Committed, Resilient, or Transient. School Principals’ Perception of Professional Identity

SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 1 Committed, resilient, or transient. School principals’ perception of professional identity Julián López-Yáñeza, Marita Sánchez-Morenoa, Ana-Inés Renta-Davidsb, and Marta Camarero- Figuerolab aDidactic and Educational Organization, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain; bPedagogy Department, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain Abstract Building a professional identity as school leader is essential to the success of any management project. The Spanish context makes it twice as important to know its managers' perception of their role and practice as school principals. This article aims to: (a) identify principals' profiles based on both the transition from teaching to management and their expectations of permanence in the post; (b) establish relationships between these profiles and relevant aspects concerning the process of building a professional identity as school principals; and (c) to determine whether gender is related in any way to the principals’ profiles and the rest of the aspects investigated. The information was obtained with an ad hoc questionnaire from which 779 valid records were obtained, corresponding to principals of schools in all Spanish regions. Cluster analysis established three principal profiles: committed, resilient, and transient. Subsequent analyses compared the three groups according to the stated objectives. The results and conclusions of the study lead to implications about the need for institutional support for school principals during their transition from teaching and allow us to specify aspects and modalities on which such support should be focused. Keywords: School principal, educational leadership, professional identity, satisfaction at work, principal's motivation, role adaptation Theoretical framework and rationale of the study Identity is a key concept of the socio-cultural perspective applied to the professional development of school leaders. From this perspective, the learning of a professional role is carried out situatedly, meaning that individuals concur to a context of social interaction, SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 2 framed by institutionally established rules, values, and assumptions, with their own set of values and assumptions. Both sets will challenge and occasionally transform each other. In the case of individuals, the product of such permanently negotiated transformation process is a professional identity (Kafa & Pashiardis, 2019; Myran & Sutherland, 2019; Resnick, 2023). Thus, while the role is a socially prescribed, formalized, and relatively static script, identity is changing, dynamic, unplanned, and the result of the agency of the subjects; that is, of their will and ability to act beyond or even against social constraints (Crow & Møller, 2017). Precisely, the construction of a professional identity implies, to some extent, self-direction, that is, the ability to adjust such identity according to one's practice and the context in which it is developed, even challenging dominant conceptions of normative professional identity (Notman, 2017). However, although the process of constructing individual identity may occasionally take on a reflexive dimension, most of this construction is done tacitly, improvised, and reactively. Several layers are involved in this construction. Thus, a principal's professional identity includes at least one identity as an individual, as a teacher (the profession in which they were trained and in which they acquired a particular ethos), and as a principal (which is the post they hold) (Saarukka, 2014). School principals usually arrive to the post with an already constructed professional identity as educators. However, building in parallel an identity as an educational leader is essential to the success of any principalship project (Tubin, 2017). The new role will demand a specific set of ideas, assumptions, and values from which the leadership approach and school project will be established (Saarukka, 2014). How principals perceive key aspects of this process and perceive themselves while constructing their professional identity is very important and requires attention from educational research. Crow and Møller (2017, p. 749) argue that, although the skills and abilities principals must possess to contribute decisively to the improvement of the school SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 3 have dominated political discourses and empirical research, little progress has been made in the study of how school principals perform their role—their practice—and how they perceive themselves during that performance. The particular Spanish context makes it twice as important to know more about principals' perceptions of their role and practice as school principals and the way they build their professional identity. The topic has been the subject of various studies with qualitative approaches (Hernández & Altopiedi, 2023; Moral-Santaella, 2020; Ritacco & Bolívar, 2018, 2019; Authors, 2021) and meta-analysis focus (Bolívar & Ritacco, 2016; Cruz-González et al., 2019, 2021; García-Martínez & Tadeu, 2018; Lucena et al., 2020a, 2020b). A prominent difficulty detected in the process of building a professional identity as educational leader is the above-mentioned coexistence among the different layers that form the role. Bolívar and Ritacco (2016) refer to a dual identity, as most principals combine principalship with teaching (although with reduced hours); a transient identity, as they return to teaching at the end of the term for which they were selected (although it can be extended under diverse conditions); and a hybrid identity, as they feel at the same time that they are representatives of the administration and the educational community; in other words, managers and pedagogical leaders (Bolívar, 2019). This last aspect, their hybrid identity, on the one hand, as a delegated authority and, on the other hand, as primus inter pares, is marked by a notable lack of autonomy that all parties acknowledge. Lack of autonomy refers both to the fact that most strategic decisions are made at the level of the administration of the education system and that principals must share their authority with several collegiate and single-person bodies that have responsibilities at different levels. As Ritacco and Bolívar (2018) acknowledge, this authority, limited by the structure, obliges principals to develop social and leadership competencies in general, as well as to adopt roles that are not prescribed by the structure, for SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 4 example, acting as mediators in conflicts, promoters of social cohesion and a positive work environment, etc. Other characteristics of the Spanish educational system with remarkable impact on principals’ practice will be addressed in the next section. They are added to the difficult balance we have referred between different and sometimes competing identities defining principals’ role. All together are a relevant source of conflict and psychological stress for principals. However, Spanish educational research has scarcely addressed so far large-scale studies on the working conditions of principals and their well-being at work and, particularly, on the role of emotions in the practice of leadership and in professional development. This is the gap that the research project that serves as the basis for this article tried to fulfil 1 . The general purpose of the project was to contribute to the knowledge of the practice of school principalship, the principals' perceptions of their roles and responsibilities, the challenges and difficulties they face, the conditions in which this work is performed, and the impact on their affective-emotional health, as well as their emotion management and resilience. The research methodology was mixed, combining case studies based on semi-structured interviews and an ad hoc questionnaire. This article focuses precisely on the results obtained from some of the items of this questionnaire. Specifically, we will address the following objectives: • To identify principals' profiles based on (a) the transition from teaching to principalship and (b) their expectations of tenure in the post. 1 "Working conditions of school principals and the impact on their emotional economy: Analysis from a national and international perspective." funded by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities in the call for R+D+i Challenge Projects (RTI2018-094851-B- I00) SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 5 • To establish a relationship between the principals' profiles and trajectories and (a) the reasons behind their initiative to become principals; (b) the circumstances that have influenced their willingness to exercise that role; (c) their satisfaction with the performance of the post; and (d) their self-perception of certain skills necessary for the practice of principalship. • To determine whether gender is associated with the principals' profiles and trajectories and its relationship with the aforementioned elements that, from our viewpoint, condition the construction of the professional identity as school principals. Study context For a long time and for several reasons, Spanish public policy on school principalship has been a special case among OECD countries. Firstly, school principalship has only recently begun to be considered a professional activity in the fullest sense of the word. Very significantly, from the beginning of the democratic stage, principals were elected by commissions representing all sectors of the educational community: students, families, and teachers. Professional criteria, such as proven experience or specific training, were not even a priority choosing among the candidates. Similarly, not long ago, principals began to receive specific training both as initial and regular as school leaders, which is still perceived as insufficient by most (Ritacco & Bolívar, 2018). In addition, their autonomy for decisionmaking on relevant matters of school management was and still is comparatively lower than that of other neighboring countries. This takes place in a framework of school governance that carries with it the paradox of a great geographical decentralization—where each region autonomously manages its education system within the framework of national laws enacted by parliament—with a great centralization in terms of the school's relationship with the educational administration on which they depend. In this system, collegiate bodies such as SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 6 the school council or the teaching staff have had even more weight than the principals in many strategic and day-to-day decisions. In reality, Spanish principals are teachers who, for a certain period that can be very variable, decide or accept to practice their profession from the school principalship, and after that period, they return to the classroom (Bolívar & Ritacco, 2016). Although the current situation is quite different from that of 30 years ago, we need to know where we come from because our educational system still retains some inertia that continues to condition the practice of school principalship. Principals continue to be selected mostly from among the teaching staff of the school where the vacancy occurs, although there is a growing number of candidates from other schools. However, candidates currently must have an accreditation granted by the administration to teachers who (a) have received a minimum number of hours of specific regulated training; and (b) their managerial experience, if any, has been positively assessed by the inspection service. On the other hand, although the committees responsible for their election continue to include representatives from all sectors of the community, (a) the weight of representatives from outside the teaching profession is considerably lower; (b) the selection is made mainly based on the candidates' professional merits; and (c) one of the elements that have the most relative value in the scale is the specific management project for that school that all candidates must present. Methodology The study used a quantitative research design based on applying a questionnaire with closed questions. This method collects descriptive information from a large population based on theoretical constructs defined a priori. Population and Sample The study population comprises principals of schools in Spain, both public and private. The SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 7 websites of the Autonomous Communities' education administrations were consulted, extracting the official list of public and private schools, adult schools, language schools, and special education schools. After refining the list and removing duplicates and missing values, a mailing list was created, and an e-mail message was sent to the official addresses of 25,991 schools. The message was addressed to the school principal. After two reminders, 937 responses were received. The missing values were analyzed by identifying patterns, observing that 24.8% of the values in the sample were missing. Cases with more than 80% missing values were eliminated, resulting in a sample size of n = 779 valid records. Table 1 describes the resulting sample. Table 1. Profile of the sample of principals participating in the study n % Gender Male 328 36.8 Female 559 62.7 I'd rather not say 4 0.4 Age 25-35 years 21 2.4 36-45 years 188 21.1 46-55 years 392 43.9 56 years or older 292 31.2 Principalship experience 4 years or less 361 41 Between 5 and 8 years 234 26.6 9 years or more 285 32.4 Type of school Public 790 84.5 Subsidized 122 13 Private 23 2.5 School Location Rural area (<1,000 inhabitants) 69 7.4 Town (between 1,000 and 10,000 inhabitants) 259 27.7 SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 8 City (between 10,000 and 100,000 inhabitants) 333 35.6 Large city (>100,000 inhabitants) 274 29.3 Instrument and measures An ad hoc self-report questionnaire was designed for this study based on a literature analysis of the topic. A pilot test was carried out with 5 active principals who evaluated the "clarity" and "relevance" of each item, with 1 being the minimum value and 5 the maximum. In addition, in this pilot test, participants were asked to propose "suggestions or alternative texts" for the items evaluated or other possible answers that needed more clarity. Items that were unclear or impertinent or that needed to be reworded were refined and modified. The final version of the questionnaire has 38 questions organized into 5 blocks: 1) data from the schools, 2) management training, 3) professional identity, 4) principalship practice, and 5) emotional health. The questionnaire was distributed through the Lime Survey online platform and was active during May and June 2022. Informed consent was sought from all participants, and ethical use of data was ensured. For this article, we selected the items of the third block on professional identity (see Appendix A), specifically, the items related to the principals' adaptation and persistence in the principalship post, their perception of their management abilities, the motivation and circumstances that influenced them to access the principalship post, and their satisfaction with the teaching team, the school, and the environment. Below, we describe the preliminary data analysis procedure to verify that the normality assumption was met. A descriptive analysis of all the variables included in the study was performed to confirm the assumption of normal distribution of the data, considering the criteria of kurtosis and skewness +-1.5 (Perez-Medrano, 2010). Seven items did not meet this assumption and were eliminated from the subsequent analysis. SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 9 To confirm the structure of the latent variables, we performed four confirmatory factor analyses for the items of each question and calculated Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient. Finally, we calculated composite variables considering the structure yielded by the confirmatory factor analyses. The preliminary descriptive analyses, the calculation of the reliability coefficient, and the calculation of latent variables were performed with the SPSS program (George & Mallery, 2003). The confirmatory factor analyses were performed with the R program (R Team Core, 2018), using the Lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012), and for the fit indexes results we used the Hu and Bentler’s (1999) rule of thumb recommendations. We use the following fit indexes Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tuker-Lewis Index (TLI), Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). The following variables are included in the analysis: • Adaptation to the role of principal. Principals were asked how they adapted to the role of principal, with a multiple-choice question with the following options: 1) fast and hassle-free, 2) somewhat difficult but only at first, 3) slow and difficult, 4) slow but hassle-free, 5) I am not quite comfortable in this role. They could only choose one option. • Projection in the post. Principals were asked what they would like to do in the near future, with a multiple-choice question with the following options: 1) I would like to continue as the principal of this school for a while, 2) I would like to continue as a principal but in another school, 3) I would like to leave the managerial function and concentrate on teaching, 4) I would like to leave the managerial function and play another role in the education system. They could only choose one option. • Satisfaction with the teaching team, the school, and the environment. The principals were asked to indicate the degree of satisfaction provided by SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 16 Table 2. Analysis of variance Resilient Principals Committed Principals Transient Principals M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F dg η² Satisfaction with the teaching staff 3.88 (.61) 3.84 (.70) 3.76 (.68) 1.704 659 0.005 Satisfaction with school accomplishments 4.10 (.61) 4.07 (.65) 3.94 (.64) 3.771* 660 0.011 Satisfaction with acknowledgment and external influence 3.52 (.57) 3.53 (.65) 3.34 (.64) 6.127*** 660 0.018 Empowerment 3.34 (1.01) 3.26 (1.22) 3.03 (1.14) 4.552** 672 0.013 Self-Interest 2.95 (.80) 2.78 (.83) 2.77 (.78) 3.841* 672 0.011 Proactive Capacity 4.02 (.52) 3.98 (.60) 3.91 (.51) 2.490 675 0.007 Emotion Management 3.87 (.50) 3.91 (.55) 3.78 (.52) 3.324* 675 0.010 Institutional Support/Constraints 2.96 (.59) 2.99 (.62) 2.97 (.62) 0.161 674 0.000 Experience/Selfconfidence 2.77 (.63) 2.74 (.58) 2.78 (.66) 0.258 674 0.001 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .000. The third objective of the study was to establish whether the profiles identified through cluster analysis and the aspects included in the questionnaire related to principals’ identity are associated with gender. Firstly, no significant relationship was observed between the identified profiles and gender, χ² = 1.71, p < .788. Secondly, we found significant differences associated with participants' gender only in the factor institutional support/constraints, linked to the influence of various aspects on their motivation for the post (Question 21). Specifically, women rated the influence of the support received and the institutional constraints on access to principalship higher than men. No significant gender differences were observed in the rest of the variables, as shown in Table 3, which presents the descriptive data and the results of the Student's t-test. SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 17 Table 3: Mean Comparison Man Woman M (SD) M (SD) t Satisfaction with the teaching staff 3.81(.64) 3.85(.67) -0.837 Satisfaction with school accomplishments 4.03(.63) 4.06(.64) -0.663 Satisfaction with recognition and external influence 3.43(.61) 3.50(.62) -1.297 Empowerment 3.30(1.11) 3.20(1.12) 1.035 Self-Interest 2.82(.79) 2.88(.81) -0.990 Proactive Capacity 3.96(.54) 4.02(.54) -1.473 Emotion Management 3.90(.49) 3.85(.55) 1.252 Institutional support/constraints 2.88(.59) 3.02(.61) -2.850** Experience/Self-Confidence 2.75(.64) 2.78(.61) -0.700 **p < .01. Discussion and conclusions Our first research objective was to identify different profiles, considering two aspects related to the construction of the participants' identity as principals: their adaptation to the role of principal and their projection in the post. Cluster analysis identified three principals’ profiles: committed, resilient, and transient. Resilient principals are those who found adapting to the role difficult and yet have continued and wished to continue in the role. Committed principals generally adapted easily to the new role and also wanted to continue being principals. Finally, transient principals had a difficult transition initially and intended to leave the position, returning to teaching in the short term. Some conclusions can be derived from the results associated to such categories. The resilient category represents 42.6% of our sample and is by far the majority profile among the three identified. Este es un resultado relevante, ya que señala que, aunque SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 18 la adaptación de los docentes al nuevo rol es problemática, en un porcentaje notable de casos esto no les hace desistir en su motivación para permanecer en el cargo. Las instituciones educativas afrontan todo tipo de dificultades y retos, desde imprevistos cotidianos hasta crisis multicausales, pasando por sucesos catastróficos. El desarrollo de la resiliencia en sus líderes es fundamental para que las escuelas no solo sobrevivan a estos cambios, sino salgan reforzadas en su confianza y sentido de la autoeficacia (Sutherland, 2017). Some case studies in our country have proved that motivation, commitment and attitude of service were key factors in developing a strong identity as resilient leaders (Hernández-de-la-Torre & Altopiedi, 2013; Olmo-Extremera et al., 2022) With a 27.7%, transient principals appear as a qualified minority. As experiences strongly shape identity (Haybi-Barak et al., 2024; Shaked, 2022), the turbulences of the practice were tough enough in these cases to impede the participants to develop a clear identity as leaders, as other studies have similarly reported (Carrasco & Díaz, 2021; Constantinides, 2023; Cruz-González et al., 2023; Miscenko et al., 2017). As we mentioned before, Spanish school principals are teachers who challenge themselves with a new professional identity for which they have been scarcely prepared. Although resilient and committed principals compound a robust majority of more than 70% willing to remain at the post, continuity in principalship should be reinforced with the support of professional development programs based on induction, expert and peer coaching and other modalities focused on the analysis of the practice (Cosner et al., 2018; Goff et al., 2014; Hallinger & Bridges, 2017; Huber, 2013; Lochmiller, 2014; Lofthouse, 2019). The second objective of our research was to observe how these profiles are associated with different elements that contribute to building the principal's identity, specifically: (a) the reasons for the principals' appointment to the post; (b) satisfaction with the teaching staff, the school's achievements, and the support and acknowledgment they receive; (c) their SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 19 assessment of their abilities; and (d) the circumstances that influenced their access to the post of principalship. First, it was crucial to understand the factors that determine the motivation to pursue the position of school principal, given the global phenomenon of declining interest among teachers in becoming school principals, largely due to the increased responsibility, workload, and growing complexity of the role (Bush, 2015). Our study has found in both resilient and committed principals an orientation toward achieving greater empowerment (having more autonomy and decision-making power). However, the two categories present different profiles concerning the motives that we classified under the label "self-interest," which includes obtaining professional prestige, economic complements, and professional promotion. Resilient principals show somewhat higher self-interest than committed principals. Significantly, transient principals reached the post with weaker motives of empowerment and self-interest than their committed and resilient colleagues. Both types of motivation relate to the classification of intrinsic and extrinsic motives, commonly discussed in other studies. A substantial body of literature, both international (e.g., Walker & Kwan, 2009) and Spanish (Aramendi et al., 2010; Coronel et al., 2012; Martínez- Ruiz & Hernández-Amorós, 2018; Rodríguez-Pulido et al., 2013), indicates that intrinsic motivations (such as personal growth and development) and institutional motivations (improving the school and its educational community) prevail over individual motivations in pursuing the position of school principal. In one study, based on a survey, García-Rodríguez et al. (2020) found a very high preponderance of intrinsic factors (professional development, the possibility of improving their school, etc.) over extrinsic factors (prestige, career advancement, fewer class hours, higher salary, etc.) in the motivation toward the position of principalship. Also, in our study, SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 20 intrinsic factors (based on achieving more empowerment to undertake improvements) were preferentially chosen by all three groups, although the choice of extrinsic motives was also observed in all the groups. In any case, extrinsic motives are insufficient to encourage teachers to assume a responsibility as great as school principalship. The work of García-Rodríguez et al. (2020) yielded another interesting result for our study, establishing a significant relationship between the predominance of extrinsic motives while indicating difficulties in the relationship with students and other educational community members. This indicates that principals who are extrinsically motivated to occupy the post are not as well equipped as the rest—and therefore, they identify more difficulties— to deal with aspects of the role that go beyond the profile of principal and enter the realm of social relations (Crow et al., 2017). This would help to explain why, in our study, the transient principals—those who present the least motivation of any kind from the outset—are more likely to leave their management post. Concerning satisfaction with their performance in the post, the most important conclusion is the significantly lower satisfaction found in the transient principals compared to the other two groups, which hardly differ from each other. This conclusion refers both to satisfaction with the achievements of the school they lead and to the support and acknowledgment they obtain. Regarding satisfaction with teacher relationships, we did not find a significant difference among the three profiles, although the score was slightly lower for transient principals. Likewise, Tejero-González and Fernández-Díaz (2009), in a compilation of the factors associated in various studies with satisfaction in school management, specifically identified the support of the management team, the educational community, the relationship with the teaching staff, and professional recognition. Blose et al. (2022) also emphasized the role of collaboration and the ability to get help and support from different sectors regarding the principals’ satisfaction. Martínez-García and Gil-Flores (2018) SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 21 stated very forcefully that the existence of a collaborative culture in the school is the most relevant aspect to explain satisfaction with the school management. In fact, they pointed out in their study that satisfaction increases when principals manage to involve the educational community in decision-making. Another factor that increased the satisfaction index was the presence of some kind of shared leadership. Although this activity is much more scarcely reported than the previous ones, the collaboration with other principals constituted the third relevant factor of satisfaction with the post in the study of these authors. The same pattern – similar results in resilient and committed principals and significantly superior to those of transient principals – was found in the participants’ reported ability to manage emotions. Moreover, transient principals report lower scores on their perceptions about personal traits related to proactive capacity. Although there is a nonsignificant difference between the three profiles on this factor, it is consistent with the previous result showing that transient principals may have lower self-perceptions of their personal capacities (proactive capacity and emotional management). These results confirm the relevance of the emotional dimension in shaping principals’ professional identity (Crow et al., 2017; Nordholm et al., 2020). According to Crow et al. (2017) this dimension consists of “the dialogical struggle of seeking coherence of multiple and competing identities.” In our study, the profile of the transient principal resonates with the thesis proposed by Bolívar and Ritacco (2016) that principals in Spain have an ambivalent identity, simultaneously balancing roles as both teacher and a principal. On the other hand, there is ample empirical evidence indicating the strong impact that crises and internal conflicts have on principals’ career expectation (Beausaert et al., 2016). In this regard, our study has identified several factors that contribute to disenchantment with the new role and hinder the development of a professional identity as an educational leader. In short, lower levels of intrinsic motivation when initiating the post, lower levels of satisfaction SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 22 with the school’s achievements and with external acknowledgment, and their lower selfperception of their capacity for emotional management could explain why transient principals desire to leave the principalship post, given its complexity and the demands, not only for specific skills and competencies but also for a willingness to exercise them (Crow & Møller, 2017). Again, increasing support and training actions should focus on providing newly appointed principals with specific tools for emotional management. This recommendation aligns with Zembylas (2014) who proposes a “critical emotional reflexivity” as central target of the preparation programs for educational leaders. Finally, no significant differences were found among the three profiles regarding the influence of contextual and personal issues on principals’ decision to occupy the post. All three profiles have similar scores on institutional support/constraints and experience/selfconfidence factors. This result might indicate that the only factors that influence de decision of remaining at the post are related to the process, which encourage us to reinforce the support that principals receive while in the post. The third objective examined possible gender differences in the profiles and trajectories identified and in the set of elements studied. At this point, gender differences were observed only in the circumstances that influenced access to the post, specifically in institutional support and constraints. In this case, women value more than men the support received from the educational community, colleagues, and the administration to access the post of principalship. Thus, our study recognizes only some gender differences in the aspects studied. It is well-known, however, that gender is a determining factor in building identity, not only of the individual but also of the professional. This is especially so because cultural and political factors make women's experience of leadership different from that of men (Armstrong & Mitchell, 2017; Moorosi, 2020; Murakami & Törnsen, 2017). Jones (2017) explored how SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 23 dominant discourses—which imbue the concept of leadership with traditional masculine values and confine women to domestic and caregiving roles—impact the professional lives of female directors and how they access the post. This suggests that, although women may appear to be able to decide between a variety of identities, this choice is constrained by such discourses and must be continually negotiated. We believe, however, that these differences in how men and women build their professional identity as educational leaders are compatible with the similarities that the two groups present in our study in terms of the reasons for accessing the position, their satisfaction with it, and their expectations of continuity. Limitations and Implications Our research examined some aspects related to how participants perceive themselves in the role of principal and what these aspects tell us about the nuances of the process of building their professional identity as school leaders. It has the advantage of having used a broad sample of active principals. However, it has the limitation of leaving unexplored many personal aspects (such as life experiences, training, or emotions experienced in managerial practice), cultural aspects (related to both the social culture and the organizational culture of the centers in which the role was performed), and political aspects, all of which are highly influential (Crow et al., 2017) and which can be understood only through in-depth interviews. In addition, as individual identity is socially constructed through interaction with others in an institutional context and within a cultural and political context, the interviews should include others involved in the institutional context (Crow & Møller, 2017). The identification in our study of a group of principals who wish to leave school management, slightly more than a quarter of the participants, implies the need for decisive support for this group. The reasons for disappointment are varied. As García-Rodríguez et al. (2020) state, the process of socialization in the new role may seem like a minefield to many SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 24 new principals due to difficulties that they classified into three categories: (a) the relationship with teachers and students, (b) with families and authorities, and (c) with administrative tasks. Another possible source of disappointment is the role conflict that frequently occurs while building a new professional identity. Although the principals value above all the tasks related to pedagogical leadership, such as interpersonal relationships, intervention in situations of conflict of interest between teachers, parents, and administration, intervention in student discipline problems, and communication processes (Vázquez, Liesa, & Bernal, 2016), in practice, the administrative tasks consume the most time (Aramendi, Teixidó, & Bernal, 2010; Araujo et al., 2023). In any case, the research available on the main reasons for dissatisfaction among principals allows us to precisely select the sources of support needed by school principals. Tejero-González and Fernández-Díaz (2009) noted some: the institutional support they receive, the possibilities of professional advancement, the economic supplement, the lack of time, the lack of autonomy, and the general and material conditions of the school. Steward (2014) suggested that the pressure of the day-to-day problems and challenges that principals face recurrently eases in climates of mutual trust and acceptance, where risks can be taken to devise new and useful responses to difficulties. Another aspect that support for new principals should encourage is their self-efficacy. Given that our study has provided evidence of the importance of principals' satisfaction concerning various aspects, professional development programs should encourage systematic reflection on the practice to make the participants aware of their decisive role in their school's achievement, an element with more than sufficient empirical evidence (Hallinger et al., 2018; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Versland & Erickson, 2017; Yada & Savolainen, 2023). Giraldo- García and Orozco (2023) demonstrated a significant increase in participants' self-efficacy in SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 25 a professional development program for junior school leaders based on self-directed individual learning, self-reflection, and sharing experiences and perspectives with other leaders. In short, mentoring and the support of experts and peers during the first years of initiation into school principalship are invaluable sources of support for school principals that should be systematically and institutionally promoted. Note 1. “Working conditions of school principals and the impact on their emotional economy: Analysis from a national and international perspective.” funded by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities in the call for R +D+i Challenge Projects (RTI2018-094,851-B- I00). Disclosure Statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). References Aramendi, P., Teixidó, J., & Bernal, J. L. (2010). El acceso a la dirección escolar en los centros públicos del País Vasco. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 246, 313–332. https://www.revistadepedagogia.org/rep/vol68/iss246/2 Araújo, P., Alonso, R., Delgado, P., & Romão, P. (2023). Efeitos da burocracia na educação inclusiva: As perceções dos diretores portugueses. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.7475 Armstrong, D., & Mitchell, C. (2017). Shifting identities. Negotiating intersections of race and gender in Canadian administrative contexts. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(5), 825–841. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1741143217712721 SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 32 Shaked, H. (2022). Role identity of instructional leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 21(2), 1– 14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1770805 Steward, J. (2014). Sustaining emotional resilience for school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 34(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.849686 Sutherland, I. (2017). Learning and growing: Trust, leadership, and response to crisis. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2015-0097 Tejero-González, C. M., & Fernández-Díaz, M. J. (2009). Medición de la satisfacción laboral en la dirección escolar. RELIEVE, Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 15(2), 1–16. http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v15n2/RELIEVEv15n2_1.htm Tubin, D. (2017). Leadership identity construction practices: The case of successful Israeli school principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(5), 790–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216682503 Vázquez, S., Liesa, M., & Bernal, J. L. (2016). El camino hacia la profesionalización de la función directiva: el perfil competencial y la formación del director de centros educativos en España. Perfiles educativos, 38(151), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2016.151.54921 Versland, T. M., Erickson, J. L., & Ng, D. F. S. (2017). Leading by example: A case study of the influence of principal self-efficacy on collective efficacy. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1286765. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1286765 Vrieze, S. I. (2012). Model selection and psychological theory: A discussion of the differences between the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). Psychological Methods, 17(2), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027127 Walker, A., & Kwan, P. (2009). Linking professional, school, demographic, and motivational factors to desire for principalship. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(4), 590–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X09337895 SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 33 Yada, T., & Savolainen, H. (2023). Principal self-efficacy and school climate as antecedents of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 34(2), 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2023.2170425 Zembylas, M. (2014). The place of emotion in teacher reflection: Elias, Foucault and ‘critical emotional reflexivity’. Power & Education, 6(2), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.2304/power.2014.6.2.210 SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 34 ANNEXES Annex A. Questions analyzed from the questionnaire on professional identity 19. How do you assess your ability concerning…? Very high High Adequate Low Very low Flexibility/adaptation to changes Tolerance of uncertainty Communication/Interpersonal relationships Emotional control Assertiveness (ease to express your viewpoint) Teamwork Leadership Problem-solving Resilience Generating enthusiasm Acknowledgment of limitations Receiving/accepting criticism 20. How do you rate your adaptation to the role of principal? Fast and hassle-free Difficult but only at the beginning Slow and difficult Slow but sure I do not feel comfortable in this role 21. Assess the influence that the following circumstances have had on your willingness to serve as Principal. Little or none Some influence Quite influential A lot of influence The support of the educational community The support of a group of colleagues Institutional or administrative support The characteristics of my current school The conflicts I have managed An improvement/innovation that I have led Experience in management teams My personal characteristics (values, skills, etc.) SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 35 22. Indicate the statement with which you feel most identified concerning what you would like to do in the near future (choose one option). I would like to continue for a while as Principal of this school I would like to continue to hold the position of Principal but in another school I would like to leave the principalship function and concentrate on teaching I would like to leave the principalship function and play another role in the educational system. Which one? 23. To what extent are you motivated by the following personal reasons for being the school Principal: Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Earning merits for professional promotion Accepting the assignment from school colleagues Gaining more social prestige Receiving an economic supplement Having more autonomy Having more decision-making power 27. Rate the degree of satisfaction currently provided by the following aspects: Very high High Adequate Low Very low The involvement of the teaching staff in the school's functioning The achievements of the management team The hallmarks of the school (culture, values, etc.) The students' participation and collaboration in the school projects Ongoing initiatives and projects The social acknowledgment I receive as Principal The teachers' relationships with the families The teachers' willingness to work as a team The support of the Administration/the Owner towards my managerial task Coordination and cooperation with the school's social environment (other schools, associations, etc.) The teachers' relationship with the management team The degree of compliance with the agreements SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 36 The teachers' professional competence The freedom and autonomy to decide SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 37 Annex B - Table X: Descriptive of items and latent variables Question 19. Capabilities N M (SD) Min - Max Proactive Capacity // Number of items = 6 (α = .82) 775 3.99 (0.54) 1 - 5 Leadership 778 3.77 (0.76) 1 - 5 Enthusiasm 776 3.84 (0.78) 1 - 5 Communication/Interpersonal relationships 778 4.11 (0.76) 1 - 5 Teamwork 778 4.21 (0.74) 1 - 5 Assertiveness (ease to show your point of view) 778 3.99 (0.75) 1 - 5 Problem-solving 775 4.06 (0.70) 1 - 5 Managing emotions // Number of items = 6 (α = .74) 776 3.87 (0.53) 1 -5 Resilience (recovering after setbacks) 776 3.91 (0.86) 1 - 5 Tolerance of uncertainty 779 3.58 (0.90) 1 - 5 Flexibility/adaptation to changes 779 4.16 (0.72) 1 - 5 Receiving/accepting criticism 776 3.79 (0.78) 1 - 5 Recognition of limitations 776 4.04 (0.80) 1 - 5 Emotional control 778 3.75 (0.79) 1 - 5 Question 21. Influence of Circumstances N M (SD) Min - Max Support/Institutional Conditions // Number of items=4 (α= .66) 684 2.96 (0.61) 1 - 4 The support of the educational community 684 3.20 (0.83) 1 - 4 The support of a group of colleagues 684 2.39 (1.03) 1 - 4 Institutional or administrative support 684 2.39 (1.03) 1 - 4 The characteristics of my current school 684 3.15 (0.78) 1 - 4 Experience / Self-confidence // Number of items=4 (α= .62) 684 2.77 (0.63) 1 -4 My personal characteristics (values, skills,...) 685 3.15 (0.71) 1 - 4 An improvement/innovation that I have led 684 2.75 (0.88) 1 - 4 Experience in management teams 685 2.46 (1.15) 1 - 4 The conflicts I have managed 684 2.70 (0.88) 1 - 4 SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY 38 Question 23. Motivation N M (SD) Min - Max Empowerment // Number of items = 2 (α = .87) 675 3.23 (1.12) 1 - 5 Having more autonomy 675 3.22 (1.21) 1 - 5 Having more decision-making power 675 3.25 (1.17) 1 - 5 Self-interest // No. of items = 4 (α = .82) 675 2.85 (0.81) 1 -5 Earning merits for professional promotion 675 2.64 (1.23) 1 - 5 Gaining more social prestige 675 2.32 (1.05) 1 - 5 Accepting the assignment from the school colleagues 676 3.52 (1.18) 1 - 5 Receiving an economic supplement 675 2.94 (1.14) 1 - 5 Question 27. Satisfaction N M (SD) Min - Max With the Teaching Team // No. of items = 6 (α = .88) 662 3.83 (0.66) 1.5 - 5 The teachers' professional competence 663 3.79 (0.81) 1 - 5 The teachers' willingness to work as a team 662 3.74 (0.92) 1 - 5 The involvement of the teaching staff in the school's functioning 663 3.88 (0.94) 1 - 5 The teachers' relationship with the management team 663 4.03 (0.76) 1 - 5 The degree of compliance with the agreements 663 3.82 (0.75) 2 - 5 The teachers' relationships with the families 663 3.75 (0.83) 1 - 5 With school accomplishments // No. of items = 4 (α = .82) 663 4.05 (0.64) 2.5 -5 The students' participation and collaboration in the school projects 663 3.90 (0.87) 1 - 5 The hallmarks of the school (culture, values, etc.) 663 4.15 (0.78) 2 - 5 Ongoing initiatives and projects 663 4.02 (0.80) 1 - 5 The achievements of the management team 663 4.13 (0.70) 2 - 5 With outside acknowledgment and influence // No. of items = 4 (α = .62) 663 3.47 (0.62 1.6 - 5 The support of the Administration/the Owner towards my managerial task 663 3.04 (1.15) 1 - 5 The social acknowledgment I receive as Principal 663 3.21 (0.92) 1 - 5 Coordination and cooperation with the school's social environment (other schools, associations, etc.) 663 3.56 (0.91) 1 - 5 The freedom and autonomy to decide 663 3.67 (0.94) 1 - 5