 7.
Fulfillment Scale
Two quantitative questions from a prepandemic study of Midwest principals (De Jong et
al., 2017) were used to explore principal job satisfaction or fulfillment. Participants were
provided a sliding scale from 0 to 100 for the two questions: (a) on average throughout the
school year, what percent of your time at work do you enjoy your job? and (b) on average
throughout the school year, what percent of the time do you feel your efforts are making a
positive difference for students? An open-ended question from the same study asked about the
most taxing parts of the job. The responses provided insight into challenges to effectiveness
principals faced during the pandemic. Participants in this study reported enjoying their jobs an
average of 56% of the time over the last year (median = 60%; SD = 23.62), which compared to
73% of the time in the 2017 study (De Jong et al., 2017). Participants in this study reported
making a positive difference for students 61% of the time (SD = 23.7), compared to 65% in the
2017 study.
72

The fulfillment scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.810, indicating strong reliability,
especially for a two-item scale. Table 7 provides an item-summary of reliability statistics for the
independent variables in RQ 2.

Table 7
Item-Total Statistical Analysis for Engagement and Fulfillment
Scale mean
if item
deleted
Scale
variance if
item deleted
Corrected
item-total
correlation
Cronbach’s
alpha
if item
deleted
Engagement scale Q2.4 11.18 4.998 .430 .543
Q2.5 10.18 5.643 .516 .488
Q2.6 10.56 5.636 .413 .552
Q2.7 9.96 6.372 .290 .634
Fulfillment scale Q3.1_1 60.55 560.515 .680 –
Q3.1_2 56.06 553.991 .680 –

Correlational Statistics
This study sought to explore how engagement and fulfillment are related to beliefs about
employee effectiveness among Minnesota K-12 school principals during the COVID-19
pandemic. IBM SPSS calculated correlations for each of the scales, with 415 complete data sets,
using the Pearson r measure for correlation. Engagement and fulfillment had a positive
correlation with effectiveness. In other words, as engagement and fulfillment increased,
73

effectiveness increased. Table 8 provides the correlation statistics. All were significant at the .05
level.

Table 8
Correlations for Engagement and Fulfillment

Pan
Effectiveness Effectiveness
Engagement Pearson Correlation .310
*
.419
*

Fulfillment Pearson Correlation .456
*
.526
*

Note. *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. b. Listwise. n = 415.

Regression
Running a regression analysis using Qualtrics statsIQ, the two variables of fulfillment (p
= 0.00001) and engagement (p = 0.00001) are positively correlated with the effectiveness scale.
For each, as the variable increases, effectiveness increases. Figure 5 illustrates the simple linear
regression for effectiveness and fulfillment.
Correlating Two Quantitative Research Questions
Looking at the data through the lens of an asset model measuring engagement or
fulfillment (RQ2) or a deficit model of burnout, exhaustion and fatigue (RQ1), Table 9 provides
strong correlations among the independent variables of both research questions. Engagement and
fulfillment are strongly negatively correlated with burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue.
This is a significant finding. It is unknown if burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue decrease
engagement or fulfillment or vice versa, but the relationship is clear.

74

Figure 5
Effectiveness with Fulfillment: Simple Linear Regression

Table 9
Correlations Among Independent Variables in RQ1 and RQ2

Burnout
Emotional
Exhaustion Fatigue Fulfillment Engagement
Burnout --
Emotional exhaustion .849
*
--
Fatigue .622
*
.811
*
--
Fulfillment -.568
*
-.584
*
-.548
*
--
Engagement -.372
*
-.422
*
-.428
*
.485
*
--

Note. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. b. Listwise. n = 419.

75

Research Question 3: School District Strategies Supporting Principal Well-Being
This study explored strategies Minnesota school districts implemented that supported the
well-being of their employees, specifically school principals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
School districts received directives and guidance from the MDE and Minnesota Department of
Health. It is appropriate to first outline the strategies at a state level.
Minnesota’s pandemic response plan classified school employees as essential employees
during the pandemic and prioritized employee and student safety. From March through June
2020, by Executive Order 20-19, all schools were in distance learning, with most school
employees working from home. During the 2020-2021 school year, Executive Order 20-82
directed each school district to draft a Safe Learning Plan, with contingencies for distance
learning, hybrid, and in-person models. Districts were to use a localized, data-driven approach to
move in and out of the models during the year based on COVID-19 case rates in area or county.
Among participants, 44% were mostly in-person, 44% in a hybrid model, and 12% were mostly
in distance learning during the 2020-2021 school year.
The planning required extra work and involvement by principals but received positive
comments in this study. One respondent noted, “We had three different learning plans ready for
the 20-21 school year and having those ready before the start of the year was beneficial and
made for easier transitions from one plan to another throughout the year.”
Personal Protective Equipment
The state provided PPE and school districts were required to implement procedures to
mitigate virus transmission, including masking requirements, social distancing, contact tracing,
isolation protocols, and, eventually, COVID-19 testing protocols. By February 2021, the state
offered all educators access to the COVID-19 vaccine. During the 2021–2022 school year, the
76

third year of disruption, executive orders had expired, and school districts were left to local
decision making. Participants in this study overwhelmingly reported they had the PPE needed,
with 94% stating they agree (39%) or strongly agree (55%) on a 5-point Likert scale question (Q
2.8; x̄ = 4.45; SD = .73).
District or Leadership Practices
When asked two open-ended questions about district policies or practices in place to
support employee well-being, including principal well-being, more than one third of the
comments were along the lines of “None,” “N/A,” “not much,” or “We were told to take care of
ourselves first but that is not how we operate. We’re all in this together doing the difficult work
but there is nothing built into our policies or practices to ensure our well-being is supported.”
This comment was echoed in multiple responses. This is significant because as frontline
supervisors, school principals are responsible for communicating district policies and practices to
their employees. If principals do not know or do not believe the district has such policies, they
cannot communicate the policies to employees.
Participants who listed district practices in place to support well-being discussed district
office support (n = 21), enhanced employee benefits or time off (n = 19), professional
development about well-being (n = 17), employee compensation strategy (n = 13), and added
help or reduced expectations (n = 12).
Supportive Supervisory Practices
About one third of participants discussed support or help from the district office, positive
support, and check ins from supervisors. As one participant wrote, “Definite plans that we could
use for COVID safety, a mental health team was created, [social emotional learning] was
strongly supported, our equity work was a strong focus, my supervisor was there to listen and
77

support, regular administrative meetings were held virtually, all district departments had plans of
support, etc.”
Similar to the prior item about organizational practices, the largest coded comments
about supervisor support was none or nothing (n = 99), perhaps because principals are perceived
to be members of the leadership team and not be thought of as employees; however, this unique
problem for middle management or frontline supervisors across many professions contributes to
burnout. Lack of support is represented by the following four participant responses: (a) “None—
they were too busy to think about us”; (b) “She is in my building, so listens, but lacked action.
Very little action was taken to help us take care of our well-being”; (c) “None that I can say as
the supervisor has been extremely distant this past year”; and (d) “NONE. It was actually my job
to support everyone I am responsible for.”
Other supervisory practices reported were administrative flexibility, work from home,
reduced expectations, additional compensation, additional sick days, added mental health or
well-being insurance coverage, district wellness committee or professional learning related to
employee well-being. Table 10 summarizes open-ended responses to Q4.11 (district practices)
and Q4.12 (supervisory or leadership practices).
Involvement In Decision Making Is Significant
Involvement in decision making (Q40) was a significant factor in participants’ beliefs of
effectiveness and showed a strong correlation to burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue.
Participants were asked, “To what degree were you involved in decisions affecting your school's
safe learning plan?” Using a 5-point Likert scale, response choices were very little, somewhat
involved in site level decisions, very involved in site level decisions, very involved in site level
78

decisions, involved in district-level decisions, and completely responsible for decisions
implemented in my school.

Table 10
District or Supervisor Policies or Practices That Supported Principal Well-Being
Category Number of comments
related to district
Number of comments
related to supervisor
Added help/reduced expectations 12 –
Autonomy-empowerment – 14
District compensation strategy 13 –
District employee benefits 19 11
District office supports 21 83
Fewer or virtual meetings – 12
None 82 99
Professional learning 17 –
Supervisor check-ins – 64

For some leaders, it may seem counterintuitive to take the time to involve others in
decision-making, because it takes more time and cognitive energy. However, those who were
involved fared better for all factors. Participants who were responsible for site level decisions
and involved at least somewhat in district level decision-making reported some of the lowest
means for burnout (x̄ = 4.08), emotional exhaustion ( x̄ = 3.95), and fatigue (x̄ = 3.17), and the
highest means for fulfillment ( x̄ = 61.53), engagement ( x = 3.54), effectiveness (x̄ = 3.46) and
pandemic effectiveness x̄ = 2.56). Each was at a statistically significant level of < .05. Table 11
79

summarizes this data for those with very little involvement and those who were involved at the
district level. See Appendix E for SPSS statistical tables.

Table 11
Involvement in District-Level Decisions Compared to Very Little Involvement
Dependent variable Involved very little
lowest or highest mean
Site and district involvement
lowest or highest mean
Burnout 4.70 4.08
Emotional exhaustion 4.70 3.95
Fatigue 3.60 3.16
Fulfillment 42.80 61.50
Engagement 2.13 3.54
Pan effectiveness 2.13 2.56
Effectiveness 3.00 3.36

Note. n = 380.

Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the linear trend of involvement on a continuum of involvement
and responsibility for the decisions. At one end of the continuum, those who were least involved
reported the lowest engagement and fulfillment and the highest burnout, emotional exhaustion,
and fatigue. At the other end, those who felt completely responsible for decisions at the district
level experienced high levels of burnout. The “sweet spot” of responsibility was for those
responsible for site decisions coupled with involvement at the district-level. This finding may be
associated with collaboration or teamwork; social support and connections are both good for
well-being and mitigate burnout. Figure 7 also illustrates the strong correlation of engagement
and effectiveness as the two lines in the graph appear to be one line.
80

Figure 6
Involvement in Decisions Related to burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue

Figure 7
Involvement in Decisions Related to Engagement, Fulfillment and Effectiveness

Level of Burnout, Exhaustion and Fatigue
Fulfillment, Engagement, Effectiveness
81

Autonomy and Supervisory Support Matter
In open-ended responses, participants noted as positives “opportunities for reflection and
empowered to make decisions that were best for the students in our school.” Another stated of
their superintendent, “She was supportive of my decisions and trusted my leadership. She gave
me the information I needed to do my job.” Participants appreciated the “freedom and flexibility
to get the job done”; however, there is a fine balance between providing autonomy and still
ensuring principals feel supported. Leadership can be a lonely position, and when principals are
working hard and making decisions on complex issues, they need to know that their supervisor,
central office, and school board appreciate the effort and have their back. They are human and
need to feel supported and appreciated. Unfortunately, when asked what strategies their direct
supervisors implemented that made principals feel supported, the most common response (n =
99) was none. For example, one respondent wrote, “I didn’t feel like any practices were in place
for me, it appears more emphasis was put on the well-being of students and staff.” Another
stated, “None. All assume that the school principal has a solution to everything and should be
able to handle it all. I was not able to take any time off. We had shortages everywhere, especially
staff and resources, etc.” If a school district has an “us-versus-them” culture between sites and
central office, or if central office supervisors are perceived as an additional stressor—either not
supportive or dysfunctional—the culture may contribute to chronic stress. Too often, principals
feel squeezed between meeting the needs of their staff and students and responding to demands
of district and state leaders.
Occupational Stressors Persist
In open-ended questions, participants addressed occupational stressors that fall into nine
categories. Throughout more than 385 comments, participants discussed overwhelming job
82

demands (n = 114), increasing student needs (n = 100), unmitigated occupational stress (n = 81),
growing employee mental health issues (n = 80), unrealistic demands of parents and the public (n
= 78), staffing shortages (n = 66), lack of district office supports (n = 37), and feeling
disconnected from their purpose (n = 9). As one participant shared in response to a question
asking the most taxing parts of the job,
Dealing with students, parents, staff members and members of the community who
either have mental health impairments, rude/unrealistic demands or insufficient
personal skills that are not aligned with the school's mission or available resources.
Many of these different groups of people can't see the holistic needs of other groups
(other than their own) within the school. Since the pandemic, parents/students have
increased their unlimited rude verbal abuse toward school staff and me. There is
little to no time to address proactive programming or instructional leadership for
new MTSS/RTI models. It's reactive instead. Time spent on student
discipline/investigation time has increased 1000% due to harassment concerns at
every turn.
Another said,
1,000+ students and 100+ staff for one assistant principal is overwhelming. I can’t
keep up with the daily fires and keep up with parent communication %effectively. I
am at school from 7:30am until 9pm most days and still am drowning in work and
expectations. There is no reward and no one cares about the time and energy it
takes. My family and marriage suffers the most because I have nothing left to give
when I come home.
83

Neglecting Self-Care
Although self-care, wellness practices, and professional boundaries are necessary
protective behaviors in preventing burnout, few participants found time or energy to support their
own well-being during the pandemic. Only 31% of participants reported prioritizing their
personal well-being at least once a week in the last 12 months. This study included qualitative
and quantitative questions to explore participants personal well-being practices. An 8-point
Likert scale question (Q2.9) asked how often participants prioritized their personal well-being (n
= 424, x̄ = 4.10 = a few times a month, mode = 3.0 = once a month or less, SD = 1.875,
skewness .378.). Figure 8 illustrates the distribution of responses to Q2.9.

Figure 8
How Often Did You Prioritize Your Personal Well-Being Over The Last 12 Months?

1 = never 3 = monthly 5 = weekly 8 = daily

84

In open-ended responses, participants reported supporting their personal well-being most
frequently associated with physical well-being (exercise, movement, sleep; n = 209), followed by
personal connections (family, faith, social time, pets; n = 129), and “nothing,” or “not much” (n
= 89). Time off and setting professional boundaries (n = 93) and mindfulness practices (n = 70)
rounded out the top five categories. Only 18 participants mentioned professional help (e.g.,
medical doctor, therapist, wellness coach). None mentioned an employee assistance program.
Many commented about “trying to start” or the opposite, “not being able to maintain” regular
workout routines. The challenges participants faced as front-line supervisors were significant.
One participant said,
Couldn't keep up with working out as my personal life is too busy with my own
kids. There is a lot of stress personally and professionally. There is very little
personal time except after my own kids go to bed which cuts into my sleep time
which is also bad for dealing with stress. Without staying up into the night I have
almost no personal time, and if I don't have personal time I'm not happy.
Another said,
Honestly, there were increases in unhealthy behaviors, mostly increased drinking
in the evenings, to help cope with the stressors of the pandemic. I was able to pull
myself out of that by replacing those behaviors with more healthy behaviors like
working out a few times per week.
Another participant said,
Focused on my health toward the end of the pandemic, lost weight, got myself
physically healthy. Now coming out of the pandemic, the stress has ramped up
again as we try to end the year strong and plan for the beginning of a hopefully
85

more ‘normal’ year next year--with added pressures that we need to ‘nail’ the start
in the fall.
The neglect of well-being versus prioritizing well-being is a significant finding.
Participants who prioritized their personal well-being at least weekly reported the lowest amount
of burnout (x̄ = 3.91), emotional exhaustion (x̄ = 3.78), and fatigue (x̄ = 2.89), and the highest
rates of fulfillment (x̄ = 65.85), engagement ( x̄ = 3.58), effectiveness ( x̄ = 3.69), and pandemic
effectiveness (x̄ = 2.64). A series of correlations tests including ANOVA and posthoc tests
indicated prioritizing personal well-being at least weekly was statistically significant for each
factor at a level of < .05. Table 12 provides a summary mean table.
Research Question 4: School Principals Strategies to Mitigate Burnout For Employees
This study explored what specific strategies school principals implemented in their
schools to mitigate employee burnout. Participants in this study demonstrated a high level of
awareness and care for the well-being of their employees. Of all study questions, the largest
number of open-ended responses (n = 546) was in response to the optional question, What did
you do, if anything, to support the well-being of your employees during the pandemic? In many
cases, it appeared as though principals tried anything and everything to keep staff engaged. An
initial coding of responses in Atlas.ti identified 22 different category tags. After two additional
rounds of coding, the categories were condensed into five groups: (a) COVID protocols, (b)
empathy and human connection, (c) time and relaxing demands, (d) gratitude and appreciation,
and (e) well-being discussions. Table 13 provides the count of responses in each category. Most
principals felt a responsibility for their employees, as represented by the following two
participants. One participant said,

86

Table 12
Prioritizing Personal Well-Being Related to Independent and Dependent Variables
n Mean Standard
deviation
Burnout Less than monthly 101 4.851 1.427
Monthly or more 167 4.383 1.479
Weekly or more 152 3.914 1.549
Emotional exhaustion Less than monthly 101 4.678 1.165
Monthly or more 167 4.251 1.158
Weekly or more 152 3.783 1.299
Fatigue Less than monthly 101 3.713 .773
Monthly or more 167 3.428 .677
Weekly or more 151 2.890 .867
Fulfillment Less than monthly 101 47.331 22.889
Monthly or more 167 58.024 19.050
Weekly or more 153 65.856 20.375
Engagement Less than monthly 101 3.238 .576
Monthly or more 170 3.310 .538
Weekly or more 153 3.585 .520
Pan effectiveness Less than monthly 101 2.049 .876
Monthly or more 170 2.353 .831
Weekly or more 153 2.647 .983
Effectiveness Less than monthly 99 3.077 .720
Monthly or more 166 3.204 .718
Weekly or more 150 3.693 .708

87

Table 13
Principal or Leadership Strategies to Mitigate Employee Burnout
Category Number of comments related to district
Time and relaxing demands 186
Empathy and human connection 178
COVID protocols 118
Gratitude and appreciation 111
Well-being discussions 84

Focused on the human aspect of our jobs. Public education has been under attack
by those who want to privatize education or make it something it is not supposed
to be. I encouraged my staff to support each other, know that they are doing
important, life-changing work, and to ignore (the best you can) the rhetoric
surrounding our profession.
Another stated,
First of all, I understood that it is my duty to provide support to my employees and
students. I made sure that they have enough resources to do their jobs as best as they can.
I was so flexible with them based on their needs and their time to report to work or leave
as long as their tasks are covered. I made myself more accessible to them. In fact I
delegated some work to them and some felt involved more through delegation. I tried to
find a solution to their issues as much as I could. I listened more to them.
88

Empathy and Human Connection
The largest number of comments spoke to the need to check-in with employees, be
visible, provide listening and support, and plan for social connection and team building. The
following responses are representative of the 178 comments coded under empathy and human
connection. One participant said,
I try to be visible and check in on them. Communication is such a tough item
where you are either viewed as communicating too much or not enough. So I try
to balance that out. They need to feel supported.
Another said,
I checked in with people individually on a regular basis about their mental and
physical health, as well as their workload. When I found an opportunity to
provide support, guidance or relief, I did that. In addition, I kept my staff
informed of the perpetual changes. Staff meetings had a “This is what I know.
This is what I don't know, and what are your questions, concerns, or suggestion?”
sections. It kept communication lines open.
Most respondents recognized the need for increased communication and
personnel connection with their employees. Traditional team building or community
building events, for example, convocation, staff meetings, and school assemblies were
discontinued or went virtual due to the pandemic. Teachers were discouraged from eating
lunch together. These actions, indicated to protect physical safety, work in direct
opposition to what we know is needed to support workplace well-being, specifically
connection and community (Murthy, 2022). Self-contained pods of students and staff,
traffic patterns, and passing periods had all been redesigned to limit human interaction
89

and mitigate COVID transmission. School leaders needed to be intentional and creative
to connect with, empathize with and support employees.
Time and Relaxing Demands
In response to known workload and added stress from uncertainty and change, many
respondents reported relaxing expectations or demands, canceling meetings, decreasing
instructional time, increasing flex time or paid time off, and “trying to take things off their
plate.” These responses represent some level of awareness for the employer’s responsibility in
terms of job demands. The following are a collection of responses that represent concern for time
and job demands. One respondent said, “I advocated for them to not have meetings, to have time
during [professional learning communities] PLCs to focus on their own well-being; supported
them when needing to work from home, if I could.”
Another said,
The first year we had a shortened day that allowed staff to collaborate more frequently
with their peers. Our district also added one day per month to the calendar during the
second year of COVID so staff could have collaboration/planning time.
One respondent said, “Being flexible with time off; letting staff leave early if they need to attend
to something without entering in the leave; telling parents that we need to provide ‘grace’ to
teachers as they have a lot on their plate.” Another respondent said, “If they had sick children or
day care issues … cover their classes myself or find someone who could, which was very
difficult. I never wanted staff to feel "guilty" for taking care of their children or aging parents.”
Many respondents mentioned eliminating unnecessary meetings, granting personal days
without question (even amid staffing shortages), and being flexible with workday start and end.
Only a few mentioned explicitly limiting or restricting work beyond the workday. During the last
90

decade, the public, parents, and students have informally expected teachers to respond to emails
after work hours. With work and home life blurred for many professionals during the pandemic,
schools needed to set some consistent expectations, but few did. One participant noted, “[We]
needed norms about when to send email and text communication (never after contract hours).”
Gratitude and Appreciation
Expressing gratitude; buying food, snacks, and gift cards; and reminding staff of the
importance and value of their work are items included in the 111 comments coded to employee
appreciation. Four responses fairly represent this category. One respondent said, “Staff get-
together, breakfasts, gift cards, daily encouragement, taking time during meetings to celebrate
success.” Another said, “Weekly updates with inspiration and positivity. Started employee treat
boxes to pass along to others. … Provided financial incentives.” Another participant said,
“Checking in. Celebrating successes. Acknowledging challenges. Being grateful, showing
appreciation for their hard work.” A respondent stated, “Delivered snacks … on conference
nights, set up a taco bar for teacher appreciation, wrote notes of thanks … sent weekly ‘shout
outs’ … posted daily to the school social media to highlight staff and students … customized
masks for staff, delivered donuts and treats to staff.” Another respondent said, “During our
weekly Zoom staff meetings, we celebrated things large and small. I tried to foster collegiality
among the staff to the best of my ability.” Many of the appreciation tasks principals took on in
the past might have been the responsibility of parent volunteers or parent-teacher association
(PTA) groups; however, pandemic protocols restricted volunteer access to the schools and
reduced the support that principals may have had in the past.
91

Well-Being Discussions
Although the least in number, some participants clearly articulated awareness, knowledge
and action related to advancing employee well-being. This finding could suggest prior training or
experience in health and well-being. It could also reflect district-level support or leadership for
employee well-being. School leaders who recognized the threat to employee well-being as a
natural consequence of uncertainty, social isolation and change may have provided some
professional development on the topic or worked with local mental health providers to support
employee well-being. There were 84 responses mentioning promoting well-being. The vast
majority of the comments were well intended, meant to support the employee, but placed the
onus on the worker for relieving stress instead of addressing the root cause of how that work is
organized by the employer. As middle-management, the principal may be limited in the
structural job changes that are in their control. The following five comments represent a
continuum of thinking and actions related to educating employees about well-being. One
respondent said, “I encouraged breaks during their workday so they weren't staring at a screen
the entire day. I encouraged them to create healthy time boundaries. It was tempting to slip into
the 24/7 world.” Another stated,
Shared self-care techniques. Took time during staff development days to practice
self-care. Teachers are not used to doing things for themselves, so this was a bit
of a challenge. I did not want them to feel like we were wasting time, but I also
wanted them to understand how important it is to take care of ourselves, identify
and manage emotions, and look out for one another during this time of change.
One participant said,
92

I've taught them little things they can do in under 5 minutes at their desk to cope
with stress. Also, I have offered to step in for them. Our school social worker
built a zen room for students and staff to use. Finally, if they need a listening ear,
my door is always open and they know that.
Another participant said,
We created a [professional development] series with a social worker from a
neighboring town on time management and self-care during the pandemic. Self-
care became a four-letter word, so we moved to thinking through how we use
time and give permission to be not ok. The district implemented a Life Coach,
and he has helped. We connected regularly when not in person using Zoom to
meet frequently for check-ins together as teams. We reduced unnecessary
stressors and paperwork.
A respondent stated,
1. Modeled vulnerability - gave them permission to be human with each other
and not have to act like they had it all together. 2. Encouraged them to prioritize
getting enough sleep over everything else, including grading. (This is tough at
HS level.) 3. Did a quarterly exercise through which we named what was going
well, named priorities, and named what we would drop in order to make space
for the priorities. Each teacher chose priorities and what to drop for themselves,
but the activity made it real. 4. Bought gift cards as an incentive to volunteer to
cover classes with no sub so that we didn't have to lean much on folks when they
didn't want to cover. We got a good system in place. 5. Constantly told staff that
we were doing the best possible and that's all anyone could ask!
93

COVID-19 Protocols
The MDE and Minnesota Department of Health provided strong guidance and support for
school employee health and safety protocols (as outlined in Chapter 2). Many respondents
referenced the state guidelines or how the guidelines were implemented in response to this
question. The state’s support for physical safety ensured schools had the PPE, testing, and
vaccine access they needed; however, after the first full year state mandates relaxed allowing for
local decision-making. Local decision making reflected the political leanings of the community,
which would have decreased stress for those who aligned with the decision and increased stress
for school employees who disagreed with decisions. Districts who worked collaboratively with
employee bargaining groups and local health officials in making decisions may have experienced
less stress than those in adversarial or high conflict situations. Following are four different
responses that were representative of the 118 comments coded for COVID protocols. One
respondent said, “Our school implemented many safety measures including a safety team…
reviewed COVID policies of the school and provided feedback on measures… surveyed staff on
a regular basis. This helped staff to feel heard and safe.” Another said, “Masking, distancing,
covid testing.” A respondent stated, “Followed MDH guidelines.” Another respondent stated,
“Encouraged staff to stay home when sick. Implemented the school's own COVID 80 policy so
that staff who used all of their sick days could still get paid for an additional 10 days.”
Other Findings
Workplace and personal demographics were analyzed as nominal variables for each
quantitative research question. A series of correlations tests and tables, including ANOVA and
posthoc tests, were analyzed. There were no statistically significant differences related to gender,
age, marital status, years of experience, years with current employer, or politics of the
94

community. There was no attempt to disaggregate the data by race with 92% White respondents,
and fewer than 10 responses in any other response category; the data sets were too small.
Caregivers
One personal demographic category had statistically significant results. Fifty-one percent
of participants (n = 192) reported they were caregivers for children under 18 or vulnerable adults.
Running a t-test to analyze relationships revealed that this group tends to have lower levels of
fulfillment (p = .0133), but no statistically different relationship to burnout, emotional
exhaustion, or fatigue.
Workplace Demographics
Three workplace demographics had statistically significant relationships across research
questions: 2020-2021 learning model, district type, and school type.
Learning Model
Participants in schools that were mostly in distance learning during the 2020–2021 school
year reported higher levels of emotional exhaustion (p = .022) and lower levels of fulfillment (p
= .024) at a statistically significant level. The study was conducted at the end of the 2021–2022
school year, so these results may indicate a lingering effect of distance learning on school
leaders, their staff or students. Table 14 provides descriptive statistics for the two variables by
learning model.
School Type
In analyzing workplace demographics, there was a statistically significant difference for
participants working in high schools. High school participants reported higher rates of burnout ( x̄
= 4.7; p = .021) and fatigue (x̄ = 3.5; p = .041) and lower levels of fulfillment (x̄ = 52.0; p <.001),
and effectiveness ( x̄ = 3.1; p = .002). Table 15 provides the descriptive statistics.
95

Table 14
Descriptive Statistics by 2020-2021 Learning Model
n Mean SD
Emotional Exhaustion In Person 168 4.104 1.288
Hybrid 166 4.108 1.221
Distance 46 4.652 1.206
Total 380 4.172 1.259
Fulfillment In person 168 61.485 21.202
Hybrid 166 56.964 22.107
Distance 46 52.728 18.571
Total 380 58.450 21.467

Many high school participants mentioned staff mental health, student needs, a lack of
cooperation from parents, and workload. There is a saying in education that the bigger the child,
the bigger their problems. High school principals have historically handled more complex
student issues, and high schools have more demanding schedules for after-hours work; however,
the comments provided also gave insight into a lack of accomplishment and a lack of
professional efficacy in handling the changing job demands, two factors that could increase
burnout, fatigue and fulfillment. The overwhelming workload, with no end in sight, is likely a
demotivator affecting engagement. One participant said, “Managing the mental well-being of
students, staff, and families. The needs have spiked considerably, and I don't feel qualified to
address a lot of it.” Another said,
96

Table 15
Descriptive Statistics by School Type
n Mean SD
Burnout Elementary 134 4.101 1.621
Middle 59 4.263 1.327
High 105 4.710 1.533
K-12 57 4.246 1.458
Total 355 4.331 1.538
Fatigue Elementary 134 3.222 0.872
Middle 59 3.288 0.834
High 105 3.510 0.822
K-12 57 3.215 0.725
Total 355 3.317 0.835
Fulfillment Elementary 134 63.989 19.875
Middle 59 55.263 21.325
High 105 51.995 23.248
K-12 57 60.211 19.259
Total 355 58.385 21.600
Effectiveness Elementary 134 3.463 0.755
Middle 59 3.345 0.761
High 105 3.118 0.782
K-12 57 3.509 0.685
Total 355 3.348 0.766

97

I am a rural principal, Grades 7-12. … Before COVID, I felt like a firefighter,
always putting out fires. Now it feels like a firefighter in a war zone. Everything
is at crisis level, and completing the tasks I was originally hired for seems out of
my control. COVID hasn’t been a big attendance issue since the fall, but the
emotional side of COVID’s effects has not dissipated in any way.
Another respondent said, “There is never a break. There are new problems to solve daily.
The workload never ends. I could literally work 24 hours a day and never feel on top of
my workload.” One participant said, “Feeling like I am not making any progress—just
seems that it is a never-ending hole that I am trying to get out of. The negativity of the
adults in the building is really hard to tolerate.
District Type
A third workplace demographic is district type: rural, suburban, or urban. There was a
borderline significance comparing rural to suburban districts on the emotional exhaustion,
fulfillment, pan effectiveness, and effectiveness scales. On the emotional exhaustion scale, there
was a statistically significant difference at the .05 level, comparing rural district participants ( x̄ =
4.02) to suburban district participants ( x̄ = 4.32). The same trend was evident for the pan
effectiveness scale and effectiveness scale. Suburban district participants reported slightly higher
levels of burnout ( x̄ = 4.43). Participants from urban districts reported the highest levels of
emotional exhaustion.
Supervisory Load
There was no statistical significance for the number of direct reports a principal
supervises; however, 92% of participants reported supervising more than 25 direct reports with
31% supervising more than 75 people. Given all that participants tried to do to support their
98

employees and the hours required as a listener and an empathetic leader, it is logical to conclude
employee support added to one’s overwhelming workload. A leader who is responsible for 60
employees and spends just 15 minutes a week per employee would need to allocate at least 15
hours a week to employee check-ins and support. With rising rates of teacher burnout and
student mental health needs, 15 minutes per week is likely inadequate to provide the managerial
support and human connection needed. Additional research is needed to explore realistic staffing
ratios given the complex needs in schools.
Summary of Findings
The purpose of this research was to explore employee well-being, effectiveness and
burnout among K-12 public school principals in Minnesota during the COVID-19 pandemic and
examine organizational and leadership practices related to well-being of school principals and
their employees. For RQ1, this study found significant correlations between burnout, emotional
exhaustion, and fatigue with decreased effectiveness during the pandemic. Most participants
(65.5%) reported less effectiveness than before the pandemic. Effectiveness is strongly
negatively correlated with burnout (r = -.589), emotional exhaustion (r = -.626) and fatigue (r = -
.626).
RQ2 data demonstrated that effectiveness is strongly positively correlated with
fulfillment (r = .526) and engagement (r = .419). The more participants felt they were making a
positive difference for students and the more they reported enjoying their work, the greater the
belief of effectiveness.
RQ 3 identified school district and leadership practices that supported the well-being of
principals and their employees. Involvement in both site level and district level decision making
was a significant factor in participants’ beliefs of effectiveness and showed a strong correlation
99

to each independent variable (burnout, emotional exhaustion, fatigue, fulfillment and
engagement) in the study at a statistically significant level of <.05. Participants (31%) who
prioritized their personal well-being at least once per week reported the lowest levels of burnout,
emotional exhaustion, and fatigue, along with the highest rates of fulfillment, engagement,
effectiveness and pandemic effectiveness; this was statistically significant at a level of < .05.
Participants (93%) reported they had the PPE needed for employee safety, and most (79%)
reported their supervisor or someone at work cared about them as a person. About a quarter of
respondents (n = 99) reported the district or supervisor did “nothing” to support their well-being,
indicating principals either believed support was lacking or were unaware of support available.
This is a problem because as front-line supervisors, principals are responsible for communicating
this information to their staff. Other participants reported supervisory check-ins (n = 64),
additional time or personnel from district office (n = 83), and added employee compensation or
benefits (n = 32). Participant involvement in both site level and district level decision making
was a significant factor in participants' beliefs of effectiveness and showed a strong negative
correlation to burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue.
Finally, participants demonstrated an awareness and sense of responsibility for the well-
being of their employees (RQ4) in 546 open-ended comments; some comments specifically
stating it was at the expense of their own well-being. COVID protocols, empathy and human
connection, time and relaxing demands, gratitude and appreciation, and well-being discussions
were strategies participants used to support employees during the pandemic.

100

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this research was to explore employee well-being and burnout among K-12
public school principals in Minnesota during the COVID-19 pandemic and examine
organizational and leadership practices related to effectiveness and well-being of school
principals. Studies over the last two decades have identified the increasingly complex
responsibilities, workload demands, and occupational stress among school principals (De Jong et
al., 2017; Grissom et al., 2021; Pekel et al., 2022). Even before the pandemic, Beausaert et al.
(2016) asserted principal burnout was “a well-known problem in the education sector, sometimes
with extreme consequences” (p. 358). As frontline supervisors, school principals are responsible
for hiring, training, supporting, and retaining teachers; cultivating the school climate and culture;
and creating the conditions to positively impact student achievement (Grissom, et al., 2021;
Pekel et al., 2022). When school principals experience burnout, their students and staff suffer
(Beausaert et al., 2016). Understanding the complex responsibilities, demands and stress
principals have experienced is critical for improving the well-being of school principals and their
teachers in Minnesota.
This chapter includes a discussion of findings related to the theoretical framework and
existing literature. Followed by recommendations for practice. It ends with recommendations for
future research and the study’s conclusion.
Discussion of Findings
This study found significant correlations between burnout, emotional exhaustion, and
fatigue with decreased effectiveness during the pandemic. Minnesota principals reported the
following experiences at the end of the 2021-2022 school year:
• 83.9% experienced a decrease in personal well-being.
101

• 65.5% indicated experiencing burnout (MBI-2 Scale: x̄ = 4.33; SD = 1.53).
• 65.5% reported feeling less effectiveness during the pandemic.
• 31% prioritized their own well-being at least weekly during the last year.
Principals reported a strong sense of responsibility for the well-being of employees, but
few reported training or evidence-based practices to support employee well-being effectively.
Burnout, Effectiveness, and Well-Being
This study, along with others, found that many principals reported negative impacts on
their well-being and effectiveness during the pandemic—65.5% of Minnesota principals reported
feeling less effective during the pandemic than before, and only 31% prioritized their own well-
being during the previous year. These findings are consistent with the findings of the 2022
RAND study on the State of American Principals and a NASSP survey of American School
Leaders. The NASSP (2022) found one out two school leaders reported stress levels so high they
considered a career change or retirement, and 73% needed help with their own mental health last
year. The RAND report surmised that addressing working conditions related to poor well-being
could impact educator retention (Steiner et al., 2022). Pekel et al. (2022) noted the complexity of
the role as an area in need of additional study and public policy discussion in Minnesota. A 2022
report from the Aspen Institute (2022) concluded current expectations of principals dissipates
their energy, making them ineffective.
The impact of the pandemic on mental health, physical health, racial and socioeconomic
inequities, and the future of work is well documented. The WHO (2022) projected long-term
impacts from the virus and the stressors associated with the pandemic. All employers, including
schools, have a responsibility to address workplace conditions that mitigate occupational stress
and burnout and create workplaces that support the health and well-being of workers (Murthy,
102

2022). The unprecedented rates of occupational stress and burnout coming out of the pandemic,
coupled with a shortage of employees in most industries, is changing the discussion about
employee well-being (Bersin, 2021a; Gallup, 2020). There has been a shift in thinking in
corporate boardrooms and executive levels in large companies, which might serve as a model for
public schools. From an organizational design perspective, the real issue is the nature of the work
itself (Bevington et al, 2021; Murthy, 2022; Steiner et al., 2022). This research supports that
perspective for the work of K-12 school principals.
Historically, school employee wellness programs have addressed basic healthcare
coverage and time off as employee benefits; employers have traditionally been less inclined to
influence or interfere with physical and mental health factors beyond workers compensation,
referral sources or employee assistance programs. The burnout rates, coming from the pandemic,
provide an opportunity for employers to take a holistic approach toward employee well-being
(Murthy, 2022). The emerging thinking centers on the need to redesign the work itself and to
transform the employee experience to support a culture of well-being in the workplace. Public
school districts have an opportunity to join this conversation because they are often among the
largest employers in areas.
The CDC acknowledged the study of well-being as an evolving science, with researchers
in many disciplines. Generally, well-being refers to high levels of positive functioning in
physical, mental, and social domains. A few innovative employers, such as Accenture, Deloitte,
and Gallup, have advanced a business case for employee well-being and redesigned the
employee experience in the early 2000s. Table 16 provides a summary of components of well-
being from the literature reviewed in Chapter 2. Diener and Seligman (2004) presented an
economic case promoting employee well-being, emphasizing that people who are well perform
103

better at work and have better interpersonal relationships. The APA (2018) presented a
framework of interventions and key components for well-being initiatives, presented in Table 17.
The U.S. Surgeon General issued a framework for workplace mental health and well-being, with
five essentials for workplace programs that can serve as a model for public school districts and
other employers (Murthy, 2022).
Table 16
Well-Being Frameworks
Dimensions of well-being Gallup Deloitte Deiner &
Seligman
OECD Maslach Kanold & Boogren
Spiritual/meaning & purpose X X X X
Career/occupational X X X X

Social/relationships X X X

X
Financial X X

X

Community/belonging X

X

Physical X X X X

X
Psychological/emotional

X X X X X
Competence

X X

Autonomy

X X

Accomplishment

X X

Fairness

X

Efficacy

X
Mindfulness

X

104

Chapter 2 of this paper provides an extensive review of literature on employee well-being
and burnout factors. Figure 9 illustrates the U.S. Surgeon General’s framework for workplace
well-being, which principals and school district leaders could use as a foundation for employee
well-being planning.

Figure 9
U.S. Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Mental Health & Well-Being

Note. Reprinted from https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/workplace-well-
being/index.html

105

Ensuring workplace well-being requires intentional, ongoing efforts by leaders; yet
school leaders (principals) are exhausted and not prioritizing their own well-being. There is
strong evidence in the findings of RQ4 that principals feel a responsibility and want to positively
impact the well-being of their employees. They are looking for practical, evidence-based ways to
do so.

Leadership Practices
Historically, the literature on well-being has segmented workplace safety into physical
health (motivated by health insurance costs) and mental health, placing the onus on the employee
for self-care. Research suggests employers have a responsibility for employee well-being
focused on the whole person. Research Questions 3 and 4 related to organizational and
leadership practices that supports well-being. There are three significant findings:
• Minnesota schools received the PPE they needed and implemented pandemic
mitigation protocols needed; as reported by 98% of respondents, basic physical safety
needs were met through state initiatives.
• Employee mental health remained the top concern of school principals. Qualitative
responses show the growing need to attend to staff mental health issues as a taxing
part of the job. This finding was consistent with Pekel et al. (2022), which found
Minnesota principals felt ill-prepared to address staff mental health concerns.
• Principals were largely unaware of district initiatives to promote employee well-
being. Most principals felt responsible for taking care of their employees yet lacked
adequate training in evidence-based practices or frameworks. At the same time,
teachers and students for whom they were responsible faced record levels of mental
health challenges in and emerging from the pandemic.
106

Through a lens of social cognitive theory, the energy, vision, and mindset of leaders has
significant influence on the environment of a school. The energy leaders bring to a school is
important. If school leaders are experiencing burnout—which, by definition, includes cynicism,
depersonalization or reduced professional efficacy— it is impossible for them to model the
behaviors needed to support their employees (Louis et al., 2016). On the other hand, Reeves and
Eaker (2019) asserted, “A leader who is energetic, positive, passionate, and optimistic can
positively impact the emotions of others” in their school (p. 119). Louis et al. (2016)
emphasized the need for caring leadership, attentive with authentic knowledge of others,
situation, mutuality, and authenticity.
Principals must examine their own thinking and behaviors before holding others
accountable. Many respondents in this study found it difficult to lead with optimism and hope,
unless they prioritized their personal well-being and addressed symptoms of burnout with
intentionality. Minnesota schools need healthy, mindful, caring, alert, optimistic, and focused
leaders who are prepared to meet the significant challenges children, staff and public schools
face. Learning about and modeling well-being is a prerequisite to creating a culture of well-being
as an employer. As Reeves and Eaker (2019) reminded leaders, “Leadership means modeling the
behavior that the leader expects of others” (p. 105). Deep learning about employee well-being is
warranted for school principals. The findings in this study echo the Minnesota School Principals
survey findings in which principals asked for more training and reported lower levels of
professional efficacy in responding to staff burnout and rising employee mental health concerns
(Pekel, et al., 2022). Further, only 3% of Minnesota principals have a counseling or school
psychology background in their career path (Pekel et al., 2022). Finally, most principals or
frontline supervisors in this study did not have the knowledge, skills or information needed to
107

communicate existent employee well-being practices or district resources to their staff to prevent
burnout among employees, if such initiatives existed.
Ample research in the last decade has been devoted to the importance of principal
leadership and their impact on student achievement, teacher retention, and school culture
(Grissom et al., 2021). In the dual role of employer and employee, these frontline supervisors are
the linchpins for transforming public schools into healthy organizations focused holistically on
student and staff well-being and human flourishing. The role of school principals needs to be
redesigned (Aspen Institute, 2022).
Recommendations for Practice
Employee well-being is at the heart of an employer’s responsibility to its employees
(Murthy, 2022), especially in a human-focused enterprise such as public education. At its core,
school leadership is a social relationship, built on caring for students and staff (Louis et al.,
2016). The well-being of school principals impacts the individual principals and every employee
in their care.
There are three recommendations emerging from this study. Each recommendation may
be considered at the individual, school, district, state, and national levels, as the epidemic of
burnout among educators is systemic to the U.S. educational system. This complex problem
requires a system of approaches to relieve the problem. Recommendation 1 has the lens of
organizational design and development to ask how the role of school principals can be
redesigned to mitigate the burnout and protect employee well-being. Recommendation 2 is for
the Minnesota to adopt a holistic framework for student and employee well-being as a foundation
for thriving (Maslach & Banks, 2017; Seligman, 2002; Murthy, 2022), which could include an
update to school wellness policies, required by a 2004 statute, and additional funding to support
108

workplace well-being. Recommendation 3 is for principals to learn, adopt and model well-being
practices (Bevington et al., 2021; Kanold & Boogren, 2022; Murthy, 2002; Seligman, 2002).
Recommendation 1: Redesign Jobs for a Manageable Workload
The most common predictor of burnout is an unsustainable workload, followed by
perceived lack of control, lack of support, and a mismatch between values and skills and tasks
(Moss, 2021). Overwork hurts employees and organizations (Gallup, 2020), yet principals in this
study and others (e.g., Pekel et al., 2022; Steiner et al., 2022) reported working long hours and
never feeling caught up. The school principal position has grown increasingly complex since the
adoption of No Child Left Behind in 2001 (De Jong, 2017; Grissom et al., 2021). It is no longer
manageable. According to the Aspen Institute (2022), “Every line of inquiry on the role of the
principal tell us that the role needs an overhaul” (p 2.). For knowledge workers, including
principals, overwork has long-term consequences on recall, vocabulary, and cognitive decline
(Diener & Seligman, 2004; Maslach & Banks, 2017) in addition to other chronic conditions,
including cardiovascular disease (Quick & Henderson, 2016). Researchers have found overwork
decreases interpersonal leadership skills, including making judgment calls, reading other people,
and managing emotional reactions (Carmichael, 2015) and hurts relationships (Murthy, 2022).
Redesigning a pivotal role in the public school system will not be easy. Such a complex
task requires the involvement of a variety of stakeholders and could be approached at a variety of
levels, including, but not limited to, state policy makers, local school districts and school boards,
principals’ group and associations, and individual principals in dialogue with their
superintendent. This study supports assertions in the Minnesota Principals Survey (Pekel et al,
2022) and the National RAND study (Steiner et al., 2022) that for principals, the work itself is
the problem. The Aspen Institute (2022) Education and Society Program has also committed to
109

collaborating on this work. As this researcher has never served in the role of principal, it would
be inappropriate to suggest how the job be redesigned. The best people to understand the critical
attributes of the role are those in the role. Principals must have a voice in any proposed changes
(Aspen Institute, 2022).
For decades, educators have been asked to do more with less, and often they have stepped
up, risking their own well-being, as evidenced in this study. Employers, supervisors, regulating
agencies, and professional organizations should individually and collectively work to narrow and
focus responsibilities. At the state level, MDE, the licensing board, and principal preparation
programs could identify systemic practices that contribute to work overload, disparate
responsibilities that remove focus, or energy depletion. What supports may be needed? At the
district level, superintendents and supervisors could engage principals in identifying root causes
of occupational stressors, collecting baseline data and creating a plan to address the most
significant stressors first. “There is a tendency for people to view burnout as a personal mental
health issue,” Maslach (as cited in Smith, 2021) said, “but there’s a whole other part, which is
the workplace and the chronic job stressors” (para. 4). Hamilton et al. (2022) advocated for
making a “not-to-do” list and being explicit about tasks or programs that the school will no
longer do. They stated schools are notorious for adding without subtracting. It is past time to
make explicit statements of what responsibilities will be sunset, reassigned or retired.
Baseline Data and Ongoing Assessment
Districts are in different places coming out of the pandemic. Districts should begin with a
local assessment of the need and severity of the problem. In this study, Minnesota school
principals answered questions from four assessment tools. The MBI-2 is a two-question survey
validated to quickly assess burnout in hospital environments during the pandemic. The burnout
110

scale in this study used the same two MBI-2 questions: “I feel burned out,” and “I have become
more callous toward people since I started this job,” with high internal reliability. This study
found strong internal reliability using the MBI-2 (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.739). The MBI-2 could
be used at a school or district level, not to diagnose individual burnout, but to assess the potential
level of burnout of an employee team. Likewise, the engagement scale for this study used four
questions from the Gallup Q12 with moderate reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.627). The
fulfillment scale used two questions from a principal job satisfaction study (De Jong et al., 2017),
which had strong reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.810) and was positively correlated with the
effectiveness scale and well-being scale. These questions might be used at the school or district
level to conduct a pulse survey to assess employee burnout, engagement, or fulfillment, annually
or twice a year, as an early warning sign related to workplace well-being. The pulse surveys
would provide an easy monitoring system for the effectiveness of changes being implemented. If
employees are reporting high levels of engagement and fulfillment and still reporting symptoms
of burnout, unsustainable workloads may need to be addressed. Likewise, if engagement is low,
supervisors may need to investigate strength-task alignment, supervisory appreciation and
recognition, or community and belonging. For this recommendation, it is important to monitor
the change over time to ensure it fulfills the desired outcomes. Recommendation 2 explores the
framework for workplace well-being in more depth.
Involvement in Decision Making
Consistent with learning and motivation research, the findings of this study indicate
involvement in decision making ties to engagement, fulfillment, and effectiveness. Maslach and
Banks (2017) emphasized participation in this planning is essential to achieve lasting behavior
change and effectiveness. Multiple studies report employee involvement is critical when changes
111

may impact job expectations, schedules, motivation, or alignment with purpose or values.
Redesigning job responsibilities so they are engaging, rewarding, and meaningful, while still
advancing the mission of the organization needs to be a priority for school districts who wish to
attract and retain top talent (Aspen, 2022; Bevington et al., 2021; Diener & Seligman, 2004)—
both principal talent and teacher talent. Establishing mutual commitments and expectations for
realistic workloads and autonomy for outcomes within one’s control are foundational to
effectiveness. The principal role is changing substantially, with a greater need for coaching and
supporting teachers. The challenges for improved instructional practices and personalized
learning have never been greater, following significant student achievement declines during the
pandemic (Hamilton et al., 2022; NCES, 2022). Supporting teacher teams and professional
learning communities through instructional change will require more school leaders and
instructional coaches. The school principal cannot be solely responsible. Key stakeholders,
including principals, teachers, superintendents, school boards, families of students, taxpayers,
policy makers, and state legislators need to understand the magnitude of the work.
At state and national levels, professional organizations play an important role in
advocating for professional boundaries, work-life balance, and reasonable expectations, in terms
of supervisory ratios, support roles and responsibilities, and the importance of leadership. To
date, state level agencies and licensing boards have consistently added to licensing competencies
and role expectations for school administrators but fall into the same trap that has plagued
educational standards for education since the 1950s: adding standards and mandates without
removing other expectations (Reeves & Eaker, 2019).
112

Recommendation 2: Use the U.S. Surgeon General’s Framework for Workplace Well-
Being
As a result of the pandemic, the U.S. workforce is experiencing unprecedented levels of
work-related mental health challenges. Well-being is a core responsibility and strategy for
employee retention and organizational performance (Bersin, 2021; Lahiri & Schwartz, 2018;
Murthy, 2022). Employers are taking steps to address workplace well-being. Public education
needs to do the same. The U.S. Surgeon General issued a framework for workplace well-being
that places the onus for protecting employees from burnout and chronic occupational stress with
the employer (Murthy, 2022; see Figure 9). This framework is an important development that
might allow school districts to work in partnership with other employers in their community to
address the mental health crisis in a holistic and coordinated manner. Schools are a microcosm of
their communities, and all adults in a child’s life impact that child’s education and well-being.
School principals work with their own employees and many parents employed elsewhere in the
community. If a community approach to well-being can reduce stress, anxiety, and other mental
health concerns of families, it can mitigate a significant workplace stressor for school principals.
In Minnesota, this framework can be used by state agencies, education associations, counties,
municipalities, school districts, and employers to provide a unified vision for workplace well-
being.
Using the U.S. Surgeon General’s Framework, the following components address
findings in this study:
• Protection from harm includes prioritizing psychological safety, enabling adequate
rest, normalizing support for mental health, and operationalizing diversity, equity,
inclusion and accessibility norms and policies. Minnesota principals reported high
113

levels of emotional exhaustion and fatigue, long work hours, inadequate sleep, and
unsustainable workloads. Pekel et al. (2022) found Minnesota principals felt least
confident and needed assistance in supporting employee mental health, supporting
culturally responsive instruction and pedagogy, and facilitating discussions with staff
about gender identity. To mitigate occupational stress, school principals need more
resources and support by way of additional staff and training.
• Connection and community includes creating a culture of inclusion and belonging,
cultivating trusted relationships, and fostering collaboration and teamwork. Some
principals reported feeling alone with expectations they had all the answers.
Beausaert et al. (2016) found when principals lack social support, they are more
likely to burnout over time. Social connection and support are preventive practices for
burnout. The state has already established a Principals Leadership Support Center
(MDE, 2022), which may be ideally suited to lead connection and community
strategies.
• Work-life harmony includes autonomy over how work is done, schedule flexibility,
and predictability, paid leave, and respect for boundaries between work and nonwork
time. In this study, respondents reported an overwhelming workload that infringed on
personal time, family time, and sleep. This finding is consistent with prepandemic
studies that found regular evening and weekend obligations for secondary principals
lead to job dissatisfaction and intent to leave (De Jong et al., 2017). The qualitative
data reinforced Pekel et al.’s (2022) findings that principal workload is not
sustainable. Employers are responsible for the workload assigned to their employees.
District leaders need education about the U.S. Surgeon General’s framework, and
114

each district (employer) should engage principals in an activity of subtraction: What
tasks will be removed? Because educator burnout impacts more people than
principals, the Minnesota Association of School Administrators and Minnesota
Association of School Personnel Administrators should be active partners in helping
districts learn about and understand the importance of workplace well-being and how
the U.S. Surgeon General’s framework might be used by schools.
• Mattering at work includes being engaged in decisions, building a culture of gratitude
and recognition, engaging in meaningful work, and connecting individual purpose
with organizational mission. In this study, principals who were involved in decision
making reported higher levels of engagement and lower rates of burnout, emotional
exhaustion, and fatigue. There was a strong negative correlation between the
fulfillment scale (engaging in meaningful work) and effectiveness (r = .526).
• Opportunity for growth includes quality training, education, and mentoring; career
advancement opportunities; and relevant and reciprocal feedback. Pekel et al. (2022)
found 68% of principals felt time and the need to be in their schools as barriers to
professional growth. In the same report, 34% expressed a need for training in
reducing staff burnout. The principalship is often on the career path to the
superintendency. Quality principal training and learning opportunities are essential to
maintaining a qualified pipeline for future district leadership.
From Theory to Practice
Putting the well-being model into practice, the APA has offered a framework for employer
interventions based on the severity of interventions needed, from preliminary to intermediate and
advanced (see Table 17). Using baseline assessment data or other localized data, a school district
115

or community collaborative can assess the severity of the need and take the following steps to use
the well-being framework as a strategic intervention.
Recommendation 3: Support Adoption of Personal Well-Being Behaviors
The findings of this study reinforced findings of multiple studies that have labeled the role
of school principal as a complex, high-stress, time-demanding job (Beausaert et al., 2016; De
Jong et al, 2017; Grissom et al., 2021 Pollock et al, 2015). The job requires leaders to cultivate
Table 17
American Psychiatric Association Framework of Interventions
Stages of
Intervention
Preliminary Intermediate Advanced
1. Education
and
awareness
Presentations and
workshops
Employer website Speakers’ bureau and
curriculum
2. Reflection
time
Peer-led groups Support groups with
expert facilitation
Policies for planned
well-being days (off)
3. Teach
practical
skills
Health-oriented classes
(yoga, etc) offered
Evidence-based
practices
(mindfulness &
cognitive behavioral
therapy skills)
Designated time and
specific skills groups
based on need
physical exercise
classes
4. Build
community
Recurring social events
and shared resources
Structured mentorship
&
peer coaching
Department-led
teambuilding and
retreats
5. Ensure access
to care
Employee health
insurance with
mental health benefit
Internal mental health
services or referrals
In-house, fully staffed
mental health service
and 24/7 support
6. Improve
workplace
environment
Employee experience
technology updates
& feedback
Physical infrastructure
improvements
Personnel optimized to
work in most
meaningful work
7. Transform
institutional
culture
Institutional well-being
committee with
member input
Leaders engaged in
culture of well-being
Innovative policies to
maintain well-being
116

Note. Adapted from Toolkit for Well-Being Ambassadors by M. L. Goldman, C. Bernstein, J.
Chilton, & R. Aggarwal, 2017, American Psychiatric Association. Retrieved from
https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/Well-being-and-
Burnout/APA-Well-being-Ambassador-Toolkit-Manual.pdf

strong interpersonal and relational skills, process complex information, effectively make
decisions, focus on priority tasks, manage conflict, display empathy, and inspire others with
confidence, hope and optimism—all skills that require healthy cognition, resilience, and well-
being. The antecedents of burnout, emotional exhaustion and fatigue, fall into two categories: (a)
individual behaviors and (b) job demands (addressed in Recommendation 1). Employers or
professional associations should provide training, coaching, and change management
accountability for principals to learn about and practice well-being behaviors. A study from Mayo
Clinic may provide insight into the supports needed for supervisors: increased awareness,
leadership competency in well-being, skill-building for supervisors to recognize early signs of
exhaustion and burnout, and prioritizing system leadership support (Wieneke et al., 2019).
Because principals set the tone for employees and are responsible for the culture of the school,
their mindset and modeling are essential to preventing teacher burnout, in addition to their own
burnout.
Stress is a part of life and eustress is helpful as a motivator; however, unmitigated
occupational stress—especially following a sustained crisis—negatively impacts individual
health and well-being and negatively impacts the culture of a team. The Mayo Clinic (2022)
offered five steps for preventative mental fitness: (a) making time for physical well-being, (b)
117

finding a support network, (c) strengthening personal growth skillsets, (d) focusing on realistic
optimism (the opposite of learned helplessness), and (e) cultivating purposeful activity.
In this study, principals who were intentional about well-being (31%) built routines in four
areas: (a) physical well-being: nutrition, hydration, oxygen, movement, and sleep; (b) personal
connections and social support: family, faith, social time, and pets; (c) time off and setting
personal boundaries: taking time off, respecting work hours, disconnecting from email and social
media, and limiting news exposure; and (d) mindfulness practices: breathing, meditation, goal
setting, journaling, gratitude, forgiveness, learning, and reflection.
Participants may have taken for granted mission and purpose, which are also critical to
well-being but not described as a well-being practice. They were intentional about teamwork,
collaboration, listening, leading with empathy, and building a positive culture of appreciation
and gratitude. Leaders need to be healthy and functioning at a high cognitive level to handle the
complex challenges of public education in the post-pandemic era. Principal supervisors need to
ensure principals have the knowledge, skills, and habits to positively lead their teams toward a
culture of well-being. Only when educators are able to thrive will the students they serve have
the same opportunity. The performance of a school can never surpass the capabilities of its staff.
Building Health Habits. The human body and brain need sleep, water, clear air,
nutrition, and exercise to function effectively. Principals should be familiar with Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs and be able to follow it in assessing personal habits. If personal habits are not
supporting each of these basic needs, the individual can select one to start a new routine or habit.
As leaders in a complex role, cognitive health should be a top priority, and cognitive health
requires sleep, a healthy diet, mindfulness, and exercise (WHO, 2022). Sacrificing sleep was
often reported by participants in this study. Sleep deprivation negatively affects mental and
118

emotional abilities, in addition to inhibiting the brain’s ability to function properly (WHO, 2022).
If school principals do not prioritize personal health, employers may need to implement
educational programs to raise expectations on the importance of personal well-being practices.
Practicing Positive Psychology. The subfield of positive psychology is relatively young,
having gained prominence in the late 1990s. Programs that teach positive psychology set out to
retrain the brain to look for good, hope, and optimism, even in challenging situations. For
example, the Orange Frog Workshop, based on Achor’s (2015) Happiness Advantage: How a
Positive Brain Fuels Success in Work and Life and endorsed by the AASA recommended six
daily habits grounded in positive psychology: (a) practicing gratitude, (b) exercise, (c)
journaling, (d) meditation, (e) conscious acts of kindness, and (f) deepening social connections.
In adopting these new routines, they recommend articulating a new habit, explicitly stating a
benefit for self and for others, and anchoring the behavior by describing how to start small and
expand on goals or solicit help from others through social investment, while tracking the habit
for 21-days (Achor, 2015). Implementing the Orange Frog program or similar culture program
may support principal well-being and change the external environment and demands that
negatively impact principals. Minnesota organizations that have adopted the Orange Frog
Training include Minnetonka Public Schools, Isanti County, and Marvin Windows.
Adopting an Optimistic Mindset. If callousness, cynicism, or depersonalization—signs
of burnout—are a problem, the field of positive psychology may provide a variety of self-guided
learning tools for personal growth. There are hundreds of mindfulness courses and smartphone
apps on the market. The Healthy Minds application is a self-guided, smartphone application that
includes daily doses of mindfulness training, along with practices designed to cultivate positive
relationships (Golberg et al., 2020). A randomized controlled trial of 343 adults in Wisconsin
119

provided initial evidence of reducing distress and improving well-being outcomes, including
social connectedness and empathy.
Seligman is widely credited with advancing the subfield of positive psychology in the
late 1990s. Coursera, an online learning program, offers a foundational course in positive
psychology with lectures and learning activities presented by Professor Seligman and Adam
Grant, faculty members at University of Pennsylvania. Seligman’s (2011) PERMA model builds
learning and habits around five components: (a) positive emotion, (b) engagement, (c)
relationships, (d) meaning, and (e) accomplishments. Proactively working on these components
has been shown to increase aspects of well-being and decrease psychological distress (Seligman,
n.d.).
Social Supports. Social supports are another critical preventative practice that leaders
should cultivate. Beausaert et al. (2016) conducted a longitudinal study of elementary and
secondary school principals over four years, specifically exploring social support as a mitigator
of burnout. The study found social support does not always buffer against burnout, but there was
direct evidence when principals lose or lack social support from colleagues, they are more likely
to burnout over time. The study was consistent with research on how teachers burn out over time.
For principals and teachers, burnout can be predicted by how they perceive social support from
colleagues (Beausaert et al., 2016). Hopeful and optimistic leaders are more likely to maintain
interpersonal relationships and social support; emotionally exhausted and cynical leaders are
more likely to isolate and less likely to maintain social support (Diener & Seligman, 2004;
Maslach & Banks, 2017). The MDE Principal Support Network could use the recommendations
in this study to enhance social support at the regional and state levels. Principal supervisors could
also regularly assess perceptions of social support during checkins.
120

Learning and Leading. School leaders need to model the behaviors they want to see in
their employees, including being a learner, embracing a growth mindset, and prioritizing well-
being. A study conducted by LinkedIn (2019) found professionals who prioritized at least two
hours of learning per week reported better workplace well-being than those who did not learn
regularly. An excellent resource for learning is AASA’s (2021) Thought Leadership series
published on their website. Books, articles and videos include interviews with authors and
researchers such as Daniel Goleman, Jon Gordon, Simon Sinek, and Marcus Buckingham,
among others. Principals who lead book studies in their school teams might benefit from learning
and leading for positive cultures and school environments.
Recovering From Burnout
Given high levels of burnout were reported, it is important to address recovery. Social
cognitive theory says leadership thoughts influence behaviors and a leader’s thoughts and
behaviors influence the environment and how they perceive external forces. Principals who have
suffered from burnout, emotional exhaustion or fatigue may need support in recovery practices to
reset their thinking. Recovery includes admitting there is a problem, taking a break, focusing on
well-being, reflecting on personal values and motivations, and retraining the brain toward a
healthy and positive-growth mindset (Eatough, 2021). Recovering from burnout requires
behavior change. Quick and Henderson (2016) suggest tracking stress, identifying stressors,
journaling, and positive psychology. Beausaert et al. (2016) found positive results in building a
support system. Self-advocating (addressing workload or other workplace stressors), managing
stress, protecting work-life balance, setting boundaries, and doing fun things both at and away
from work also set the stage for recovery (Bersin, 2021a). For more severe cases, professional
121

counseling, coaching or medical assistance may be needed, since burnout can lead to depression
or suicide ideation. In some cases, a change of environment or job change may be required.
Only the individual can control their thoughts, mindset, and behavior. No one’s boss is
going to tell them when to go to sleep or that it is time to eat. Basic well-being habits and self-
regulation skills are required to fuel the energy required of school principals. Neglecting self-
care leads to energy depletion and negative emotions. Leadership requires leading from within
first; lead oneself before leading others (Reeves & Eaker, 2019).
Recommendations for Future Research
The recent release of the U.S. Surgeon General’s framework for workplace well-being
provides an opportunity for state and local school districts to engage in action research, as they
attempt to update policies and practices related to workplace well-being. In addition, the
Minnesota Principals Survey is scheduled to be administered every two years. Adding the MBI-2
or the questions from the fulfillment scale could provide longitudinal data for the prevalence of
burnout among K-12 school principals and measure the impact of job redesign efforts undertaken
on a statewide level. Finally, Minnesota has a perpetual problem with attracting and retaining
BIPOC professionals, which was evidenced by the data set in this study that was too small to
disaggregate. Multiple studies related to burnout indicate that BIPOC professionals experienced
higher rates of burnout, but in this study the experiences of BIPOC principals were likely masked
in the data. Additional qualitative research is needed to better understand their experiences
among Minnesota principals.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study relied on busy school principals opening the email and taking time to complete
the survey at the end of the school year. Three emails were sent to invite participation, two by the
122

researcher and one through principals’ professional associations. Relying on self-selection to opt
into the survey is not as reliable as using a random sample of the population (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). It is possible principals who did not complete the survey were more selective
and focused with their time and, therefore, may have fewer indicators of exhaustion or burnout.
Therefore, this study is not generalizable for the entire population.
The study methodology relied on participants to complete the survey as truthfully as
possible, without external validation. For example, respondents may have listed support provided
to their employees, but it is unknown if the employee received the support or valued the support.
The study relied on subjective item-responses to explore beliefs about burnout, emotional
exhaustion, fatigue, engagement, and fulfillment, in relation to effectiveness and well-being.
Relying on self-reports is not as reliable as objective measures related to physical and mental
health.
Delimitations refer to decisions made by the researcher, which may limit information
gathered. To protect the anonymity of school principals, no individually identifiable questions
are included on the survey; thus, there was no way to identify which school districts may have
employed strategies that were more or less effective. The open-ended items asked participants
what organizational or leadership strategies were used to support their well-being during the
pandemic. Leaving the question open-ended relies on the participants to readily recall strategies,
instead of reading a list of potential strategies and selecting familiar ones. No quantitative data
was used to support the findings of the organizational or leadership practices used by districts.
Conclusion
The COVID-19 pandemic created high levels of chronic occupational stress in Minnesota
public schools, leading to a negative impact on employee well-being. As frontline supervisors,
123

Minnesota school principals were squeezed between trying to meet the needs of their students
and employees and the demands of the district, the state, and the general public. Overall, two
thirds (66%) of respondents in this study reported less effectiveness in their roles as a school
principals or assistant principals at the end of the 2021–2022 school year, compared to their work
before the pandemic, and 83% reported lower well-being. The top five stressors reported were
(a) overwhelming job demands, (b) increasing student needs, (c) growing employee mental
health issues, (d) unrealistic demands of parents and the public, and (e) staffing shortages—all
contributing to occupational stress and burnout. Only 31% of respondents reported prioritizing
their personal well-being at least weekly over the prior 12 months. According to the WHO
(2022), the pandemic incurred a myriad of social consequences and continues to have far-
reaching impacts, rom the virus and from the “multitude of stressors brought on by the
pandemic” (p. 33). Those stressors land at the doorsteps of our public schools and in the hands of
public-school leaders and educators.
Employee well-being is rapidly becoming a core responsibility and strategy for employee
retention, engagement and performance — and it begins with leaders. Rethinking and
redesigning the role of the principal so it is more manageable needs the attention of local school
districts, principal professional associations, principal preparation programs, and state licensing
boards. Burnout is an organizational problem affecting individuals. Individual employees cannot
fix the root causes. The onus for workplace well-being is with the employer. This study
challenges education leaders to involve principals in the redesign of the educator's employee
experience. Care must be taken to maximize their desire to make a difference in the lives of
students and teachers, while reducing workload and protecting employee well-being. Principals
have an incredible impact on student achievement, teacher recruitment and retention, and
124

community support for public schools. A healthy school environment begins with an effective
and engaged school principal—free of burnout, emotional exhaustion, and fatigue—who inspires
collective efficacy of teachers and builds a school climate focused on confidence and hope. Only
when educators thrive will the students they serve have the same opportunity. The performance
of a school can never surpass the capabilities of its staff.

125

References
Achor, S. (2018). The happiness advantage: How a positive brain fuels success in work and life.
Currency.
American Association of School Administrators (AASA). (2022). Live well. Lead well.
https://connect.aasa.org/livewellleadwell
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2022). Well-being resources.
https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/well-being-and-burnout/well-being-
resources
Aspen Institute. (2022). Rethinking the role of the principal.
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/rethinking-the-role-of-the-principal/
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the
art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
http://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. (2002). Validation of the Maslach Burnout
Inventory – General Survey: An internet study. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 15(3), 245–
260, http://doi.org/10.1080/1061580021000020716
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost
work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99(2), 274–284. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274
Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality (2nd edition, pp. 154–196). Guilford Publications.
126

Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University.
Beausaert, S., Froehlich, D., Devos, C., & Riley, P. (2016). Effects of support on stress and
burnout in school principals. Educational Research, 58(4), 347–365.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2016.1220810
Bersin, J. (2021a). Big reset playbook: Human-centered leadership. Josh Bersin Companies.
https://joshbersin.com/2021/10/the-healthy-organization-the-next-big-thing-in-employee-
wellbeing/
Bersin, J. (2021b). Wellbeing and the healthy organization. Josh Bersin Companies.
https://joshbersin.com/just-released-research/healthy-organization-definitive-guide-to-
wellbeing-2021/
Bersin, J. & Mertens, S. (2021). The definitive guide to the healthy organization. Josh Bersin
Companies. https://league.com/resource/josh-bersin-report-healthy-organizations/
Bertolote, J. M. (1994). Guidelines for the primary prevention of mental, neurological and
psychosocial disorders: Staff burnout. WHO Division of Mental Health.
Bevington, J., Ahuja, S., Hage Obeid, H., & Mokdad, K. (2021, March 23). Well-being at the
heart of the employee experience for the Social Enterprise. Deloitte.
https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/pages/human-capital/articles/well-being-heart-
employee-experience-social-enterprise.html
Boekhorst, J. A., Hewett, R., Shantz, A., & Good, J. R. L. (2021). The double-edged sword of
manager caring behavior: Implications for employee wellbeing. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 26(6), 507–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000313
127

Boyce, J., & Bowers, A. J. (2016). Principal turnover: Are there different types of principals who
move from or leave their schools? A latent class analysis of the 2007–2008 schools and
staffing survey and the 2008–2009 principal follow-up survey. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 15(3), 237–272. http://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1047033
Brady, K. J. S., Ni, P., Sheldrick, R. C., Trockel, M. T., Shanafelt, T. D., Rowe, S. G., Schneider,
J. I., & Kazis, L. E. (2020). Describing the emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and
low personal accomplishment symptoms associated with Maslach Burnout Inventory
subscale scores in U.S. physicians: An item response theory analysis. Journal of Patient-
Reported Outcomes, 4(1), Article 42. http://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00204-x
Carmichael, S. G. (2015). The research is clear: Long hours backfire for people and for
companies. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2015/08/the-research-is-clear-long-
hours-backfire-for-people-and-for-companies
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020). Symptoms of COVID-19.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2022, August 16). CDC museum Covid-19
timeline. https://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/covid19.html
Chari, R., Sauter, S. L., Petrun Sayers, E. L., Huang, W., Fisher, G., & Chang, C. (2022)
Development of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Worker Well-
Being Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 64(8), 707–
717 https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002585
Coalition to Attract Teachers of Color and American Indian Teachers. (2020).
https://www.tocaimn.com/about
128

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (2014). Perceived Stress Scale. In PsycTESTS
Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/t02889-000
Clifford, M. A., & Coggshall, J. (2021a). Leaders in the tumult: Schooling innovations and new
perspectives from a year interrupted. American Institutes for Research.
Clifford, M. A., & Coggshall, J. G. (2021b). What we learned from elementary school principals
about changes to schools and the profession emerging from 2020–2021. American
Institutes for Research.
Clifton, J. (2022). State of the global workplace 2022 report. Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Curry, J., & O’Brien, E. (2012). Shifting to a wellness paradigm in teacher education: A
promising practice for fostering teacher stress reduction, burnout resilience, and
promoting retention. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 14(3), 178–191.
http://doi.org/10.1891/1559-4343.14.3.178
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and
synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 357–384.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500305
Day, A. & Penney S. (2017). Essential elements of organizational initiatives to improve
workplace wellbeing. In C. Cooper & M. Leiter (Eds.), The Routledge companion to
wellbeing at work, (pp. 314 - 331). Routledge.
129

De Jong, D., Grundmeyer, T., & Yankey, J. (2017). Identifying and addressing themes of job
dissatisfaction for secondary principals. School Leadership & Management, 37(4), 354–
371. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1338253
Deloitte. (2020). The social enterprise in a world disrupted: 2021 Deloitte global human capital
trends. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/human-capital-trends/2021/social-
enterprise-survive-to-thrive.html
DeMatthews, D. E. (2021, October 26). We’re facing a looming crisis of principal burnout.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-were-facing-a-looming-
crisis-of-principal-burnout/2021/10.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1–31. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2004.00501001.x
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
de Vries, J. (2003). Assessment of fatigue among working people: a comparison of six
questionnaires. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(1), 10–15.
https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1.i10
Eatough, E. (2021, October 25). How to recover from burnout and love your life again.
https://www.betterup.com/blog/how-to-recover-from-burnout
Edú-Valsania, S., Laguía, A., Moriano, J. A. (2022) Burnout: A review of theory and
measurement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
19(3), 1780. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031780
130

Evans, M., & Walsh, J. (2020, April 22). As coronavirus spreads in Minnesota, it exposes racial
inequalities. StarTribune. https://www.startribune.com/as-coronavirus-spreads-
minnesota-grapples-with-longtime-racial-inequality/569840602/
Farley-Ripple, E., Raffle, J. & Welch, J. (2012) Administrator career paths and decision
processes. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(60), 788–816.
http://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211264694
Fazio, M. (2021, April 19). Minnesota students walk out of schools in solidarity with the racial
justice movement. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/us/minnesota-school-walkout-chauvin-trial.html
Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2011). Principal self-efficacy and work engagement:
Assessing a Norwegian principal self-efficacy scale. Social psychology of education,
14(4), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9160-4
Fullan, M. (2006). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of
Educational Change, 7(3), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-9003-9
Gallup. (2020). Gallup's perspective on employee burnout: Causes and cures.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/282668/employee-burnout-perspective-paper.aspx
Gallup. (2021). Q12 Employee engagement survey. https://www.gallup.com/access/323333/q12-
employee-engagement-survey.aspx
Gallup. (2022, August 24). Employees need high wellbeing for high performance.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/215924/well-being.aspx
Gockowski, A. (2020). Republicans invoke Independence Day in opposition to Walz’s
coronavirus response, Alpha News. https://alphanews.org/republicans-invoke-
independence-day-in-opposition-to-walzs-coronavirus-response/
131

Goldberg, S. B., Imhoff-Smith, T., Bolt, D. M., Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Dahl, C. J.,
Davidson, R. J., & Rosenkranz, M. A. (2020). Testing the efficacy of a multicomponent,
self-guided, smartphone-based meditation app: Three-armed randomized controlled trial.
JMIR Mental Health, 7(11), 23825. http:/doi.org/10.2196/23825
Goldman, M. L., Bernstein, C., Chilton, J. Aggarwal, R. (2017). Toolkit for well-being
ambassadors. American Psychiatric Association.
https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/Well-being-and-
Burnout/APA-Well-being-Ambassador-Toolkit-Manual.pdf
Grissom, J. A., & Andersen, S. (2012). Why superintendents turn over. American Educational
Research Journal, 49(6), 1146-1180. http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212462622
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J. & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and
schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation.
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/principalsynthesis.
Grunewald, R., & Nath A. (2019). A statewide crisis: Minnesota’s education achievement gaps.
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/~/media/assets/pages/education-achievement-
gaps/achievement-gaps-mn-report.pdf?la=en
Hamilton, A., Reeves, D., Clinton, J., & Hattie, J. (2022). Building to impact: The 5D
implementation playbook for educators. Corwin Press.
Hanover Research. (2020). K-12 info-briefs: Staff well-being check-ins during COVID-19.
https://www.hanoverresearch.com/reports-and-briefs/staff-well-being-check-ins-during-
covid-19/
132

Hargrove, M. B., Quick, J. C., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. D. (2011). The theory of preventive
stress management: A 33-year review and evaluation. Stress and Health: Journal of the
International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 27(3), 182–193.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1417
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
Heubeck, E. (2021). Principals and stress: Strategies for coping in difficult times. Ed Week.
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/principals-and-stress-strategies-for-coping-in-
difficult-times/2021/05
Hoare, E., Bott, D., & Robinson, J. (2017). Learn it, live it, teach it, embed it: Implementing a
whole school approach to foster positive mental health and wellbeing through positive
education. International Journal of Wellbeing, 7(3), 56–71.
http://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v7i3.645
Iasiello, M., Bartholomaeus, J., Jarden, A., Kelly, G. (2017). Measuring PERMA+ in South
Australia, the state of wellbeing: A comparison with national and international norms.
Journal of Positive Psychology and Wellbeing, 1(2), 53-72.
https://journalppw.com/index.php/JPPW/article/view/8
International Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013).
Guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. OECD Publishing.
Johnson, M. (2022, July 11). Self-care is not enough! ASCD.
https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/self-care-is-not-enough
133

Kanold, T. D., & Boogren, T. H. (2022, August 10). Attending to the well-being of your
professional life! Solution Tree. https://www.solutiontree.com/attending-to-the-well-
being-of-your-professional-life.html
King, M. F., Renó, V. F., & Novo, E. M. (2014). The concept, dimensions and methods of
assessment of human well-being within a socioecological context: A literature review.
Social Indicators Research, 116(3), 681–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0320-0
Lahiri, G., & Schwartz, J. (2018, March 28). Well-being: A strategy and a responsibility.
Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/human-capital-
trends/2018/employee-well-being-programs.html
Lawson, H. A., Caringi, J. C., Gottfried, R., Bride, B. E., & Hydon, S. P. (2019). Educators’
secondary traumatic stress, children’s trauma, and the need for trauma literacy. Harvard
Educational Review, 89(3), 421–447. http://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-89.3.421
Leiter, M. P., Day, A., Oore, D. G., & Spence Laschinger, H. K. (2012). Getting better and
staying better: Assessing civility, incivility, distress, and job attitudes one year after a
civility intervention. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 425–434.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029540
Leithwood, K. A. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A. & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
134

Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research:
How leadership influences student learning. University of Minnesota Center for Applied
Research and Educational Improvement.
https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/2035
Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Pollock, K. (2017). How school leaders contribute to student success:
The four paths framework. Springer International Publishing.
Levin, S., Scott, C., Yang, M., Leung, M., & Bradley, K. (2019). (rep.). Supporting a strong,
stable principal workforce: What matters and what can be done. National Association of
Secondary School Principals. https://www.nassp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/LPI-
and-NASSP-Research-Agenda-Final-Report.pdf.
Li-Sauerwine, S., Rebillot, K., Melamed, M., Addo, N., & Lin, M. (2020, April 21). A 2-
question summative score correlates with the Maslach Burnout Inventory. The Western
Journal of Emergency Medicine, 21(3), 610–617.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7234685/
Louis, K. S., Murphy, J., & Smylie, M. (2016). Caring leadership in schools: Findings from
exploratory analyses. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 310–348.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15627678
Louis, K. S., & Thessin, R. (2019). The role of districts and other agencies in supporting school
leaders’ instructional leadership. Emerald Publishing Limited.
MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (2020). Language teachers’ coping strategies
during the COVID-19 conversion to online teaching: Correlations with stress, wellbeing
and negative emotions. System, 94, Article 102352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102352
135

Marchand, A., & Durand, P. (2011). Psychological distress, depression, and burnout: Similar
contribution of the job demand-control and job demand-control-support models? Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(2), 185–189.
http://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318206f0e9
Maslach, C., & Banks, C. (2017). Psychological connections with work. In C. L. Cooper & M. P.
Leiter (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Wellbeing at Work (pp. 37–54). Taylor &
Francis.
Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205
Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. & Leiter, M. (1997). The Maslach Burnout Inventory manual. The
Scarecrow Press
Maslach, C., Jackson, S., Schwab, R. (2022). MBI: Educator survey. Mind Garden, Inc.
https://www.mindgarden.com/316-mbi-educators-survey
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2017). Understanding burnout: New models. In C. L. Cooper & J.
C. Quick (Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice
(pp. 36–56). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118993811.ch3
Maslach, C. H., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 397-422. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
Mayo Clinic. (2022). Fatigue.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/symptoms/fatigue/basics/definition/sym-20050894
MetLife, Inc. (2013). The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Challenges for school
leadership. Author.
136

Michielsen, H. J., De Vries, J., Van Heck, G. L., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., and Sijtsma, K. (2004).
Examination of the dimensionality of fatigue, the construction of the Fatigue Assessment
Scale (FAS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20(1), 39–48.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.20.1.39
Minnesota Department of Education (MDE). (2020). Safe learning plan for 2020-2021: A
localized, data-driven approach.
https://education.mn.gov/mdeprod/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=MDE03
2934&RevisionSelectionMethod=latestReleased&Rendition=primary
Minnesota Department of Education (MDE). (2021a). School and district data and contact lists.
https://public.education.mn.gov/MdeOrgView/districts/index
Minnesota Department of Education (MDE). (2021b). Minnesota education statistics summary.
https://public.education.mn.gov/MDEAnalytics/Summary.jsp
Minnesota Department of Health (2020). MDH 2020-2021 planning guide for schools.
health.state.mn.us/diseases/coronavirus/schools/k12planguide.pdf
Muñoz, A. J., Pankake, A., Ramalho, E. M., Mills, S., & Simonsson, M. (2014). A study of
female central office administrators and their aspirations to the superintendency.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(5), 764–784.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213510508
Murthy, V. (2022). Workplace mental health & well-being: Current priorities of the U.S.
Surgeon General. https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/workplace-well-
being/index.html
137

National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). (2021, December 7). NASSP
survey signals a looming mass exodus of principals from schools.
https://www.nassp.org/news/nassp-survey-signals-a-looming-mass-exodus-of-principals-
from-schools/.
National Association for Secondary School Principals (NASSP). (2021, September 16). NASSP
calls on federal officials to protect school leaders from threats and violence.
https://www.nassp.org/news/nassp-calls-on-federal-officials-to-protect-school-leaders-
from-threats-and-violence/
National Association for Secondary School Principals (NASSP). (2022, September). NASSP’s
survey of America’s school leaders and high school students.
https://survey.nassp.org/2022/
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2022, October 24). NAEP long-term trend
assessment results: Reading and Mathematics. NAEP: The Nation's Report Card.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/ltt/2022/
National Conference of State Legislators. (2022). Teacher shortages by state.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/teacher-shortage-areas-by-state.aspx
National Institute of Health (NIH). (2020). COVID-19 and employees’ mental health: Stressors,
moderators, and agenda for organizational actions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7342058/
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for
educational leaders. https://www.npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Professional-
Standards-for-Educational-Leaders_2015.pdf
138

Panlilio, C. (2021). Our research shows educators are experiencing trauma during the
pandemic. here’s how we can reduce the burden. EdSurge.
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-03-02-our-research-shows-educators-are-
experiencing-trauma-during-the-pandemic-here-s-how-we-can-reduce-the-burden
Parr, A., Potter, L., Pekel, K., Gibbons, K., Schantz, J., Evenson, A. (2022). Minnesota Safe
Learning Survey: Educators’, families’ and students’ experiences with education in 2021.
Comprehensive Center Network. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xwxx4dj9fH1zFWEa9-
vtcb2I8kg1optA/view
Pekel, K., Gibbons, K., Parr, A., McKevett, N., Potter, L., & Evenson, A. (2020). Minnesota PK-
12 Distance Learning Survey: Experiences of Minnesota educators, March–June 2020.
University of Minnesota. https://www.digitalcenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/CEHD-Distance-Learning-Survey-MN-Statewide-Report-July-
2020.pdf
Pekel, K., Kemper, S., Parr, A., Evenson, A., & Zhao, Y. (2022). Report of findings from the
first biennial Minnesota Principals Survey. University of Minnesota Center for Applied
Research and Educational Improvement.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xg3u7iwwgoymtN26Ty6Nyw0T1W8fdFcY/view
Pollock, K., Wang, F., & Hauseman, D. (2015). Complexity and volume: An inquiry into factors
that drive principals’ work. Societies, 5(2), 537–565. http://doi.org/10.3390/soc5020537
Potter, L., Parr, A., Pekel, K., Gibbons, K., Schantz, J., & Evenson, A. (2021). Minnesota safe
learning survey: Spring 2021. Wisconsin-Minnesota Comprehensive Center.
Pressley, T. (2021). Factors contributing to teacher burnout during COVID-19. Educational
Researcher, 50(5), 325–327. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211004138
139

Qualtrics. (2021). Calculating sample size: A guide. https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-
sample-size/
Quick, J. C., & Henderson, D. (2016) Occupational stress: Preventing suffering, enhancing
wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(5),
459. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4881084/
Rangel, V. (2018, February). A review of the literature on principal turnover. Review of
Educational Research, 88(1), 87–124. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543177431
Reeves, D. (2021). Fearless schools: Building trust and resilience for learning, teaching, and
leading. Creative Leadership Press.
Reeves, D., & Eaker, R. (2019). 100-day leaders: Turning short-term wins into long-term
success in schools. Solution Tree Press.
Moss, J. (2021, Februarly 10). Beyond burned out. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2021/02/beyond-burned-out
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft
Excel. (5th edition). SAGE.
Salvagioni D. A. J., Melanda, F. N., Mesas, A. E., González, A. D., & Gabani, F. L. (2017)
Physical, psychological and occupational consequences of job burnout: A systematic
review of prospective studies. PLOS ONE 12(10): e0185781.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185781
Seligman, M. E. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your
potential for lasting fulfillment. Free Press.
140

Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish: A visionary understanding of happiness and well-being.
University of Pennsylvania.
https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/learn/wellbeing
Shockman, Elizabeth (2021). Minnesota students walk out of school to protest racial
injustice. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/20/989074842/1-000s-of-
minnesota-students-walk-out-of-school-to-protest-racial-injustice
Slade, S. (2021, December 6). School leaders take note: Teacher care is a lot more than self-
care. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-11-02-school-leaders-take-note-
teacher-care-is-a-lot-more-than-self-care
Smith, R. A. (2021). Fix burnout—Without blowing up your life. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fix-burnoutwithout-blowing-up-your-life-11636033659
Song, H., Gu, Q., & Zhang, Z. (2020). An exploratory study of teachers’ subjective wellbeing:
Understanding the links between teachers' income satisfaction, altruism, self-efficacy and
work satisfaction. Teachers and Teaching, Theory and Practice, 26(1), 3–31.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2020.1719059
Steiner, E., Doan, S., Woo, A., Gittens, A., Lawrence, R., Berdie, L., Wolfe, R., Greer, L., &
Schwartz, H. (2022). Restoring teacher and principal well-being is an essential step for
rebuilding schools. RAND Corporation.
Steiner, E. & Woo, A. (2022). Job-related stress threatens the teacher supply: Key findings from
the 2021 state of the U.S. teacher survey. RAND Corporation.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2016). Wellness
Initiative: Creating a healthier life.
https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/d7/priv/sma16-4958.pdf
141

Superville, D. (2020, November 19). Principal turnover takes costly toll on students and
districts, report says. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/principal-
turnover-takes-costly-toll-on-students-and-districts-report-says/2014/11
Superville, D. (2022, October 10). Why this principal is staying put when so many want to quit.
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/why-this-principal-is-staying-put-
when-so-many-want-to-quit/2022/10
Tekleselassie A. & Villarreal P. (2011). Career mobility and departure intentions among school
principals in the United States: Incentives and disincentives. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 10(3), 251–293. http://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2011.585536
Tenney, E. R., Poole, J. M., & Diener, E. (2016). Does positivity enhance work performance?
Why, when, and what we don’t know. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 27–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.11.002
Tienken, C. H. (2020). American superintendent 2020 decennial study. Rowman.
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781475858488/The-American-Superintendent-2020-
Decennial-Study
U.S. Department of Labor. (2004, January 1). Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/completeoshact
Walz, T. (2020, March 15). Minnesota Executive Order 20-02: Closing schools and authorizing
safe learning plan. Office of Governor Tim Walz and Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan.
https://mn.gov/governor/news/executiveorders.jsp?id=1055-423085.
Wells, C. M. (2013). Educational leaders describe a job too big for one: Stress reduction in the
midst of leading. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 10(3), 32–45.
https://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx
142

Wieneke, K. C., Schaepe, K. S., Egginton, J. S., Jenkins, S. M., Block, N. C., Riley, B. A.,
Sifuentes, L. E., & Clark, M. M. (2019). The supervisor’s perceived role in employee
well-being: Results From Mayo Clinic. American Journal of Health Promotion, 33(2),
300–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117118784860
West, C. P., Dyrbye, L. N., Satele, D. V., Sloan, J. A., & Shanafelt, T. D. (2012). Concurrent
validity of single-item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in
burnout assessment. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(11), 1445–1452.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2015-7
Williams, N. (2021). Working through COVID-19: “Zoom” gloom and “Zoom” fatigue.
Occupational Medicine, 71(3), 164. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqab041
World Health Organization (WHO). (2019). Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon”:
International classification of diseases.
https://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/burn-out/en/
World Health Organization (WHO). (2022, August). Optimizing Brain Health across the life
course: Who position paper. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240054561

143

Appendix A: Survey Instrument
During the pandemic, many educators reported high levels of occupational stress, impacting
employee wellbeing. The purpose of this survey is to assess levels of burnout, exhaustion and
fatigue among Minnesota school principals and assistant principals and to explore organizational
and leadership practices that impacted employee wellbeing.

This survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. This study will be used as part of a
doctoral dissertation. In addition, the results and findings may be shared with professional
education associations (MASSP, MASA, MESPA) and public education policymakers.
Questions in this survey are adapted from the Perceived Stress Scale, Gallup Q12, and Maslach
Burnout Inventory.

If you have any questions, please contact Janet Swiecichowski, the primary researcher, at
jswiecic@usc.edu.

Your participation in this survey is voluntary. You have the right to withdraw at any point during
the study. Your responses are completely anonymous.

By clicking the button below, you acknowledge:
• Your participation in the study is voluntary.
• You are 18 years of age or older.
• You are employed as a principal or assistant principal in a public school in Minnesota.
• You are aware that you may choose to terminate your participation at any time for any reason.

Question Response options
RQ1 Thinking about your role as a school
principal or assistant principal, how do you
compare your current effectiveness in your
work to before the pandemic?
1. Significantly less effective
2. Somewhat less effective
3. Same
4. More effective
5. Significantly more effective
RQ1 Thinking about your role as a school
principal or assistant principal, how do you
compare your current wellbeing relative to
before the pandemic?

1. Significantly less wellbeing
2. Somewhat less wellbeing
3. Same
4. More wellbeing
5. Significantly more wellbeing

144

Thinking back over the last two years of the pandemic, indicate the degree to which you agree or
disagree with each statement.

Question Response options
RQ2 At work, I have the opportunity to do what I
do best every day.
1. Strongly Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly Agree
RQ2 I know what is expected of me at work. 6. Strongly Disagree
7. Disagree
8. Neither agree nor disagree
9. Agree
10. Strongly Agree
RQ2 I have the materials and equipment I need to
do my work right.
1. Strongly Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly Agree

RQ2 My supervisor or someone at work seems to
care about me as a person.

1. Strongly Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly Agree
RQ3 I was provided the health and safety items I
needed for COVID prevention (i.e. PPE,
test kits, vaccines, protocols)
1. Strongly Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly Agree

145

Wellbeing is defined as “peoples’ positive evaluations of their lives” and includes positive
emotion, engagement, positive relationships, accomplishment, satisfaction, and meaning.
Wellbeing has physical, psychological, environmental and social dimensions.

Question Response options
RQ3 During the last 12 months, to what extent
have you prioritized your personal
wellbeing?

1. Never
2. A few times a year or less
3. Once a month or less
4. A few times a month
5. Once a week
6. A few times a week
7. Every day
RQ2 On average throughout the last school year,
what percent of your time at work did you
enjoy your job?

(Whole number, 1-100)
RQ2 On average throughout the last school year,
what percent of the time do you feel your
efforts are making a positive difference for
students?
(Whole number, 1-100)

146

The World Health Organization (2019) defines burnout as a syndrome “resulting from chronic
workplace stress that has not been successfully managed,” including exhaustion, negativity,
cynicism, increased mental distancing from one's job, and reduced professional efficacy.

Question Response options
RQ1 I feel burned out from my work. 1. Never
2. A few times a year or less
3. Once a month or less
4. A few times a month
5. Once a week
6. A few times a week
7. Everyday
RQ1 I have become more callous toward people
since I took this job.

1. Never
2. A few times a year or less
3. Once a month or less
4. A few times a month
5. Once a week
6. A few times a week
7. Every day
RQ1 Mentally, I feel exhausted.

1. Never
2. Sometimes
3. Regularly
4. Often
5. Always
RQ1 Physically, I feel exhausted. 1. Never
2. Sometimes
3. Regularly
4. Often
5. Always
RQ1 I have enough energy for everyday life.

1. Never
2. Sometimes
3. Regularly
4. Often
5. Always
147

RQ1 When I am doing something, I can
concentrate quite well.
1. Never
2. Sometimes
3. Regularly
4. Often
5. Always
RQ1 In the last month, how often have you felt
that you were unable to control the
important things in your life?

1. Never
2. Almost never
3. Sometimes
4. Fairly often
5. Very often
RQ1 In the last month, how often have you felt
confident about your ability to handle your
problems at work?

1. Never
2. Almost never
3. Sometimes
4. Fairly often
5. Very often
RQ1 In the last month, how often have you felt
difficulties at work were piling up so high
that you could not overcome them?
1. Never
2. Almost never
3. Sometimes
4. Fairly often
5. Very often
RQ3 What is the most difficult or taxing part of
your job?
(Open-ended)
RQ3 What policies or practices, if any, did your
organization implement that you felt
supported your wellbeing during the
pandemic?

(Open-ended)
RQ3 What strategies, if any, did your direct
supervisor implement that you felt
supported your wellbeing during the
pandemic?
(Open-ended)
What did you do, for yourself, to support
your wellbeing during the pandemic?
(Open-ended)
What did you do, if anything, to support the
wellbeing of your employees during the
pandemic?
(Open-ended)

148

The following questions will only be used for analysis and will not be used to identify any
individual.
Question Response options
During the 2020-2021 school year, in what
learning model was your school most days?
a. In-person
b. Hybrid
c. Distance Learning
What best describes the district where you
work?

a. Urban
b. Suburban
c. Rural
Which best describes your school?

a. Elementary (serves students in grades
EC, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
b. Middle Level (primarily serves
students in grades 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9)
c. High School
d. K-8
e. K-12
f. Other
To what degree were you involved in
decisions affecting your school's safe
learning plan?

How would you describe the community
politics where your school is located?
a. Strongly Republican
b. Leans Republican
c. Divided
d. Leans Democrat
e. Strongly Democrat
f. Don’t know
How many employees do you supervise? a. 0-25
b. 26-50
c. 51-75
d. 76 – 100
e. More than 100
Gender

a. Female
b. Male
c. Non-binary
d. Prefer to self-describe______ (Short
Answer Space)
149

What is your age? (Select age from drop-down)
What is your marital status? a. Single (never married)
b. Married, or in a domestic partnership
c. Widowed
d. Divorced
e. Separated
Are you a caregiver for children or
vulnerable adults?
a. Yes
b. No
Identity by race/ethnicity as: (Select all that
apply)

a. American Indian or Native Alaskan
b. Asian or Asian American
c. Black or African American
d. Hispanic or Latino/a/x/e
e. Middle Eastern/North African (MENA
or Arab Origin)
f. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander Native
g. White or European American
h. Biracial or Multiracial
i. My identity is not listed above
How many school years have you been a
school principal or assistant principal?
(require whole number)
How many school years have you been
employed with your current employer?
(require whole number)

150

Appendix B: Email Solicitation
Email to Distribution List: Sent May 23 and June 22, 2022
May 23:
Good morning!

I'd appreciate your assistance. I am a doctoral candidate, living in Minnesota, and conducting a study
related to employee well-being and burnout, with a specific focus on Minnesota public school principals
and assistant principals.

Please follow this link to participate in the survey. All survey responses are anonymous.
Take the Survey

The disruption caused by the pandemic over the last two years increased occupational stress for many
educators. The purpose of this survey is to assess levels of burnout, exhaustion and fatigue among
Minnesota school principals and to explore organizational and leadership practices that impacted
employee well-being for school principals, assistant principals and their employees.
You are invited to participate in this study as a public school principal or assistant principal. Your
responses to the questions are completely anonymous. The study will take less than 10 minutes to
complete.

Copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3pKwztqHg8c6xLM?Q_CHL=email

This study is approved by the Institutional Review Board at USC and will follow all IRB ethics and
informed consent protocols. The study will build on the Minnesota Principal Survey conducted by CAREI
earlier this year, and I am pleased to have Katie Pekel, EdD from the Minnesota Principals Academy on
my Dissertation Committee. If you have any questions about the study, please email me at
jswiecic@usc.edu.

If you are interested in a summary of the results of this study or would like more information about
employee well-being, please feel free to email me. Results may also be shared through MESPA, MASSP,
or MASA.

Thank you in advance for your time. Your work on behalf of children, families and communities is
greatly appreciated!

Janet Swiecichowski
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
jswiecic@usc.edu

151

June 22: Congratulations! You made it. School is out. It's time to reflect on the year.
• How'd the year go?
• How are you?
• What did you do to maintain your energy and arrive at today?
I am a doctoral candidate, living in Minnesota, and conducting a study related to employee well-
being and burnout, with a specific focus on Minnesota public school principals and assistant
principals.
I hope that by participating in this study, YOU have an opportunity to reflect on your leadership
and your future...in addition to contributing to a study that will be shared with your professional
associations later this year.
Please take 10 minutes to complete the study if you haven't already done so. All responses
are anonymous.
${l://SurveyLink?d=Take the Survey}
Note: This survey was originally emailed to you on May 22. If you completed it, thank you!
The disruption caused by the pandemic over the last two years increased occupational stress for
many educators. The purpose of this survey is to assess levels of burnout, exhaustion and fatigue
among Minnesota school principals and to explore organizational and leadership practices that
impacted employee well-being for school principals, assistant principals and their employees.
You are invited to participate in this study as a public school principal or assistant principal.
Your responses to the questions are completely anonymous.
Copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:
${l://SurveyURL}
This study is approved by the Institutional Review Board at USC and will follow all IRB ethics
and informed consent protocols. The study will build on the Minnesota Principal Survey
conducted by CAREI earlier this year, and I am pleased to have Katie Pekel, EdD from the
Minnesota Principals Academy on my Dissertation Committee. If you have any questions about
the study, please email me at jswiecic@usc.edu.
If you are interested in a summary of the results of this study or would like more information
about employee well-being, please feel free to email me. Results may also be shared through
MESPA, MASSP, or MASA.
Thank you in advance for your time. Your work on behalf of children, families and communities
is greatly appreciated!
Janet Swiecichowski
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
152

Email sent by MASSP to Membership

Subject line: Action Requested: Principal well-being and Burnout Study
Greetings,

Below is a link to a questionnaire studying principal well-being and burnout during the pandemic. When
we agree to send a questionnaire, we ask that the data provided by MASSP members be reported and
presented at a conference - thus providing us with their findings that will hopefully add value to our
overall leadership. If you have ten minutes, please take time to fill out the questionnaire. Providing your
feedback can help direct our leadership moving forward.

Note: You may have also received an email for this study from the doctoral candidate conducting the
study (jswiecic@usc.edu). If you have already completed the questionnaire, thank you. If not, please use
this link: https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3pKwztqHg8c6xLM

For more information on the study and IRB Approval, click here.

153

Appendix C: Additional Statistical Tables
Effectiveness Scale Item-Total Statistics

Scale mean if
item deleted
Scale variance
if item deleted
Corrected item-total
correlation
Cronbach’s alpha if
item deleted
Q4.7 6.58 3.080 .387 .563
Q4.8 6.89 2.839 .385 .566
Q4.9 6.63 2.363 .502 .387

Descriptive Statistics for Caregivers (Yes) by Variable

Caregiver N Mean SD
Burnout Yes 192 4.461 1.500
No 188 4.154 1.549
Total 380 4.309 1.530
Emotional Exhaustion Yes 192 4.250 1.246
No 188 4.093 1.270
Total 380 4.172 1.259
Fatigue Yes 192 3.305 0.803
No 188 3.301 0.865
Total 380 3.303 0.833
Fulfillment Yes 192 55.758 21.021
No 188 61.200 21.624
Total 380 58.450 21.467
Engagement Yes 192 3.407 0.540
No 188 3.393 0.603
Total 380 3.400 0.572
Pan Effectiveness Yes 192 2.323 0.868
No 188 2.479 0.984
Total 380 2.400 0.929
154

Effectiveness Yes 192 3.330 0.730
No 188 3.374 0.786
Total 380 3.352 0.758

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Frontline workers serving students: a study on the well-being of student affairs professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

The well-being and employee effectiveness of United States government contractors during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Well-being, employee effectiveness, and organizational support: community college administrators during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on the Napa Valley wine industry workers

PDF

Military spouse well-being during 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

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physician burnout in LA County Hospital settings

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

Promoting well-being amid a global pandemic: evaluating the impact on nonprofit employees

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

PDF

Physician burnout in the COVID-19 pandemic: Healthcare organization and leadership implications for patient care and clinical team leadership with nurses

PDF

Well-being among Black female managers in retail banking during COVID-19

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

Principal leadership succession: developing the next generation of leaders

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

PDF

The teachers are breaking: personal, behavioral, and environmental influences on emotional fatigue

PDF

Organizational levers for frontline health care employee well-being in long-term care

Asset Metadata

Creator Swiecichowski, Janet Eileen (author)

Core Title Leadership practices impacting Minnesota school principals’ employee well-being and burnout during the pandemic

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 12/15/2022

Defense Date 11/17/2022

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

Tag Burnout,COVID-19,engagement,K12,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,pandemic,principals,well-being,wellness,workplace well-being

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Malloy, Courtney (committee member), Pekel, Katie (committee member)

Creator Email jswiecic@usc.edu,jswiecichowski@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112620984

Unique identifier UC112620984

Identifier etd-Swiecichow-11383.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-Swiecichow-11383

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Swiecichowski, Janet Eileen

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20221216-usctheses-batch-998 (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