Content uploaded by Nicos Keravnos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nicos Keravnos on Jun 18, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Practices, behaviours and
actions of highly trusted primary
school principals in Cyprus:
An in-depth examination
Nicos Keravnos and Loizos Symeou
Abstract
Faculty trust in educational leadership is a linchpin of schools’functionality and efficacy. Teachers’
trust in their school leaders can significantly influence the work environment, teacher retention
and student achievement. Our study, which employed a comprehensive mixed-methods approach,
including 1320 questionnaires and interviews with 40 teachers and 5 principals, has identified eight
practices, behaviours and actions (Fairness, Respect, Consistency-Reliability, Trusting the Teachers,
Setting the Example, Competence –Organisation, Confidentiality, Open Door –Support) that fos-
ter robust trust in school leaders. These findings are not just insights but practical suggestions that
school principals can implement to enhance faculty trust. By applying these insights, school prin-
cipals can create a more trusting environment, improving teacher retention and student achieve-
ment. Furthermore, policymakers can use these insights to develop training initiatives that
promote the growth of trustworthy educational leaders locally and internationally.
Keywords
Trust, school leadership, principals, faculty trust
Introduction
The success of institutions, including educational establishments, hinges primarily on the collabor-
ation and productivity of individuals striving towards shared objectives. To attain this, a robust
culture of trust is central (Billington, 2021; Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Edwards-Groves et al.,
2016; Harris and Muijs, 2004), as trust forms a fundamental component of healthy interpersonal
relationships (Bormann et al., 2021). Trust is considered a vital element in initiating, maintaining,
repairing and elevating social relationships in the workplace (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). It is an essen-
tial factor that pervades an entire spectrum of workplace relationships, including those between
leaders and followers (Dirks and de Jong, 2022). Schools are complex social systems (Dolloff,
2022; Moore et al., 2019; Moye et al., 2005; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015), and as such,
Corresponding author:
Nicos Keravnos, Frederick University, Republic of Cyprus.
Email: nicoskeravnos@gmail.com
Article
Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
1–32
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17411432241262388
journals.sagepub.com/home/ema
they contain unpredictable and sometimes unfamiliar variables (Tchannen-Moran and Gareis,
2015). In the context of schools, multiple independent personalities are expected to deal with
these unexpected and unfamiliar variables and work together as a group to create the necessary con-
ditions to enhance academic outcomes for all children. Goddard et al. (2009) point out that schools,
as social institutions, rely on the quality of interpersonal relationships to improve learning out-
comes. Healthy interpersonal relationships include, among others, effective communication,
respect for diversity, the presence of a sense of community and enhanced cooperation and cohesion
(Carmeli et al., 2009; Day et al., 2014). Rich interpersonal relationships also contribute to principal
success despite the challenges of the conditions in any given context (Mincu et al., 2024). A culti-
vated and nourished environment of trust in schools is a necessary factor that not only positively
influences such relationships but also holds the potential to significantly enhance academic out-
comes (Mousena and Raptis, 2020; Reina and Reina, 2000; Zhang et al., 2021a).
Cultivating and nourishing a trusting school environment appears to be particularly helpful in
heavily centralised educational systems, perhaps because school leaders who engender trust are
more prone to demonstrate greater efficiency in their professional endeavour (Pashiardis et al.,
2011; Pashiardis et al., 2018; Pashiardis and Savvides, 2013). Studies examining successful
school leadership in Cyprus, where this study took place, underline that, despite a very controlled
system context (e.g. system-controlled curriculum staff appointments, forced job rotations) and
challenging school context (e.g. small schools, rural schools, lack of resources, changing popula-
tions) (Emilianides and Hajisoteriou, 2020; Gurr, 2015), school leaders may attain success and
effectiveness through inspired leadership (Pashiardis and Kafa, 2022). Such inspired leadership
includes people-centred leadership; the development of external relations, including networking
with all implicated parties; the collective and shared perception of ownership between the
members of the school unit; and the articulation and promotion of a clear vision and an endorsed
set of shared values (Kafa and Pashiardis, 2020; Pashiardis and Kafa, 2021; Pashiardis et al., 2011).
Inspired leadership is strongly connected with the Transformational Leadership (TL) approach.
Empirical evidence links TL with successful principalship and trust both in Cyprus (Pashiardis
and Kafa, 2021; Pashiardis and Kafa, 2022; Pashiardis et al., 2011) and internationally
(Anderson, 2017; Browning, 2014; Kılınç et al., 2024) especially during periods of crises
(Masry-Herzallah and Stavissky, 2021; Menon, 2023).
The importance of maintaining trust during a crisis has been well-documented by several studies
(Dückers et al., 2017; Mutch, 2015; Sutherland, 2017). The COVID-19 pandemic has had a signifi-
cant impact on educational systems worldwide (Harris, 2020; Kafa and Eteokleous, 2024), and
school principals found themselves in an unprecedented situation where they had to use their lead-
ership skills and resources to adapt and deliver, making all necessary adjustments and modifications
(Ramos-Pla et al., 2021). During this hectic and demanding period, it became clear that encouraging
and strengthening trust was a critical component of well-functioning schools (Beauchamp et al.,
2021; Bush, 2021; McLeod and Dulsky, 2021). Trust received particular attention worldwide
during the COVID-19 pandemic and was perceived as essential to organisational stability in
complex and demanding conditions (Ahlström et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2023; Fernandez and
Shaw, 2020). Trust, in times of crisis and uncertainty, has been associated with the maintenance
of healthy social relations (Dirks and de Jong, 2022), enhanced social cohesion (Niedlich et al.,
2021), organisational commitment (Bush, 2021) and resilience (McLeod and Dulsky, 2021).
During periods of pressure, school leaders also emphasise the need for more trust in schools and
less emphasis on accountability (Jopling and Harness, 2022). If trust breaks down, accountability
turns into a tick-box exercise where information is occasionally falsified to appear in compliance
2Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
with external demands. Increased accountability may harm trust, as it is frequently perceived as
harming professional pride and integrity and altering and distorting the appropriate goals of profes-
sional activities (Walker et al., 2011).
Prioritising a trusting school environment represents an opportune trajectory for enhancing edu-
cational effectiveness and improvement (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Karacabey et al., 2022;
Leithwood, 2021; Louis and Murphy, 2017; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2000; Van Maele and
Van Houtte, 2012). School leaders should pay particular attention to their day-to-day interactions,
as they play a crucial role in shaping trusting relationships between them and their teachers
(Browning, 2014; Bukko et al., 2021; Handford and Leithwood, 2013; Tschannen-Moran and
Gareis, 2015). Trust building is perhaps one of the leader’s most important tasks (Kosonen and
Ikonen, 2022). A school leader sets the tone in schools (Hoy and Tarter, 2004; Leithwood et al.,
2021; Weinstein et al., 2020) and, thus, is mainly responsible for fostering relationships, creating
the appropriate climate through specific leadership actions, practices and interpersonal behaviours
that build and sustain trust (Boies and Fiset, 2019; Handford and Leithwood, 2013; Howe et al., 2023).
Defining trust
Even though trust has been extensively researched in various contexts, one of the ongoing chal-
lenges among researchers is how to conceptualise and best define it. Whilst literature offers numer-
ous definitions to conceptualise the meaning of trust, there is no universally accepted definition, and
available definitions are complex and vary by academic discipline and context. The term is defined
in so many ways that researchers have ‘marvelled at how confusing the term has become’
(McKnight and Chervany, 2001, p. 28). The confusion between facets of trust, trustworthiness, con-
fidence and vulnerability also contributes to the weakness of the conceptualisation of trust (Shayo
et al., 2021). Comprehending the characteristics that trustors consider when making trust assess-
ments can also present a demanding task (Mayer et al., 1995; Tschannen-Moran, 2020), and
researchers often use various terms to describe these characteristics.
Literature throughout contexts, however, offers commonly accepted and applicable definitions like
the one given by Mayer et al. (1995), where trust is defined as ‘the willingness of a party to be vul-
nerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular
action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party’
(p. 712). Mishra’s(1996)definition emphasises the multidimensional nature of trust concerning
the qualities the trusted person possesses: ‘Trust is one party’s willingness to be vulnerable to
another party based on the belief that the latter party is competent, reliable, open, and concerned’.
Nyhan and Marlowe (1997) developed an organisational trust inventory based on the multidimen-
sional nature of trust. They defined trust as an individual’s or group’s belief that another individual
or group is/are trustworthy, faithful and loyal. One of the most recognisable definitions of trust,
adjusted for educational contexts, is the one developed by Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (1999),
deduced from reoccurring themes: ‘Trustisoneparty’s willingness to be vulnerable to another
party based on the confidence that the latter party is benevolent, reliable, competent, honest, and
open’(Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 1999; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 1998, p. 189).
Faculty trust in the school leader
Within binary relationships marked by power differences and positional distinctions, the cultivation
and sustenance of trust hinge predominantly upon the leader’s practices, behaviours and actions
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 3
(Bligh, 2017; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Kosonen and Ikonen, 2022). Trust is dynamic (Bormann
et al., 2021); it can be enhanced or diminished depending on the fulfilment or disappointment of
expectations (Babaoglan, 2016; Dolloff, 2022; Kutsyuruba & Walker, 2015). Whilst school
leaders are primarily held accountable for student achievement and learning outcomes, their influ-
ence on these aspects is often exerted indirectly (Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2007; Grissom
et al., 2021; Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 2006, 2008). Faculty trust in the school
leader is an essential component that elevates the positive impact on student achievement (Bryk and
Schneider, 2002; Leithwood et al., 2020, 2021; Tschannen-Moran, 2014). It is expected that school
leaders should be familiar with, develop, and nourish what strengthens their teachers’trust in them
(Howe et al., 2023; Lasater, 2016; Northfield, 2014; Tschannen-Moran, 2007) because without trust
and guidance of the school leader, teachers appear less motivated and may be unwilling or unable to
perform to their highest abilities (Gómez-Leal et al., 2022).
The degree of trust leaders enjoy is determined mainly by their trustworthy behaviours, and
when high trust in the leader is present, there is an increased likelihood of attaining school objec-
tives (Bligh, 2017; Çoban et al., 2023; Goddard et al., 2009; Tschannen-Moran, 2014). High trust in
the school leader has been associated, among others, with encouraging and promoting collective
decision-making, enhancing teacher commitment, facilitating school improvement and enabling
the diffusion of good teaching and learning practices across schools, thus leading to improved learn-
ing outcomes (Bukko et al., 2021; Handford and Leithwood, 2013; Niedlich et al., 2021;
Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015). Bryk and Schneider’s (2002) longitudinal research posited
that schools with high trust have more than three times higher chance of improving test scores.
In general, in high-trust school environments, teachers would take risks, feel more encouraged,
are more likely to reach out to colleagues for approaches to teaching and learning (Brown et al.,
2016), have enhanced self-efficacy and exhibit citizenship behaviours in their workplace
(Choong et al., 2020). High-trust environments are also positively associated with teachers’job sat-
isfaction (Atik and Celik, 2020) and positive teachers’learning and professional behaviour
(Goddard et al., 2009).
Eliciting faculty trust
For schools to benefit from a trusted working environment, it is the responsibility of the principal to
establish and foster relationships of trust. This can be achieved through trustworthy behaviour, such
as empowerment, information sharing and support (Atik and Celik, 2020; Hallam and Mathews,
2008). Dirks and Ferrin (2002) suggest that trust is not simply a result of the leader-follower rela-
tionship but also depends on the perception of the leader’s trustworthiness. Leaders’practices,
behaviours and actions that elicit co-workers trust range from complex variables, such as procedural
justice (Bligh, 2017; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002), to leadership styles (Hoy and Tarter, 2004; Jung and
Avolio, 2000; Legood et al., 2021) and in more straightforward and everyday practices, such as
benevolence, openness, competence, integrity, care, daily concern and respect (Bryk and
Schneider, 2002; Lleo et al., 2023; Tschannen-Moran, 2007).
Studies have suggested several factors that contribute to building trust in organisations. One of
the first and most notable meta-analyses was conducted by Mayer et al. in 1995. They analysed 23
surveys conducted between 1958 and 1995 and identified three main characteristics: competence,
benevolence and integrity, which play a significant role in establishing trust. Since then, various
meta-analyses conducted in the field of organisations and schools (Bligh, 2017; Burke et al.,
2007; Dirks and de Jong, 2022; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Sun et al., 2023) and research (Balyer,
4Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
2017; Brown et al., 2016; Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Bukko et al., 2021; Choong et al., 2020;
Handford and Leithwood, 2013) have identified a number of trust-building conditions.
For educational contexts, following an extensive review of literature, Hoy and Tschannen-
Moran (1999, 2003, 2007) produced a trust framework that identified five facets essential in
trust relationships: honesty (being truthful, having integrity, delivering promises, accepting
responsibility); benevolence (extending genuine goodwill, being supportive to teachers, safe-
guarding confidential information); openness (engaging in open communication, not withholding
vital information and decision making); reliability (being consistent, being dependable); compe-
tence (engaging in problem-solving, working hard and setting an example, defending and
protecting teachers, being flexible). Research regarding trust in schools has ever since been
heavily dependent and influenced by their findings (e.g. Adams and Forsyth, 2013; Bukko et al.,
2021; Howe et al., 2023; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015; Van Maele and Van Houtte,
2009; Yavas and Celik, 2010).
A second influential stream on trust in school contexts derives from Bryk and Schneider’s (2002)
longitudinal study. Their research proposed four trust-building considerations: respect, personal
regard, personal integrity and competence in core role responsibilities. To date, their published
work has been cited in over 6000 titles, confirming the significance and influence of their work.
Bryk and Schneider (2002) elaborated on relational trust, which describes the unique social
exchanges of schooling within defined role sets (e.g. teachers with students, teachers with other tea-
chers, teachers with parents and all groups with the school principal). Each party within the rela-
tionship is expected to understand their role obligations and maintain expectations about the role
obligations of other parties (Kolleck, 2023). They emphasise that the well-functioning of school
communities rests on the achieved agreement in each role relationship understandings held about
these personal obligations and expectations of others. Despite the formal power held by any
given role, all parties in the school community remain dependent on others to attain desired out-
comes and feel empowered (Bryk and Schneider, 2002). Such dependencies unavoidably create
a sense of mutual vulnerability, and trust is formed when deliberate actions are taken by any
party to overcome the sense of vulnerability in others to make them feel safe and secure.
Further research in the field has provided extensive evidence regarding what elicits trust. Butler
(1991) has proposed ten trust conditions: integrity, availability, openness, loyalty, promise fulfil-
ment, competence, fairness, discretion, receptivity and reliability. Norman et al. (2010) found
that a leader’s positive psychological capacity and transparency positively impacted the rate of
trust in him/her. To describe the principal’s behaviours and actions that elicit trust, Kagy (2010)
listed four broad categories: communication, confidentiality, engagement and genuineness.
Ghamrawi (2011) suggested that principals implement trust by modelling specific leadership beha-
viours and securing an understanding environment that encourages teachers to engage in profes-
sional dialogue. Five themes or elements of trust that could be linked to specific behaviours
were identified by Coleman (2012): altruism and caring for others, respect and fairness, trusting
others, professionalism and honesty. Handford and Leithwood (2013) proposed thirteen factors or
antecedents of trust: benevolence, caring/concern, competence, fairness, forgiveness, honesty, integ-
rity, loyalty, openness, personal regard, respect and vulnerability. Browning (2014) listed ten critical
trust-building practices in the head-staff dyad: admitting mistakes, offering trust to staff members,
actively listening, providing affirmation, making informed/consultative decisions, being visible
around the school, remaining calm and level-headed, mentoring and coaching staff, care for staff
members and keep confidences. Lleo et al. (2023) research proposed that the qualities of benevolence
and integrity of principals are fundamental in engendering trust and emotional commitment to schools.
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 5
The context of the study
The educational framework in Cyprus is distinguished by a centralised structure of authority, as evi-
denced by scholarly works (Karageorgos et al., 2021; Pashiardis, 2004; Pashiardis and Kafa, 2022),
wherein the Ministry of Education, Sport and Youth (MoESY) holds paramount jurisdiction, man-
dating adherence to centrally issued directives to all educational institutions. The MoESY is respon-
sible for creating and enforcing legislation related to education and designing and implementing
educational policies. A central syllabus and a central national curriculum are present, and school
units are expected to implement them according to the central guidelines set (Pashiardis, 2004;
Pashiardis and Ribbins, 2003). In public schools, the appointment, placement and relocation of
all educators are overseen by the Educational Service Commission (ESC), an autonomous five-
member committee selected by the president of the Republic for a 6-year term. The same committee
is also responsible for promoting teachers of any rank (deputy headteacher, headteacher, inspector,
etc.). The responsibilities for in-service training, advice, teacher supervision and school evaluation
are allocated to local inspectors. The government financially supports the public education sector.
Public schools are funded mainly by the state through Local School Boards (LSB) through bureau-
cratic procedures. Financial resources are allocated to LSB responsible for the construction, main-
tenance and equipment of school buildings in their district (Emilianides and Hajisoteriou, 2020).
The government also subsidises the salaries of school personnel, providing for all their wages
and pensions.
A notion of decentralisation rests in providing principals with authority to oversee issues that
mainly concern students’and teachers’behaviour in the schools (Pashiardis and Tsiakiros,
2015). Following a decision implemented in 2017 aiming for a more extensive degree of autonomy,
all schools can develop a ‘Comprehensive Improvement Plan’focusing on three topics aligned with
their specific needs and priorities. The plan is based on the diagnosed needs of each school, even
though, according to Eurydice (2019), minimal autonomy is still provided at the school level.
According to the same source, some decentralised approaches can also be found within the
school classrooms because teachers in Cyprus enjoy a degree of autonomy regarding the teaching
methods and techniques employed during their teaching process. However, any effort to modernise
the Cyprus education system would be difficult due to its centralised character and school units lack
the autonomy to formulate educational policy (Karageorgos et al., 2021).
Despite the education system’s centralised character, research is encouraged and highly regarded
in Cyprus. Cyprus is one of the 27 countries participating in the ISSPP (International Successful
School Principalship Project), an international project aiming to identify successful school leader-
ship in schools of different geographical regions, different sizes and students deriving from diverse
social and economic backgrounds (Gurr and Moyi, 2022; Pashiardis and Kafa, 2021). Cyprus has
three state-funded universities and nine private universities conducting extensive research. To
conduct research in public schools in Cyprus, the completion of an online application to the
Centre of Educational Research and Evaluation (CERE) is required. Specific guidelines and criteria
must be met to ensure the research’s ethics, validity and reliability. Final approval to conduct a
research project presupposes the researcher’s commitment to strictly follow and implement the
approved Detailed Research Plan (DRP) and to send the research results to the MoESY through
the CERE. The MoESY supervises and confirms that the research process is implemented accord-
ing to the approved DRP through the administration(s) of the school(s) involved in the research.
Submitting a Summary Research Sheet (SRS) electronically is expected within a reasonable
period after completing the research.
6Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
Purpose of the study
Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (1999) acknowledge that trust is a complex concept that requires exam-
ination through multiple methods. They also argue that qualitative analyses are necessary, particu-
larly those that explore the dynamics of trusting processes. A literature review conducted by
Niedlich et al. (2021) found that, after 20 years, most research on trust in educational settings
has been based on quantitative research designs. The authors emphasised the need for a more com-
prehensive investigation into the role of trust in educational contexts. The current study centres on
bridging the gap between quantitative and qualitative research on trust and systematising school
leaders’practices, behaviours and actions, which are portrayed as essential conditions contributing
to elevated trust in the school leader.
Trust plays a pivotal role in the development of healthy collegial relationships and the overall
effective functioning of schools (Adams and Forsyth, 2013; Baxter and Ehren, 2023; Hoy and
Tschannen-Moran, 1999; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015); especially in times of crisis and
uncertainty (Niedlich et al., 2021; Schwabsky et al., 2020; Thomson et al., 2021; Thornburg,
2021) and as such, needs to be further investigated. As mentioned above, key factors in developing
trusting relationships in schools, among others, are the qualities of respect, competence, personal
regard for others, integrity, vulnerability, honesty, openness and reliability (Bryk and Schneider,
2002; Tschannen-Moran, 2014). Trust ascends from a complex interaction and interplay of
beliefs, expectations, experiences and situational aspects (Bormann et al., 2021). Additionally in
a school context, the levels of trust (high or low) primarily depend on the school leader.
Identification of recurring practices, actions and behaviours principals can use to create and
sustain a high-trust environment is very much needed. The perceptions of teachers with high
trust in the school principal may contribute to this knowledge. Teacher insights about trust-building
behaviours can provide critical guidance for school leaders, policymakers and researchers seeking
to understand how high trust is manifested in educational organisations (Bukko et al., 2021).
Understanding how school leaders can cultivate and establish these qualities is vital to developing
high-level trusting relationships (Lasater, 2016). Netolicky (2020) claims that leadership is not a
title ‘but an action, a behaviour, a practice, a doing and a way of being’(p. 2). Based on all the
above, the study attempts to answer the following research question:
‘Which leadership practices, behaviours, and actions generate high faculty trust in the school leader?’
Methodology
This study employed a mixed-method research design to outline highly trusted school principals’
practices, actions, and behaviours. More specifically, the research design adopted the sequential
quantitative to Qualitative procedure (quan to QUAL). The approach is described in the eight two-
dimensional mixed-method samplings typology presented by Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2007)
mixed methods sampling typology (p. 294) and was selected as the most appropriate for this
study. They proposed that the overall design could be either concurrent (the qualitative and quan-
titative parts executed simultaneously) or sequential (the qualitative follows the quantitative or vice
versa). Then, according to the priority or weight of each part, a final eight-combination grid is pro-
duced. In their notation (p. 294), ‘qual’stands for qualitative, ‘quan’stands for quantitative, ‘and
(portrayed by the addition symbol +)’stands for concurrent, ‘to (portrayed by an arrow)’stands for
sequential. Capital letters denote high priority or weight, and lower-case letters denote lower
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 7
priority or weight. For this study, as mentioned above, a sequential quan to QUAL design was
implemented, meaning that the quantitative part had lower weight and was intended mainly to
provide the final list of principals for the case studies for the qualitative part that followed.
Population, sample and research instrument
An online application for conducting research in public schools was filled out, and a DRP was sub-
mitted. Following the approval to carry out the research by the CERE, a cover letter was sent to
elementary schools in Cyprus with ten or more teachers, informing and addressing principals
and teachers to participate in the research. Of approximately 180 schools (of the 331 total elemen-
tary schools in Cyprus) that fulfilled the abovementioned criterion, 90 responded positively.
Teachers were requested to fill out the sub-test, Faculty Trust in the Principal, derived from Hoy
and Tschannen-Moran’s survey instrument (1999, 2003, 2007), commonly referred to as the
Omnibus Trust Scale (Omni TS), which measures the level of faculty trust in the principal. Two
English secondary school teachers and the authors independently translated the instrument into
Greek. The translated versions were revised until all four translators agreed on a final version.
As Ozolins et al. (2020) point out, such processes must be explicit in terms of where translations
are involved in research. Translation experts participated in the procedure, providing guidance
and advice throughout the research.
The format of the sub-test consists of eight 6-point Likert responses set from strongly agree
to disagree. Respondents were asked to indicate how much they agreed with the items. The
items dwell on the five facets of trust described in the trust model developed by Hoy and
Tschannen-Moran: benevolence, reliability, competency, honesty and openness. Out of the 90
schools receiving the research tool, 85 returned at least 75% of their school’s questionnaires,
which was the second limitation posed. The at least 75% return rate limitation ensured that the
genuine opinion of the teachers’trust towards their principal was represented. In total, 1320 out
of 1600 questionnaires sent from 85 schools were filled out.
Quantitative analysis
Descriptive analyses were conducted, including sample return rate, means, standard deviations,
skewness and kurtosis coefficients, instrument standardised score, and finally, ranking results by
school, from least trusted to most trusted principals, according to teacher responses of each
school. Tables 1 and 2 present the relevant results:
The initial quantitative analysis was employed mainly to obtain the list of the top highly trusted
principals. The results showed that the skewness and kurtosis coefficients were between −2 and +2,
indicating the normal distribution of the variables. Regarding the internal consistency reliability of
the sub-scale (faculty trust), the Cronbach alpha was relatively high, .84.
Selection of case studies
Following the quantitative procedure’s list of principals (schools) produced, the top five (Table 2)
were asked to participate in a qualitative multiple-case study research methodology to depict the
practices, actions and behaviours of highly trusted primary principals in Cyprus. The selection
of the principals and schools included in the research was also validated by a team of two
primary education inspectors, confirming the findings of the list produced. Following the
8Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
quantitative data analysis, a qualitative multiple-case study methodology was carried out involving
the top five principals and forty teachers on the list (eight from each school of the top five principals/
schools). The researchers directly contacted the principals and teachers, informing them of the proced-
ure, providing all the necessary information and clarifying that participation in the research was strictly
voluntary. The teachers were selected randomly from each of the five schools. The participants were
also explained the procedure (time and place of interviews, duration, general theme of the interviews,
etc.), and they were informed that they could withdraw at any point during the research.
The approach of using multiple case studies was deemed to be the most appropriate method for
addressing the research question. This approach allows for an in-depth exploration of one or more
individuals’programs, events, activities and processes, making it a suitable qualitative design
(Creswell, 2014). The multiple case study approach is a comprehensive method encompassing
planning, data collection and analysis and, as such, is widely favoured (Quintão et al., 2020)
when addressing research questions to elicit participants’opinions and understandings. Though
challenging due to its need for extensive resources and time, undertaking a multiple case study pro-
vides a better understanding of complex and multidimensional phenomena (Priya, 2021; Stake,
2013; Yin, 2013), and trust is widely considered such a phenomenon. The evidence combined
from various case studies is also robust and reliable, and as a result, it contributes to a more
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis values of the eight statements of the
comprehensive trust scale questionnaire.
Statements
Mean
average
Standard
deviation Skewness Kurtosis
1 Teachers in this school trust their principal. 3.8611 1.073 −1.021 0.550
2 The teachers in this school are suspicious of most
of the principals’actions
1.7923 0.323 0.075 0.348
3 The teachers in this school have faith in the integrity
of the principal.
3.9788 1.002 −1.334 1.405
4 The principal of this school typically acts in the best
interest of teachers.
4.0952 1.125 −1.326 1.646
5 The principal of this school does not show concern
for the teachers.
1.8915 0.209 1.533 1.822
6 Teachers in this school can rely on the principal. 3.0661 0.763 −1.182 0.724
7 The principal of this school is competent in doing
his/her job.
3.8988 0.140 −0.509 1.229
8 The principal does not tell teachers what is really
going on.
1.8148 0.234 −0.081 0.178
Table 2. School code, standardised scores and rank order results by school.
School code Omni TS Rank
13 689.1 1
26 620.7 2
71 613.2 3
2 610.4 4
67 605.9 5
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 9
convincing theory (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007; Gustafsson, 2017). Multiple case studies typ-
ically facilitate a comprehensive exploration and understanding of the participants’perspectives on
a phenomenon in its natural environment (Halkias et al., 2022). When conducting research through
a case study approach, it is essential to consider ethical considerations (Priya, 2021). As such, all
necessary precautions were taken to ensure the study was conducted with the utmost care and sen-
sitivity towards participants. This involved addressing ethical concerns by obtaining informed
consent from all subjects, protecting them from harm, avoiding deceptive practices and safeguard-
ing their privacy and confidentiality (Harrison et al., 2017).
Qualitative data collection and translation procedures
The qualitative data was derived from both teachers and principals. Regarding teachers, the data
were obtained from semi-structured interviews, each lasting approximately 40 to 50 minutes,
held in each participant’s school. One-to-one interviews are considered the most appropriate
approach to obtaining individual attitudes, beliefs and feelings and provide multiple views.
Talking to individuals to gather their perspectives and attitudes on investigated topics is a valuable
source of data that can provide valuable insights into research questions (Roulston, 2018). Data
derived from the principals were also collected through one-to-one interviews and four all-day
observations of their everyday work, including at least one staff meeting. The combined (interviews
and observations notes) approach produced data utilised for an in-depth examination of the issue.
A semi-structured interview protocol was explicitly developed to elicit in-depth information
regarding the high-trusted principals’practices, actions and behaviours. The interview protocols
focused mainly on identifying the reoccurring actions, practices and behaviours perceived by prin-
cipals and teachers as qualities that elicit trust in the principal. All interviews were then fully tran-
scribed. The multi-perspective data collection provided a wealth of information concerning highly
trusted principals’actions, practices and behaviours. The observational data obtained were utilised
to achieve triangulation by combining different qualitative methods (Flick, 2018; Mik-Meyer,
2020; Patton, 1999) since observation data can be integrated as auxiliary or confirmatory research
(DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006).
A combination of two translation procedures was employed to ensure the credibility and validity
of the translated qualitative data. At first, the researchers translated the data from Greek to English. The
data were then back-translated into Greek by two independent bi-lingual experts. Back-translation is
an essential step in ensuring the validity of a translation (Maneesriwongul and Dixon, 2004), even
though sometimes it is criticised as being more focused on closeness or suitability rather than accuracy
or truth (Ozolins et al., 2020). After the agreement between the two translations, the final version was
given for member checking, where the researchers gave the transcription of the interviews back to the
participants, asking for their confirmation (DeCino and Waalkes, 2019). The member-checking tech-
nique also improves the credibility of qualitative research (Thomas, 2017).
Qualitative data analysis
When interpreting qualitative data deriving from interviews, the epistemology of social construct-
ivism provides a solid framework. Social constructivism stresses the significance of culture and
context in understanding what occurs in the real world and constructing knowledge based on
this understanding (Derry, 1999; Gergen, 2022). Kim (2001) asserts that social constructivism is
based on assumptions about reality, knowledge and learning. Depending upon their experiences,
10 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
individuals develop subjective meanings, and it is up to the researcher to look for meaning and
interpret the complexity of their views (Priya, 2021). The sampling process for social constructivist
studies should include a small number of cases deliberately chosen for specific reasons and the data
derived from in-depth interviews with individuals directly involved in the phenomenon under study
(Starks and Brown, 2007). Such an approach was preferred for this study. Viewing a phenomenon
through the eyes of the social actors (for this study, teachers and principals) that co-construct this
phenomenon can also enable multiple perspectives and effects to be examined or re-examined
(Mincu et al., 2024) accordingly.
For this study, the data were analysed using the coding procedure proposed by the grounded
theory approach. The grounded theory methodology is considered the most appropriate when
research is conducted under social constructivism. The grounded theory approach helps interpret
data and provide a theory and is widely used in exploratory social constructionism studies
(Makri and Neely, 2021; Yin, 2013). Grounded theory ‘is an inductive methodology that provides
systematic guidelines for gathering, synthesising, analysing, and conceptualising qualitative data for
theory construction’(Jørgensen, 2001, p. 6396). Grounded theory is also closely associated with
data collection, mainly deriving from in-depth interviews and observation (Charmaz, 2014; Charmaz
and Belgrave, 2012; Jørgensen, 2001). Coding is an ongoing procedure that entails extracting the crit-
ical elements in the data, defining, re-defining and labelling them according to what the data means. The
data analysis procedure for this study involved the coding steps of grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin,
1998; Thornberg, 2017; Wolfswinkelet al., 2013), comprising three stages. During the first (open
coding) stage, the interviewees’perceptions, opinions, thoughts, experiences and feelings were identi-
fied to group them into initial categories. Then, relationships between the initial categories and their
subcategories were established (axial coding). Comparisons enabled the identification of variations
and similarities found in the data. At the final stage (selective coding), the categories produced were
integrated and refined into a theory. Throughout the procedure, constant comparative analysis of the
data aimed at clarifying the categories by examining, re-examining and comparing data and assigning
them to categories according to obvious fit. The constant comparative method constitutes the core of
qualitative analysis in the grounded theory approach (Boeije, 2002), enabling continuous revisiting
and revision of the data until no new codes emerge (Hewitt-Taylor, 2001).
Cross-case presentation of the results
The interviews produced a vast amount of qualitative data. The procedure described above revealed
at least eight common practices, actions and behaviours perceived by principals and teachers of the
five schools as promoting high levels of trust from teachers in the principal (Table 3). A final limi-
tation set was that the final list would include practices, behaviours and actions addressed by at least
80% of the respondents. Table 4 presents the demographics of the five principals and their schools.
The eight practices, behaviours and actions of high-trusted principals
Fairness
Fairness is a quality all participants portray as fundamental to building healthy, trusting relations.
The participants describe it as the ability of the leader to be fair to all without discrimination or
favouritism. One of the principals also added that to be fair, one must be unbiased and evaluate
a teacher’s performance based on her/his everyday work:
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 11
A school leader should instil fairness. He must always be impartial and without prejudice. A teacher’s
work and effort every day in the school must be judged fairly. (Principal 2)
Teachers pointed out very vividly that when discrimination is in place, the trust they put in
their principal is diminished and negatively affects their performance:
So, she is, above all, fair. This is very important. When teachers feel that the principal favours collea-
gues, a climate of disbelief and uncertainty is present. My current principal is different. She always
praises her teachers, stands by them, and treats everyone equally and fairly. (Teacher 13)
Respect
Both teachers and principals underlined the importance of respect. One of the principals vehemently
claimed that respect is the foundation of trust. School leaders need to respect every member of the
school and try to get to know them:
A fundamental aspect of trust has to do with respect. Respecting and understanding the teachers is very
important. A leader should respect every single member of the staff and must find a way to get to know
them. (Principal 1)
Table 3. Practices, actions and behaviours of highly trusted principals.
Practices, actions and behaviours Frequency Ν=45
1Fairness 45/45
2 Respect 44/45
3 Consistency-reliability 41/45
4 Trusting the teachers 40/45
5 Setting the example 43/45
6 Competence –Organisation 44/45
7 Confidentiality 36/45
8 Open door-support 44/45
Table 4. The demographics of the five principals and their schools.
School
code Gender
Years as principal
(tenure at school) Education
Number of
teachers
(female/male)
School
position
School
socioeconomic status
(minority population)
a
13 Male 5 (5) Med 15 (9/6) Rural 2 (20%)
26 Male 2 (2) PhD 31 (20/11) Urban 1 (60%)
71 Female 6 (3) Post-Graduate
Certificate
24 (18/6) Urban 1 (65%)
2 Male 2 (2) Med 20 (11/9) Rural 2 (35%)
67 Female 7 (3) Med 28 (15/13) Urban 3 (10%)
a
1: low; 2: medium; 3: high. The APA suggests that such ranking should consider education, income, occupation, family size
and relationships (APA, 2017). For this study, the ranking was derived from the data provided by the principals regarding the
above specifications and validated by each school’s inspectors.
12 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
Teachers also emphasised that their principals exhibited respect towards each school member, both
as personalities and professionals. This was the case even with younger and inexperienced teachers
or even substitutes:
First, he is friendly and approaches each colleague with calmness and respect. His behaviour is not
offensive. On the contrary, he supports and respects every colleague, junior or senior. Even in the
case of substitute teachers, he treats them with respect as any other staff member. (Teacher 6)
Consistency-reliability
People tend to trust a person with consistent and reliable behaviour. A principal emphasised that
one must be consistent in words and deeds and must exhibit stable and reliable behaviour so
that others know what to expect:
For me, there must be consistency between words and actions. A leader should be reliable in terms of
their behaviour. It is easier for their teachers to know what to expect from them under all circumstances.
(Principal 4)
Many teachers claimed consistency ensures they know what to expect from their principal daily.
Confusion is then avoided, and it is easier to build trust:
Because she is consistent in her behaviour, there is less room for misunderstandings and misinterpreta-
tions. It is also crucial that such behaviour is apparent. What she says is what she means, and what she
promises is what she delivers. (Teacher 39)
Trusting the teachers
Trusting has a reciprocal nature. Teachers trust someone who trusts them as well. Two of the prin-
cipals underlined how important it is to trust their teachers both as personalities and professionals
and encourage them to take the initiative, try new things and even participate in the decision-
making process:
As principal, I assume I am dealing with responsible and professional colleagues. I value their effort and
trust them as professionals. I also try to underline this at any given opportunity. Often, at staff meetings,
I extend my trust to them and encourage them to take the initiative and try new teaching approaches and
methodologies. (Principal 1)
I trust my teachers, and I put faith in their professionalism. Even though our educational system is cen-
tralised and by law, principals are responsible for what happens in a school unit, I try to distribute
responsibilities and encourage my teachers to take the initiative. (Principal 5)
Teachers also believe in mutual trust. When teachers are trusted by their principals, they feel
empowered and perform their duties conscientiously. Furthermore, such an approach sets the
scene for a positive school climate.
We feel that he trusts us. This is important because mutual trust incentivises teachers to work conscien-
tiously and creates a positive atmosphere. (Teacher 2)
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 13
She trusts us as professionals, which strengthens our trust in them. She allocates responsibilities to her
staff and encourages them to take initiative. (Teacher 21)
…she also encourages teachers to take the initiative to try different teaching approaches and methods
without criticising or controlling them. At staff meetings, we discuss the targets we set, and usually,
we form work groups with specific agendas to meet them. (Teacher 17)
Setting the example
When the leader sets an example, teachers tend to trust and follow. A principal claimed that leaders
cannot convince or inspire if they do not set an example for the teachers. Principals asserted that
leading by example enhances trust and team engagement because teachers pay attention to what
their principals say and do. By setting the example, principals actively demonstrate what and
how things should be done:
The school leader must set an example with their behaviour. You cannot expect teachers to listen and
follow if you do not set an example for them. Teachers pay attention to what we say or do. If you want
something done, you should demonstrate how it is done. By doing so, teachers are more likely to trust
you and follow through on what needs to be done. Generally, I never ask my teachers to do something I
would not be willing to do myself. (Principal 2)
Teachers further affirmed the significance of leading by example, spanning from simple everyday
matters like coming to work on time to more demanding matters like addressing the schools’vision,
assuming responsibility, coping with discipline issues, etc. Furthermore, setting an example makes
it easier for teachers to receive and process recommendations and advice from their principals:
He also leads by his example. For instance, he emphasizes the importance of punctuality. Therefore, he
is always the first person coming to school and the last to leave. He is always visible and ready to engage
in everyday school activities. (Teacher 10)
She always puts herself in front and sets an example. She always explains what needs to be done in
detail, but it does not stop there. She will then actively engage herself and show how it is done. She
assumes responsibilities and is visible around school, addressing all issues. We feel safe when she is
around and know she will find a way to solve problems. That is why her staff listens and appreciates
her suggestions and advice. (Teacher 38)
Competence –organisation
According to the participants, being competent and well-organised are two qualities interlinked,
increasing trust in one’s leader. Competence is deemed a pivotal value, as teachers regard their prin-
cipals as sources of valuable professional guidance. On the other hand, running a school can
become a challenging and hectic procedure, and a leader should perform adequately under any cir-
cumstances. A key feature that facilitates principals to cope with the never-ending difficulties in a
school is always to be organised and prepared. One of the principals asserted that key practices for
trustworthy and successful leadership are being competent and organized.
Without prioritising, I would say the first was being competent in your work and organised. Teachers
expect their principal to be organised and prepared at any given time to cope with anything that may
14 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
occur successfully. By doing so, the school will function smoothly under any circumstances. Planning
and targeting must also be precise. However, a leader must be competent to react and manage unex-
pected turnovers. (Principal 1)
The primary role of competent educational leaders is to establish and safeguard academic standards
and develop teaching methodologies that guide students’learning. This, combined with being orga-
nised and finding solutions, can convince teachers to trust their principals. Teachers stressed that
their principals were highly organised and possessed unrivalled problem-solving skills. They also
emphasised that their competence was not limited to providing solutions to their problems but also
protecting them by successfully coping with internal and external factors (parents, inspectors).
He is very organised. Difficult situations are dealt with immediately before they cause problems. We
always feel that everything is under control. He is also competent in managing parents; even the
inspector and all teachers feel protected. (Teacher 7)
She is well-informed about evidence-based practices and stays current on the latest developments in
education. She has also established a culture of continuous improvement. She has also created an effect-
ive learning environment aligned with teachers’and students’needs. Furthermore, she is very organized
and tackles problems swiftly and effectively. (Teacher 21)
Confidentiality
Schools are places where educators spend a great deal of time, and inevitably, personal or delicate
matters need to be addressed. Principals felt strongly that trust is fragile, difficult to build and easy to
break. Confidentiality enhances trust because teachers will come to their principal with personal pro-
blems, and any information they provide is expected to be handled with respect and confidentiality.
For me, a teacher’s privacy is non-negotiable. If there is a personal issue, I try to understand and empa-
thise. Anything said remains between us, and I do whatever it takes to facilitate my colleagues.
(Principal 5)
As school principals, we may come across sensitive information daily. This information is mainly per-
sonal, academic, medical, or disciplinary. When people come to you with this information, you must
handle it with care, respect, and confidentiality. (Principal 4)
Teachers also commented on the importance of confidentiality, especially regarding sensitive, per-
sonal matters. They pointed out that there is no trust without confidentiality, and trust experiences
substantial augmentation in its presence. One of the teachers also pointed out that she tested her
principal before revealing more personal information to her:
…whatever we say, I know it will remain confidential. Especially regarding delicate personal issues, one
expects the other party to safeguard any shared information. I trust my principal because there were
times when I had such problems, and he handled them with respect and confidentiality. (Teacher 30)
Open door –support
Principals must maintain their accessibility and provide both personal and professional support; the
assertion is that such an approach significantly bolsters the formation of trust by assuring them that
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 15
their door is always open for their teachers and actively listening and offering their support when
asked. Principals emphasised the importance of being accessible and supportive:
…so, I must listen to and support my teachers when facing a problem. My office is accessible to all staff
members, and I always encourage them to share their thoughts and concerns. Of course, one cannot
solve all problems. What is guaranteed, though, is that I will offer my support and suggest solutions.
(Principal 1)
Teachers confirmed that their principals were always there for them. Their doors were open, and
they actively listened and offered their support. On the contrary, behaviours that were characterised
by distance and unapproachability fostered an atmosphere of distrust and frustration within the
school:
His office is always open for us. He actively listens to what we have to say, and because he is very clever
and practical, he usually finds a solution to the problem. What is also important is that he will follow up
on whether the problem has been solved and if we need further assistance. The truth is that I value this
approach because I have been in situations where principals were distant and unapproachable, resulting
in an atmosphere of distrust and frustration. (Teacher 2)
The most important thing for me is the support she offers to all of us. Even though I am a new teacher at
the school, she approached me kindly and offered her assistance if needed. I felt that this was not a for-
mality. Her office door is always open for us, and whenever I have a problem, e.g. misbehaved pupils,
parents’issues, etc., I know she will listen to and support me. (Teacher 29)
Discussion
The findings of the qualitative analysis derived from the multiple case-study data analysis are com-
patible with Hoy and Tschannen-Moran’sfindings, namely that teachers tend to trust principals
when they exhibit benevolence, honesty, openness, competence and reliability behaviours.
Indeed, their definition of trust includes several of the eight qualities listed in our research. For
example, in Hoy’s and Tschannen-Moran’sfindings, benevolence relates to being supportive of tea-
chers and safeguarding confidential information, which relates to open-door –support and confi-
dentiality. Reliability is a common factor. Setting an example is also linked with competence.
Most of the reviewed studies in educational contexts generally recognise all five common bases
(facets) of trustworthiness (benevolence, honesty, reliability, openness and competency) perceived
by Hoy’s and Tschannen-Moran’s work as those collectively constituting trust (Bukko et al., 2021;
Shayo et al., 2021). The findings are also compatible with Bryk and Schneider’s work. Respect and
competence in core role responsibilities are common trust-building considerations, whilst per-
sonal regard can be related to confidentiality and personal integrity with fairness. However,
the truth remains that there is an ongoing debate concerning the nature and number of practices
behaviours, and actions required to compute trust (Cvitanovic et al., 2021) and that more evi-
dence based on a qualitative research approach, including vignette studies and case studies, is
needed to gain a deeper understanding (Niedlich et al., 2021; Nienaber et al., 2015). The
present study aims to provide updated hands-on suggestions and tangible and applicable guide-
lines for principals who want to become trustworthy leaders.
The study substantiated that teachers, as all human beings, want to be treated fairly. In complex
organisations such as school units, friction and conflicts of interest are created (Tschannen-Moran,
16 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
2014). It is primarily up to the school leader to effectively handle these situations and instil a sense
of justice and equal treatment for all (Thien et al., 2023). Teachers believe, follow and trust fair
principals (Bukko et al., 2021). The degree of staff trust in their leader is greatly influenced by
their perception of how fair they are (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). All participants in this study
described fair treatment as a key quality that enhances trust. A leader’s fairness, transparency
and accountability significantly influence people’s attitudes and behaviours (Handford and
Leithwood, 2013; Mehmet and Inandi, 2018; Smith et al., 2020) and contribute to the development
of a trusting and positive organisational climate (Thien et al., 2023; Tian and Nutbrown, 2023;
Zacarias and Flores, 2024). Niedlich et al. (2021) assert that fair treatment and performance
equity are likely to develop high levels of trust. Hoy and Tarter (2004) point out that fairness in
the school workplace should not be taken lightly, as the relationship between trust and justice is
particularly strong, adding that the leaders’behaviours determine the perception of justice in the
school workplace. A reciprocal relationship between trust and fairness is also indicated (Hoy
and Tarter, 2004; Pranitasari, 2020). Teachers trust their principals if they perceive that they act
fairly and justly. The perception of fairness holds paramount significance among the organisational
factors that positively influence trust. It is incumbent upon leaders to foster and uphold trust through
equitable, just, and transparent behaviour (Beauchamp et al., 2021; Kalshoven and Den Hartog,
2009; Niedlich et al., 2021; Van Knippenberg et al., 2007).
Respect is interlinked with trust. Teachers recognised that their principals treated them respect-
fully, thus gaining their trust. The study’sfindings are consistent with previous research arguing
that trust and respect are strongly interlinked (Balyer, 2017; Bilginog
lu et al., 2019; Bryk and
Schneider, 2002; Clarke, 2011). Daly and Chrispeels (2008) claim that the core trust facet of
respect is also strongly connected with school performance and student outcomes. Trust formation
is hindered if respect is not present (Ghamrawi, 2011); thus, it is vital to teachers’trust in the prin-
cipal. The study’sfindings are consistent with the literature findings, asserting that respect leads to
trust (Griffiths et al., 2021; Khasawneh, 2022; Kutsyuruba et al., 2011; Northfield, 2014). Through
emotional intelligence mediated by respectful behaviours, a leader effectively builds trust among all
stakeholders (Blaik et al., 2021; Gómez-Leal et al., 2022). When principals demonstrate respect and
trust toward their teachers, they are more inclined to interpret principal actions as supportive and in
their best interests (Louis and Murphy, 2017).
According to Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2015), scrutinising their past behaviour is one of the
most dependable methods for anticipating someone’s future conduct. Trust is an evolving process
that strengthens over time due to actions, information and individual interactions. Teachers and
principals in this study emphasised that trust is built and sustained when both parties are considered
reliable and consistent. When school leaders exhibits consistent behaviour and make decisions pre-
dictably, they instil a sense of reliability and dependability among their teachers. This sense of pre-
dictability fosters a safe and secure environment where individuals can trust and rely on their leader.
The foundation of trust is rooted in presumptions derived from prior experiences. These presump-
tions instil in individuals the belief that their counterparts in the interaction will not cause them
harm and that shared principles and customs will honour implicit mutual expectations (Bormann
et al., 2021). Teachers will trust a school leader who consistently exhibits credible and reliable
behaviour over someone who does not exhibit such behaviour (Handford and Leithwood,
2013; Saleem et al., 2020). Inconsistent and unreliable actions on the part of the leader may lead
teachers to exhibit a self-protected and cautious response, hampering a trusting relationship.
Such behaviours, resulting from school leaders’repeated failure to follow through on decisions,
obligations and commitments, could also lead to excessive stress and loss of trust on the part of
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 17
teachers (Day et al., 2020). In contrast, consistent and reliable behaviour elicits trust (Kutsyuruba
and Walker, 2015). According to Pashiardis and Savvides (2013), consistency is a crucial behav-
iour that fosters trust between school leaders and faculty members. The amalgamation of reliabil-
ity and consistency engenders trust. Consistency links reliability with benevolence because
reliability alone may not suffice since someone can be predictably malevolent (Walker
et al., 2011).
Trust is a two-way construct (Brower et al., 2000; Louis and Murphy, 2017; Sue-Chan et al.,
2012). There is a reciprocal relationship between the school leader and other school members
(Kutsyuruba et al., 2024). When principals trust their staff, they are also likelier to trust them
(Browning, 2014). For a high-trust culture and climate to flourish, a leader must have the capacity
and willingness to trust others (Donaldson, 2001; Kouzes and Posner, 2011; Robinson, 2020). The
repeated mutual positive experiences between individuals in an interaction are a precondition of
trust (Bormann et al., 2021). The participants emphasised that their principal mainly shows their
trust by sharing power, involving them in decision-making and having faith in their core profes-
sional abilities. Trust requires action because it is reciprocal (Nienaber et al., 2015). Teachers
feel trusted when their principal entrusts them with managerial tasks. By doing so, principals
exhibit vulnerability to teachers (Shayo et al., 2021). When teachers are involved and influence
organisational decisions that affect them, a bond of mutual trust between teachers and principals
is also formed (Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015). Principals extend trust through shared
decision-making, and, in return, teachers extend greater trust in the principal (Combs et al.,
2018; Weinstein et al., 2020). In schools where collective decision-making is present, there is a
greater likelihood that reform initiatives will be widespread and improvements in student learning
will be demonstrated (Wahlstrom and Louis, 2008). Studies that examine the dynamics of trust, also
demonstrated a clear correlation between reciprocity and trust in terms of professionalism. If leaders
fail to demonstrate trust in teachers’competence, it is plausible that teachers will view their prin-
cipal similarly negatively (Brower et al., 2000).
The study confirmed the importance of leading by example. Leading by example can be defined
as the extent to which a leader demonstrates ideal workday behaviours by engaging in staff activ-
ities (Eldor, 2021). According to the teachers in this study, leading by example builds trust because
such an approach, they emphasised, enables them to observe their principals embodying the values
and behaviours they expect from them. Participants also claimed that they are more receptive to
constructive criticism, advice, or recommendations for a leader who sets an example and appeared
more inclined to trust and follow such a principle. Leaders who lead by example are trusted because
they position themselves as role models for all stakeholders, thus receiving acceptance, respect
and admiration (Hoy and Tarter, 2004; Smith et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021b). Principals lead
by example, not only in terms of everyday behaviours (being on time, being specific in their instruc-
tions, actively listening, addressing daily matters, etc.), but also by attaining educational goals,
actively participating in school professional development, assuming responsibilities outside the
boundaries of a typical principal’s job description and by protecting the school’s mission
(Versland and Erickson, 2017). Literature has also established a strong connection between
teacher trust in the principal and TL (Eliophotou-Menon and Ioannou, 2016; Kılınç et al., 2024),
where leading by example is a core value. To gain trust and navigate schools through turbulence,
principals must step forward, act as trustworthy leaders and be credible voices in their schools
(Netolicky, 2020).
Tschannen-Moran (2014) described competence as ‘engaging in problem-solving, setting stan-
dards, buffering teachers, pressing for results’(p. 34) and nominated it as fundamental leadership
18 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
behaviour that engenders trust. Though welcomed, good intentions may not be enough. Teachers
depend on principals, and competence is involved in fulfilling their expectations. Even if principals
have the best intentions, they may not be trusted if teachers perceive them as incompetent
(Nooteboom, 2021; Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Walker et al., 2011). Organised is perceived
someone who can quickly and effectively sort and synthesise information, plan the efficient use
of available resources, and thus manage to be prepared and avoid acting on impulses (Isaacs,
2012). School principals who exhibit good organisational skills retain the ability to respond
promptly to urgent matters when they arise (Lazaridou and Polymeropoulou, 2024). Both principals
and teachers stressed that the competence and ability of the leader to be organised is an essential
parameter of trust. Teachers and principals deemed the two qualities combined as a powerful
trust antecedent. Schools are working places for principals and teachers, and the person in
charge is judged based on her/his ability to deliver the job methodically, effectively and in an
organised manner. Bryk and Schneider (2002) state that the competence refers to the ability of
individuals to carry out the responsibilities of their position successfully. Trust is accordingly
increased or diminished by the perception of this ability. The competence of leaders in assigned
roles may either boost or displace the trust in the leader (Byun et al., 2017). To earn the trust of
their teachers, principals are expected to possess not only a high level of competence in perform-
ing their duties (Bukko et al., 2021; Tschannen-Moran, 2014) but also to be organised and pro-
active in their planning to prevent being caught off guard. By maintaining a state of readiness,
principals are better equipped to respond and deliver under any circumstance (Beauchamp
et al., 2021).
One becomes vulnerable to another party when sharing information, especially of a private and
sensitive nature (Adams, 2008; Day et al., 2021; Hoy and Tschannen-Moran, 1999), and such infor-
mation must remain strictly between the two parties. According to Walumbwa et al. (2008), con-
fidentiality is a vital characteristic of an authentic leader whilst simultaneously enhancing the
levels of trust in the leader. Tschannen-Moran (2014) places secrecy in the general condition of
goodwill, in the sense that what is deposited from one person to another is protected through
secrecy. Trust may seem challenging to achieve because it involves the notion that a person
(trustor) is expected to lower their guard and rest their well-being in another person’s (trustee)
hands. Such a procedure makes that person vulnerable to the other person and presupposes that
they will act with good intentions (Waldman, 2018). The findings of this study revealed an asso-
ciation between vulnerability and confidentiality. Participants described their principals as
persons who value confidentiality and are honest, especially when sharing personal and delicate
information. Being honest and having strong moral principles, such as confidentiality, is essential
for educational leaders to build trust (Kilag et al., 2023; Northfield, 2014).
This study affirmed that teachers trust and follow a leader who exercises an ‘open door’prac-
tice. The term refers to the accessibility and good intentions of the principal toward their teachers.
Successful school leaders are available when needed, actively listen to what staff say and are
somewhat distant (Mincu et al., 2024). This is achieved by being visible, responsive and access-
ible when someone needs to get in touch (Browning, 2014). This approach enhances trust and
minimises conflicts between school principals and staff (Klein, 2012). Teachers must know
they can share their thoughts and concerns personally and professionally. Sun and Leithwood
(2015) point out that leaders can gain the trust of their staff by showing goodwill and genuine
interest in their well-being through their daily interactions. Unapproachable and distanced
leaders are not usually trusted because they provoke negative and self-protected behaviours,
whereas leaders who are visible and actively communicate with their teachers instil trust and
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 19
intellectual deference (Palmer, 2021; Pashiardis et al., 2018; Soderberg and Romney, 2022).
When the principal is out of reach, establishing a relationship poses a challenge, let alone estab-
lishing a trust bond. One cannot expect a non-visible principal to support teachers in everyday
circumstances or meet their professional development needs (Handford and Leithwood, 2013).
High-trusted principals are genuinely willing to listen and advise their teachers on issues that
affect them in the school context and their personal lives. They also actively offer their
support (Atik and Celik, 2020; Tschannen-Moran, 2007). Most participants claimed that their
principals were always there for them, willing to genuinely and actively listen and offer
support. According to Hoy and Tarter (2004), an authentic ‘open door’policy enhances trust
in the principal. Principals are more prone to be trusted when they are approachable and demon-
strate openness to ideas and suggestions (Tschannen-Moran, 2014). There appears to be a vital
relationship between supportive leadership practices and trust (Boies and Fiset, 2019; Dolloff,
2022; Podsakoff et al., 1996).
Overall, the list of the eight practices, behaviours and actions presented in the study is consistent
with previous research findings. However, this study adds valuable insights and hands-on sugges-
tions to the research since the results were derived from an analysis of case studies of highly trusted
leaders perceived through the lenses of both the principals and their teachers.
Afinal notion. The demographics (Table 4) do not seem to show any pattern or appear to influ-
ence teachers’trust in principals. Even though research is relatively limited, especially in school
contexts, the existing tends to argue that both principals’demographics (e.g. gender, tenure at
school and length of administration experience) and schools’demographics (e.g. size, socio-
economic status, minority population and proportion of female teachers) do not appear to have a
significant impact on faculty trust in the principals’perceived ability, nor perceived effectiveness
(Howe et al., 2023; Louis and Murphy, 2017; Tahir et al., 2015). This notion, undoubtedly,
needs to be clarified and validated by more evidence. Such validation could provide a promising
path for school leaders to be liberated from the feeling that their faculty’s trust is tied and dependent
on the demographics and, therefore, is within their grasp and control.
Implications
The present study aimed to reveal how teachers and principals perceive how a high-trust
environment is formed in the school context. School leaders try to be effective in their
complex and demanding role; preparation programs seek to enhance overall educational
leaders’knowledge, ability and effectiveness. Researchers rely on existing research to further
investigate, produce more knowledge and provide new evidence on the matter in discussion.
Any research contributing to this end, providing applicable and hands-on suggestions, is wel-
comed and preferred.
School leaders are the catalyst for successful school organisations (Gurr and Drysdale, 2018;
Leithwood et al., 2008; Mincu et al., 2024; Pashiardis and Kafa, 2021). Principals should pursue
creating the conditions for faculty trust as a critical component for successful and effective
schools. High faculty trust is generally associated with improved learning outcomes and
increased school effectiveness (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Handford and Leithwood, 2013;
Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015). The findings of the present study could provide school
leaders with voluble insights and specific suggestions on how they could obtain high faculty
trust, thus ‘reaping the benefits of greater efficiency, adaptability, and quality in their school’
(Tschannen-Moran, 2007, p. 50).
20 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
The findings could also be utilised for a national principal training program since overwhelming
evidence has indicated that faculty trust is a critical factor in effective and well-functioning schools.
Educational leaders’preparation programs should incorporate theory and practice and be guided by
a deeper examination of contextual factors (Brauckmann et al., 2023). The literature presentation
and findings of the present study could contribute to this end. Pending further research, the findings
could be utilised for training programs in other countries with similar centralised backgrounds.
This mixed-methodology design study provides hands-on suggestions of how school leaders
could elicit high teacher trust. Researchers who focus on trust in educational contexts should con-
sider the practices, behaviours and actions that lead to high trust in the leader, as suggested by this
study when designing their research. This study’s overall design and approach could also form the
basis for further research in other areas of the educational leadership domain. We believe that the
mixed methodology procedure with the limitations posed could be beneficial for research aiming at
eliciting valuable insights from practitioners in a wide range of educational settings.
Limitations
Research should seek an explanation of how trust evolves in different relationships and under other
circumstances (Bormann et al., 2021). Hence, this study claims to have successfully presented what
elicits high trust in school leaders in primary schools in Cyprus. However, some limitations need to
be considered. Firstly, the present study occurred in a highly centralised educational system, and the
sample was constituted only from public schools. Additionally, the research was carried out at the
primary school level. Although the study was meticulously designed to establish the validity and
reliability of the results, research in a less centralised educational context or at a secondary
school level may have an impact on the results.
Suggestions for future research
Even though trust in the leader has been extensively researched, new research and documented evi-
dence are always welcome because of trust’s complex nature and diversity. Based on this research
findings, we recommend adopting a similar research design to examine trust formation in secondary
schools. This suggestion is grounded in the potential of such research to yield insightful outcomes
that could inform practitioners, educational policymaking and decision-making at this level.
Usually, secondary schools are more prominent (larger student population and higher number of
teachers) and have different structures and scopes. For example, Bryk and Schneider (2002) indi-
cate that interpersonal trust between teachers appears more fragile in schools with many members.
Research investigating preconditions of high trust in the school leader could also be carried out
in more decentralised school contexts. Research needs to be context-sensitive because different
results may arise when contextual factors, including national and local areas (Brauckmann et al.,
2023; Johnson et al., 2023; Pashiardis and Kafa, 2021), are considered.
Longitudinal research design and implementation could provide more details and insights on the
issue. Such endeavour is very demanding since it is time-consuming, requires more effort and
recourses and calls for appropriate and meticulous handling of the vast amount of data obtained
(White and Arzi, 2005). However, researching a phenomenon in depth and over time can
provide valuable and more precise insights and interpretations (Ruspini, 2003).
Despite that trust is thoroughly researched very few research instruments were designed and
validated. According to Shayo et al. (2021), in such instruments, it is imperative to address
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 21
several essential pillars in the conceptualisation of trust, such as the trustor–trustee relationship and
the trustee’s trustworthiness. One way of addressing these pillars and measuring trust closer to real
life is using vignette studies (Bormann et al., 2021). Based on the findings of this real-life research,
a design and validation of a research instrument that will measure teachers’trust in their principals
may also be applicable.
Conclusion
Schools with high levels of trust exhibit noteworthy achievement standards (Bryk and Schneider,
2002; Goddard et al., 2009; Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2015). Principals and teachers are like-
lier to collaborate in these environments to establish goals, monitor progress and address students’
needs. Teachers in high-trust schools are more likely to be professionally content, feel efficient and
share social capital (Demir, 2015). Such an environment reduces stress and increases professional
satisfaction (Collie et al., 2012). In their endevour to improve student learning, school leaders need
to engage all effective practices to build and sustain trust in schools, with particular attention to
enhanced faculty trust (Sun et al., 2023).
In our current era, rapidly changing situations put significant pressure on school units.
Phenomena such as globalisation, the expansion and evolution of technology, population move-
ments and unforeseen circumstances, like the COVID-19 pandemic, demand that schools’
remain adaptable and consistently deliver. Schools that foster high-trust environments are more
likely to successfully navigate and thrive in an ever-changing, demanding outside world.
Schools with a high level of trust leading to a positive school climate ‘have the fundamental build-
ing blocks needed for creating a culture that can be resilient in times of crisis’(Ahlström et al.,
2020, p. 39). In times of crisis, it becomes increasingly evident that when unhindered communica-
tion, collaboration and positive relationships with internal as well as external stakeholders inter-
twined with mutual trust are cultivated, stress is minimised, and the likelihood of successful
completion of schools’work is increased (Adams and Adigun, 2021; Pashiardis et al., 2024;
Roth, 2022; Schechter et al., 2022). Trust is, therefore, a vital factor which relates to effectiveness,
resilience, adoption and organisational stability in turbulent times. In general, trust is of capital
importance for the orderly and effective operation of school units since it strengthens individual
and organisational resilience (Fernandez and Shaw, 2020).
Schools could thrive and succeed in their missions, despite contextual or situational conditions,
when teachers trust their principals (Çoban et al., 2023). One must recognise that for highly trusting
environments to flourish in school organisations, the need for school principals with the necessary
skills to cultivate such environments is paramount. This could be based on a trusting philosophy
embedded in school principals through trust-oriented training and experience. School principals
could successfully lead units and cope with obstacles by employing this support.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
22 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
ORCID iD
Nicos Keravnos https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7936-906X
References
Adams C and Adigun OB (2021) Building a climate of faculty trust in students through principal support of
student psychological needs. Journal of Educational Administration 59(5): 598–614.
Adams CM (2008) Building trust in schools: A review of the empirical evidence. In: Hoy WK and DiPaola M
(eds) Improving Schools: Studies in Leadership and Culture. Information Age Publishing Inc, pp.29–54.
Adams CM and Forsyth PB (2013) Revisiting the trust effect in urban elementary schools. The Elementary
School Journal 114(1): 1–21.
Ahlström B, Leo U, Norqvist L and Isling PP (2020) School leadership is (un)usual. Insights from principals in
Sweden during a pandemic. International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council
for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)) 48(2): 35–41.
Anderson M (2017) Transformational leadership in education: A review of existing literature. International
Social Science Review 93(1): 1–13.
APA (2017) Measuring Socioeconomic Status and Subjective Social Status. Available at: https://www.apa.org/
pi/ses/resources/class/measuring-status
Atik S and Celik OT (2020) An investigation of the relationship between school principals’empowering lead-
ership style and teachers’job satisfaction: The role of trust and psychological empowerment. International
Online Journal of Educational Sciences 12(3): 177–193.
Babaoglan E (2016) Improving principal and teacher relationship: Predictive power of school principals’lead-
ership with teachers’organizational trust perception. Educational Planning 23(2): 7–17.
Balyer A (2017) Trust in school principals: Teachers’opinions. Journal of Education and Learning 6(2):
317–325.
Baxter J and Ehren M (2023) Factors contributing to and detracting from relational trust in leadership: The case
of primary schools in South Africa. Frontiers in Education 8: 1004575.
Beauchamp G, Hulme M, Clarke L, Hamilton L and Harvey JA (2021) ‘People miss people’: A study of school
leadership and management in the four nations of the United Kingdom in the early stage of the COVID-19
pandemic. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(3): 375–392.
Bilginog
lu E, Yozgat U and Erdem Artan I
(2019) Respect and trust in organizations: A research about their
effect on job satisfaction. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches 18 UI
K Özel Sayısı: 527–543.
Billington P (2021) System leadership –human flourishing through building trust. In: Brown S and Duignan P
(eds) Leading Education Systems, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley. pp.201–220. https://doi.org/10.
1108/978-1-80071-130-320211009.
Blaik Hourani R, Litz D and Parkman S (2021) Emotional intelligence and school leaders: Evidence from Abu
Dhabi. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(3): 493–517.
Bligh MC (2017) Leadership and trust. In: Marques J and Dhiman S (eds) Leadership Today. Springer Texts in
Business and Economics. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31036-7_2.
Boeije H (2002) A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative inter-
views. Quality and Quantity 36: 391–409.
Boies K and Fiset J (2019) I do as I think: Exploring the alignment of principal cognitions and behaviors and its
effects on teacher outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly 55(2): 225–252.
Bormann I, Niedlich S and Würbel I (2021) Trust in educational settings—What it is and why it matters.
European perspectives. European Education 53(3-4): 121–136.
Brauckmann S, Pashiardis P and Ärlestig H (2023) Bringing context and educational leadership together:
Fostering the professional development of school principals. Professional Development in Education
49(1): 4–15.
Brower HH, Schoorman FD and Tan HH (2000) A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and
leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly 11(2): 227–250.
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 23
Brown B, Wang T, Lee M and Childs A (2023) Surviving, navigating and innovating through a pandemic:
A review of leadership during COVID-19, 2020-2021. International Journal of Educational Development
100: 1–10.
Brown C, Daly A and Liou YH (2016) Improving trust, improving schools: Findings from a social network
analysis of 43 primary schools in England. Journal of Professional Capital and Community 1(1): 69–91.
Browning P (2014) Why trust the head? Key practices for transformational school leaders to build a purposeful
relationship of trust. International Journal of Leadership in Education 17(4): 388–409.
Bryk A and Schneider B (2002) Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
Bukko D, Liu K and Johnson AH (2021) Principal practices that build and sustain trust: Recommendations
from teachers in a high-trust school. Planning & Changing 50(1): 58–74.
Burke CS, Sims DE, Lazzara EH and Salas E (2007) Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration.
The Leadership Quarterly 18(6): 606–632.
Bush T (2021) Leading through COVID-19: Managing a crisis. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership 49(3): 373–374.
Butler JK Jr (1991) Toward understanding and measuring trust conditions: Evolution of a condition of trust
inventory. Journal of Management 17(3): 643–663.
Byun G, Dai Y, Lee S and Kang S (2017) Leader trust, competence, LMX, and member performance: A mod-
erated mediation framework. Psychological Reports 120(6): 1137–1159.
Carmeli A, Brueller D and Dutton JE (2009) Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high-quality
interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The
Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research 26(1): 81–98.
Charmaz K (2014) Grounded theory in global perspective: Reviews by international researchers. Qualitative
Inquiry 20(9): 1074–1084.
Charmaz K and Belgrave L (2012) Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In The SAGE
Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft, Vol. 2 SAGE Publications, Inc., 347–365.
Choong YO, Ng LP, Ai Na S and Tan CE (2020) The role of teachers’self-efficacy between trust and organ-
izational citizenship behaviours among secondary school teachers. Personnel Review 49(3): 864–886.
Clarke N (2011) An integrated conceptual model of respect in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 22(2):
316–327.
Çoban Ö, Özdemir N and BellibasMS(2023) Trust in principals, leaders’focus on instruction, teacher col-
laboration, and teacher self-efficacy: Testing a multilevel mediation model. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 51(1): 95–115.
Coleman A (2012) The significance of trust in school-based collaborative leadership. International Journal of
Leadership in Education 15(1): 79–106.
Collie RJ, Shapka JD and Perry NE (2012) School climate and social-emotional learning: Predicting teacher
stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology 104(4): 1189–1204.
Combs JP, Edmonson S and Harris S (2018) The Trust Factor: Strategies for School Leaders. Routledge.
Creswell JW (2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches (4th ed.).
Sage Publications.
Cvitanovic C, Shellock RJ, Mackay M, Van Putten EI, Karcher DB, Dickey-Collas M and Ballesteros M
(2021) Strategies for building and managing ‘trust’to enable knowledge exchange at the interface of envir-
onmental science and policy. Environmental Science & Policy 123: 179–189.
Daly AJ and Chrispeels J (2008) A question of trust: Predictive conditions for adaptive and technical leader-
ship in educational contexts. Leadership and Policy in Schools 7(1): 30–63.
Darling-Hammond L and Bransford J (eds) (2007) Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers
Should Learn and be Able to Do. John Wiley & Sons.
Day A, Kelloway EK and Hurrell JJ Jr (eds) (2014) Workplace Well-Being: How to Build Psychologically
Healthy Workplaces. John Wiley & Sons.
Day C, Sammons P and Gorgen K (2020) Successful school leadership. Education Development Trust:1–59.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED614324.pdf.
24 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
Day C, Taneva S and Smith R (2021) System Leadership in Disruptive Times: Robust Policy Making and
Enactment in School Trusts. Available at: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/education/documents/research/
school-Trusts.pdf
DeCino DA and Waalkes PL (2019) Aligning epistemology with member checks. International Journal of
Research & Method in Education 42(4): 374–384.
Demir K (2015) Teachers’organizational citizenship behaviours and organizational identification in public and
private preschools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 174: 1176–1182.
Derry SJ (1999) A fish called peer learning: Searching for common themes. In: O’Donnell AM and King A
(eds) Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning, Vol. 9, issue 1. Routledge, pp.197–211. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781410603715.
DiCicco-Bloom B and Crabtree BF (2006) The qualitative research interview. Medical Education 40(4):
314–321.
Dirks KT and de Jong B (2022) Trust within the workplace: A review of two waves of research and a glimpse
of the third. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 9: 247–276.
Dirks KT and Ferrin DL (2002) Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and
practice. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4): 611–628.
Dolloff A (2022) The Trust Imperative: Practical Approaches to Effective School Leadership. Rowman &
Littlefield.
Donaldson GA Jr (2001) Cultivating Leadership in Schools: Connecting People, Purpose, and Practice.
Teachers College Press.
Dückers ML, Yzermans CJ, Jong W and Boin A (2017) Psychosocial crisis management: The unexplored
intersection of crisis leadership and psychosocial support. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy 8(2):
94–112.
Edwards-Groves C, Grootenboer P and Ronnerman K (2016) Facilitating a culture of relational trust in school-
based action research: Recognising the role of middle leaders. Educational Action Research 24(3):
369–386.
Eisenhardt KM and Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy
of Management Journal 50(1): 25–32.
Eldor L (2021) Leading by doing: Does leading by example impact productivity and service quality? Academy
of Management Journal 64(2): 458–481.
Eliophotou-Menon M and Ioannou A (2016) The link between transformational leadership and teacher’s job
satisfaction, commitment, motivation to learn, and trust in the leader. Academy of Educational Leadership
Journal 20(3): 12.
Emilianides AC and Hajisoteriou C (2020) Cyprus. Available at: https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/server/api/
core/bitstreams/8a0bfb55-a64c-46a6-8803-2aeccf3a9571/content
Eurydice (2019) Key Features of the Education System: Cyprus. Available at: https://eacea.ec.europa.
(accessed 10 September 2023).
Fernandez AA and Shaw GP (2020) Academic leadership in a time of crisis: The coronavirus and COVID-19.
Journal of Leadership Studies 14(1): 39–45.
Flick U (2018) Triangulation in data collection. In: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection. Sage
Publications Ltd, 1–16.
Gergen KJ (2022) An Invitation to Social Construction: Co-Creating the Future. 4th ed. Sage Publications Ltd.
Ghamrawi N (2011) Trust me: Your school can be better—A message from teachers to principals. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 39(3): 333–348.
Goddard RD, Salloum SJ and Berebitsky D (2009) Trust as a mediator of the relationships between poverty,
racial composition, and academic achievement: Evidence from Michigan’s public elementary schools.
Educational Administration Quarterly 45(2): 292–311.
Gómez-Leal R, Holzer AA, Bradley C, Fernández-Berrocal P and Patti J (2022) The relationship between emo-
tional intelligence and leadership in school leaders: A systematic review. Cambridge Journal of Education
52(1): 1–21.
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 25
Griffiths AJ, Alsip J, Hart SR, Round RL and Brady J (2021) Together we can do so much: A systematic review
and conceptual framework of collaboration in schools. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 36(1): 59–85.
Grissom JA, Egalite AJ and Lindsay CA (2021) How principals affect students and schools. Wallace
Foundation 2(1): 30–41.
Gurr D (2015) A model of successful school leadership from the international successful school principalship
project. How School Leaders Contribute to Student Success. Societies 5(1): 136–150.
Gurr D and Drysdale L (2018) Leading high needs schools: Findings from the international school leadership
development network. International Studies in Educational Administration 46(1): 147–156.
Gurr D and Moyi P (2022) Guest editorial the international successful school principalship project: Reflections
and possibilities. Journal of Educational Administration 60(1): 1–4.
Gustafsson J (2017) Single case studies vs multiple case studies: A comparative study. In: Academy of
Business, Engineering and Science. Halmstad University, pp.1–15.
Halkias D, Neubert M, Thurman PW and Harkiolakis N (2022) The Multiple Case Study Design: Methodology
and Application for Management Education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003244936.
Hallam PR and Mathews JL (2008) Principal leadership: Building trust to support school improvement.
Journal of School Public Relations 29(2): 210–236.
Hallinger P and Heck RH (1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empir-
ical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly 32(1): 5–44.
Handford V and Leithwood K (2013) Why do teachers trust school leaders? Journal of Educational
Administration 51(2): 194–212.
Harris A (2020) COVID-19 –School leadership in crisis? Journal of Professional Capital and Community
5(3/4): 321–326.
Harris A and Muijs D (2004) Improving Schools Through Teacher Leadership. McGraw-Hill Education.
Harrison H, Birks M, Franklin R and Mills J (2017) Case study research: Foundations and methodological
orientations. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research 18: 1.
Hewitt-Taylor J (2001) Use of constant comparative analysis in qualitative research. Nursing Standard
15(42): 39.
Howe T, Hallam P and Hilton S (2023) Principal trust: Factors that influence faculty trust in the principal. In:
Zajda J, Hallam P and Whitehouse J (eds) Globalisation, Values Education and Teaching Democracy.
Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research. Cham: Springer, 35. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-031-15896-4_11.
Hoy WK and Tarter CJ (2004) Organizational justice in schools: No justice without trust. International
Journal of Educational Management 18(4): 250–259.
Hoy WK and Tschannen-Moran M (1999) Five faces of trust: An empirical confirmation in urban elementary
schools. Journal of School Leadership 9(3): 184–208.
Hoy WK and Tschannen-Moran M (2003) The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools:
The omnibus T-scale. In: Hoy WK and Miskel CG (eds) Studies in Leading and Organizing Schools.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, 181–208.
Hoy WK and Tschannen-Moran M (2007) The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools:
The omnibus T-scale. In: Hoy WK and DiPaola MF (eds) Essential Ideas for Reform of American Schools.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp.87–114.
Isaacs AJ (2012) Resiliency and the individual demographics of school leaders: Making a difference in the
quality of educational leadership. Journal of Research in Education 22(1): 128–162.
Johnson L, Moyi P and Ylimaki RM (2023) Successful school leadership in the USA: The role of context in
core leadership practices. Education Sciences 13(10): 68.
Jopling M and Harness O (2022) Embracing vulnerability: How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected
the pressures school leaders in Northern England face and how they deal with them? Journal of
Educational Administration and History 54(1): 69–84.
Jørgensen U (2001) Grounded theory: Methodology and theory construction. International Encyclopedia of
the Social & Behavioural Sciences 1: 6396–6399.
26 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
Jung DI and Avolio BJ (2000) Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects
of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 21(8): 949–964.
Kafa A and Eteokleous N (2024) School leaders and technology during COVID-19: Lessons learned from the
field and future implications. In: Kafa A and Eteokleous N (eds) The Power of Technology in School
Leadership During COVID-19. Studies in Educational Leadership. Cham: Springer, p.26. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-031-51575-0_13.
Kafa A and Pashiardis P (2020) Seeking authenticity in school leadership: The interplay between personal
values and leadership styles. International Journal of Educational Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJEM-08-2020-0373.
Kagy LA (2010) Teacher Trust and Leadership Behaviors Used by Elementary School Principals. ProQuest.
Kalshoven K and den Hartog DN (2009) Ethical leader behavior and leader effectiveness: The role of proto-
typicality and trust. International Journal of Leadership Studies 5(2): 102–120. http://www.regent.edu/
acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol5iss2/IJLS_vol5_iss1_kalshoven_ethical_leadership.pdf
Karacabey MF, BellibasMSand Adams D (2022) Principal leadership and teacher professional learning in
Turkish schools: Examining the mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy and teacher trust.
Educational Studies 48(2): 253–272.
Karageorgos C, Kriemadis A, Travlos A and Kokaridas D (2021) Planning and implementing total quality
management in education: The case of Cyprus. International Journal of Educational Management and
Innovation 2(1): 1–12.
Khasawneh MAS (2022) The level of practicing organizational trust among teachers of learning disabilities in
English language from their point of view. Science and Education 3(2): 481–491.
Kilag OK, Pasigui RE, Malbas MH, Manire EA, Piala MC, Araña AMM and Sasan JM (2023) Preferred edu-
cational leaders: Character and skills. European Journal of Higher Education and Academic Advancement
1(2): 50–56.
Kim B (2001) Social constructivism. In: Orey M (ed) Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and
Technology. PBworks.com, 1–6. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Beaumie_Kim.
Kılınç AÇ, Polatcan M, SavasG and Er E (2024) How transformational leadership influences teachers’com-
mitment and innovative practices: Understanding the moderating role of trust in principal. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 52(2): 455–474.
Klein J (2012) The open-door policy: Transparency minimises conflicts between school principals and staff.
International Journal of Educational Management 26(6): 550–564.
Kolleck N (2023) Trust in cross-sector alliances: Towards a theory of relational trust in multi-professional edu-
cation networks. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(6): 1362–1382.
Kosonen P and Ikonen M (2022) Trust building through discursive leadership: A communicative engagement
perspective in higher education management. International Journal of Leadership in Education 25(3):
412–428.
Kouzes JM and Posner BZ (2011) Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose it, Why People Demand it. John
Wiley & Sons.
Kutsyuruba B, Arghash N and Kharyati T (2024) Flourishing school leadership: Perspectives of Canada’s out-
standing principals. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy (204): 17–40. https://
journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/issue/view/5446
Kutsyuruba B and Walker K (2015) The lifecycle of trust in educational leadership: An ecological perspective.
International Journal of Leadership in Education 18(1): 106–121.
Kutsyuruba B, Walker K and Noonan B (2011) Restoring broken trust in the work of school principals.
International Studies in Educational Administration 39: 2.
Lasater K (2016) School leader relationships: There is a need for explicit training on rapport, trust, and com-
munication. Journal of School Administration Research and Development 1(2): 19–26.
Lazaridou A and Polymeropoulou V (2024) School principals as agents on the path to the digitization of Greek
schools: Lessons learned from the pandemic. In: Kafa A and Eteokleous N (eds) The Power of Technology
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 27
in School Leadership During COVID-19. Studies in Educational Leadership, pp. 26. Cham: Springer,
pp.105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51575-0_6.
Legood A, van der Werff L, Lee A and Den Hartog D (2021) A meta-analysis of the role of trust in the
leadership–performance relationship. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
30(1): 1–22.
Leithwood K (2021) A review of evidence about equitable school leadership. Education Sciences 11(8): 377.
Leithwood K, Harris A and Hopkins D (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School
Leadership & Management 28(1): 27–42.
Leithwood K, Jantzi D and McElheron-Hopkins C (2006) The development and testing of a school improve-
ment model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(4): 441–464.
Leithwood K, Jantzi D and Steinbach R (2021) Leadership and other conditions which foster organizational
learning in schools. In: Organizational Learning in Schools. Taylor & Francis, pp.67–90.
Leithwood K, Sun J and Schumacker R (2020) How school leadership influences student learning: A test of
“the four paths model”.Educational Administration Quarterly 56(4): 570–599.
Lleo A, Ruiz-Palomino P, Guillen M and Marrades-Pastor E (2023) The role of ethical trustworthiness in
shaping trust and affective commitment in schools. Ethics & Behavior 33(2): 151–173.
Louis KS and Murphy J (2017) Trust, caring and organizational learning: The leader’s role. Journal of
Educational Administration 55(1): 103–126.
Makri C and Neely A (2021) Grounded theory: A guide for exploratory studies in management research.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211013654.
Maneesriwongul W and Dixon JK (2004) Instrument translation process: A methods review. Journal of
Advanced Nursing 48(2): 175–186.
Masry-Herzallah A and Stavissky Y (2021) Investigation of the relationship between transformational leader-
ship style and teachers’successful online teaching during COVID-19. International Journal of Instruction
14(4): 891–912.
Mayer RC, Davis JH and Schoorman FD (1995) An integrative model of organisational trust. Academy of
Management Review 20(3): 709–734.
McKnight DH and Chervany NL (2001) What trust means in E-commerce customer relationships: An inter-
disciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6(2): 35–59.
McLeod S and Dulsky S (2021) Resilience, reorientation, and reinvention: School leadership during the early
months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Education 6: 1–13.
Mehmet KARS and Inandi Y (2018) Relationship between school principals’leadership behaviours and tea-
chers’organizational trust. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 18(74): 145–164.
Menon ME (2023) Transformational school leadership and the COVID-19 pandemic: Perceptions of teachers
in Cyprus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/
17411432231166515.
Mik-Meyer N (2020) Multimethod qualitative research. In: Qualitative Research, Vol 5. Sage Publications
Ltd, pp.357–374.
Mincu M, Colman A, Day C and Gu Q (2024) Lessons from two decades of research about successful school
leadership in England: A humanistic approach. Education Sciences 14(2): 87.
Mishra AK (1996) Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In: Kramer RM and Tyler TRE
(eds) Trust in Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.261–287.
Moore GF, Evans RE, Hawkins J, Littlecott H, Melendez-Torres GJ, Bonell C and Murphy S (2019) From
complex social interventions to interventions in complex social systems: Future directions and unresolved
questions for intervention development and evaluation. Evaluation 25(1): 23–45.
Mousena E and Raptis N (2020) Beyond teaching: School climate and communication in the educational
context. In: Waller S, Waller E, Mpofu V and Kurebwa M (eds) Education at the Intersection of
Globalization and Technology. IndechOpen, pp.153–170.
Moye MJ, Henkin AB and Egley RJ (2005) Teacher–principal relationships: Exploring linkages between
empowerment and interpersonal trust. Journal of Educational Administration 43(3): 260–277.
28 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
Mutch C (2015) The impact of the Canterbury earthquakes on schools and school leaders: Educational leaders
become crisis managers. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice 30(2): 39–55.
Netolicky DM (2020) School leadership during a pandemic: Navigating tensions. Journal of Professional
Capital and Community 5(3/4): 391–395.
Niedlich S, Kallfaß A, Pohle S and Bormann I (2021) A comprehensive view of trust in education: Conclusions
from a systematic literature review. Review of Education 9(1): 124–158.
Nienaber AM, Romeike PD, Searle R and Schewe G (2015) A qualitative meta-analysis of trust in supervisor–
subordinate relationships. Journal of Managerial Psychology 30(5): 507–534.
Nooteboom B (2021) Criticism of the ABI model of trustworthiness. Academia Letters. https://doi.org/10.
20935/AL4019.
Norman SM, Avolio BJ and Luthans F (2010) The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and
their perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly 21(3): 350–364.
Northfield S (2014) Multi-dimensional trust: How beginning principals build trust with their staff during leader
succession. International Journal of Leadership in Education 17(4): 410–441.
Nyhan RC and Marlowe Jr HA (1997) Development and psychometric properties of the organizational trust
inventory. Evaluation Review 21(5): 614–635.
Onwuegbuzie AJ and Collins KM (2007) A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science
research. Qualitative Report 12(2): 28281–28316. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR12-2/onwuegbuzie2.pdf.
Ozolins U, Hale S, Cheng X, Hyatt A and Schofield P (2020) Translation and back-translation methodology in
health research–a critique. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 20(1): 69–77.
Palmer RA (2021) Building a culture of trust: An imperative for effective school leadership. Journal of
Adventist Education 83(1): 4. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pubs/4246
Pashiardis G, Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz S, Pashiardis P and Kafa A (2024) School leadership in times of uncer-
tainty: A school principal’sreflections from Cyprus. In: Kafa A and Eteokleous N (eds) ) The Power of
Technology in School Leadership During COVID-19. Studies in Educational Leadership, Vol. 26.
Cham: Springer, pp.56–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51575-0_4.
Pashiardis P (2004) Democracy and leadership in the educational system of Cyprus. Journal of Educational
Administration 42(6): 656–668.
Pashiardis P, Bbrauckmann S and Kafa A (2018) Leading low performing schools in Cyprus: Finding path-
ways through internal and external challenges. Leading and Managing 4(2): 14–27.
Pashiardis P and Kafa A (2021) School leadership within a centralized education system: A success story from
Cyprus through a decade of research. In: Enacting and Conceptualizing Educational Leadership Within the
Mediterranean Region. Brill, pp.79–100.
Pashiardis P and Kafa A (2022) Successful school principals in primary and secondary education: A compre-
hensive review of a ten-year research project in Cyprus. Journal of Educational Administration 60(1):
41–55.
Pashiardis P and Ribbins P (2003) On Cyprus: The making of secondary school principals. International
Studies in Educational Administration 31(2): 13–34.
Pashiardis P and Savvides V (2013) Cyprus –Trust in leadership: Keeping promises. In: Leading Schools
Successfully. Routledge, pp.147–157.
Pashiardis P, Savvides V, Lytra E and Angelidou K (2011) Successful school leadership in rural contexts: The
case of Cyprus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 39(5): 536–553.
Pashiardis P and Tsiakiros A (2015) Cyprus. In: Hörner W, Döbert H, Reuter L and von Kopp B (eds) The
Education Systems of Europe. Global Education Systems. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-07473-3_11
Patton MQ (1999) Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research 34:
1189–1200. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1089059/
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB and Bommer WH (1996) Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes
for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Management 22(2): 259–298.
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 29
Pranitasari D (2020) The influence of effective leadership and organizational trust on teachers’work motiv-
ation and organizational commitment. Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen 35(1): 75–91.
Priya A (2021) Case study methodology of qualitative research: Key attributes and navigating the conundrums
in its application. Sociological Bulletin 70(1): 94–110.
Quintão C, Andrade P and Almeida F (2020) How to improve the validity and reliability of a case study
approach? Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education 9(2): 264–275.
Ramos-Pla A, Tintoré M and del Arco I (2021) Leadership in times of crisis. School principals facing
COVID-19. Heliyon 7(11). https://www.cell.com/heliyon/pdf/S2405-8440(21)02546-9.pdf.
Reina DS and Reina ML (2000) Trust and betrayal in the workplace: Building effective relationships in your
organization. Advances in Developing Human Resources 2(1): 121–121.
Robinson SC (2020) Trust, transparency, and openness: How inclusion of cultural values shapes Nordic
national public policy strategies for artificial intelligence (AI). Technology in Society 63. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101421.
Roth JC (2022) School Crisis Response: Reflections of a Team Leader. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.
4324/9781003315209.
Roulston K (2018) Qualitative interviewing and epistemics. Qualitative Research 18(3): 322–341.
Ruspini E (2003) An Introduction to Longitudinal Research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/97802031
67229
Saleem F, Zhang YZ, Gopinath C and Adeel A (2020) Impact of Servant Leadership on Performance: The
Mediating Role of Affective and Cognitive Trust. Sage Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900562
Schechter C, Da’as R and Qadach M (2022) Crisis leadership: Leading schools in a global pandemic.
Management in Education 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206221084050.
Schwabsky N, Erdogan U and Tschannen-Moran M (2020) Predicting school innovation: The role of collect-
ive efficacy and academic press mediated by faculty trust. Journal of Educational Administration 58(2):
246–262.
Shayo HJ, Rao C and Kakupa P (2021) Conceptualization and measurement of trust in home–school contexts:
A scoping review. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 742917.
Smith PA, Escobedo P and Kearney WS (2020) Principal influence: A catalyst for positive school climate.
International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 16(5): 1–16. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ1252034.pdf
Soderberg AT and Romney AC (2022) Building trust: How leaders can engender feelings of trust among
followers. Business Horizons 65(2): 173–182.
Stake RE (2013) Multiple Case Study Analysis. Guilford press.
Starks H and Brown Trinidad S (2007) Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse ana-
lysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research 17(10): 1372–1380.
Strauss A and Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques. Sage Publications, Inc.
Sue-Chan C, Au AK and Hackett RD (2012) Trust as a mediator of the relationship between leader/member
behavior and leader–member-exchange quality. Journal of World Business 47(3): 459–468.
Sun J and Leithwood K (2015) Direction-setting school leadership practices: A meta-analytical review of evi-
dence about their influence. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 26(4): 499–523.
Sun J, Zhang R and Forsyth PB (2023) The effects of teacher trust on student learning and the malleability of
teacher trust to school leadership: A 35-year meta-analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly 59(4):
744–810.
Sutherland IE (2017) Learning and growing: Trust, leadership, and response to the crisis. Journal of
Educational Administration 55(1): 2–17.
Tahir LM, Musah MB, Al-Hudawi S, Yusof S and Yasin MH (2015) Investigating teacher trust towards prin-
cipal in high performing schools: Comparisons on teacher demographic profiles. Asian Social Science
11(5). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2565692.
Thien LM, Adams D, Kho SH and Yap PL (2023) Exploring value-driven leadership: Perspectives from school
leaders. Journal of Research on Leadership Education 18(3): 534–551.
30 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
Thomas DR (2017) Feedback from research participants: Are member checks useful in qualitative research?
Qualitative Research in Psychology 14(1): 23–41.
Thomson P, Greany T and Martindale N (2021) The trust deficit in England: Emerging research evidence
about school leaders and the pandemic. Journal of Educational Administration and History 53(3–4):
296–300.
Thornberg R (2017) Grounded theory. In: The BERA/SAGE Handbook of Educational Research.1. Sage
Publications Ltd., 355–375.
Thornburg D (2021) Trust Within Learning. Lexington Books.
Tian M and Nutbrown G (2023) Retheorising distributed leadership through epistemic injustice. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 51(4): 774–790.
Tschannen-Moran M (2007) Becoming a trustworthy leader. In: The Jossey Bass Reader on Educational
Leadership. Jossey-Bass, 99–113.
Tschannen-Moran M (2014) The interconnectivity of trust in schools. In: Van Maele D, Forsyth P and Van
Houtte M (eds) Trust and School Life. Dordrecht: Springer, 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-
8014-8_3
Tschannen-Moran M (2020) Organizational trust in schools. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.681
Tschannen-Moran M and Gareis CR (2015) Faculty trust in the principal: An essential ingredient in high-
performing schools. Journal of Educational Administration 53(1): 66–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-
02-2014-0024.
Tschannen-Moran M and Hoy W (1998) Trust in schools: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of
Educational Administration 36(4): 334–352.
Tschannen-Moran M and Hoy WK (2000) A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measure-
ment of trust. Review of Educational Research 70(4): 547–593.
Van Knippenberg D, De Cremer D and Van Knippenberg B (2007) Leadership and fairness: The state of the
art. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology 16(2): 113–140.
Van Maele D and Van Houtte M (2009) Faculty trust and organizational school characteristics: An exploration
across secondary schools in Flanders. Educational Administration Quarterly 45(4): 556–589.
Van Maele D and Van Houtte M (2012) The role of teacher and faculty trust in forming teachers’job satis-
faction: Do years of experience make a difference? Teaching and Teacher Education 28(6): 879–889.
Versland TM and Erickson JL (2017) Leading by example: A case study of the influence of principal self-
efficacy on collective efficacy. Cogent Education 4(1): 1286765.
Wahlstrom KL and Louis KS (2008) How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional
community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(4): 458–495.
Waldman AE (2018) Privacy as Trust: Information Privacy for an Information Age. Cambridge University
Press.
Walker K, Kutsyuruba B and Noonan B (2011) The fragility of trust in the world of school principals. Journal
of Educational Administration 49(5): 471–494.
Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Wernsing TS and Peterson SJ (2008) Authentic leadership:
Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management 34(1): 89–126.
Weinstein J, Raczynski D and Peña J (2020) Relational trust and positional power between school principals
and teachers in Chile: A study of primary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership
48(1): 64–81.
White RT and Arzi HJ (2005) Longitudinal studies: Designs, validity, practicality, and value. Research in
Science Education 35: 137–149.
Wolfswinkel JF, Furtmueller E and Wilderom CP (2013) Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously
reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems 22(1): 45–55.
YavasT and Çelik V (2010) Differentiated trust in today’s schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences
2(2): 4330–4335.
Yin RK (2013) Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation 19(3): 321–332.
Keravnos and Symeou: Practices, Behaviours and Actions of Primary School Principals 31
Zacarias AM and Flores JE (2024) Exploring school leaders’ethical leadership and teachers’organizational
citizenship behaviour. Puissant 5: 1630–1645.
Zhang S, Bowers AJ and Mao Y (2021a) Authentic leadership and teachers’voice behaviour: The mediating
role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of interpersonal trust. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 49(5): 768–785.
Zhang X, Huang PF, Li BQ, Xu WJ, Li W and Zhou B (2021b) The influence of interpersonal relationships on
school adaptation among Chinese university students during COVID-19 control period: Multiple mediating
roles of social support and resilience. Journal of Affective Disorders 285: 97–104.
32 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
