Full Terms Conditions of access and use can be found at [603922]

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rere20
Educational Research
ISSN: 0013-1881 (Print) 1469-5847 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20
Effects of support on stress and burnout in school
principals
Simon Beausaert, Dominik E. Froehlich, Christelle Devos & Philip Riley
To cite this article: Simon Beausaert, Dominik E. Froehlich, Christelle Devos & Philip Riley (2016)
Effects of support on stress and burnout in school principals, Educational Research, 58:4, 347-365,
DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2016.1220810
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2016.1220810
© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 19 Aug 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 5896
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Educational REsEaRch, 2016
Vol. 58, no. 4, 347–365
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2016.1220810
Effects of support on stress and burnout in school principals
Simon Beausaerta,d, Dominik E. Froehlichb,d, Christelle Devosa and Philip Rileyc 
aFaculty of Psychology and Educational sciences, université catholique de l ouvain, l ouvain-la-neuve,
Belgium; bdepartment of Education, university of Vienna, Vienna, austria; cinstitute for Positive Psychology
and Education, a ustralian c atholic university, Melbourne, a ustralia; ddepartment of Educational Research and
development, s chool of Business and Economics, Maastricht university, Maastricht, the netherlands
ABSTRACT
Background: More than ever before, school principals are dealing
with stress and burnout, resulting from increasing role demands and decreasing decision latitude and autonomy. Following the Demand–Support–Constraints model, reasons for stress and burnout can be found in the lack of social support in the environment.
Purpose: This longitudinal study investigates whether changes
in social support from colleagues, supervisors and/or the broader community affect levels of principal stress and burnout.Sample: Approximately 26% of Australia’s school principals took part (N = 3572): primary (n = 2660) and secondary (n = 912) spread
across all Australian states and territories. Age ranged between 46 and
55 years, and mean leadership experience was 12 years.Design and methods: Since stress and burnout are psychological phenomena that develop over time, a longitudinal approach was adopted. Data were collected across four waves, spread over four years, from 2011 to 2014.
Results: It was found that social support predicts decreased stress
and in turn burnout in school principals, however differences were
found according to the type of social support. The data provide strong
evidence for a positive effect of stress on burnout (e.g. the more stress
at time 2, the more burnout in principals at time 3) and partial support
for indirect negative effects of social support on burnout (e.g. the
more support from colleagues at time 2, the less burnout in principals
at time 3). However, we also found two instances of positive effects of
social support from the broader community on burnout. This suggests
that the more support principals receive from the broader community,
the more likely they are to show burnout symptoms. This might be explained as the ‘the downside of empathy’ , where principals who are strongly supported by their community might also feel more connected to that community. When their community is struggling, they are probably struggling as well.
Conclusions: The findings highlight the positive impact the wider
school community can play in providing supplementary professional
support to the principal. Unbundling or repackaging the job
responsibilities with an administrative team that shares the leadership
of the school, could be part of the solution.
© 2016 the a uthor(s). Published by i nforma uK limited, trading as taylor & Francis Group.
this is an open a ccess article distributed under the terms of the creative c ommons a ttribution-nonc ommercial-nod erivatives license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.KEYWORDS
social support; stress;
burnout; principals;
demand–support–constraints modelARTICLE HISTORY
Received 17 d ecember 2015
accepted 27 July 2016
CONTACT simon Beausaert simon.beausaert@uclouvain.be OPEN AC CESS

348 S. BEAUSAERT ET Al.
Introduction
The tasks school principals1 have to deal with are varied and numerous. They are responsible
for managing the school, coordinating and guiding the teaching, networking with external
partners and communicating with the parents. In addition, they are usually in charge of the administration and finances, personnel management and legally responsible for all issues that arise in their schools. Finally, they have a pedagogical role. Generally, they are account –
able for the coherence between didactical methods and student learning, competency
development and graduation profiles and evaluation. They must collaborate with education
bureaucracies, undergo regular inspections and connect with other supporting services beyond the school itself and have a leading role in implementing innovations (Friedman 2002; Engels et al. 2008).
Next to this long, but by no means complete, list of tasks, many governments and juris-
dictions are introducing policies that lead to greater standardisation. Often, high stakes
national and state-wide tests are implemented in a drive towards continuous school improve –
ment and accountability. There is also a move towards decentralisation and more autonomy,
although it has been argued that the necessary resources are not always provided (Engels et al. 2008; Riley 2014). This increased autonomy brings higher demands and more respon-sibility and, it is argued, these can negatively impact principals’ well-being (Friedman 2002; Engels et al. 2008; Olsen and Sexton 2009; Riley and langan-Fox 2013). It is evident that good teachers do their best work in a school with good leadership (l eithwood, louis, and
Anderson 2012). So when evidence emerges that leaders are under considerable strain from
rapidly changing roles and increased accountability, this gives real pause for thought (Matthews, Moorman, and Nusche 2008; Riley 2014; Riley and langan-Fox 2013).
Since the 1970s, research attention has been paid to the antecedents and consequences
of stress and burnout. Consequences of burnout include reduced productivity and working efficacy, presenteeism and absenteeism (PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia 2014), illness, casualties, psychopathology, and deterioration in social and family relationships (van Dick and Wagner 2001). If, as some researchers argue, school leaders are the second biggest
influence on student outcomes behind the teacher (Day et al. 2008; l eithwood and Day
2008), when the leader is not functioning well, arguably the whole school suffers. In other words, ‘If good leadership is at the heart of every good school, then a leader who is both
mentally and physically unwell could have a potentially disastrous impact on the well-being
of a school and those within it’ (Phillips and Sen 2011, 180).
The antecedents of stress and burnout are categorised in two ways: individually and
contextually related variables. Some of the individual variables studied are demographic,
such as age, gender or marital status, personality, coping strategies or perceived self-efficacy.
The most considered contextual variables are working or organisational characteristics, such
as role stressors, working conditions, students behaviour, the need for professional recog-
nition or prestige, level of specialisation, teacher–student ratio, lack of resources, relationship
with colleagues and social support (Cano-García, Padilla-Muñoz, and Carrasco-Ortiz 2005). Social support has been shown to buffer stress, depression and burnout. For example, Sánchez-Moreno et al. (2014) analysed the relationship between burnout, informal social support and psychological distress in a sample of social workers in Spain. Their results con-
firmed the importance of informal social support as a variable negatively related to distress,
even in the presence of burnout. In contrast, organisational variables were not related to

EDUCATIONAl RESEARCH 349
distress. Similarly, Ju et al. (2015) tested structural equation models and found significant
negative relations between workplace social support and teacher burnout among 307 Chinese middle school teachers; concluding that social support can protect teachers from
burnout. However, both studies had a cross-sectional design and were conducted with social
workers and teachers and not with principals. In addition, social support is often measured
in a more general way, not making a distinction between the types of social support offered
by different groups of people.
Therefore, this longitudinal study aimed to examine how the contextual factor ‘social
support’ , or, more precisely, social support from colleagues, supervisor(s) and the broader school community, influenced stress and burnout in primary and secondary school princi-
pals. The data were collected across four waves, equally spread over four years (2011–2014).
The research questions were: (1) How does social support from colleagues, supervisors and the community (at t1) influence the level of burnout (at t2, t3 and t4)? (2) How does social
support from colleagues, supervisors and the community (at t1) influence the level of stress (at t2, t3 and t4)? (3) Does stress mediate the relation between social support and burnout?
In contrast with previous research that focused on stress and burnout in teachers using cross-sectional designs, this study focuses on principals and takes a longitudinal approach. While school principals are similar to teachers working in the same high-demand, dynamic environment, they deal with quite different responsibilities and tasks. Therefore, research results on stress and burnout in teachers cannot be easily generalised to principals. In addi-tion, the longitudinal approach allows us to study burnout over time and to get insight into
how social support influences stress, feelings of depression and burnout over time. As burn –
out is a state of physical, mental and emotional exhaustion that develops over time, because
of long-term involvement in work situations that are emotionally demanding (Evers, Tomic, and Brouwers 2005), a longitudinal approach across four years is an appropriate methodo –
logical approach. Finally, we wanted to examine separately different kinds of social support
experienced by school principals: support from colleague principals, supervisor(s) and from
the larger school community.
Burnout
A decade ago the OECD (2005) indicated that maintaining high-quality teachers in the pro –
fession was one of the biggest concerns for policy-makers across 25 countries. In the inter –
vening years this concern has increased in many countries (OCED 2014). This has increased the performance pressure on teachers, which in turn leads to increases in perceived stress and burnout. In the Netherlands, for example, the prevalence of burnout is higher in the educational sector than in other sectors such as the hotel and catering industry, general industry, transport, the caring professions and the building industry (Evers et al. 2001). In
the UK, stress levels among educators are thought to be the highest of all professions (Phillips
and Sen 2011). In general, researchers agree that burnout is a common psychological neg-
ative phenomenon (Maslach 1982; Farber 1984). One of the most cited definitions is Maslach
and Jackson’s (1985, 837): ‘Burnout is a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization,
and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among individuals who do “people work” of some kind. ’ Emotional exhaustion entails a lack in energy. Depersonalisation refers
to a detached attitude towards the job itself and/or the colleagues, sub- and super-ordinates.
Reduced personal accomplishment indicates a decrease in feelings of achievement and

350 S. BEAUSAERT ET Al.
competence. For example, increased emotional exhaustion in principals might result in a
lack of energy needed for doing their job. Consequently, they may develop a cynical attitude,
(depersonalisation) towards their colleagues and their work and/or become dissatisfied with
their performance on the job (reduced personal accomplishment: Fernet et al. 2012).
Other definitions of burnout, while not dissimilar, add to the overall picture. For example,
Farber (1991) described burnout as a work-related syndrome where individuals perceive a
significant discrepancy between effort (input) and reward (output), and which is related to physical exhaustion and different psychological symptoms such as irritation and lower self-esteem. Another conceptualisation of burnout was developed and validated by
Demerouti et al. (2001, 2003). In line with Maslach’s conceptualisation of ‘Emotional exhaus –
tion’ and ‘Depersonalization’ they made a distinction between exhaustion and disengage –
ment. However, Zapf et al. (1999) argue that those conceptualisations and related questionnaires take the amount of empathy and emotional involvement at work as given and that the questionnaires do not directly question these emotional aspects. This is prob –
lematic, since burnout might affect people’s empathy and emotional involvement and both
concepts should not be ignored when studying burnout. Therefore, in this study, we chose measures that included empathy and emotional involvement (see measures).
Social support
There are many antecedents of burnout that also require careful attention alongside stress (Friedman 2002). Previously it was concluded that job and environment-related factors are
often more strongly related to burnout than personal-related antecedents (e.g. Maslach 1999). The Demand–Support–Constraints model (DSC model; Payne 1979) focuses on two of
those environment-related factors, namely job demands and social support, to explain the origin of stress and burnout. According to the framework, a lack of support and resources in a demanding work setting leads to stress (Friedman 2002). In general, social support can be provided by different people both within and outside of the workplace. In this study, a
distinction is made between three different sources of support: colleagues inside and outside
the school; supervisor(s) and the broader school community, including parents, alumni, community leaders and school board members. In this context, ‘colleagues outside the school’ refers to other principals. In this study, supervisors are defined as the principals’ line manager, usually in a regional office, but may also include the board chair for independent (private, fee paying) school principals. The broader community refers to the wider profes-
sional network of the principal mentioned above, including other principals, but also teach –
ers, counsellors, parents and community leaders.
Similar to the DSC model, the Job Demands–Resources model (JD-R) also emphasises job
demands and social support (Schaufeli and Bakker 2004). However, they refer to broader
categories of job demands and job resources. Demands are ‘those physical, social, or organ-
isational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (i.e. cognitive
or emotional) effort and are therefore associated with physiological and psychological costs’
(Demerouti et al. 2001, 501). These include several aspects such as work overload, role prob –
lems, deficient equipment, school policies and climate, interpersonal conflicts, and student behavioural problems. Job resources are ‘aspects of the job that may enhance motivation and performance. These function in at least one of three ways: by buffering job demands, supporting the achievement of work-related goals, or fostering learning and development’

EDUCATIONAl RESEARCH 351
(Klusmann et al. 2008, 130). For example, job resources refer to flexible schedules, skill utili-
sation, participation in decision-making, decision latitude, levels of autonomy, professional
development, coaching, and support from colleagues (Fernet et al. 2012). Both the DSC and
the JD-R model have been criticised for not making a more detailed distinction between different types of demands and support, as highlighted in job stress and burnout literature (Kahn and Byosiere 1992; l ee and Ashforth 1996).
Researchers have been validating the previously mentioned models by studying job
demands (overload/workload, student behaviour, physical environment, role conflict, and
role ambiguity) and relations with co-workers or social support on the job and their relation
with burnout in various professions. However, only a few scholars have been studying these
models in educational contexts. These few studies mostly tried to confirm the hypothesis that a school embedded in a broader community, characterised by supportive colleagues and cooperative relationships, might avoid burnout in teachers, in contrast with high job demands which are significantly negatively related to burnout (see the section on burnout and social support). Similarly, Maslach (1982) indicated that a lack of positive feedback and
recognition might develop burnout. Furthermore, only a few studies have been looking into
the relations between demands, support, stress and burnout in principals, discussed in the next paragraph.
Burnout and social support
In the few studies that examined the relationship between social support and burnout in principals, it was found that those who are less isolated are less likely suffer from burnout
(Tomic and Tomic 2008; Stephenson and Bauer 2010). Bașol (2013) compared levels of burn –
out among 306 school administrators in Turkey according to their gender and with social support as a covariate. The study concluded that social support explained the difference in
burnout levels among administrators. Specifically, increased social support led to a decrease
in occupational burnout. Stephenson and Bauer (2010) looked at the mediating role of isolation between social support and burnout in 196 elementary and secondary school principals in l ouisiana. They found that isolation did mediate social support and therefore
levels of physical and emotional burnout.
Similarly, in a study of teachers, Kahn et al. ( 2006 ) examined the relationship between the
contents of emotional social support and job burnout among 339 high-school teachers in
the US. They found that as positive emotional social support increased, emotional exhaustion
and cynicism decreased, and professional efficacy increased. In contrast, when negative
emotional social support increased, emotional exhaustion and cynicism also increased. Other
researchers also found that perceived social support in general was associated with a lowered
degree of burnout among elementary school teachers in Korea (Kim, l ee, and Kim 2009).
Given these previous studies, the DSC model and the JD-R model – which both see social support as a contextual condition that positively influences psychological well-being – it is
hypothesised that the more social support a principal experiences, the fewer burnout symp –
toms the principal will subsequently show.
H1: Social support (from colleagues, supervisor(s) and the larger community) reduces burnout
in school principals.

352 S. BEAUSAERT ET Al.
Stress
The process of burnout begins with prolonged exposure to job demands, which are then
interpreted by individuals as stress (Farber 1983; Friedman 1995; Maslach, Schaufeli, and
leiter 2001). The Principal Health and Wellbeing Surveys (www.principalhealth.org) indicated
that in Western countries such as Australia and Ireland, school leaders are under significantly
more stress than the general population. In the US, for example, the National Association of
Elementary School Principals reported that 75% of principals experience stress-related symp –
toms that can affect their physical, emotional, and mental health (Queen and Schumacher 2006). To put this in a broader context, the APA (2010) reported that approximately 70% of Americans are stressed due to their work. Statistic Canada (2009) reported that 39% of employees are slightly stressed; 25% are somewhat stressed and 5% are extremely stressed at work.
Previously, also in an educational context, job stress in teachers has been defined as ‘the
experience by a teacher of unpleasant emotions, such as tension, frustration, anxiety, anger and depression, resulting from aspects of his work as a teacher’ (Kyriacou 1987, 146). Gold and Roth (2013, 17) introduce three major aspects of stress: ‘(1) stress is triggered and sus-tained by the intellectual or cognitive processes a person chooses to use, (2) it is affected by the emotions we experience, and (3) it affects our physical condition or health’ .
Stress is to be distinguished from eustress and distress. Selye (1964) was one of the first
to discuss the difference between the three forms. While he defined stress as ‘ …the non‐ spe-
cific response of the body to any demand placed upon it. ’ (Selye 1987, 17), distress occurs when the body can no longer cope with the physiological and/or psychological demands. In other words, in the case of distress the employee needs to deal with too much or too few demands. In contrast, eustress refers to the optimal amount of stress, not too much and not
too little. In sum, all stress is either distress or eustress. It is the degree of demand that deter –
mines if distress or eustress occurs (l e Fevre, Matheny, and Kolt 2003).
Although the definitions of stress and burnout are related, previous research found that
stress and burnout are distinguishable concepts. Pines and Keinan ( 2005 ) found that burnout
and strain are both adverse responses to job stressors, but that they have different anteced-
ents, correlates and consequences. They conducted a path analysis based on a data-set with
1182 Israeli police officers, finding that job stressors were more highly correlated with stress
than with burnout, while it was the other way around for job importance. Finally, burnout
was more highly correlated with outcome variables such as job disatisfaction, desire to leave
the job, physical and emotional symptoms and perceived performance.
Stress, social support and burnout
Various researchers have been studying the antecedents of stress, and the impact of resources
such as social support on the consequences of stress, such as burnout (Friedman 2002). Theoretical models of stress claim that the perceptions of resources, such as social support, along with the level of demand predict the experience of stress. For example, the cognitive transaction model of lambert and McCarthy (2006) focused on teachers specifically. They argue that teachers evaluate stressful demands according to the available resources under their control. Also other theoretical models have been used to discuss the determinants of
stress, such as the person–environment fit theory (Edwards et al. 1998); the cybernetic theory

EDUCATIONAl RESEARCH 353
(Cummings and Cooper 1998) and the control theory (Spector 1998; for a summary, see the
article of l e Fevre, Matheny, and Kolt 2003). Across many nations, these theories have been
studied in educational contexts, generally with teachers not principals (Ullrich, lambert, and
McCarthy 2012). More generally, previous studies found that social support has a positive
influence on both the organisation and the psychological traits of the employee. At the same
time support reduces the impact of negative factors (Marshall, Michaels, and Mulki 2007; Sawyer and Rimm-Kaufman 2007). Previous studies involving teachers and professionals in other sectors indicate that supportive informal social networks that offer guidance and reassure colleagues from time to time, can reduce professionals’ level of stress, especially in
rural areas where individuals might be more isolated (Russell, Altmaier, and Van Velzen 1987;
Marshall, Michaels, and Mulki 2007; Sawyer and Rimm-Kaufman 2007).
With respect to the relationship between stress and burnout, in a schooling context,
McCormick and Barnett (2011) investigated the link between burnout and Australian high-
school teachers’ perceptions of job stress (n = 416). They found that stress was mostly caused
by the disruptive behaviour of students. Other sources of stress were related to the task (e.g.
administrative paperwork), school (e.g. sense of community) and/or the larger system (e.g. reorganisations). Given previous research and the previously discussed DSC model and the
JD-R model on the one hand, and the theoretical models on stress on the other, it is hypoth –
esised that:
H2: Stress increases burnout in school principals.
H3: Social support (from colleagues, supervisor(s) and the larger community) reduces burnout
indirectly by decreasing stress.
Purpose of the study
This study examines how social support (from colleagues, supervisors and the broader com –
munity) influences the level of stress and burnout in principals. The central research questions
are: (1) How does social support from colleagues, supervisors and the community (at time
1 (t1)) influence the level of burnout (at time 2 (t2), time 3 (t3) and time 4 (t4))? (2) How does social support from colleagues, supervisors and the community (at t1) influence the level of stress (at t2, t3 and t4)? and (3) Does stress mediate the relation between social support and
burnout? Given previous research, mostly with teachers, it is hypothesised that:
(1) Social support negatively influences burnout in principals.
(2) Social support negatively influences stress in principals.
(3) The relation between social support and burnout is mediated by stress. Higher levels of social support will influence principals’ experience of stress and in turn, they will exhibit fewer burnout symptoms.
Since stress and burnout are psychological phenomena that develop over time, a longitu-
dinal approach was adopted. Data were collected across four annual waves, spread over four
years, from 2011 to 2014.

354 S. BEAUSAERT ET Al.
Method
Participants
Over the four years of the panel survey, responses have been collected from 3675 principals
and deputy or assistant principals working in primary and secondary schools spread over
all Australian states and territories. It is worth noting that not every school has a deputy/assistant principal, and many large schools have more than one. Our data include 10–15 schools each year where more than two leaders participated in the same year and 160–170 schools where two leaders (one principal and one deputy) participated. While, according to multilevel approaches, these responses are not termed ‘independent’ , in this study design, we treated multiple responses from the same school as if they were independent in order to capture the personal perception of the support received that influences an individual’s
level of (mental) well-being. The collected data represent approximately 26% of all principals
in the country with 20–25% completing the survey each year. Very low rates of panel attrition
have occurred across the study for the principals remaining in the role, which equals a reten –
tion rate of approximately 90%. However, there are high rates of retirement due to the high mean age of the cohort.
The sample for the study consisted of 3572 primary (n = 2660) and secondary (n = 912)
school principals spread over all Australian states and territories at t1. Women represented
58% of the primary school principals and 50% of the secondary school principals. Most were
aged between 46 and 55 (male and females 45%) or 56–65 (36 and 41%, respectively). On average, primary school principals had been in a leadership position (deputy/assistant or principal) for 13 years (SD = 8); secondary school principals for a slightly shorter length of
time (M = 12, SD = 8 years). They were mainly working in Governmental schools (primary:
69%, secondary: 81%), but also in Catholic (primary: 16%, secondary: 9%) and independent schools (primary: 15%, secondary: 11%). Their schools were fairly well distributed over the ten deciles of the national socio-economic index, i.e. the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas, which ranks areas in Australia according to their relative socio-economic advantage and
disadvantage. The schools were mostly situated in suburban (primary: 40%, secondary: 38%),
rural (primary: 27%, secondary: 20%), and urban locations (primary: 17%, secondary: 25%).
Procedure
The present study is drawn from a larger project investigating the health and well-being of
Australian school principals (including deputy/assistant principals).2 Participants voluntarily
provided contact details to the researchers to be used for subsequent invitations. The invi-tations and reminder emails were sent out two weeks apart while the survey was open. The survey website opened for twelve weeks to collect each wave of data, from April to July in 2011 and from early July to late September in 2012–2014. All principals who completed the survey in Year 1 were invited in the subsequent years to complete an update survey.
Instruments
The scales used in the present study are presented below. All scales were taken from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ-II; Pejtersen et al. 2010). COPSOQ-II assesses a range of dimensions of the working psychosocial environment and the person’s

EDUCATIONAl RESEARCH 355
well-being. The psychometric qualities of this questionnaire have been demonstrated among
large sample of participants from numerous occupations and countries (Nübling et al. 2006;
Albertsen et al. 2010; Bjorner and Pejtersen 2010; Burr et al. 2010; Nuebling and Hasselhorn
2010; Pejtersen, Bjorner, and Hasle 2010; Thorsen and Bjorner 2010; Dupret et al. 2012).
We gauged three dimensions to measure social support resources: social support from
colleagues (inside and outside school), from supervisors and from the broader community. Social support from colleagues inside the school refers to all other workers in the school: from the leadership team through to the school caretaker. Social support from colleagues
outside the school refers to other principals, from other schools. In Australia there are regular
regional/cluster group meetings and principals build strong networks among these col-leagues. The broader community scale refers to the broader professional network, not only including other principals, but also teachers, counsellors, parents, and community leaders.
We measured social support from colleagues (inside and outside the school) with six items (e.g.
‘How often do you get help and support from colleagues outside your school?’) on a 5-point
likert-scale (1 = ‘Never/Hardly Ever’ to 5 = ‘Always’). At t1, three items that did not discrimi-
nate whether the source was inside or outside or school were used. Over all years, the scale
achieved acceptable reliability (α = 0.76–0.77). Support from supervisor and support from the
broader community were measured with three items each (e.g. ‘How often is your nearest superior willing to listen to your problems at work?’ and ‘Do you feel part of a community at your place of work?’ , respectively). Both scales were measured on a 5-point likert-scale (1 = ‘Never/Hardly Ever’ to 5 = ‘Always’) and achieved good reliability in all years (α = 0.87–
0.88 and 0.80–0.83, respectively).
We measured burnout (e.g. ‘How often have you been emotionally exhausted’) and stress
(e.g. ‘How often have you had problems relaxing?’) with four items each. While the stress scale measured how tense, irritable and stressed people where, the burnout scale studied physical and emotional exhaustion and how often people felt tired. Both scales were
answered using a 5-point likert-scale (1 = ‘Not at all’ to 5 = ‘All the time’). The scales achieved
excellent reliability in all years (α = 0.91 and 0.88–0.92, respectively).
Analyses
We tested the hypotheses using a latent variable cross-lagged panel model approach using Maximum likelihood estimation in Mplus 7.11 (Muthén and Muthén 2012). In total, we checked three competing models. We assessed model fit using chi square divided between
degrees of freedom (χ2/df, acceptable if between 2 and 3) root mean square error of approx –
imation (RMSEA, acceptable if ≤ 0.08; Browne and Cudeck 1993), comparative fit index (CFI,
acceptable if ≥ 0.90), and standardised root mean squared residuals (SRMR, acceptable
Figure 1. o verview of the models tested.

356 S. BEAUSAERT ET Al.
Table 1. Means (M), standard deviations (sd ) and relationships between variables.
all relationships p < 0.01.Variable M SDVariable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1 col-
leaguet12.74 0.81
2 col-
leaguet22.82 0.66 0.49
3 col-
leaguet32.79 0.65 0.47 0.61
4 col-
leaguet42.79 0.66 0.44 0.61 0.62
5 supervist12.94 0.97 0.42 0.24 0.24 0.21
6 supervist23.02 1.01 0.29 0.36 0.24 0.20 0.56
7 supervist33.13 1.04 0.20 0.20 0.26 0.15 0.48 0.62
8 supervist43.14 1.01 0.22 0.21 0.25 0.28 0.45 0.53 0.59
9 com –
munt11.82 0.59 0.41 0.27 0.24 0.25 0.21 0.12 0.06 0.08
10 com –
munt21.86 0.63 0.28 0.38 0.31 0.30 0.16 0.23 0.13 0.13 0.53
11 com –
munt31.84 0.61 0.27 0.31 0.40 0.32 0.17 0.15 0.21 0.16 0.46 0.56
12 com –
munt141.86 0.60 0.26 0.27 0.34 0.36 0.14 0.10 0.15 0.22 0.42 0.48 0.56
13 stresst13.16 0.81 −0.25 −0.21 −0.22 −0.19 −0.20 −0.20 −0.12 −0.10 −0.27 −0.28 −0.27 −0.24
14 stresst23.17 0.81 −0.17 −0.23 −0.19 −0.14 −0.12 −0.20 −0.12 −0.09 −0.22 −0.34 −0.27 −0.25 0.63
15 stresst33.20 0.80 −0.16 −0.19 −0.22 −0.18 −0.12 −0.16 −0.19 −0.13 −0.16 −0.25 −0.32 −0.26 0.63 0.67
16 stresst43.22 0.80 −0.12 −0.16 −0.21 −0.18 −0.08 −0.11 −0.14 −0.15 −0.16 −0.23 −0.25 −0.28 0.58 0.63 0.66
17 Burnoutt12.78 0.87 −0.22 −0.16 −0.21 −0.14 −0.17 −0.16 −0.12 −0.09 −0.24 −0.22 −0.24 −0.16 0.74 0.54 0.53 0.51
18 Burnoutt22.76 0.85 −0.12 −0.18 −0.16 −0.13 −0.10 −0.16 −0.12 −0.07 −0.16 −0.25 −0.21 −0.20 0.50 0.72 0.56 0.51 0.61
19 Burnoutt32.83 0.86 −0.14 −0.18 −0.21 −0.18 −0.08 −0.14 −0.16 −0.11 −0.13 −0.19 −0.25 −0.22 0.52 0.54 0.76 0.57 0.61 0.64
20 Burnoutt42.85 0.87 −0.11 −0.15 −0.17 −0.14 −0.08 −0.14 −0.14 −0.15 −0.10 −0.20 −0.20 −0.22 0.45 0.53 0.54 0.74 0.57 0.62 0.65

EDUCATIONAl RESEARCH 357
if ≤ 0.08; Hu and Bentler 1999; Byrne 2010). Missing data were handled using full information
maximum likelihood estimation (Enders 2010), which is a common method in structural
equation modelling (Dong and Peng 2013).Table 2. Fit indices for the different models.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
χ2/df 2.60 2.59 2.24
RMsEa 0.03 0.03 0.03
cFi 0.94 0.94 0.95
tli 0.93 0.93 0.95
sRMR 0.11 0.10 0.08
Table 3. Path estimates of the structural equation model.
Estimated path Primary school Secondary school
From To β SE p β SE p
Autoregressive relationships
colleaguet1→ colleaguet20.553 0.026 0.000 0.520 0.050 0.000
colleaguet2→ colleaguet30.705 0.018 0.000 0.681 0.034 0.000
colleaguet3→ colleaguet40.705 0.018 0.000 0.689 0.036 0.000
supervist1→ supervist20.619 0.021 0.000 0.630 0.038 0.000
supervist2→ supervist30.673 0.018 0.000 0.692 0.031 0.000
supervist3→ supervist40.063 0.030 0.035 0.014 0.049 0.780
communt1→ communt20.643 0.022 0.000 0.648 0.042 0.000
communt2→ communt30.661 0.022 0.000 0.671 0.037 0.000
communt3→ communt40.133 0.035 0.000 0.040 0.045 0.380
stresst1→ stresst20.640 0.022 0.000 0.676 0.036 0.000
stresst2→ stresst30.690 0.018 0.000 0.728 0.031 0.000
stresst3→ stresst40.697 0.018 0.000 0.724 0.031 0.000
Burnoutt1→ Burnoutt20.276 0.027 0.000 0.396 0.047 0.000
Burnoutt2→ Burnoutt30.306 0.024 0.000 0.369 0.048 0.000
Burnoutt3→ Burnoutt40.346 0.025 0.000 0.385 0.045 0.000
Relationships with stresscolleague
t1→ stresst20.046 0.041 0.261 0.039 0.065 0.542
supervist1→ stresst2−0.029 0.031 0.336 0.041 0.053 0.439
communt1→ stresst2−0.090 0.033 0.007 −0.182 0.055 0.001
colleaguet2→ stresst3−0.009 0.028 0.741 −0.053 0.049 0.283
supervist2→ stresst3−0.043 0.025 0.090 −0.038 0.043 0.378
communt2→ stresst3−0.074 0.028 0.009 0.002 0.052 0.964
colleaguet3→ stresst4−0.031 0.028 0.275 −0.136 0.050 0.006
supervist3→ stresst4−0.004 0.026 0.867 0.057 0.048 0.231
communt3→ stresst4−0.031 0.031 0.305 0.010 0.059 0.867
Relationships with burnoutcolleague
t1→ Burnoutt20.003 0.035 0.930 −0.011 0.056 0.852
supervist1→ Burnoutt20.023 0.027 0.382 0.018 0.044 0.686
communt1→ Burnoutt20.066 0.028 0.021 0.060 0.047 0.199
stresst2→ Burnoutt20.649 0.023 0.000 0.567 0.043 0.000
colleaguet2→ Burnoutt3−0.051 0.023 0.026 −0.133 0.042 0.002
supervist2→ Burnoutt30.023 0.021 0.264 −0.021 0.036 0.570
communt2→ Burnoutt30.076 0.023 0.001 0.120 0.043 0.005
stresst3→ Burnoutt30.651 0.022 0.000 0.560 0.044 0.000
colleaguet3→ Burnoutt40.034 0.023 0.151 −0.027 0.046 0.559
supervist3→ Burnoutt4−0.029 0.022 0.173 −0.009 0.042 0.837
communt3→ Burnoutt40.059 0.025 0.018 −0.039 0.051 0.449
stresst4→ Burnoutt40.591 0.022 0.000 0.531 0.038 0.000

358 S. BEAUSAERT ET Al.
Results
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of all concepts under study and the cor –
relations between them. While all of the relationships are statistically significant, we observe
stronger relationships of the variables with themselves across time (autocorrelation, e.g.
colleaguet1 and colleaguet2: r = 0.49, p < 0.01) and between burnout and stress (e.g. stresst1
and burnoutt1: r = 0.74, p < 0.01).
We tested three models. For all models, the error terms between the measures over time
were allowed to correlate. Model 1 contains autoregressive paths only. Model 2 adds social support
t (from colleagues; supervisor(s); and the broader community) as predictors for
stresst+1 and burnoutt+1. Model 3 builds on Model 2 and adds stresst as a predictor of burnoutt.
The models are summarised in Figure 1.
As shown in Table 2, Model 3 achieved the best model fit (χ2/df = 2.24, RMSEA = 0.026
with 90% CI [0.026, 0.027], CFI = 0.950, SRMR = 0.077, TlI = 0.945) and was used to test the
hypotheses. All standardised factor loadings of the measurement model were ≥0.60.
Table 3 shows the path coefficients for Model 3. In general, the model explains a large
part of the variance of burnout across the measurement points for both primary (R2 = 0.64–
0.72) and secondary school principals (R2 = 0.68–0.70). We found strong autoregressive
effects among all variables. Additionally, we noted negative cross-lagged relationships of social support
t on stresst+1.
As hypothesised in Hypothesis 1, we found small negative relationships of social support
from colleagues (at t 2) on burnout (at t 3) for both primary (β = −0.05, p ≤ 0.01) and secondary
school principals (β = −0.13, p ≤ 0.01). However, these relationships were not significant for
any other measurement point. We found positive relationships between social support from
the broader community and burnout at t1 (primary school principals: β = 0.07, p ≤ 0.05), t2
(primary school principals: β = 0.08, p ≤ 0.01; secondary school principals: β = 0.12, p ≤ 0.01),
and t3 (primary school principals: β = 0.06, p ≤ 0.05). This positive relationship, instead of a
negative one, which is more pronounced for primary school principals than for secondary school principals, does not support the hypothesis.
In support of Hypothesis 2, we found strong positive relationships between stress
t and
burnoutt for both primary and secondary school principals across all points of measurement
(stresst2 → burnoutt2 (β = 0.65, p ≤ 0.01; β = 0.57, p ≤ 0.01, respectively), stresst3 → burnoutt3
(β = 0.65, p ≤ 0.01; β = 0.56, p ≤ 0.01, respectively), and stresst4 → burnoutt4 (β = 0.59, p ≤ 0.01;
β = 0.53, p ≤ 0.01)).
In partial support of Hypothesis 3, we found small negative indirect relationships between
social supportt and burnoutt+1 via stresst+1. Specifically, social supportt from the broader
community showed significant negative indirect relationships with burnoutt+1 at time 1
(primary school principals: β = −0.06, p < 0.01; secondary school principals: β = −0.10,
p < 0.01) and time 2 (primary school principals: β = −0.05, p < 0.01). Furthermore, social sup –
port from colleagues at time 3 had a significant negative relationship with burnout at time 4 among the secondary school principals (β = −0.07, p < 0.01).
Discussion
Burnout in principals is a well-known problem in the educational sector, sometimes with extreme consequences. It leads to a reduced performance, reduced initiative and creativity

EDUCATIONAl RESEARCH 359
and increased drop-out and absenteeism (Timms, Brough, and Graham 2012). In the past,
researchers tried to identify factors influencing teachers’ , and to a lesser extent, principals’ risk of burnout with an eye to prevention. Maslach (1999) distinguished between individual
and contextual determinants, concluding that the contextual determinants might negatively
influence burnout. As suggested in literature and in line with the Job Demands–Constraint model, this study took previous research a step further by focusing on one specific environ-mental condition, namely social support. In addition, this study unravelled multiple facets
of social support by making a distinction between support from colleagues both inside and
outside the school, and support from supervisors and the broader community. Finally, we took a longitudinal perspective, since burnout is assumed to develop over time, measuring all variables under study at four different points in time, spread across four years.
We hypothesised that social support would have both direct effects (Hypotheses 1 and
2) and indirect effects via stress on burnout (Hypothesis 3).
The data provide strong evidence for a positive effect of stress on burnout and partial
support for indirect negative effects of social support on burnout. As hypothesised in Hypothesis 1, a negative effect of social support from colleagues (at t2) on burnout (at t3)
was found, for both primary and secondary school principals. In line with Hypothesis 2, there
were strong positive effects of stresst on burnoutt across all points of measurement. Finally,
in partial support of Hypothesis 3, a negative indirect effect of social supportt on burnoutt+1
via stresst+1 was confirmed.
In general, these results are in line with the DSC model (Payne 1979) and the JD-R model
that states that the lack of support in a high-demanding environment leads to stress and
burnout (Friedman 2002). This study supported the findings by Fernet et al. (2012) on teach –
ers, as we found that when principals lack or lose social support from colleagues, they will be more likely to burnout over time. However, at the same time our findings suggest that social support might also buffer burnout. Similarly, previous research on burnout among teachers found that greater co-worker support lead to decreased depersonalisation and
increased feelings of accomplishment (Greenglass, Burke, and Konarski 1997). Betoret (2009)
also researched 724 primary and secondary school teachers in Spain and found that job stressors have a significant positive effect on teachers’ burnout. Finally, our findings are in line with previous longitudinal studies (e.g. Fernet et al. 2012) looking into how burnout in teachers develops over time. As with teachers, burnout in principals can be predicted by how they perceive social support from colleagues.
However, in contrast to Hypothesis 1, social support from colleagues on burnout was not
significant for any other measurement point, but for t2 (support from colleagues) and t3 (burnout). These results seem to suggest that social support from colleagues cannot always
buffer burnout in principals and might interact with other contextual and individual factors,
such as national policy, job pressure, task demands and motivation. Trépanier et al. (2014),
for example, identified a significant relationship between job demands and burnout in teach –
ers. In addition, it was found that passion (i.e. both harmonious and obsessive passion) partially mediates the relationship between demands and burnout. Another study con-ducted by Fernet et al. (2012), also focussing on teachers, indicated that autonomous moti-vation negatively predicts emotional exhaustion, one of the three burnout components. Self-efficacy predicted all three components of burnout significantly negatively.
An interesting finding was two instances of positive effects of social support from the
broader community on burnout. This suggests that the more support principals receive from

360 S. BEAUSAERT ET Al.
the broader community, the more likely they are to show burnout symptoms. This finding
stands in contrast to previous findings with teachers (e.g. Fernet et al. 2012 ) and our hypoth –
esis. A possible explanation for this unexpected finding might be what we call ‘the downside
of empathy’ . Principals who feel supported by their community might also feel more con-
nected to that community and therefore more vulnerable to the stresses of that community.
If circumstances mean the community is struggling, the principal is perhaps more likely to
be struggling as well. The fact that this effect is stronger for principals working in primary than secondary schools seems to support our hypothesised explanation. Often primary principals are part of a smaller community than secondary principals. When you are part of a smaller community, you might more easily feel connected to the community and conse –
quently be more easily affected by their struggles.
Finally, concerning the mediation effect, social support from the broader community
showed significant negative indirect relationships with burnout at time 1 (in primary and secondary education) as well as at time 2 (in primary education). Next, social support from colleagues at time 3 had a significant negative relationship with burnout at time 4 among the secondary school principals. However, while stress is significantly negatively related to burnout at all times (for both primary and secondary principals), this is not the case for the paths going from social support to stress. Also this finding might suggest that stress cannot be buffered by social support alone, but also depends on other contextual and individual factors. It might be the case that some years were more stressful than others because of innovation, policy changes, personal circumstances, etc. In line with previous remarks and although significantly negative relations were found, the effect sizes were rather small, per –
haps due to some of the confounding variables that we could not control in this research.
Limitations of the current study and pathways for future research
This study has several findings that lead to suggestions for future research. First, since pre –
vious research indicated the importance of focusing on specific determinants, we decided
to study different types of social support. Our study found differential effects for three types
of social support on stress and burnout in principals. This seems to indicate that making a distinction between different types of social support to predict burnout is relevant. The
results show that support from colleagues and to a lesser, but still significant extent, support
from supervisors might buffer stress and burnout in primary and secondary school principals.
In contrast, feeling strongly connected to a broader community might even negatively pre –
dict stress and burnout in principals. Future qualitative research could study the underlying
reasons for the results we found in more detail. For example, how is it possible that principals
who feel connected to a broader community feel more stressed and show more burnout, when social support predicts lowering of both?
Second, future research could take this study one step further by studying, for example,
the role of other resources of social support such as social support from parents of children in the school. Future studies could also further unravel other antecedents and examine dif-
ferent types of job demands, i.e. quantitative, emotional, and cognitive demands. Also, other
environment-related antecedents could be studied, such as educational policy, to have a more complete picture of environmental antecedents of burnout in principals.
In addition, it might be the case that the influence of particular antecedents on burnout
is different depending on the burnout component. We used the COPSOQ II questionnaire

EDUCATIONAl RESEARCH 361
for measuring burnout, including emotional exhaustion. The COPSOQ II contains a one-di-
mensional, shorter questionnaire than the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI: 1996). However,
it is not able to make a distinction between the three dimensions of burnout: emotional
exhaustion, depersonalisation and personal accomplishment. Future research could repeat
our study and make use of the MBI for measuring burnout to study the relationship between
the three dimensions.
Third, the questionnaire measuring social support wanted to map principals’ resources
for social support (e.g. ‘How often do you get help and support from colleagues outside the
school?’). However, it is possible that participants who were in need of support and therefore
made more use of these resources, responded more positively than principals who did not
really feel the need and did not look for support, although they are people with a high social
capital and high support resources. In other words, it is possible that the scale measured if participants take advantage of available support rather than if they can rely on support resources. In future studies a more explicit distinction could be made.
Fourth, the study is based on a large sample of 3572 Australian principals in primary and
secondary schools, which make the findings applicable to the target population. However, the question remains whether the findings may be also generalised to principals in other
countries. Since each country has its own set of educational policies and systems, this requires
further testing. Therefore, we suggest that future research might replicate this study in other
countries.
Practical implications
The multiple and various demands on principals, in combination with the dominating image
that principals have to carry all the burdens of managing a school, make it seem an impos-sible, often isolated job (Grubb and Flessa 2006). Therefore, having some emotional and
task-related support in the environment might be welcome. The results of this study highlight
the importance of having social support from colleagues to deal with the daily burden of work and prevention of burnout in the long run. This could be achieved by investing in the set-up or maintenance of (online) communities of principals in which task- and emotion-al-related support can be found. Another way of addressing the increased demands could be by restructuring principals’ tasks. Pounder and Merrill (2001) argue that unbundling or repackaging the job responsibilities with an administrative team that shares the leadership of the school could be a solution. In light of these suggestions they talk about ‘co-principal-ship’ in which leadership is shared between two people. While this might appear to be an expensive solution, it may turn out to be the only real way to deal with the ever-increasing demands and complexity of the role.
Conclusion
This longitudinal research with four measurements, spread over four years, studied the effect
of social support from colleagues, supervisors and the larger educational community on stress and burnout in school principals. It was relevant to study multiple facets of social
support, since results differ according to the type of support. It was hypothesised that social
support would have both direct effects on stress and burnout (Hypotheses 1 and 2) as indi-rect effects via stress on burnout (Hypothesis 3). The data provide strong evidence for a

362 S. BEAUSAERT ET Al.
positive effect of stress on burnout and partial support for indirect negative effects of social
support on burnout. Future qualitative research is needed to explain further the relationships
found.
Notes
1. Terminology is varied and in some countries this job is referred to as ‘head teacher’ or similar.
Also, the specific job responsibilities of the school principal or head teacher do vary between educational systems.
2. Details on the whole project, annual reports and the complete survey can be found at
www.principalhealth.org .
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Philip Riley   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3323-5805
References
Albertsen, K., R. Rugulies, A. H. Garde, and H. Burr. 2010. “The Effect of the Work Environment and
Performance-based Self-Esteem on Cognitive Stress Symptoms among Danish Knowledge Workers. ”
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 81–89.
APA (American Psychological Association). 2010. Stress in America Findings. http://www.apa.org/news/
press/releases/stress/national-report.pdf .
Bașol, G. 2013. “A Comparison of Female and Male School Administrators’ Burnout l evels Controlling
for Perceived Social Support. ” Education and Science/Egitim Ve Bilim 38 (169): 3–18.
Betoret, F. D. 2009. “Self‐Efficacy, School Resources, Job Stressors and Burnout among Spanish Primary
and Secondary School Teachers: A Structural Equation Approach. ” Educational Psychology 29 (1): 45–68.
Bjorner, J. B., and J. H. Pejtersen. 2010. “Evaluating Construct Validity of the Second Version of the
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire through Analysis of Differential Item Functioning and Differential Item Effect. ” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 90–105.
Browne, M. W., and R. Cudeck. 1993. “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. ” In Testing Structural
Equation Models, edited by K. A. Bollen and J. S. l ong, 136–162. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burr, H., K. Albertsen, R. Rugulies, and H. Hannerz. 2010. “Do Dimensions from the Copenhagen
Psychosocial Questionnaire Predict Vitality and Mental Health over and above the Job Strain and Effort – Reward Imbalance Models?” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 59–68.
Byrne, B. M. 2010 . Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming.
2nd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Cano-García, F. J., E. M. Padilla-Muñoz, and M. Á. Carrasco-Ortiz. 2005. “Personality and Contextual
Variables in Teacher Burnout. ” Personality and Individual Differences 38: 929–940.
Cummings, T. G., and C. l. Cooper. 1998. “A Cybernetic Theory of Organizational Stress. ” In Theories of
Organizational Stress, edited by C. l. Cooper, 101–121. New York: Oxford University Press.
Day, C., P . Sammons, D. Hopkins, K. l eithwood, and A. Kington. 2008. “Research into the Impact of School
leadership on Pupil Outcomes: Policy and Research Contexts. ” School Leadership and Management
28 (1): 5–25.
Demerouti, E., A. B. Bakker, F. Nachreiner, and W. B. Schaufeli. 2001. “The Job Demands-resources Model
of Burnout. ” Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (3): 499–512.

EDUCATIONAl RESEARCH 363
Demerouti, E., A. B. Bakker, I. Vardakou, and A. Kantas. 2003. “The Convergent Validity of Two Burnout
Instruments. ” European Journal of Psychological Assessment 19: 12–23.
van Dick, R., and U. Wagner. 2001. “Stress and Strain in Teaching: A Structural Equation Approach. ” British
Journal of Educational Psychology 71: 243–259.
Dong, Y., and C.-Y. J. Peng. 2013. “Principled Missing Data Methods for Researchers. ” SpringerPlus 2
(222): 1–17.
Dupret, E., C. Bocerean, M. Teherani, M. Feltrin, and J. H. Pejtersen. 2012 . “Psychosocial Risk Assessment:
French Validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ). ” Scandinavian Journal
of Public Health 40 (5): 482–490.
Edwards, J. R., R. D. Caplan, and R. Van Harrison. 1998. “Person-environment Fit Theory: Conceptual
Foundations, Empirical Evidence, and Directions for Future Research. ” In Theories of Organizational Stress, edited by C. l. Cooper, 28–67. New York: Oxford University Press.
Enders, C. K. 2010. Applied Missing Data Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Engels, N., G. Hotton, G. Devos, D. Bouckenooghe, and A. Aelterman. 2008. “Principals in Schools with
a Positive School Culture. ” Educational Studies 34 (3): 159–174.
Evers, W. J., A. Brouwers, W. Tomic, and H. van Alphen. 2001. “Self-efficacy en burnout bij leraren in het
Studiehuis. ” [Self-efficacy and Burnout among Teachers of the Study-home]. Pedagogische Studiën 78: 169–183.
Evers, W. J., W. Tomic, and A. Brouwers. 2005. “Constructive Thinking and Burnout among Secondary
School Teachers. ” Social Psychology of Education 8: 425–439.
Farber, B. A. 1983. “A Critical Perspective on Burnout. ” In Stress and Burnout, edited by B. A. Farber, 1–22.
New York: Pergamon.
Farber, B. 1984. “Teacher Burnout: Assumptions, Myths, and Issues. ” The Teachers College Record 86 (2):
321–338.
Farber, B. A. 1991. Crisis in Education: Stress and Burnout in the American Teacher. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Fernet, C., F. Guay, C. Senécal, and S. Austin. 2012. “Predicting Intraindividual Changes in Teacher
Burnout: The Role of Perceived School Environment and Motivational Factors. ” Teaching and Teacher
Education 28 (4): 514–525.
Friedman, I. A. 1995. “Student Behavior Patterns Contributing to Teacher Burnout. ” The Journal of
Educational Research 88: 281–289.
Friedman, I. A. 2002. “Burnout in School Principals: Role Related Antecedents. ” Social Psychology of
Education 5: 229–251.
Gold, Y., and R. A. Roth. 2013. Teachers Managing Stress & Preventing Burnout. New York: Routledge.Greenglass, E. R., R. J. Burke, and R. Konarski. 1997. “The Impact of Social Support on the Development
of Burnout in Teachers: Examination of a Model. ” Work and Stress 11 (3): 267–278.
Grubb, W. N., and J. J. Flessa. 2006. “A Job Too Big for One: Multiple Principals and Other Nontraditional
Approaches to School l eadership. ” Educational Administration Quarterly 42 (4): 518–550.
Hu, l., and P . M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis:
Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. ” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal 6 (1): 1–55.
Ju, C., J. lan, Y. li, W. Feng, and X. You. 2015. “The Mediating Role of Workplace Social Support on
the Relationship between Trait Emotional Intelligence and Teacher Burnout. ” Teaching and Teacher
Education 51: 58–67.
Kahn, R. l., and P . Byosiere. 1992. “Stress in Organizations, Vol 3. ” In Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, edited by M. D. Dunnette and l. M. Hough, 571–650. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kahn, J. H., K. T. Schneider, T. M. Jenkins-Henkelman, and l. l. Moyle. 2006. “Emotional Social Support
and Job Burnout among High-school Teachers: Is It All due to Dispositional Affectivity?” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 27 (6): 793–807.
Kim, M. Y., J. Y. l ee, and J. Kim. 2009. “Relationships among Burnout, Social Support, and Negative Mood
Regulation Expectancies of Elementary School Teachers in Korea. ” Asia Pacific Education Review 10
(4): 475–482.

364 S. BEAUSAERT ET Al.
Klusmann, U., M. Kunter, U. Trautwein, O. l üdtke, and J. Baumert. 2008. “Engagement and Emotional
Exhaustion in Teachers: Does the School Context Make a Difference?” Applied Psychology 57 (s1):
127–151.
Kyriacou, C. 1987. “Teacher Stress and Burnout: An International Review. ” Educational Research 29:
146–152. doi:10.1080/0013188870290207.
lambert, R. G., and C. J. McCarthy. 2006. Understanding Teacher Stress in an Age of Accountability.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
le Fevre, M., J. Matheny, and G. S. Kolt. 2003. “Eustress, Distress, and Interpretation in Occupational
Stress. ” Journal of Managerial Psychology 18 (7): 726–744.
lee, R. T., and B. E. Ashforth. 1996. “A Meta-analytic Examination of the Correlates of the Three Dimensions
of Job Burnout. ” Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (2): 123.
leithwood, K., and C. Day. 2008. “The Impact of School l eadership on Pupil Outcomes. ” School Leadership
and Management 28 (1): 1–4.
leithwood, K. A., K. S. l ouis, and S. E. Anderson. 2012. Linking Leadership to Student Learning. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marshall, G. W., C. E. Michaels, and J. P . Mulki. 2007. “Workplace Isolation: Exploring the Construct and
Its Measurement. ” Psychology and Marketing 24 (3): 195–223.
Maslach, C. 1982. “Understanding Burnout: Definitional Issues in Analyzing a Complex Phenomenon. ”
In Job Stress and Burnout, edited by W. S. Paine, 29–40. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Maslach, C. 1999. “Progress in Understanding Teacher Burnout. ” In Understanding and Preventing
Teacher Burnout , edited by R. Vandenberghe and A. M. Huberman, 211–222. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Maslach, C., and S. E. Jackson. 1985. “The Role of Sex and Family Variables in Burnout. ” Sex Roles 12:
837–851.
Maslach, C., W. B. Schaufeli, and M. P . l eiter. 2001. “Job Burnout. ” Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1):
397–422.
Matthews, P ., H. Moorman, and D. Nusche. 2008. “Building l eadership Capacity for System Improvement
in Victoria, Australia” . In Improving School Leadership. Volume 2: Case Studies on System Leadership, edited by Beatriz Pont, Deborah Nusche, and David Hopkins, 179–213. http://www.oecd.org/edu/
school/44375122.pdf .
McCormick, J., and K. Barnett. 2011. “Teachers’ Attributions for Stress and Their Relationships with
Burnout. ” International Journal of Educational Management 25 (3): 278–293.
Muthén, l. K., and B. O. Muthén. 2012. Mplus User’s Guide. l os Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.
Nübling, M., U. Stößel, H. M. Hasselhorn, M. Michaelis, and F. Hofmann. 2006. “Measuring Psychological
Stress and Strain at Work-evaluation of the COPSOQ Questionnaire in Germany. ” GMS Psycho-Social Medicine 3: 1–14.
Nuebling, M., and H. M. Hasselhorn. 2010. “The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire in Germany:
From the Validation of the Instrument to the Formation of a Job-specific Database of Psychosocial Factors at Work. ” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 120–124.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2014). TALIS 2013 Results: An
International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, TALIS. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org.ezproxy1.
acu.edu.au/education/talis-2013-results_9789264196261-en.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2005. Teaching Matter: Attracting,
Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Accessed October 27, 2005. http://www.oecd.org/edu/
teacherpolicy
Olsen, B., and D. Sexton. 2009 . “Threat Rigidity, School Reform, and How Teachers View Their Work inside
Current Education Policy Contexts. ” American Educational Research Journal 46: 9–44.
Payne, R. l. 1979. “Demands, Supports, Constraints and Psychological Health. ” In Response to Stress:
Occupational Aspects, edited by C. J. Mackay and T. Cox, 85–105. l ondon: International Publishing
Corporation.
Pejtersen, J. H., J. B. Bjorner, and P . Hasle. 2010. “Determining Minimally Important Score Differences
in Scales of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. ” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38
(3 Suppl): 33–41.

EDUCATIONAl RESEARCH 365
Pejtersen, J. H., T. S. Kristensen, V. Borg, and J. B. Bjorner. 2010. “The Second Version of the Copenhagen
Psychosocial Questionnaire. ” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 8–24.
Phillips, S., and D. Sen. 2011. “Stress in Head Teachers. ” In Handbook of Stress in the Occupations, edited
by J. langan-Fox and C. l. Cooper, 177–201. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Pines, A. M., and G. Keinan. 2005. “Stress and Burnout: The Significant Difference. ” Personality and
Individual Differences 39 (3): 625–635.
Pounder, D. G., and R. J. Merrill. 2001. “Job Desirability of the High School Principalship: A Job Choice
Theory Perspective. ” Educational Administration Quarterly 37 (1): 27–57.
PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia. (2014). Creating a Mentally Healthy Workplace: Return on Investment
Analysis. http://www.headsup.org.au/creating-a-mentally-healthy-workplace/the-business-case .
Queen, J. A., and D. Schumacher. 2006. “A Survival Guide for Frazzled Principals” . Principal: 18–23. https://
www.naesp.org/resources/2/Principal/2006/N-Dp18.pdf .
Riley, P . 2014. “The Complexities of School l eadership: Many Boundaries to Cross. ” In Boundary-Spanning
in Organizations: Network, Influence, and Conflict, edited by J. langan-Fox and C. l. Cooper, 185–205.
london: Routledge.
Riley, P ., and J. langan-Fox. 2013. “Bullying, Stress and Health in School Principals and Medical
Professionals: Experiences at the ‘Front-line’ . ” In Human Frailties: Wrong Turns on the Road to Success,
edited by R. Burke, C. l. Cooper, and S. Fox, 181–200. l ondon: Gower.
Russell, D. W., E. Altmaier, and D. Van Velzen. 1987. “Job-Related Stress, Social Support, and
Burnout among Classroom Teachers. ” Journal of Applied Psychology 72 (2): 269–274. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.269.
Sánchez-Moreno, E., I. N. D. l. F. Roldán, l. P . Gallardo-Peralta, and A. B. l. de Roda. 2014. “Burnout,
Informal Social Support and Psychological Distress among Social Workers. ” British Journal of Social Work 45: bcu084.
Sawyer, l. B. E., and S. E. Rimm-Kaufman. 2007. “Teacher Collaboration in the Context of the Responsive
Classroom Approach. ” Teachers and Teaching 13 (3): 211–245.
Schaufeli, W. B., and A. B. Bakker. 2004. “Job Demands, Job Resources, and Their Relationship with
Burnout and Engagement: A Multi-sample Study. ” Journal of Organizational Behavior 25 (3): 293–315.
Selye, H. 1964. From Dream to Discovery. New York: McGraw-Hill.Selye, H. 1987. Stress without Distress. london: Transworld.
Spector, P . E. 1998. “A Control Theory of the Job Stress Process. ” In Theories of Organizational Stress,
edited by C. l.Cooper, 153–169. New York: Oxford University Press.
Statistic Canada. (2009). Environmental and Workplace Health. http://www.statcan.gov.gc.ca/start-
debut-eng.htm.
Stephenson, l. E., and S. C. Bauer. 2010. “The Role of Isolation in Predicting New Principals’ Burnout. ”
International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 5 (9): 1–17.
Thorsen, S. V., and J. B. Bjorner. 2010. “Reliability of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. ”
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38 (3 Suppl): 25–32.
Timms, C., P . Brough, and D. Graham. 2012. “Burnt‐out but Engaged: The Co‐existence of Psychological
Burnout and Engagement. ” Journal of Educational Administration 50 (3): 327–345.
Tomic, W., and E. Tomic. 2008. “Existential Fulfillment and Burnout among Principals and Teachers. ”
Journal of Beliefs and Values 29: 11–27.
Trépanier, S. G., C. Fernet, S. Austin, J. Forest, and R. J. Vallerand. 2014. “linking Job Demands and
Resources to Burnout and Work Engagement: Does Passion Underlie These Differential Relationships?”
Motivation and Emotion 38: 353–366.
Ullrich, A., R. G. lambert, and C. J. McCarthy. 2012. “Relationship of German Elementary Teachers’
Occupational Experience, Stress, and Coping Resources to Burnout Symptoms. ” International Journal
of Stress Management 19 (4): 333–342. doi:10.1037/a0030121.
Zapf, D., C. Vogt, C. Seifert, H. Mertini, and A. Isic. 1999. “Emotion Work as a Source of Stress: The Concept
and Development of an Instrument. ” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8 (3): 371–400.